Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Showing posts with label relationships. Show all posts
Tuesday, 26 January 2016
Cultural influences on relationships
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Several key differences exist between western and traditionalist cultures in their attitudes to love and marriage. In western, individualist cultures, partners are freely chosen during the dating process, based on attraction. Marriage is seen as an alliance and union between two people, yet a temporary one that can be terminated fairly easily. In traditional, collectivist cultures, arranged marriages are more common, based on the idea that parents know who is compatible in the long-term for their children better than the children do. Choosing a partner based on attraction is believed to lead to an unsuccessful marriage - marriage is seen as more permanent, being impossible or difficult to terminate, and is considered an alliance and a union between two social groups rather than two individuals.
Arranged marriages are sometimes suggested to be more successful than love marriages if measured by the metrics of divorce rate and long term satisfaction.
Gupta and Singh provide supporting evidence for arranged marriages being more successful than love marriages. In a study of 100 professional and educated couples from Jaipur, India, they assessed relationship satisfaction over 1, 5 and 10 years using Rubin's "Like and Love" scale. Love marriages started high in both categories and decreased over time, whereas arranged marriages started lower and increased overtime, exceeding love marriages in both categories after 10 years. This supports the concept of different styles of marriage leading to different quality interpersonal relationships.
However, a study by Xioahe and Whyte challenges Gupta and Singh's suggestion that arranged marriages are more successful. A study during a period of rapid modernisation in China found that women in love marriages were much happier than those in arranged marriages.
Cultural bias was an issue with Gupta and Singh's study, due to their use of Rubin's measuring scale based around U.S culture being applied to India. The cross-cultural use of a survey designed to measure relationship satisfaction in America is imposing an etic, assuming that the metric will work the same way in both cultures, when in fact it could be a less reliable indicator in Gupta and Singh's study than in the cultural context Rubin devised it in.
Another issue is that these studies can be considered unscientific, using subjective self-report data. Responses could not accurately reflect real life relationship success due to people's inaccurate perceptions of their own relationships, difficulties in trying to quantify "like" and "love", and giving untrue responses due to social desirability bias.
There are validity issues with the use of divorce rates as a measure of relationship success, the measure used to suggest that arranged marriages are more successful than love marriages. Divorce means a relationship is unsuccessful, but a lack of divorce does not mean that a relationship is successful. Cultures that practice arranged marriages often hold a stigma towards divorce - it is often illegal, socially unacceptable, or only able to initiated by the husband.
Divorce often stigmatises an entire family, so there can be family pressure to stay together in an unsuccessful relationship. The dowries that are often given from the wife's family to the husband makes marriage like a transaction - as if the female is bought by the husband. Social pressures, a lack of financial independence, lack of legal rights, and being considered "tainted goods" after divorce could all make divorce from a bad relationship impractical for women.
The shift from a traditional and rural lifestyle to an urban one brings greater geographical and social mobility, leading to interaction with more people, widening the "field of availables." In comparison, people from rural populations have less mobility and a smaller field. Divorce rates seem to be linked to urbanisation.
Dummett (2011) linked India's sharp increase in divorce rates to the high social mobility of India's emerging urban middle class, suggesting a causal link - urbanisation caused the higher divorce rate.
However, it could be that city dwellers just have more relaxed attitudes towards divorce as the values of the middle class progress and become more westernised. City females also have more financial independence that those from rural communities, so divorce is more practical due to money being less of a setback.
The rapid exposure to the views and values of other cultures after immigration is suggested to affect the thinking of second generation migrants, causing an internal conflict of values between those of the host culture and those of their older family members which more closely reflect their family's home culture. The process of acculturalisation occurs - internalising the views of their host culture, which can cause conflict and stress.
Research by Zaidi and Shuraydi (2002) supports this hypothesis. They studied 2nd generation Pakistani Muslim women in Canada, and found that most favoured westernised marriage practices, but perceived their fathers to be resistant to change, preferring the cultural practice of arranged marriages. This demonstrates that migration can cause cultural conflicts in the attitudes to relationships between 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants.
Monday, 25 January 2016
Childhood and adolescent influences on relationships
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Bowlby's theory of attachment suggests that certain behaviours such as laughing, crying and smiling, that promote attachment formation between a parent and their child, have evolved to be innate "social releasers", increasing the chance of the child's survival. Bowlby developed this to include the principle of "monotropy" - that children form a strongest relationship to their primary caregiver, and the concept of an "internal working model" - a collection of schemas that help the child define how future relationships should be. The internal working model then plays a role in the "continuity hypothesis" - Bowlby's suggestion that the quality of the first relationships in childhood are mirrored by adult relationships - loving, secure and affectionate childhood are often followed by the same in adulthood.
Black and Schutte provide supporting evidence for the continuity hypothesis through a survey of 205 young adults on their childhood and adult relationships. Those who recalled positive, loving and trusting maternal relationships were more likely to report trusting and loving relationships with their partner in adulthood, as well as being more open with them, supporting Bowlby's claims of continuity of attachment.
An issue is that Black and Schutte's study can be considered unscientific due to its subjective methodology, asking people retrospectively about their early life. This form of data collection is unfalsifiable, unquantifiable, and possibly inaccurate due to social desirability bias - people might not be willing to admit a poor relationship quality. These methodological flaws weaken the strength of the supporting evidence for Bowlby's continuity hypothesis.
Ainsworth carried out the "Strange Situation" observation to categorise the strength and type of attachment in children, and suggested that attachment types remain constant throughout life - for example, a securely attached child will grow up to have securely attached romantic relationships later in life. She identified three types of attachment: Insecure Avoidant (Type A) who showed some distress at separation from their mother, but did not seek comfort upon reunion, Secure (Type B) who were upset at separation but showed joy and sought comfort upon reunion, and Insecure Ambivalent (Type C) who showed distress upon separation but weren't easily comforted upon reunion, expecting a difficult maternal relationship and alternating between seeking closeness and distance.
Levine and Heller (2011) provided supporting evidence for Ainsworth's suggested continuity of attachment types. People who had secure attachments in childhood were comfortable with intimacy, and usually warm and loving towards their partners. Those who had insecure-ambivalent relationships crave intimacy, are often preoccupied with their relationships, and worry about their partners' ability to love them back. Those who were insecure-avoidant equate intimacy with a loss of independence, and keep at an emotional distance - these findings support the hypothesis that Ainsworth's attachment styles predict later relationship behaviour.
Hazan and Shaver found a strong connection between childhood and adult attachment styles, supporting the importance of Ainsworth's early attachment styles in determining future relationships. Securely attached participants reported a belief in lasting love, found others trustworthy, and were confident that they were lovable. Insecure avoidant participants were doubtful about the existence of love, not requiring a relationship to be happy. Insecure ambivalent participants fell in love easily, were insecure and doubtful, and rarely found true love.
The idea that childhood attachment type is solely responsible for adult relationship style, with no other factors, is a very deterministic idea. Zimmerman et al (2000) assessed children until adulthood, and found that critical life events such as parental separation were a much stronger predictor of future attachment type and strength than the quality of early childhood attachments were, suggesting that Bowlby and Ainsworths' hypotheses are overly determinist in claiming that adult relationship quality is completely and irrevocably dependent on childhood attachment type.
An issue with these theories into the influence of childhood on relationships is that parenting styles differ between cultures, suggesting that childhood influences also vary cross-culturally. Therefore, to generalise results from one culture onto another and suggest a global model of attachment and relationships is imposing an etic construct. Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg's 1988 meta-analysis of many cross-cultural studies into attachment found significant differences in how common each attachment style is - secure attachments may be most common in the UK and the USA, but others were more common in Germany and Israel. This suggests that there are different internal working models in different cultures, so these theories of attachment cannot necessarily be accurately applied globally.
Koluchova's study of a pair of Czech twins challenges Ainsworth and Bowlby's theories of attachment continuity. Having suffered extreme privation and abuse from age 18 months until 7 years, the twins did not form any parental attachments, and were starved and beaten. However, they went on to be adopted and grew up to have normal lives and secure relationships. This shows that difficulties with childhood attachments can be overcome, and that childhood attachment types will not always predict the nature of adult relationship types.
Monday, 18 January 2016
Theories of relationship breakdown
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Rollie and Duck's model of relationship breakdown differentiates between three categories of breakup: the "Pre-existing doom", where demographic or personal differences between the partners are so pronounced that breakup is almost inevitable, "Mechanical failure", where two suitable partners of goodwill and good nature find that they cannot cope with the pressures of living together, and "Sudden death", where the discovery of a betrayal or infidelity leads to the immediate termination of a relationship. They suggested lack of skills, lack of stimulation, and maintenance difficulties as potential reasons for "mechanical failure."
When dissatisfaction with the relationship first sets in, the process of breakdown goes through five distinct phases. Firstly, intrapsychic processes, where a person broods on the shortcomings in their relationship and their partners' faults, grows resentful of their relationship problems, and re-evaluates their alternatives to the relationship. This is followed by dyadic processes, where uncertainty, anxiety and complaints lead to a discussion of the relationship, aiming to reach a conclusion about equity, roles, possibilities and commitments. If a solution cannot be reached, this leads to social processes - the couple "go public" about their breakup, seeking support from peers, build alliances, and seek new social commitments. Next are grave-dressing processes, where the ex-partners tidy up memories, make relational histories, and prepare stories for different audiences. Finally comes the resurrection processes, where the individual recreates their own sense of social value, defines their expectations for future relationships, and prepares for a different kind of relational future.
Rollie and Duck's model is supported by observations of real-life breakups. Tashiro and Frazier surveyed students who had recently gone through a romantic breakup, and found that they typically reported not only emotional distress, but also personal growth - breaking up had given them new insights into themselves and a clearer idea about future partners. Through grave-dressing and resurrection processes, they were able to put the original relationship behind, learn from it, and move on with their life.
This is a highly socially sensitive area of research, and carrying out studies raises issues of vulnerability (participants may experience emotional distress when revisiting issues that lead to breakdown), privacy (many such issues are incredibly personal) and confidentiality. For example, a participant in an abusive relationship may fear recrimination from her partner should they discover their participation in the research - the research must choose between the further pursuit of information, or terminating the participant's involvement to protect them from harm.
Research has found gender differences in relationship breakdown, suggesting that the processes do not happen in the same way for both genders. Brehm and Kassin (1996) found that women are more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution, whereas men are particularly upset by "sexual withholding." Akert (1998) found that women have more desire to stay friends after a relationship has broken up, whereas men want to cut their losses and move on - both studies support the idea of gender differences in relationship breakdown.
The concept of a lack of interpersonal skills leading to relationship breakdown is supported by a study by Duck (1991), where he found that individuals lacking social skills may be poor conversationalists, poor at indicating their interest in other people, and generally unrewarding in their interactions with others. These factors often lead to relationship breakdown as others perceive them as not being interested in relating to others, so a relationship falls apart before it really gets going.
Rollie and Duck's model stresses the importance of communication in relationship breakdown. Paying attention to the things people say, the topics they discuss and the ways they talk about their relationship offers an insight into their stage of breakdown, and suggests appropriate interventions based on the stage. If the relationship was in the intrapsychic stage, for example, repair might involve re-establishing liking for their partner, maybe re-evaluating their behaviour in a more positive light. In later stages, people outside the relationship such as peers and family might be more effective at solving relationship difficulties.
The importance of social skills deficits in relationship breakdown has led to a valuable real-world application, in the development of training programs that attempt to enhance these skills in troubled couples. The Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET) aims to sensitise couples to issues of equity and respect in the relationship, and to improve communication and problem solving skills. Research has found that partners undergoing CCET reported much higher relationship quality afterwards than a control group.
Baxter (1994) found supporting evidence for a lack of stimulation being a trigger for relationship breakdown, as suggested by Rollie and Duck's model. This factor was often quoted by partners when breaking off - people expect relationships to change and develop, and when they do not, this is seen as sufficient justification to end the relationship or begin a new one (i.e. have an affair.) This is supported by Thibault and Kelly's social exchange theory, which suggests that people attempt to maximise the rewards of their relationship, and a lack of stimulation corresponds to a low level of rewards under SET.
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Rollie and Duck's model of relationship breakdown differentiates between three categories of breakup: the "Pre-existing doom", where demographic or personal differences between the partners are so pronounced that breakup is almost inevitable, "Mechanical failure", where two suitable partners of goodwill and good nature find that they cannot cope with the pressures of living together, and "Sudden death", where the discovery of a betrayal or infidelity leads to the immediate termination of a relationship. They suggested lack of skills, lack of stimulation, and maintenance difficulties as potential reasons for "mechanical failure."
When dissatisfaction with the relationship first sets in, the process of breakdown goes through five distinct phases. Firstly, intrapsychic processes, where a person broods on the shortcomings in their relationship and their partners' faults, grows resentful of their relationship problems, and re-evaluates their alternatives to the relationship. This is followed by dyadic processes, where uncertainty, anxiety and complaints lead to a discussion of the relationship, aiming to reach a conclusion about equity, roles, possibilities and commitments. If a solution cannot be reached, this leads to social processes - the couple "go public" about their breakup, seeking support from peers, build alliances, and seek new social commitments. Next are grave-dressing processes, where the ex-partners tidy up memories, make relational histories, and prepare stories for different audiences. Finally comes the resurrection processes, where the individual recreates their own sense of social value, defines their expectations for future relationships, and prepares for a different kind of relational future.
Rollie and Duck's model is supported by observations of real-life breakups. Tashiro and Frazier surveyed students who had recently gone through a romantic breakup, and found that they typically reported not only emotional distress, but also personal growth - breaking up had given them new insights into themselves and a clearer idea about future partners. Through grave-dressing and resurrection processes, they were able to put the original relationship behind, learn from it, and move on with their life.
This is a highly socially sensitive area of research, and carrying out studies raises issues of vulnerability (participants may experience emotional distress when revisiting issues that lead to breakdown), privacy (many such issues are incredibly personal) and confidentiality. For example, a participant in an abusive relationship may fear recrimination from her partner should they discover their participation in the research - the research must choose between the further pursuit of information, or terminating the participant's involvement to protect them from harm.
Research has found gender differences in relationship breakdown, suggesting that the processes do not happen in the same way for both genders. Brehm and Kassin (1996) found that women are more likely to stress unhappiness and incompatibility as reasons for dissolution, whereas men are particularly upset by "sexual withholding." Akert (1998) found that women have more desire to stay friends after a relationship has broken up, whereas men want to cut their losses and move on - both studies support the idea of gender differences in relationship breakdown.
The concept of a lack of interpersonal skills leading to relationship breakdown is supported by a study by Duck (1991), where he found that individuals lacking social skills may be poor conversationalists, poor at indicating their interest in other people, and generally unrewarding in their interactions with others. These factors often lead to relationship breakdown as others perceive them as not being interested in relating to others, so a relationship falls apart before it really gets going.
Rollie and Duck's model stresses the importance of communication in relationship breakdown. Paying attention to the things people say, the topics they discuss and the ways they talk about their relationship offers an insight into their stage of breakdown, and suggests appropriate interventions based on the stage. If the relationship was in the intrapsychic stage, for example, repair might involve re-establishing liking for their partner, maybe re-evaluating their behaviour in a more positive light. In later stages, people outside the relationship such as peers and family might be more effective at solving relationship difficulties.
The importance of social skills deficits in relationship breakdown has led to a valuable real-world application, in the development of training programs that attempt to enhance these skills in troubled couples. The Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET) aims to sensitise couples to issues of equity and respect in the relationship, and to improve communication and problem solving skills. Research has found that partners undergoing CCET reported much higher relationship quality afterwards than a control group.
Baxter (1994) found supporting evidence for a lack of stimulation being a trigger for relationship breakdown, as suggested by Rollie and Duck's model. This factor was often quoted by partners when breaking off - people expect relationships to change and develop, and when they do not, this is seen as sufficient justification to end the relationship or begin a new one (i.e. have an affair.) This is supported by Thibault and Kelly's social exchange theory, which suggests that people attempt to maximise the rewards of their relationship, and a lack of stimulation corresponds to a low level of rewards under SET.
Friday, 15 January 2016
The relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Blue - AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Differences in male and female human reproductive behaviour have evolved as a result of different evolutionary selective pressures between the genders. In sexual selection, traits are sought in the opposite sex that are indicative of reproductive success and genetic fitness, and desirable traits differ between genders due to human anisogamy - differences in male and female gametes, and in the degree of parental certainty each gender has.
Males produce many, highly mobile sperm, and can do this fairly regularly over a long period of time - having many hypothetical opportunities for reproduction. Females, however, produce small numbers of larger eggs over a shorter period of time - and have the additional cost of bearing and nurturing children. This gives them far fewer opportunities for reproduction than males, as well as a shorter fertility window. A female's best strategy is to be choosy - selecting the males to mate with who display both genetic fitness, and high levels of status and resources, encouraging males to compete with each other in courtship rituals. A male's best strategy is promiscuity - reproducing with as many fertile females as possible, and only form close bonds with a select few females if bonding reduces the chances of being cuckolded.
Indicators of fertility in women include a youthful appearance, a symmetrical face, and a waist: hip ratio of 0.7, producing the typical "hourglass figure", a preference that exists cross-culturally despite cultural preferences for curvier or slimmer figures. Desirable traits in males include wealth and status that suggest ability to provide for the female and their child, as well as indicators of fertility and genetic fitness such as a square jaw, body symmetry, above-average height and small eyes.
Dunbar and Waynforth (1995) found evidence that supports the predictions of evolutionary theory by showing the same gender differences in sexual selection that evolutionary theory hypothesises. From cross-cultural data collected from across 33 countries, males were found to value physical attractiveness and youth, supporting the idea that males seek fertility in females. Females were found to value financial capacity, ambition and industriousness in males - supporting the idea that females seek indicators of resource richness and the ability to provide for them and their children.
Although a common criticism of evolutionary theory is that predictions are impossible to directly test through experimental procedure, and therefore unfalsifiable and unscientific, Dunbar and Waynforth's study worked around this issue by devising a different methodology to test the theory. Rather than using an experimental design, they made predictions based on evolutionary theory's principles of sexual selection, and found evidence that their predictions were correct, treating evolutionary theory more scientifically than is possible through experiment alone.
Evidence that gender differences in human sexual selection affect reproductive behaviour comes from Clark and Hatfield's 1989 study into gender attitudes towards casual sex in university students. When approached with an offer of sex, all female "participants" declined, while 75% of male participants accepted. This supports the concept of different adaptive sexual strategies between genders - with a much more limited reproductive capacity than men, choosiness is more likely to be a beneficial strategy for women, whereas men's reproductive capacities are less limited by biological constraints, so promiscuity is a much more adaptive strategy. This link between adaptive sexual strategies and reproductive behaviour is evidenced by the gender differences in willingness to have casual sex.
However, Clark and Hatfield's sample is potentially biased, approaching only university students, and therefore not representative of the general population. Certain aspects of university culture make casual sex more acceptable and encouraged than in other sectors of society, so their results cannot necessarily be generalised, as acceptance rates may have been different.
A key issue with studies into promiscuity is that cultural factors could have affected the validity of the results. There is more of a social stigma to promiscuity in women than in men, so female participants in Clark and Hatfield's study could have been less likely to accept the offer of casual sex than men because of the social taboo, rather than because of evolutionary gender differences in reproductive behaviour.
Cultural bias is also an issue here when trying to apply results globally - the reported disparity in sexual strategies could be more a product of cultural norms than evolutionary gender differences in reproductive behaviour, and therefore would not apply cross-culturally. Casual sex and promiscuity is much more acceptable in some cultures than others - it is imposing an etic to generalise Clark and Hatfield's results from an American study to less tolerant countries like Saudi Arabia, so conclusions cannot necessarily be generalised.
Further evidence for gender differences in human sexual selection affecting reproductive behaviour comes from Buss and Schmidt's 1993 study into each gender's desired number of sexual partners. Over the course of the next two years, men chose an average of 8 partners compared to women's 1, and over the course of a lifetime, men chose an average of 18 partners compared to women's 4 or 5. Men seeking more partners is predicted by evolutionary theory - due to their higher reproductive capacity, men can afford to be less rigorous with their sexual selection criteria than women, and favour a reproductive strategy of promiscuity. With more of a reproductive limit, evolutionary theory predicts that women will be more selective in their choice of sexual partners, applying a reproductive strategy of choosiness. Both these predictions are supported by the study.
The evolutionary approach is overly deterministic, stating that we choose mates to reproduce, and that females select a mate for resource provision, whereas males want to spread their genes as widely as possible, investing less in a single child than females do, but having more children overall. There are obvious counter-examples where free will overrides the evolutionary past - couples where the man is younger than the woman, heterosexual couples without children, homosexual couples, stepparents who love and care for their stepchildren. It is too deterministic to suggest that human reproductive behaviour and sexual selection is entirely defined by evolutionary adaptiveness, especially as social change leads to further emphasis on free will in reproductive behaviour.
Furthermore, evolutionary theory's approach to sexual selection and reproductive behaviour is too reductionist, removing human relationships from their social and cultural context to focus only on biological metrics of fertility and genetic fitness. Many factors other than physical appearance and resource acquisition play a role in sexual selection, such as the social demographic variables, similarities of attitudes and beliefs, and the complementarity of emotional needs proposed by Kerkhoff and Davis' filter theory. To reduce human reproductive behaviour down to basic evolutionary traits is an oversimplification of an incredibly complex behaviour system.
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Blue - AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Differences in male and female human reproductive behaviour have evolved as a result of different evolutionary selective pressures between the genders. In sexual selection, traits are sought in the opposite sex that are indicative of reproductive success and genetic fitness, and desirable traits differ between genders due to human anisogamy - differences in male and female gametes, and in the degree of parental certainty each gender has.
Males produce many, highly mobile sperm, and can do this fairly regularly over a long period of time - having many hypothetical opportunities for reproduction. Females, however, produce small numbers of larger eggs over a shorter period of time - and have the additional cost of bearing and nurturing children. This gives them far fewer opportunities for reproduction than males, as well as a shorter fertility window. A female's best strategy is to be choosy - selecting the males to mate with who display both genetic fitness, and high levels of status and resources, encouraging males to compete with each other in courtship rituals. A male's best strategy is promiscuity - reproducing with as many fertile females as possible, and only form close bonds with a select few females if bonding reduces the chances of being cuckolded.
Indicators of fertility in women include a youthful appearance, a symmetrical face, and a waist: hip ratio of 0.7, producing the typical "hourglass figure", a preference that exists cross-culturally despite cultural preferences for curvier or slimmer figures. Desirable traits in males include wealth and status that suggest ability to provide for the female and their child, as well as indicators of fertility and genetic fitness such as a square jaw, body symmetry, above-average height and small eyes.
Dunbar and Waynforth (1995) found evidence that supports the predictions of evolutionary theory by showing the same gender differences in sexual selection that evolutionary theory hypothesises. From cross-cultural data collected from across 33 countries, males were found to value physical attractiveness and youth, supporting the idea that males seek fertility in females. Females were found to value financial capacity, ambition and industriousness in males - supporting the idea that females seek indicators of resource richness and the ability to provide for them and their children.
Although a common criticism of evolutionary theory is that predictions are impossible to directly test through experimental procedure, and therefore unfalsifiable and unscientific, Dunbar and Waynforth's study worked around this issue by devising a different methodology to test the theory. Rather than using an experimental design, they made predictions based on evolutionary theory's principles of sexual selection, and found evidence that their predictions were correct, treating evolutionary theory more scientifically than is possible through experiment alone.
Evidence that gender differences in human sexual selection affect reproductive behaviour comes from Clark and Hatfield's 1989 study into gender attitudes towards casual sex in university students. When approached with an offer of sex, all female "participants" declined, while 75% of male participants accepted. This supports the concept of different adaptive sexual strategies between genders - with a much more limited reproductive capacity than men, choosiness is more likely to be a beneficial strategy for women, whereas men's reproductive capacities are less limited by biological constraints, so promiscuity is a much more adaptive strategy. This link between adaptive sexual strategies and reproductive behaviour is evidenced by the gender differences in willingness to have casual sex.
However, Clark and Hatfield's sample is potentially biased, approaching only university students, and therefore not representative of the general population. Certain aspects of university culture make casual sex more acceptable and encouraged than in other sectors of society, so their results cannot necessarily be generalised, as acceptance rates may have been different.
A key issue with studies into promiscuity is that cultural factors could have affected the validity of the results. There is more of a social stigma to promiscuity in women than in men, so female participants in Clark and Hatfield's study could have been less likely to accept the offer of casual sex than men because of the social taboo, rather than because of evolutionary gender differences in reproductive behaviour.
Cultural bias is also an issue here when trying to apply results globally - the reported disparity in sexual strategies could be more a product of cultural norms than evolutionary gender differences in reproductive behaviour, and therefore would not apply cross-culturally. Casual sex and promiscuity is much more acceptable in some cultures than others - it is imposing an etic to generalise Clark and Hatfield's results from an American study to less tolerant countries like Saudi Arabia, so conclusions cannot necessarily be generalised.
Further evidence for gender differences in human sexual selection affecting reproductive behaviour comes from Buss and Schmidt's 1993 study into each gender's desired number of sexual partners. Over the course of the next two years, men chose an average of 8 partners compared to women's 1, and over the course of a lifetime, men chose an average of 18 partners compared to women's 4 or 5. Men seeking more partners is predicted by evolutionary theory - due to their higher reproductive capacity, men can afford to be less rigorous with their sexual selection criteria than women, and favour a reproductive strategy of promiscuity. With more of a reproductive limit, evolutionary theory predicts that women will be more selective in their choice of sexual partners, applying a reproductive strategy of choosiness. Both these predictions are supported by the study.
The evolutionary approach is overly deterministic, stating that we choose mates to reproduce, and that females select a mate for resource provision, whereas males want to spread their genes as widely as possible, investing less in a single child than females do, but having more children overall. There are obvious counter-examples where free will overrides the evolutionary past - couples where the man is younger than the woman, heterosexual couples without children, homosexual couples, stepparents who love and care for their stepchildren. It is too deterministic to suggest that human reproductive behaviour and sexual selection is entirely defined by evolutionary adaptiveness, especially as social change leads to further emphasis on free will in reproductive behaviour.
Furthermore, evolutionary theory's approach to sexual selection and reproductive behaviour is too reductionist, removing human relationships from their social and cultural context to focus only on biological metrics of fertility and genetic fitness. Many factors other than physical appearance and resource acquisition play a role in sexual selection, such as the social demographic variables, similarities of attitudes and beliefs, and the complementarity of emotional needs proposed by Kerkhoff and Davis' filter theory. To reduce human reproductive behaviour down to basic evolutionary traits is an oversimplification of an incredibly complex behaviour system.
Tuesday, 12 January 2016
Evolutionary explanations for sex differences in parental investment
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Parental investment is the dedication of resources, time, and effort towards a child that increases its chance of survival and reproduction, at the expense of parents' ability to invest in other children.
Parental Investment Theory suggests that the differences between males and females in the amount of parental investment are a result of the sex differences in parental certainty. Due to giving birth to it, a female will always have parental certainty over their child, and will therefore be willing to invest more time and resources into ensuring its survival. Because of this parental certainty, a sexual strategy of choosiness rather than promiscuity is more beneficial for women - ensuring that a mate is of good genetic quality and is able to provide resources for the child. Males do not have parental certainty, so therefore will less willing to invest time and resources when they could unwittingly be raising another man's child. Because of this lack of certainty, a sexual strategy of promiscuity is most adaptive for men - having as many children with as many women as possible to increase the chance of having a legitimate child survive.
A female's parental investment in each reproduction is much larger. She produces relatively few eggs, is fertile for much less time than men, and bears the cost of pregnancy and childbirth. Her best strategy is to carry out behaviours that increase the survival chance of her children. Males have much lower parental investment, and can have many more children than women - they have a much larger fertility window and produce far more sperm than women produce eggs, and the only really limiting factor is access to willing females. This makes promiscuity a much more effective reproductive strategy.
Gross and Shine (1981) provide supporting evidence for Parental Investment Theory (PIT) by finding that in other species, the sex with parental certainty is most likely to be the primary caregiver. In species with internal fertilisation, such as humans, parental care is carried out by the females in 86% of cases. In species with external fertilisation, where the male has parental certainty rather than the female, parental care is carried out by the male in 70% of cases. The "deserter" parent doesn't have parental certainty, so they invest less parental care. However, the fact that there wasn't an 100% correlation suggests that factors other than fertilisation must affect parental investment.
Buss (1993) found further supporting evidence for PIT in a study that found that males show a greater stress response when imagining their partners being sexually unfaithful, whereas females show a greater stress response when imagining their partners being emotionally unfaithful. According to PIT, males will show more jealousy when their partners are sexually unfaithful as this decreases their parental certainty, and females will show more jealousy when their partners are emotionally unfaithful, as this puts them at risk of losing the resources their partner provides, and this study supports those hypotheses.
(Supporting evidence for differences in parental investment come from Clark and Hatfield's 1989 study into attitudes towards casual sex, where gender differences in attitude were explained by differences in optimal reproductive strategy and parental investment. Being unable to ensure parental certainty, men's optimal sexual strategy is promiscuity, and this was reflect in the study's results - when offered casual sex with a stranger, all women in the study declined, whereas 75% of men accepted - compared to only 69% agreeing to go back to the woman's house!)
Clark and Hatfield's study uses a potentially biased sample, approaching only university students in their research. Certain aspects of university culture make casual sex more acceptable and encouraged than in other sectors of society, so their results cannot necessarily apply to the general population.
The study above can be used as AO2 for both parental investment and reproductive behaviour questions - just make sure you specifically apply it to the question and make it clear how it links to either differences in behaviour or investment depending on the question.
A key issue with studies into promiscuity is that cultural factors could have affected the validity of the results. There is more of a social stigma to promiscuity in women than in men, so female participants in Clark and Hatfield's study could have been less likely to accept the offer of casual sex than men because of the social taboo, rather than because of evolutionary differences in parental investment.
Cultural bias is also an issue here when trying to apply results globally - the reported disparity in sexual strategies could be more a product of cultural norms than evolutionary differences in parental investment, and therefore would not apply cross-culturally. Casual sex and promiscuity is much more acceptable in some cultures than others - it is imposing an etic to generalise Clark and Hatfield's results from an American study to less tolerant countries like Saudi Arabia.
The concept of parental certainty affecting parental investment is supported by a study by Nettle (2007), finding maternal grandparents had more contact with children than paternal grandparents, and offered more financial support and care for their grandchildren. This is what evolutionary theory would suggest - as only maternal grandparents can be certain of their genetic link to the child. However, this study fails to account for social norms - it's a cultural expectation that maternal grandparents will have a closer relationship to their grandchildren than paternal ones will, and contribute more.
The evolutionary approach is overly deterministic, stating that we choose mates to reproduce, and that females select a mate for resource provision, whereas males want to spread their genes as widely as possible, investing less in a single child than females do, but having more children overall. There are obvious counter-examples where free will overrides the evolutionary past - couples where the man is younger than the woman, heterosexual couples without children, homosexual couples, stepparents who love and care for their stepchildren. It is too deterministic to suggest that human reproductive behaviour and parental investment is entirely defined by evolutionary adaptiveness, especially as social change leads to further emphasis on free will in mating and parenting.
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red: AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Purple: My notes/hints/tips
Parental investment is the dedication of resources, time, and effort towards a child that increases its chance of survival and reproduction, at the expense of parents' ability to invest in other children.
Parental Investment Theory suggests that the differences between males and females in the amount of parental investment are a result of the sex differences in parental certainty. Due to giving birth to it, a female will always have parental certainty over their child, and will therefore be willing to invest more time and resources into ensuring its survival. Because of this parental certainty, a sexual strategy of choosiness rather than promiscuity is more beneficial for women - ensuring that a mate is of good genetic quality and is able to provide resources for the child. Males do not have parental certainty, so therefore will less willing to invest time and resources when they could unwittingly be raising another man's child. Because of this lack of certainty, a sexual strategy of promiscuity is most adaptive for men - having as many children with as many women as possible to increase the chance of having a legitimate child survive.
A female's parental investment in each reproduction is much larger. She produces relatively few eggs, is fertile for much less time than men, and bears the cost of pregnancy and childbirth. Her best strategy is to carry out behaviours that increase the survival chance of her children. Males have much lower parental investment, and can have many more children than women - they have a much larger fertility window and produce far more sperm than women produce eggs, and the only really limiting factor is access to willing females. This makes promiscuity a much more effective reproductive strategy.
Gross and Shine (1981) provide supporting evidence for Parental Investment Theory (PIT) by finding that in other species, the sex with parental certainty is most likely to be the primary caregiver. In species with internal fertilisation, such as humans, parental care is carried out by the females in 86% of cases. In species with external fertilisation, where the male has parental certainty rather than the female, parental care is carried out by the male in 70% of cases. The "deserter" parent doesn't have parental certainty, so they invest less parental care. However, the fact that there wasn't an 100% correlation suggests that factors other than fertilisation must affect parental investment.
Buss (1993) found further supporting evidence for PIT in a study that found that males show a greater stress response when imagining their partners being sexually unfaithful, whereas females show a greater stress response when imagining their partners being emotionally unfaithful. According to PIT, males will show more jealousy when their partners are sexually unfaithful as this decreases their parental certainty, and females will show more jealousy when their partners are emotionally unfaithful, as this puts them at risk of losing the resources their partner provides, and this study supports those hypotheses.
(Supporting evidence for differences in parental investment come from Clark and Hatfield's 1989 study into attitudes towards casual sex, where gender differences in attitude were explained by differences in optimal reproductive strategy and parental investment. Being unable to ensure parental certainty, men's optimal sexual strategy is promiscuity, and this was reflect in the study's results - when offered casual sex with a stranger, all women in the study declined, whereas 75% of men accepted - compared to only 69% agreeing to go back to the woman's house!)
Clark and Hatfield's study uses a potentially biased sample, approaching only university students in their research. Certain aspects of university culture make casual sex more acceptable and encouraged than in other sectors of society, so their results cannot necessarily apply to the general population.
The study above can be used as AO2 for both parental investment and reproductive behaviour questions - just make sure you specifically apply it to the question and make it clear how it links to either differences in behaviour or investment depending on the question.
A key issue with studies into promiscuity is that cultural factors could have affected the validity of the results. There is more of a social stigma to promiscuity in women than in men, so female participants in Clark and Hatfield's study could have been less likely to accept the offer of casual sex than men because of the social taboo, rather than because of evolutionary differences in parental investment.
Cultural bias is also an issue here when trying to apply results globally - the reported disparity in sexual strategies could be more a product of cultural norms than evolutionary differences in parental investment, and therefore would not apply cross-culturally. Casual sex and promiscuity is much more acceptable in some cultures than others - it is imposing an etic to generalise Clark and Hatfield's results from an American study to less tolerant countries like Saudi Arabia.
The concept of parental certainty affecting parental investment is supported by a study by Nettle (2007), finding maternal grandparents had more contact with children than paternal grandparents, and offered more financial support and care for their grandchildren. This is what evolutionary theory would suggest - as only maternal grandparents can be certain of their genetic link to the child. However, this study fails to account for social norms - it's a cultural expectation that maternal grandparents will have a closer relationship to their grandchildren than paternal ones will, and contribute more.
The evolutionary approach is overly deterministic, stating that we choose mates to reproduce, and that females select a mate for resource provision, whereas males want to spread their genes as widely as possible, investing less in a single child than females do, but having more children overall. There are obvious counter-examples where free will overrides the evolutionary past - couples where the man is younger than the woman, heterosexual couples without children, homosexual couples, stepparents who love and care for their stepchildren. It is too deterministic to suggest that human reproductive behaviour and parental investment is entirely defined by evolutionary adaptiveness, especially as social change leads to further emphasis on free will in mating and parenting.
Friday, 11 December 2015
Theories of relationship maintenance
The investment model can be used as AO2 with which to evaluate either of the other theories, as it is long-term and looks at past and future commitments in a relationship, rather than focusing solely on short-term cost and reward.
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red- AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Proposed by Thibaut + Kelley, this economic theory views relationship behaviour as a series of exchanges, and suggests that everyone is innately selfish, looking for the most profitable relationship that offers the most reward for the least cost. Rewards include emotional fulfilment, sex, and companionship. The theory suggests that people will only stay in a relationship if it the rewards outweigh the costs in terms of time, effort and finances. Therefore, commitment to a relationship is dependent on its profitability - we assign behaviours a subconscious numerical value, either positive or negative, indicative of their status and magnitude as either a cost or a reward.
Thibaut and Kelley also proposed that we have "comparison levels" (CL) that form the standards against which we judge our own relationships. Media, parents, family, peers and ex-partners all function as these points of comparison with which we weigh up the costs and benefits of our relationship, as well as looking to internal schemas of how a relationship should be in order to come to a judgement about the value of our relationship. Alternative comparison levels (CL Alts) are other prospective relationships with which we compare our own, evaluating the costs and benefits of leaving our partner and forming a new relationship - if the benefits of the alternative relationship are better than our current one, we are more likely to leave and start a new one. If the benefits of our CL Alts are not as good, we will stay in our current relationship.
Mills and Clark (1980) provided conflicting evidence for social exchange theory with their identification of two types of romantic relationship - the "communal couple", giving out of altruism and concern for their partners, and the "exchange couple", where each keep mental records of who is ahead and who is behind in terms of social exchange. Their suggestion that there are two types of couple challenges the degree to which SET can be applied to real-world relationships - SET only really explains the relationship dynamic between the exchange couple, not the communal couple.
Hatfield (1979) provided further evidence that challenged the validity of SET. Looking at people in romantic relationships who felt over or under-benefitted, they found that those who gave more than they received felt angry and deprived, whereas those who received more than they gave felt guilty and uncomfortable. This challenges the theory that both partners of the relationship are intrinsically selfish and aiming for maximum reward - even though the over-benefitted were getting much more out of the relationship, they felt uncomfortable and unhappy because of this, and sought to equalise the balance.
However, research by Rusbult (1983) supports the central concepts of SET. Participants completed questionnaires over a 7-month period concerning rewards and costs associated with relationships. SET did not explain the early "honeymoon phase" of a relationship where balance of exchanges was ignored, but later on, relationship costs and benefits were significantly correlated with the degree of satisfaction, suggesting that this theory can help explain maintenance of long-term relationships quite well.
An issue with SET is that it could be considered overly reductionist, seeking to explain one of the most complex human behaviours as the result of a series of simple cost/reward analyses. It focuses only on the relationship in the present, ignoring past events and future rewards and commitments, oversimplifying the process of relationship maintenance in an attempt to numerically quantify different aspects of relationship behaviour. A more holistic explanation that takes into account factors such individual differences such as the degree to which someone desires a "profitable" relationship rather than an equal one might better explain relationship maintenance in economic terms.
Another issue with SET is that it suffers cultural bias through ethnocentricity, seeking to globally apply the emic construct of desire for individual reward, imposing it as an etic. Western, individualist cultures such as those of the UK and the USA are likely to place more emphasis on the advancement of the individual in society than Eastern, collectivist cultures such as China, which are more likely to emphasise communal interest rather than individual gain. Therefore, this theory cannot necessarily be applied on a cross-cultural level, limiting its application.
A problem with SET is that it relies on two key assumptio ns: firstly, that people constantly monitor their relationship's costs/rewards and compare them with alternative relationships. However, research has suggested that it is not until dissatisfaction with the relationship that people weigh up costs/rewards and compare them to CL Alts, so this theory may be more applicable to the breakdown of relationships than it is to maintenance. Secondly, it assumes that everyone is intrinsically selfish, motivated purely through a desire for personal gain, when this may not be true - Sedikides (2005) suggested that most people are unselfish, doing things for others without expecting anything in reward.
Black: AO1 - Description
Blue: AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red- AO2 - Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Social Exchange Theory (SET)
Proposed by Thibaut + Kelley, this economic theory views relationship behaviour as a series of exchanges, and suggests that everyone is innately selfish, looking for the most profitable relationship that offers the most reward for the least cost. Rewards include emotional fulfilment, sex, and companionship. The theory suggests that people will only stay in a relationship if it the rewards outweigh the costs in terms of time, effort and finances. Therefore, commitment to a relationship is dependent on its profitability - we assign behaviours a subconscious numerical value, either positive or negative, indicative of their status and magnitude as either a cost or a reward.
Thibaut and Kelley also proposed that we have "comparison levels" (CL) that form the standards against which we judge our own relationships. Media, parents, family, peers and ex-partners all function as these points of comparison with which we weigh up the costs and benefits of our relationship, as well as looking to internal schemas of how a relationship should be in order to come to a judgement about the value of our relationship. Alternative comparison levels (CL Alts) are other prospective relationships with which we compare our own, evaluating the costs and benefits of leaving our partner and forming a new relationship - if the benefits of the alternative relationship are better than our current one, we are more likely to leave and start a new one. If the benefits of our CL Alts are not as good, we will stay in our current relationship.
Mills and Clark (1980) provided conflicting evidence for social exchange theory with their identification of two types of romantic relationship - the "communal couple", giving out of altruism and concern for their partners, and the "exchange couple", where each keep mental records of who is ahead and who is behind in terms of social exchange. Their suggestion that there are two types of couple challenges the degree to which SET can be applied to real-world relationships - SET only really explains the relationship dynamic between the exchange couple, not the communal couple.
Hatfield (1979) provided further evidence that challenged the validity of SET. Looking at people in romantic relationships who felt over or under-benefitted, they found that those who gave more than they received felt angry and deprived, whereas those who received more than they gave felt guilty and uncomfortable. This challenges the theory that both partners of the relationship are intrinsically selfish and aiming for maximum reward - even though the over-benefitted were getting much more out of the relationship, they felt uncomfortable and unhappy because of this, and sought to equalise the balance.
However, research by Rusbult (1983) supports the central concepts of SET. Participants completed questionnaires over a 7-month period concerning rewards and costs associated with relationships. SET did not explain the early "honeymoon phase" of a relationship where balance of exchanges was ignored, but later on, relationship costs and benefits were significantly correlated with the degree of satisfaction, suggesting that this theory can help explain maintenance of long-term relationships quite well.
An issue with SET is that it could be considered overly reductionist, seeking to explain one of the most complex human behaviours as the result of a series of simple cost/reward analyses. It focuses only on the relationship in the present, ignoring past events and future rewards and commitments, oversimplifying the process of relationship maintenance in an attempt to numerically quantify different aspects of relationship behaviour. A more holistic explanation that takes into account factors such individual differences such as the degree to which someone desires a "profitable" relationship rather than an equal one might better explain relationship maintenance in economic terms.
Another issue with SET is that it suffers cultural bias through ethnocentricity, seeking to globally apply the emic construct of desire for individual reward, imposing it as an etic. Western, individualist cultures such as those of the UK and the USA are likely to place more emphasis on the advancement of the individual in society than Eastern, collectivist cultures such as China, which are more likely to emphasise communal interest rather than individual gain. Therefore, this theory cannot necessarily be applied on a cross-cultural level, limiting its application.
A problem with SET is that it relies on two key assumptio ns: firstly, that people constantly monitor their relationship's costs/rewards and compare them with alternative relationships. However, research has suggested that it is not until dissatisfaction with the relationship that people weigh up costs/rewards and compare them to CL Alts, so this theory may be more applicable to the breakdown of relationships than it is to maintenance. Secondly, it assumes that everyone is intrinsically selfish, motivated purely through a desire for personal gain, when this may not be true - Sedikides (2005) suggested that most people are unselfish, doing things for others without expecting anything in reward.
Equity Theory
Another economic theory, this one challenges the suggestion that each partner in the relationship is only aiming for personal rewards, suggesting that fairness is more important than profit. It claims that the person who gets less in a relationship feels dissatisfied, and the person who gets more feels guilty and uncomfortable. CL and CL Alts are still valid - comparing the relationship to schemas or alternatives that might offer a fairer deal.
Walster et al suggested a 4 stage model of equity.
- People try to maximise their profit in the relationship.
- Trading rewards occurs to bring about fairness - e.g. a favour or privilege is repaid by the partner.
- Inequality occurs, producing dissatisfaction - the partner who receives less experiences a greater degree of dissatisfaction.
- The loser endeavours to rectify the situation and bring about equity - the greater the perceived inequity, the greater the effort to equalise.
Stafford and Canary (2006) provide supporting evidence for equity theory. Asking 200 couples to complete measures of relationship equity and marital satisfaction. Satisfaction was highest in couples who perceived their relationships to equitable, and lowest for partners who considered themselves to be relatively under-benefited by their relationship. The findings are consistent with the key principles of equity theory - that people are most satisfied in a relationship where the balance of rewards/costs are fairly even and consistent.
However, research does not support the assumption that equity is equally important in all cultures. Aumer-Ryan et al interviewed men and women in Hawaiian (individualist) and Jamaican (collectivist) universities, and found equity to be less important in Jamaican relationships. This suggests that the theory is culturally biased and cannot be applied equally to both individualist and collectivist cultures, and seeks to impose desire for equity as an etic construct rather than the emic that it actually is.
This theory has real-world application to marital therapy. Attempts to resolve compatibility issues between spouses require issues associated with inequity dissatisfaction to be resolved first, because inequity indicates incompatibility in women's eyes. In research, wives reported lower levels of compatibility than husbands when the relationship was inequitable - suggesting that there are gender differences in how equity is perceived, and the theory is not equally applicable to either gender.
Another issue with this theory is that it assumes everybody wants equality. This is not always the case - as some partners may be perfectly happy to give more than they receive in a relationship without feeling dissatisfied, suggesting equity theory cannot fully explain every type of relationship.
Investment Model
The final economic theory of relationship maintenance is based around long-term return on investments, looking for the best possible outcome. The number and importance of long-term investments decides whether a relationship will be maintained or whether it will break down. Investments such as houses, children, time, holidays, and assets serve as barriers to dissolution. Commitment to staying in a relationship is based on three factors:
- Satisfaction: feeling that the rewards it provides are unique
- A belief that the relationship offers better rewards than any CL Alts.
- Substantial investments in the relationship.
Impett et al provide supporting evidence for the investment model. Testing the model using a prospective study of married couples over 18 months, they found that the commitment to the marriage by both partners predicted relationship stability and success, suggesting that substantial investment in relationships helps to maintain and steady them.
Jerstad provides further supporting evidence - he found that investments, most notably time and effort put into the relationship were the best predictor of whether or not somebody would stay with a violent partner. Those who had experience the most violence were often the most committed.
The investment model is more long-term than the other economic theories of relationship maintenance, looking at past and future commitments in a relationship, rather than focusing solely on short-term cost and reward analysis.
However, an issue with the investment model is that it reflects an ethnocentric bias as an explanation of relationship maintenance. Cross-culturally, satisfaction, quality of CL Alts, and investment are not always factors that influence commitment .There may be cultural or religious pressures to stay in an unsatisfactory relationship, and in some cultures, relationship break up, especially of a marriage, is not socially acceptable. Alternatively, some cultures may have more a stigma towards one gender initiating a breakup than the other.
Monday, 30 November 2015
Theories of relationship formation
Black - AO1 - Description
Blue - AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red - AO2 – Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Kerckhoff and Davis proposed the filter theory, suggesting that relationship formation is based on systematic filtration of possible partners on three levels – starting from a "field of availables."
1 – Social demographic variables. Subconsciously, we filter down to a pool of people belonging to similar social demographics to us – same school, town, workplace etc. Individual characteristics play a very small role at this stage.
2 – Similarity of attitudes and values. Here, the pool is filtered based on the law of attraction – greater similarity brings better communication and a better chance of relationship developing further. Having similar hobbies, beliefs, and interests increases the chance that a relationship will develop further and more deeply.
3 – Complementarity of emotional needs. Once a couple is established in a fairly long term relationship, the relationship will develop for better or for worse depending on how well they fit together as a couple and mutually satisfy their needs. Similarities in the amount of emotional intimacy, sex, social interaction and physical proximity required increases the chance that the relationship will be successful in the long-term.
Kerckhoff and Davis provide supporting evidence for filter theory with their longitudinal study of student couples together for less or more than 18 months. Attitude similarity was the most important factor up until 18 months, after this, psychological compatibility and ability to mutually meet needs was the most important factor in determining the quality of the relationship.
The theory can be considered to have a degree of face validity, as it is common sense to assume that similarities in demographic factors, attitudes and values systems would lead to a more happy and successful relationship and would thus be filters that we apply in the selection process.
Spreecher challenged this hypothesis, suggesting that social variables are not the only initial filter, and that couples matched in physical attractiveness, social background and interests were more likely to develop a successful relationship. This is supported by Murstein’s match hypothesis, which suggests that a significant factor in early attraction is the couple being of similar attractiveness levels – though people may desire the most physically attractive partner, they know in reality they are unlikely to get or to keep them, so they look for people of a similar attractiveness to themselves.
Gruber-Baldini et al (1995) carried out a longitudinal study of couples aged 21 and found that those who were similar in educational level and age at the start of the relationship were more likely to stay together and have a successful relationship, suggesting these two as factors ignored by Kerschoff and Davis in their Filter Theory.
An issue with filter theory is that it could be considered to be overly deterministic, failing to capture the dynamic and fluid nature of human relationships by its division into three distinct stages, and failing to take into account the role of free will in partner selection. Not all couples will have the same priorities in their relationships at exactly the same stages, and to suggest so is too nomothetic, ignoring individual differences between couples.
Another issue with filter theory is that it could also be considered to be overly reductionist, seeking to explain the complex nature of relationship behaviour as a result of simple filtration processes, selecting a partner through a process of elimination from a “field of availables.” This is potentially an oversimplification of relationship formation, and cannot definitively explain the formation of homosexual romantic relationships. Homosexual couples may not necessarily have the same experiences that lead to their relationship being initiated as heterosexual couples, so the theory could be considered to have a heterosexist bias.
Reward/Need satisfaction theory suggests in order to progress from early attraction, the two people need sufficient motivation to want to continue getting to know each other. Long-term relationships are more likely to be formed if the partners meet each others' needs, providing rewards in the form of fulfilment of a range of needs - including biologically based needs such as sex and emotional needs such as giving and receiving emotional support, and feeling a sense of belonging.
This theory works on two key principles of the behavioural approach: operant conditioning and classical conditioning. Through classical conditioning, doing activities you enjoy with your partner leads to a conditioned response of happiness to the conditioned stimulus of your partner, leading to an intrinsic feeling of happiness while being around your partner. Through operant conditioning, the sense of belonging and the fulfillment of emotional needs such as intimacy function as rewards in the positive reinforcement process, leading to a strengthened relationship between the couple - they will like each other more and want to spend more time together.
Supporting evidence for this theory comes from Argyll's explanation that relationship formation works as a means to the satisfaction of motivational systems. Argyll (1994) outlined several key motivational systems underpinning social behaviour, and explained how relationship formation satisfies several social needs, namely: Biological needs - collective eating, sex, Dependency - being comforted, Affiliation - a sense of belonging, and Self-esteem. These results support the theory of attraction developing around need fulfilment, with partners acting as means to the fulfilment of certain social needs.
Further supporting evidence for reward/need satisfaction theory comes from Aron et al (2005), who gave 17 participants who reported being "intensely in love" MRI scans, finding that dopamine-rich areas of the brain showed much more activation when the participant was shown a photo of the person with whom they had fallen in love, in contrast to someone they just liked. The amount of dopaminergic activity was positively correlated with the degree to which they felt in love. This supports the role of operant conditioning as a component of reward/need satisfaction theory - just seeing the person they loved stimulated the release of dopamine in the brain's reward circuits.
In some ways, this study treated psychology as a science by using MRI equipment to give objective, scientific results, measuring the activation of dopamine reward circuitry in the brain. This gives the study a high degree of internal validity, providing an objective measurement of the brain activity it claims to measure. However, in some aspects this study was less scientific - the self-reported description of "very much in love" cannot be scientifically and objectively verified, and is not falsifiable.
A study by May and Hamilton (1980) also supports reward/need satisfaction theory, providing supporting evidence for the role of classical conditioning. Female participants evaluated photographs of men while listening to either rock music that stimulated a positive mood, to music that stimulated a negative mood, or no music at all. The participants gave much more positive evaluations of personal character, physical attractiveness and general attraction in the rock music condition than in the other two, suggesting that an association had formed between the positive feeling from the music, and the men they were evaluating.
Attraction does not necessarily equal formation of relationships - this theory ignores matching and the opportunity to meet. These studies and the theory only explain how a relationship develops once there is already a degree of mutual attraction between two people, not how this initial attraction develops, so they do not fully explain the initiation of relationships.
An issue with May and Hamilton's study is that it was only carried out on female participants. Research and evolutionary theories into sexual selection suggest that attraction develops differently in males and females, so to generalise from males to females without taking these potential gender differences into account would be beta gender bias, and likely to be an inaccurate generalisation. Research has suggested that males prioritise physical appearance in a partner, while females prioritise status and power - these differences in priorities must be taken into account.
Another issue with reward/satisfaction theory is that it is overly environmentally reductionist, explaining a complex human behaviour to be a result of simple behavioural learning based around reward mechanisms. The theory ignores social, cognitive and biological factors that could play a role in attraction, such as the social demographic variables described by Kerckhoff and Davis in their filter theory.
Blue - AO2 - Evaluation - studies
Red - AO2 – Evaluation - evaluative points/IDAs
Filter Theory
1 – Social demographic variables. Subconsciously, we filter down to a pool of people belonging to similar social demographics to us – same school, town, workplace etc. Individual characteristics play a very small role at this stage.
2 – Similarity of attitudes and values. Here, the pool is filtered based on the law of attraction – greater similarity brings better communication and a better chance of relationship developing further. Having similar hobbies, beliefs, and interests increases the chance that a relationship will develop further and more deeply.
3 – Complementarity of emotional needs. Once a couple is established in a fairly long term relationship, the relationship will develop for better or for worse depending on how well they fit together as a couple and mutually satisfy their needs. Similarities in the amount of emotional intimacy, sex, social interaction and physical proximity required increases the chance that the relationship will be successful in the long-term.
Kerckhoff and Davis provide supporting evidence for filter theory with their longitudinal study of student couples together for less or more than 18 months. Attitude similarity was the most important factor up until 18 months, after this, psychological compatibility and ability to mutually meet needs was the most important factor in determining the quality of the relationship.
The theory can be considered to have a degree of face validity, as it is common sense to assume that similarities in demographic factors, attitudes and values systems would lead to a more happy and successful relationship and would thus be filters that we apply in the selection process.
Spreecher challenged this hypothesis, suggesting that social variables are not the only initial filter, and that couples matched in physical attractiveness, social background and interests were more likely to develop a successful relationship. This is supported by Murstein’s match hypothesis, which suggests that a significant factor in early attraction is the couple being of similar attractiveness levels – though people may desire the most physically attractive partner, they know in reality they are unlikely to get or to keep them, so they look for people of a similar attractiveness to themselves.
Gruber-Baldini et al (1995) carried out a longitudinal study of couples aged 21 and found that those who were similar in educational level and age at the start of the relationship were more likely to stay together and have a successful relationship, suggesting these two as factors ignored by Kerschoff and Davis in their Filter Theory.
An issue with filter theory is that it could be considered to be overly deterministic, failing to capture the dynamic and fluid nature of human relationships by its division into three distinct stages, and failing to take into account the role of free will in partner selection. Not all couples will have the same priorities in their relationships at exactly the same stages, and to suggest so is too nomothetic, ignoring individual differences between couples.
Another issue with filter theory is that it could also be considered to be overly reductionist, seeking to explain the complex nature of relationship behaviour as a result of simple filtration processes, selecting a partner through a process of elimination from a “field of availables.” This is potentially an oversimplification of relationship formation, and cannot definitively explain the formation of homosexual romantic relationships. Homosexual couples may not necessarily have the same experiences that lead to their relationship being initiated as heterosexual couples, so the theory could be considered to have a heterosexist bias.
Reward/Need Satisfaction Theory
This theory works on two key principles of the behavioural approach: operant conditioning and classical conditioning. Through classical conditioning, doing activities you enjoy with your partner leads to a conditioned response of happiness to the conditioned stimulus of your partner, leading to an intrinsic feeling of happiness while being around your partner. Through operant conditioning, the sense of belonging and the fulfillment of emotional needs such as intimacy function as rewards in the positive reinforcement process, leading to a strengthened relationship between the couple - they will like each other more and want to spend more time together.
Supporting evidence for this theory comes from Argyll's explanation that relationship formation works as a means to the satisfaction of motivational systems. Argyll (1994) outlined several key motivational systems underpinning social behaviour, and explained how relationship formation satisfies several social needs, namely: Biological needs - collective eating, sex, Dependency - being comforted, Affiliation - a sense of belonging, and Self-esteem. These results support the theory of attraction developing around need fulfilment, with partners acting as means to the fulfilment of certain social needs.
Further supporting evidence for reward/need satisfaction theory comes from Aron et al (2005), who gave 17 participants who reported being "intensely in love" MRI scans, finding that dopamine-rich areas of the brain showed much more activation when the participant was shown a photo of the person with whom they had fallen in love, in contrast to someone they just liked. The amount of dopaminergic activity was positively correlated with the degree to which they felt in love. This supports the role of operant conditioning as a component of reward/need satisfaction theory - just seeing the person they loved stimulated the release of dopamine in the brain's reward circuits.
In some ways, this study treated psychology as a science by using MRI equipment to give objective, scientific results, measuring the activation of dopamine reward circuitry in the brain. This gives the study a high degree of internal validity, providing an objective measurement of the brain activity it claims to measure. However, in some aspects this study was less scientific - the self-reported description of "very much in love" cannot be scientifically and objectively verified, and is not falsifiable.
A study by May and Hamilton (1980) also supports reward/need satisfaction theory, providing supporting evidence for the role of classical conditioning. Female participants evaluated photographs of men while listening to either rock music that stimulated a positive mood, to music that stimulated a negative mood, or no music at all. The participants gave much more positive evaluations of personal character, physical attractiveness and general attraction in the rock music condition than in the other two, suggesting that an association had formed between the positive feeling from the music, and the men they were evaluating.
Attraction does not necessarily equal formation of relationships - this theory ignores matching and the opportunity to meet. These studies and the theory only explain how a relationship develops once there is already a degree of mutual attraction between two people, not how this initial attraction develops, so they do not fully explain the initiation of relationships.
An issue with May and Hamilton's study is that it was only carried out on female participants. Research and evolutionary theories into sexual selection suggest that attraction develops differently in males and females, so to generalise from males to females without taking these potential gender differences into account would be beta gender bias, and likely to be an inaccurate generalisation. Research has suggested that males prioritise physical appearance in a partner, while females prioritise status and power - these differences in priorities must be taken into account.
Another issue with reward/satisfaction theory is that it is overly environmentally reductionist, explaining a complex human behaviour to be a result of simple behavioural learning based around reward mechanisms. The theory ignores social, cognitive and biological factors that could play a role in attraction, such as the social demographic variables described by Kerckhoff and Davis in their filter theory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)