1. Relationships
Psychology

2. Activity Write your own ‘lonely hearts’ ads.
As a group, analyse the results.

3. Why do this?
This links in to theories of intersexual selection, and the idea that men will advertise resources they think women select (e.g. wealth and strength)and vice versa (women will advertise nurturing qualities).
Intra sexual selection: Selection within same sex. Males fighting with other males to gain access to a female

4. Intersexual selection
Selection between the two sections.
Selection based on one sex preferring characteristics in the other sex
E.G Peacocks

5. Types of relationships
Friendship/Companionship
Romantic
Sexual

6. Continued We are a social species
Most of our emotions are experienced through relationships
Companionships: Prevents loneliness
Procreation and child rearing

7. A relationship is
‘Any ongoing association between 2 or more individuals’ (Reis, ’96)‏

8. Formation of interpersonal relationships
Basic idea
We tend to have relationships with those we live close to
Because we live close to someone we are also likely to have more frequent interactions with those people – 2 factors linked

9. Evaluation Festinger et al. (1950) found:
In multistory buildings, most friendships were formed
with people on the same floor
Zajonc (1968) circular argument
Do we like the person more because we spend time with them, or do
we spend time with them because we like the person
Warr (1965) Found:
Not all frequent interactions result in liking, sometimes it can produce
more disliking. Suggests: frequency & proximity do NOT lead to
greater liking just greater intensity of feelings

10. Physical Attractiveness
Basic idea
Degree of physical attractiveness = one of the first things we notice
Research evidence
General agreement on what is considered attractive
Attractive people are perceived as having more positive characteristics (Brigham, 1971)‏
Attractive people often DO have more positive characteristics (Langlois et al., 2000)‏
WHY?

11. Evaluation
There are cultural differences in preferences for female body sizes (Anderson et al., 1992).
Individuals also change their preferences, e.g., see others as more attractive when they are sexually aroused (Stephan et al., 1971).

12. The Similarity theory Basic idea Alikes rather than opposites attract
Values, attitudes & beliefs are common indicators of strong friendships & attractiveness (Lea & Duck, 1982)‏
Rubin (1973) explains why:
possibility of engaging in same activities
social validation of our beliefs
if we like ourselves, it should logically follow that we will like others who are similar
facilitate communication
we may presume that people who are similar to us will like us

13. Evaluation There is considerable evidence in favour of this theory
Sprecher (1998) Found:
Similarity was especially important in same-sex friendships
Proximity, physical attractiveness, first impressions, and similarity have all been shown to be implicated in friendship choice
Kerckhoff & Davis (1962) Suggests:
Only applies in early stages of a friendship/relationship
Suggest in later stages of an established relationship
of needs is more important

14. Mate Selection Basic idea
We choose those who are similar in attitudes, attractiveness, and personality to mate with.
Winch (1958) = opposites attract & are happier
Burgess and Wallin (1953) found no evidence for this
Rosenbaum (1986) Found:
Dissimilarity of attitudes reduces liking BUT
no evidence to suggest the other way round

15. Evaluation
Buss (1989) looked at evidence from the last 50 years to confirm the similarity hypothesis in mate selection

16. Physical attractiveness – Matching hypothesis (Ernest Goffman)
Whether we think someone is attractive or not is often one of the first things we think about when we meet someone

17. The Theory Suggests Physical attractiveness is very important
We all want a partner who is considered ‘socially desirable’
Qualities that most people look for:
Many women prefer a man who is taller than themselves
Good personality
Intelligence
‘Good looks’
We also take into account our own social desirability & how likely we are to get what we want in a partner
We ‘socially match’ ourselves with a partner

18. Evaluation
Walster et al. (1966)—we choose a partner who is the same level of attractiveness as we are (possibly to minimise the chance of rejection)‏
Feingold (1988) found a high correlation between attractiveness of partners—supporting the matching hypothesis.