1. A second look at neo-Darwinian explanation of gender differences Book offers additional review of “pro” and “con” evidence on pp. 341-342 – Evidence on physical attraction is especially mixed. Additional critiques Males aren’t the only one doing the “selecting”—females are selecting as well – Alpha females Some earlier theories often regard organisms as solitary creatures, acting unilaterally and toward their own selfish interests – But behavior doesn’t take place in vacuum—everything is in context. – Likely to involve a complex set of interactions between males and females Foundation for the principles of Game Theory

2. example In reality, it is not always in the best interest of the male to literally mate indiscriminately – Such actions could serve as a neon sign to females—stay away from this dude. – Likely to elicit extreme aggression by male competitors What strategy should male follow, then? – Be monogamous, or…. – Give the impression of being monogamous, but practice deceit However, latter strategy could encourage females to be especially good at detecting when the male is lying – Which could encourage better lying techniques by males, etc… In theory, as this dynamic is repeated over million of years, it has implications for the success of certain genetic traits

3. Long term relationships

4. Initial considerations Complex! Theories need to be able to explain both “commonsense” and nonintuitive findings Theories need to be tested empirically – E.g. validity of MBTI

5. Overview 1.Social Exchange & Equity theories 2.Rusbult’s investment model of commitment 3.Attachment Theory 4.Communal vs. “keeping score” relationship orientation

6. Social Exchange – Minimize costs, Maximize rewards – Comparison level – Comparison level for alternatives Equity Theory – Balance between give and take – Important, but not the whole story – Personal investment is vital too

7. Rusbult’s Investment Model of Commitment Rewards Costs Comparison level Satisfaction with relationship Level of investment Quality of alternatives Commitment to relationship Stability of relationship

8. Test of investment model.85.50.84.32.62.28 CommitmentDecision to break up satisfaction alternatives investment

9. Will relationship last? Satisfaction + Investment – Alternatives – Stay: – Leave:

10. Harlow, 1959: Monkeys with 2 “mothers”: -Wire with bottle -Cloth without bottle Babies clung to cloth “mother” much more, despite the fact that the wire one offered food. Attachment Theory

11. We form two working models while young— 1. Towards the self: self-worth or self-esteem. 2. Towards others: interpersonal trust. These determine Attachment Style… Attachment Theory

12. Secure: An expectation about social relationships characterized by trust, a lack of concern with being abandoned, and a feeling of being valued and well liked. Avoidant: An expectation about social relationships characterized by a lack of trust and a suppression of attachment needs. Anxious- Ambivalent: An expectation about social relationships characterized by a fear that others will not return affection. Attachment Styles:

13. Attachment style influences relationships throughout our lives: Relationship: Frequency Satisfaction Length Secure ? Avoidant ? Anxious

14. Can Attachment Style change?? YES – Reactive ways – Proactive ways – So don’t just blame your parents!

15. Equity theory, redux Equity theory appears to apply well in “new” or relatively non-intimate relationships But not so much for longer-term relationships Exchange vs. communal relationships

16. Clark & Mills, 1979

17. “Keeping score” orientation: -Early stages -Acquaintances/ casual friends Communal orientation: -Later stages -Close friends, family, romantic partners.

18. When relationships end: (In)famous lines you may have heard…. “It’s not you, it’s me” But what are they really saying….?