1. Outline and evaluate the contributions of psychological theories to our understanding of the formation, maintenance, and breakdown of relationships. (25 marks)
Paragraph 1 Introduction
Introduce the fact that theories such as need satisfaction and economic theories take a similar approach to explaining relationships as they both emphasise rewards and costs/punishments. They both account for the different stages of relationships: formation, maintenance, and breakdown.
Paragraph 2 Need satisfaction
Outline the theory of need satisfaction. Explain that it is based on learning theory and the processes of classical and operant conditioning. Include specific research as support, for example, Griffit and Guay (1969), Veitch and Griffitt (1976), and Rabbie and Horowitz (1960).
Paragraph 3 Exchange theory
Introduce economic theories by explaining that need satisfaction cannot account for relationships that form and maintain when they are not rewarding. However, economic theories can because they take a more complex approach to the exchange of rewards and costs. Introduce social exchange theory and the idea of comparison level (CL) and comparison level for alternatives (CLalt). Evaluate how these factors account for the complexity of relationships better than need satisfaction, and so also account better for individual differences.
Paragraph 4 Equity theory
Then explain how equity takes a fairer approach than exchange, and provide some evidence such as Hatfield, Utne, and Traupmann (1979), Argyle (1988), and Buunk and VanYperen (1991).
Paragraph 5
Evaluate economic and need satisfaction theories. There are two separate strands to evaluation—the methodology and the actual theories. Mention the problems of methodology. Consider the artificiality of the “bogus stranger” studies and the research evidence for economic theories, and so generalisability being an issue.
Consider the problem of quantifying costs and rewards in real life. Both need satisfaction but economic theories assume selfishness and so underestimate altruism. Use Clark and Mills’ (1979) research as evidence that not everyone uses exchange principles, so this shows the effect of individual differences. Both need satisfaction and economic theories may be more relevant to the initial stages of a relationship and so more relevant to formation than maintenance and breakdown.
Why is this? Discuss if this is valid. Note that need satisfaction can account for the importance of factors such as similarity, etc. and has real-life validity (more rewarding people are more popular). Similarly, equity theory is supported by real-

life relationships such as those that demonstrate the matching hypothesis.
Paragraph 6
Consider the cultural bias of all these explanations. They are based on the Western concept of romantic love and the increasing research on relationship formation in collectivist cultures shows that explanations and processes are very different, as there is more emphasis on vertical (parent–child) relationships in collectivist cultures than horizontal (romantic partnerships) ones. The explanations have explanatory power for Western relationships but little for collectivist relationships.
Why is this? Furthermore, the explanations may be era-dependent as Miller (2005) links the economic theories to the zeitgeist of the 1970s. Consider some of the criticisms of research into relationships, such as it takes only a “snapshot” and treats relationships as “stand alone” and so fails to contextualise.
2. Outline and evaluate evolutionary explanations for human reproductive behaviour.
(24 marks)
OR Outline and evaluate the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour. (24 marks)
The questions are similar and so the essay plan can be adapted to either; just make
sure you tailor your link sentences to the question.
Paragraph 1 Introduction
Explain that evolution originated with Darwin and outline his theory of sexual selection, which expanded on his theory of natural selection to account for the peacock’s tail.
Paragraph 2
Describe anisogamy, i.e. the different size of the gametes, and how this determines parental investment, which results in different mating strategies. The man’s main concern is to spread his genes and the woman’s is to nurture the limited number of offspring she can produce. Outline intrasexual selection (the male strategy) and give evidence for dimorphism and the testicular effect.
Paragraph 3
Then outline intersexual selection (the female strategy) and give evidence for the
“good taste” and “good sense” hypotheses. Research that has tested for evidence of sexual selection in mating behaviour: Buss (1989), Davis (1990), and Clark and
Hatfield (1989). Criticise the research; there are many criticisms of Buss, e.g. he exaggerated differences and gave little emphasis to consistencies between genders such as the fact that kindness and intelligence were rated as most important by males and females. Also, the findings are self-report, and so may not be representative of actual behaviour. Demand characteristics may have occurred in
Clark and Hatfield’s study—why? This limits the support the research provides to evolutionary explanations and so casts doubt on their validity.
Paragraph 4

Assess that the sex differences in preferred mating strategies identified by evolution are oversimplified as in reality women compete between themselves (intrasexual selection). Perhaps the greatest indicator of intersexual selection is neoteny (childlike appearance)—this is more evident in females as males have selected it. Also, social explanations may be the real reason for the gender differences in mating strategy as socialisation into the traditional gender roles may explain why men “do” and women “don’t”, i.e. the double-standard. The evidence that this is the case is the changing norms in mating behaviour, which suggest that human reproductive behaviour is socially constructed. Use the invention of the birth control pill and the changing female role as evidence for the effect of culture over evolution.
Paragraph 5
Present the generic evaluations of evolutionary explanations (the ones that work in any essay), e.g. reductionism (relationships are not solely focused on reproduction, this is oversimplistic), determinism, scientific validity, unfalsifiable or verifiable.
Some new adaptive explanations are often modified to account for inconsistencies.
They have been criticised as evolutionary stories as they cannot be tested because they are conjecture and post hoc (made up after the event). They are also selective in the behaviours they choose to explain, ignoring the ones they cannot explain or that clearly have better alternative explanations. And of course they ignore nurture.
You must elaborate each of these and relate each clearly as to why evolutionary explanations may not account for human reproductive behaviour.
Paragraph 6 Conclusion
You may be asked to weigh up “the extent they explain/offer insights…”
Weigh up pros and cons of the explanations. Use the postmodern critique and social constructionism to do this, e.g. no universal truth, need a multi-perspective as sexual selection only accounts for one level of reproductive behaviour when it exists at different levels (behavioural, cognitive, unconscious), which are ignored in the explanations. Reproductive behaviour is seen as synonymous with relationships by the evolutionary perspective when of course this is not the case as it ignores love, which may be a more valid reason for sexual behaviour than reproduction. Also, it is a situated account as to some extent it is a product of the time and context when explanations were biased towards nature as the reason for behaviour. Evolution is enjoying a resurgence in popularity in the current context and so we must be careful not to be influenced and draw unbiased conclusions. Social explanations may offer more insight into the variation and flexibility evident in reproductive behaviour. A multi-perspective is needed to gain the most insight into human reproductive behaviour. In the same way that evolution lays the groundwork for early attachment, it may provide the genetic predisposition, which interacts with psychosocial factors (learning, cognition, and emotions such as love) to determine human reproductive behaviour. Thus, evolution provides the programming and psychosocial factors determine the variations and options within this.

3(a). Describe sex differences in parental investment. (12 marks)
Note that (a) is AO1 only so should have no evaluation.
Paragraph 1
Describe Trivers’ (1972) parental investment theory, which is based on anisogamy, reproductive cost, paternal certainty, and proximity. Anisogamy shapes reproductive cost, i.e. the balance between effort (time and resources) and reproductive success. Explain why eggs (size, nutrients, quantity, and finite amount) are costly compared to sperm. According to this, “males’ donation to childrearing may begin and end with the donation of sperm”. Females have relatively few eggs and so mate with one partner and devote more energy to the survival of their offspring. Males have many sperm and so do not provide extra care. Reproductive success for males lies in a high number of partners who may be left to care for the offspring.
Paragraph 2
Explain how the adult in closest proximity is responsible for care and of course, given that internal fertilisation takes place in humans, this is the female. Thus, the male can “run away” and the female is left “holding the baby”. This is also linked to the order of gamete release hypothesis. The male releases his first and so may not care what happens next.
Paragraph 3
Explain that female bears the burden of reproductive costs of gestation (carrying the child) and lactation (producing milk) and so this increases her investment compared to the male. Internal conception means the female has parental certainty but the male does not. “Mommies’ babies, daddies’ maybes”—describe research on paternal certainty to support this.
3(b). Assess the contribution of evolutionary explanations to our understanding of these sex differences in parental investment. (12 marks)
Note that (b) is AO2 only so should have no description.
Paragraph 1
To some extent the evolutionary theories seem to be correct. It’s true that traditionally women have been left holding the baby and single-parent and divorced families are more likely to be headed by a female. Research statistics demonstrate that even when the man does stay, the woman does most of the work. The facts of internal fertilisation and long gestation do explain why the female is more likely to care for the baby. The evolutionary concepts have inspired further theory, e.g.
Bowlby (1969), which supports their validity. Evidence that adults are programmed to care (i.e. this behaviour is innate) is explained by Bowlby, as he claims that we cannot ignore the social releasers used by children to elicit care, e.g. we can’t bear to hear a baby cry. Bowlby also implied a sex difference as he said that the main caregiver would usually be the mother.

Paragraph 2
Evolutionary explanations of parental investment lack explanatory power, as they do not account for broody men or women who don’t want children. Relationships are more complex and serve many more needs than just reproduction. There are other explanations for parental care, e.g. other explanations of attachment, learning explanations, and Freud’s theory, and the gender differences may be better explained by social explanations, e.g. gender role socialisation. Females are expected to be nurturing. Furthermore, there is much more of a stigma if a woman abandons her child than if a man does, which is nothing to do with the size of the gametes but the socially constructed norms and values. Of the explanations, anisogamy may be the weakest as in real life there are not vast differences in the number of children sired by males and females. It is certainly more plausible that the fact that the female carries the child leads to her being more likely to care for it, as of course this provides time for her to become attached. If she becomes pregnant and decides to keep the baby then she has no choice but to make some sort of commitment to it at least for 9 months, whereas the male has none of this. Thus, the proximity hypothesis appears right, but is it? The explanation is descriptive, not explanatory, as it describes what is fact—the woman has to bear the baby—but it does not mean that this behaviour is genetically predisposed.
Paragraph 3
Evidence against evolved sex differences in parenting is that humans tend to share the care of their offspring and so the differences may be exaggerated. The evolutionary explanations suggest that when resources are limited, and because the human infant requires prolonged care, monogamy is favoured—but is it? This is another case of evolutionary explanations being used to explain any pattern of behaviour and doesn’t really account for the individual differences in parenting.
This links to the scientific criticisms as such contradictory explanations are possible because they are speculation not fact. Elaborate on these scientific criticisms. Also consider other generic criticisms: e.g. reductionism, determinism. Some new adaptive explanations are often modified to account for inconsistencies. They are sometimes called evolutionary stories because they cannot be tested as they are post hoc (made up after the event). They are also selective in the behaviours they choose to explain, ignoring the ones they can’t or that have clearly better alternative explanations. And, of course, the evolutionary approach ignores nurture. You must elaborate each of these and relate each criticism clearly to why the evolutionary explanations may not account for parental investment. The evolutionary explanations provide insight into only one aspect of parental investment and ignore the complex psychological and social factors involved in this, such as the intense emotions that characterise the attachment bond. Thus, a multi-perspective provides more insight into sex differences in parental investment than evolutionary explanations, as this can account for the interaction of genetic programming with other factors.

4. Discuss the effects of early attachment or peer interactions on later adult relationships. (25 marks)
Early attachment is covered here but of course you can write about peer interactions if
you prefer.
Paragraph 1 Introduction
Introduce the effect of early attachment, as first researched by Ainsworth and Bell and Bowlby, on adult relationships. Use Schwartz et al.’s (2006) research to provide an explanation for the inability of insecure types to form successful adult relationships.
Paragraph 2
Explain how Freud links complexes in the phallic stage of psychosexual development to later adult relationships. Ehrensaft et al.’s (2003) 20-year longitudinal study found that children who witness interparental violence and experience excessive punishments are likely to use violent behaviour to resolve conflicts with close emotional partners in adulthood.
Paragraph 3
Outline Erikson’s (1968, 1980) theory that life crises occur and shape adult relationships. A crisis affects later adult relationships because resolution of it results in an integrated person with a strong personal and sexual identity, thus a lack of resolution could lead to inadequacy in adult relationships. Also, briefly outline
Levinson’s (1978, 1986) and Gould’s (1978, 1981) theories on how early experience affects later relationships.
Paragraph 4
Evaluate the androcentrism of the psychodynamic theories by Freud, Erikson,
Levinson, and Gould. Assess the lack of scientific validity of the theories as they are just that—theories rather than fact—because they cannot be tested. Consider the self-report criticisms of the research as it is based mainly on qualitative and retrospective data from questionnaires. Explain the biases and how the research is open to researcher and participant bias, both of which limit validity.
Paragraph 5
Consider the strengths and weaknesses of research evidence such as the Minnesota
Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (Collins & van Dulmen, 2005).
Paragraph 6
Asses the correlational nature of the research. How does this limit conclusions about causation, association, and the exact variables involved?
5. Use the nature of relationships in different cultures to assess research into social relationships. (16 marks)
Paragraph 1 Introduction

Explain how differences in terms of individualism and collectivism mean that research conducted in the West lacks relevance to Eastern collectivist cultures.
Research is ethnocentric (biased to Western culture) as the types of relationships that predominate in Western research i.e. love relationships, are less relevant in
Eastern cultures where kin relationships are more important. Explain the different characteristics of individualistic and collectivist cultures to illustrate why research lacks generalisability between the different cultures.
Paragraph 2
Challenge the idea that there is no generalisability between the different cultures with evidence against variations, for example, Jankowiak and Fischer’s (1992) research on the universality of love. However, the difference may not be in the understanding of love but the need for it as a basis to marriage. Use Kephart (1967) and Levine et al. (1995) as evidence that less emphasis is placed on love as a basis for marriage in collectivist cultures. Discuss how the “Hollywood” concept of love is seen as the ideal in Western cultures and that attitudes to arranged marriages are often negative and biased.
Paragraph 3
Introduce another bias in research on relationships; the use of the Strange Situation to classify attachment in other cultures, for example. Explain that because the
Strange Situation was developed in the US it acts as an imposed etic when used to measure attachment and make consequent predictions about future relationships in other cultures. Use Rothbaum et al.’s (2002) research as evidence. Also consider the culture bias of the economic theories as they may apply more to individualistic than collectivist cultures due to the focus on individual gain.
Paragraph 4
Discuss the problems of cross-cultural research, including: comparisons are simplistic; translation between languages can bias findings as meanings can get lost or misinterpreted as part of researcher or participant bias. These issues limit the internal validity (truth) of any research. External validity is also limited by small sample sizes and the fact that cultures are not unitary and so research may not generalise to the various subgroups within the culture. Conclude that the biased nature of much social relationships research means there is a need for cross-cultural research. However, the approach of cultural relativism that is needed is difficult to achieve.