Evolutionary Psychology: Partner Preferences

Evolutionary Explanations for Partner Preferences

• Sexual selection drives mate choice: traits increasing reproductive success are passed on.
• Intrasexual selection involves competition within a sex for mates (e.g., males competing for females).
• Intersexual selection involves one sex's preference for specific traits in the other (e.g., females preferring resources).
• Parental investment theory (Trivers) proposes females invest more in offspring, leading to more selective mate choices.
• Anisogamy highlights differing gametes between sexes, leading to varied reproductive strategies.
• Supporting evidence from Buss (1989) reveals universal mate preferences across cultures (males prioritize youth/attractiveness; females prioritize resources).
• Real-world applications: explains gender variations in partner preferences (e.g., dating apps).
• Criticisms: ignores social/cultural factors in mate choice (contraception, gender equality); theory is outdated and doesn't account for modern relationships/LGBTQ+ relationships (reductionist).

Self-Disclosure

• Social penetration theory (Altman and Taylor): gradual self-disclosure deepens intimacy.
• Breadth and depth of disclosure: initial sharing of superficial information followed by deeper, personal disclosure.
• Reciprocity in disclosure is crucial for successful relationships.
• Supporting evidence: Sprecher and Hendrick found a strong correlation between relationship satisfaction and self-disclosure.
• Practical applications: improves relationship therapy.
• Cultural considerations: Western cultures emphasize openness more than collectivist cultures.
• Potential causality issues: unclear whether self-disclosure causes satisfaction or satisfaction produces self-disclosure.

Physical Attractiveness

• Halo effect: attractive people are perceived as more sociable/successful.
• Matching hypothesis (Walster): people choose partners of similar attractiveness.
• Supporting evidence: Palmer and Peterson found attractive people were perceived as more competent, even without qualifications.
• Contradictory evidence: Taylor et al. (online dating) found no matching effect, contrasting with the hypothesis.
• Cultural consistency: attractiveness is generally valued across cultures but standards differ.
• Criticism: overemphasizes looks, ignoring emotional/social compatibility.

Filter Theory (Kerckhoff and Davis)

• Three-stage model:
  • Stage 1 (Social Demography): proximity, social class, and other demographics.
  • Stage 2 (Similarity in Attitudes): shared beliefs/values are crucial in short-term relationships.
  • Stage 3 (Complementarity): fulfillment of each other's needs is vital in long-term relationships.
• Supporting evidence: Winch found similarities in early stages and complementarity in later stages.
• Limitations: doesn't explain modern relationships (online dating) and outdated regarding relationship norms (e.g., interracial, long-distance).
• Causality issue: attraction may precede perceived similarity.

Social Exchange Theory (SET)

• Relationships involve an exchange of rewards (e.g., affection) and costs (e.g., stress).
• Comparison level (CL): standard for assessing relationship satisfaction.
• Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt): evaluation of other potential relationships.
• Practical applications: explains dissatisfaction and is a basis for relationship therapy.
• Criticisms: ignores emotional/altruistic aspects and assumes relationships are entirely transactional/culturally biased.
• Supporting evidence: Sprecher showed a correlation between CLalt and satisfaction levels.

Equity Theory

• Equity emphasizes satisfaction based on perceived fairness (not equality).
• Over-benefitting/under-benefitting can lead to dissatisfaction.
• Supporting evidence: Stafford and Canary found higher satisfaction in equitable relationships.
• Individual differences: some prioritize equity less.
• Cultural bias: Equity may not be as important in collectivist cultures.
• Overlap with SET: equity can be indistinguishable from perceived costs/rewards.

Rusbult’s Investment Model

• Commitment is determined by three factors: satisfaction, alternative partners, and investment size.
• Intrinsinc investments: Resources directly related to the relationship (e.g., time, effort.)
• Extrinsic investments: Shared assets like property/children.
• Supporting evidence: Le and Agnew confirmed strong correlations between commitment and investment.
• Real-life applications: Explains staying in abusive relationships (high investment).
• Broad applicability: explains diverse relationships (not just romantic).
• Causality issue: investments may increase due to commitment rather than vice versa.

Duck’s Phase Model

• Four phases of relationship breakdown:
  • Phase 1 (Intra-psychic): internal dissatisfaction.
  • Phase 2 (Dyadic): confrontation with partner.
  • Phase 3 (Social): involvement of third parties.
  • Phase 4 (Grave-dressing): creating a personal narrative regarding the end of a relationship.
• Practical applications: highlights intervention points for preventing breakups.
• Limitations: A descriptive but not explanatory model; doesn't fully explain why relationships end.
• Cultural bias: assumes an individualistic perspective of relationship.

Virtual Relationships

• Reduced cues theory: reduced non-verbal cues (tone, body language) lead to impersonal interactions online.
• Hyperpersonal model: faster development of online relationships due to selective self-presentation.
• Anonymity: greater self-disclosure online.
• Supporting evidence: Whitty and Joinson found greater self-disclosure online.
• Limitations: low ecological validity (variations in online relationships), and potentially outdated theories given rapid technology changes.
• Reductionism: ignores offline influences on online behaviors.

Parasocial Relationships

• McCutcheon's levels:
  • Entertainment-social: interest in a celebrity's life.
  • Intense-personal: obsessive thoughts about a celebrity.
  • Borderline-pathological: extreme behaviors (e.g., stalking).
• Absorption-addiction model: parasocial relationships can compensate for deficiencies in real life.
• Supporting evidence: Maltby linked intense-personal parasocial relationships to poor mental health.
• Cultural consistency: parasocial relationships are found across cultures.
• Criticisms: ignores individual differences (e.g., personality) and limitations regarding current technology impacting relationships.

Explore the evolutionary explanations for partner preferences in this quiz. Delve into the concepts of sexual selection, parental investment theory, and the evidence supporting mate choice across cultures. Understand how these theories apply in real-world scenarios, including dating dynamics.