factors affecting attraction

factors affecting attraction

1. sexual selection

   • sexual selection is an evolutionary explanation of partner preference suggesting that attributes or behaviours that increase reproductive success are passed on to produce offspring with the best genes and may become exaggerated over generations of offspring
     • explains why some characteristics that might appear disadvatageous in terms of survival confer an advantage in human reproductive behaviour as the characteristics are attractive to potential mates or provide an advantage over competitors for reproductive rights
   • anisogamy- the difference between male and female sex cells- sperm are small, highly mobile, created constantly in vast numbers and do not require a great expenditure of energy to produce- ova are large, static, produce at intervals for a limit number of fertile years and require a huge investment of energy
   • inter-sexual selection- preferred strategy of females- both sexes are choosy as both stand to lose if they invest resources in substandard procedures- anisogamy dictates that the consequences of choosing a substandard partner is much more serious for females as they make greater investment in terms of time, commitment and other resources before, during and after the birth of her offspring- combines with there being no shortage of fertile males it pays for females to be especially choosy in short-term relationships so that any offspring are of a high quality so their genes are more likely to be passed on- females optimum strategy is to prefer a genetically fit partner who is willing to provide resources- results in a preference for wealthy, older males
   • intra-sexual selection- preferred strategy of males- refers to the competition between males to be able to mate with a female- the winner f the competition reproduces and passes on the characteristics that contributed to his victory to his offspring- anisogamy dictates that males optimum reproductive strategy is to mate with as many fertile females as possible due to the minimal energy required to produce sperm and the relative lack of post-coital responsibility- results in an increased probability they will produce and pass on their genes- due to this males shows a preference for youth ans sensitivity to the indicators of youth and fertility- believed men show less attraction after sexual intercourse as this is an innate mechanism to prevent them from spending too much time with one partner
   • Waynforth and Dunbar- studied lonely hearts ads in American newspapers- opportunities for people to describe the qualities they desired in a partner and share what they had to offer- they found women more than men tended to offer physical attractiveness and indicators of youth- men offered resources more than women and sought youth and physical attractiveness
   • Clarke and Hatfield- male and female psychology students were sent out across a university campus- they approached other students individually with the question:' I have been notivcing you around campus. I find you very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?'- not a single female student agreed but 75% of men did immediately- could be argued there is gender bias to attribute short-term mating strategies to only men as, even though men are more likely to want casual sex and a variety of sexual partners, these mechanisms couldn't have evolved without the presence of willing females- there may have been benefits for women
   • Buss- carried out a survey of over 10,000 adults in 33 countries- asked questions relating to age and a variety of attributes that evolutionary theory predicts should be important in partner preference- found that females placed greater value on resource-related characteristics than males did- males values reproductive capacity in terms of good looks and chastity and preferred younger mates more than females did- lacks external validity as it only looks at partner prefrences and not the reality of partner choice Buss then studied 29 cultures and found that men chose young women and if they divorced tended to remarry younger women
   • Singh- studied the waist to hip ratio in females- found that what matters in male preference is not female body size as such, but the waist to hip ratio- up to a point, males generally find any waist and hip sizes attractive so long as the ratio of one to the other is about 0.7- this combination of wider hips and narrower waist is attractive as it is an 'honest signal' that women are fertile but not pregnant- evolutionary theory makes several predictions which cannot be tested empirically
   • partner preferences over the last century have been influenced by rapidly changing social norms of sexual behaviour- these develop much faster than evolutionary timescales imply and have instead come about due to cultural factors, such as the ability of contraception- women's greater role in the workplace means that they no longer depend on men to provide for them- researchers argue this social change has consequences for women's mate preferences, which may no longer be resource-orientated- research compared partner preferences in China over 25 years and found that some had changed and some had stayed the same corresponding with the huge social changes in that time

2. physical attractiveness

   • evolution- psychologists have wondered why physical attractiveness seems to be so important in forming relationships- Shackleford and Larson found that people with syymetrical faces are rated as more attractive as it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness- people are also attracted to neotenous feature such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose as these trigger a protective or caring instinct which is a valuable resource for females- physical attractiveness is not only important at the start of a relationship- McNutly et al found evidence that the initial attractiveness that brought the partners together continued to be an important feature of the relationship after marriage for at least several years
   • halo effect- physical attractiveness may matter as we have preconcieved notions about the physical traits attractive people have and they are almost universally positive- this is the physical attractiveness stereotype, a widely-accepted view of attractive people neatly summed up in a phrase coined by Dion: 'what is beautiful is good'- Dion found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people- we believe they are more attractive as they are good people
   • matching hypothesis- Walster suggests that people choose romantic partners who are roughly of similar physical attractiveness to each other- to do this we have to make a judgement about our own value to a potential partner- we desire the most physically attractive partner possible for all sorts of social, evolutionary, cultural and psychological reasons- we balance this against the wish to avoid being rejected by someone out of our league that is someone who is very unlikely to consider us physically attractive- although we find physical attractiveness desirable common-sense tells us that we can't all form relationships with the most attractive people- it is possible that our own attractiveness may play a role in our choice of romantic partner
   • complex matching- one reason research may fail to find evidence for matching in terms of physical attractiveness could be that people come to a relationship offering many desirable characteristics, of which physical attractiveness is only one- a person may compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness with other desirable qualities
   • x- complex matching suggests that while physical attractiveness makes up a component of our approach to choosing a partner it is not the sole reason and so it cannot be a full explanation for the forming of a relationship- some people don't attach much importance to physical attractiveness, in a study male and female participants rated how much they would like a person based on their photograph and some biological information, also completed a questionnaire designed to measure sexist behaviours and attitudes,, found that participants who scored highly on the questionnaire were more influenced by physical attractiveness of the individual when judging likeability, suggests it cannot be generalised
   • /- research has found that physical attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent, this halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew these 'knowledgeable' people had no particular experience, suggest the halo effect could have a detrimental effect on people's beliefs of political candidates- research shows that what is considered physically attractive is remarkably consistent across cultures, it has found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small noses and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian males, the physical attractiveness stereotype is culturally pervasive, it appears strong in collectivist and individualistic cultures
   • / or x- Walster et al's study may not have supported the matching hypothesis as the measurement of attractiveness was not reliable, the raters had to judge attractiveness in only a matter of seconds, a meta-analysis of 17 studies found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness of actual romantic partners, shows that the study is methodologically flawed

3. filter theory

   • Kerckhoff and Davis devised a filter theory to explain how romantic relationships form and develop- in terms of partner choice, we all have a field of availabilities, the entire set of potential romantic partners all the people we could realistically form a relationship with- not everyone who is available to us is desirable- each pf the factors affecting the field of desirability assumes greater or lesser importance at different stages of a relationship
   • 1) social demography- refers to a wide range of factors all of which influence the chances of potential partners meeting each other in the first place- includes geographical location, social class, level of education, ethnic group, religion etc- you are more likely to meet people who are physically close and share several demographic characteristics- our most memorable interactions are with people who are nearby- the key benefit of proximity is accessibility- the realistic field of partners is much narrower because our choices are constrained by our social circumstances- anyone who is too different is discounted as a potential partner as most of us find shared similarities attractive
   • 2) similar attitudes- Kerckhoff and Davis found that similarity in attitudes was important to the development of romantic relationships, but only for couples who had been together less than 18 months- this similarity encourages greater and deeper communication, and promotes self-disclosure- this is considerable evidence that most of us find this similarity attractive at least to begin with- there's a need for partners in the earlier stages of a relationship to agree over basic values
   • 3) complementarity- 2 partners complement each other when they have traits that the other lacks- Kerckhoff and Davis found that the need for complementarity was more important for long-term couples, at a later stage of a relationship opposites attract- complementarity is attractive because it gives romantic partners the feeling that together they form a whole which adds depth to a relationship and makes it more likely to flourish- concerns the ability of romantic partners to meet each others needs
   • x- the rise of online dating in recent years has changed the process of beginning a romantic relationship, it has reduced the importance of some social demographic variables, we might well pursue a date with someone outside the usual demographic limits than would have been applied 30 years ago- Filter theory suggests that people are innitially attracted to each other as they are similar but there's evidence that this is wrong, longitudinal research has found that cohabiting partners become more similar in their emotional responses over time but other research has found that romantic partners over time bring their attitudes into line with each others- some research has challenged that complementarity becomes more important than similarity later in relationships, research suggests that complementarity is not necessarily a common feature in long-term relationships- many studies have failed to replicate the original findings that founded the basis of filter theory
     • x- the failure for replication may be due to social changes and the difficulties in defining the depth of a relationship by its length e.g 18 months defining a long-term or short-term relationship
   • /- filter theory assumes that the key factors in a relationship change over time, this makes sense and agrees with most people's experiences of romantic relationships so the theory has face validity- there is research support which found that similarities of personality, interests and attitudes between partners are typical of the earliest stages of a relationship- between partners married for several years, complementarity of need is more important than similarity