A second look at neo-Darwinian A second look at neo-Darwinian explanation of gender differencesexplanation 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

exampleexample 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

Long term relationshipsLong term relationships

Initial considerationsInitial 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

OverviewOverview

1. Social Exchange & Equity theories

2. Rusbult’s investment model of commitment

3. Attachment Theory

4. Communal vs. “keeping score” relationship orientation

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

Rusbult’s Investment Model of Rusbult’s Investment Model of CommitmentCommitment

Rewards

Costs

Comparison level

Satisfaction with relationship

Level of investment

Quality of alternatives

Commitment to relationship

Stability of relationship

Test of investment modelTest of investment model

.85

.50

.84

.32.62

.28

Commitment Decision to break up

satisfaction

alternatives

investment

Will relationship last?

Satisfaction + Investment – Alternatives

– Stay:

– Leave:

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

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

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:

Attachment style influences relationships throughout our lives:

Relationship:

Frequency Satisfaction Length

Secure ?

Avoidant ?

Anxious

Can Attachment Style change??

YES

– Reactive ways– Proactive ways

– So don’t just blame your parents!

Equity theory, reduxEquity 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

Clark & Mills, 1979

“Keeping score” orientation:

-Early stages

-Acquaintances/ casual friends

Communal orientation:

-Later stages

-Close friends, family, romantic partners.

When relationships end:When relationships end:

(In)famous lines you may have heard….

“It’s not you, it’s me”

But what are they really saying….?