To what extent can biological theories explain perosnal relationships (22)

In this essay I will be explaining the extent to which biological theories explain personal
relationships. Personal relationships, in this case are meant as romantic relationships
between humans. According to Darwin’s theories, humans’ biological nature and role is to
survive and reproduce. This is a natural instinct found in the animal world, and theoretically
applied to evolved humans. On the basis of Darwin’s theory, an evolutionary biological
explanation for personal relationships suggests that women seek (financial) security in men,
in order to provide for the family, while men seek signals of reproductivity (beauty, youth) in
women. This theory shows that as a couple, women pursue survival, while men pursue
reproductivity. Buss conducted a study in 1989 to investigate this theory of attraction.

In Buss’s study, a large sample size of 10000 participants from a total of 33 countries were
asked to fill out a questionnaire. The questionnaire had three sections; Section A, which
included questions about the participants’ age, religion, gender, etc., Section B, in which
participants answered questions about their desired age of a spouse or significant other and
finally, Section C, in which participants ranked their value of desired attributes that they look
for in a significant other. The results of this showed that there is a big difference in mate
preference between men and women. Trends in the questionnaire showed that women
valued financial and ambition capacity and also preferred older mates. Men valued youth
and physical attractiveness. Buss additionally cross-referenced participants’ answers to
actual marriage statistics and a correlation was found, which means that the truth behind
the answers were likely. These results illustrate that cross-culturally, men prefer looks and
youthfulness, which may signal fertility, while women choose signs of wealth and security in
a partner, therefore supporting the evolutionary theory of attraction. Since people of many
different nationalities and ethnicities participated in the study, it can be concluded that
these are common biological determinants of attraction, unaffected by cultural differences.

Despite the use of a large and diverse sample, there are many limitations within this study.
The use of questionnaires in this study makes the results of the study prone to participant
biases of self-reporting and social desirability. The reliability of the study is compromised,
since there was no follow-up after the questionnaire. Alternatively, focus groups or semi-
structured interviews could have been used to collect more detailed information. Another
aspect of the study is the cross- referencing of answers and marriage statistics; some
relationships may have been arranged (for example, in majorly collectivist cultures/
countries) and may not have stemmed from free will, so the checking of marital records is
irrelevant to the participants’ answers in these cases. The study is also relatively old, making
it outdated, as there has since been a lot of globalization and shifts in trends and norms (in
bodies, beauty, perspectives on women working) since 1989.

The study concurs with the evolutionary theory of attraction, illustrating that women
generally prefer men that are secure, to ensure a family’s survival and men prefer women
that are physically attractive and young as a cue for good genetics that may be passed onto
offspring. The evolutionary theory of attraction, although it has been proven by Buss in 1989
and is prevalent cross-culturally, fails to account for many things in the current and modern
age and is often controversial for being a ‘reductionist theory’. The theory provides no
explanation for the prevalence of homosexuality, as it goes against the idea of evolutionary
purposes of reproduction. It also does not explain cases where, e.g. men are attracted to
older women or why some individuals do not marry or procreate. It also does not account
for the fact that people have many romantic relationships in a lifetime, with partners of
different ages, heights, bodies and financial situations. Evolutionary theories of attraction
are therefore not all-encompassing, and offer limited and reductionist explanations for an
individual’s choice in a romantic partner that may not apply in the modern world, where
humans have different preferences due to cognitive and sociocultural differences.

Another biological theory that aims to explain personal relationships is the neurobiological
theory. This involves the use of neurons, which pass impulses along the body and
neurotransmitters, the chemical messengers, which are emotional responses to stimuli. In
2012, Scheele et al conducted a study to investigate the role of the neurotransmitter
oxytocin in human fidelity, or the maintenance of romantic relationships.

86 heterosexual men, in which some were single and others in a stable relationships,
participated in this double blind study. The participants were given either oxytocin or a
placebo intranasally and were made to engage in two tasks. The first task was the Stop-
distance-paradigm, in which a participant was stood at one end of a room, and an attractive
female confederate was stood at the opposite end of the room. The participants were then
asked to approach the female and then stop at a distance in which they start to feel
uncomfortable. The next task was the Approach and Avoidance task, in which the
participants were seated in front of a screen, which displayed a series of images that fall in
four categories : Positive social (pictures of attractive women), positive non-social (pictures
of beautiful landscapes), negative social (mutilations) and negative non-social pictures.
Attached to the screen was also a joystick, which the participants were told to pull towards
them if they liked the image, which also pulled the screen towards them. If the participant
didn’t like the picture, they were supposed to push the joystick away from themselves. The
results of Task 1 showed that oxytocin caused men to keep a greater distance from an
attractive woman, but only if he was in a stable relationship. The results of Task 2 showed
that only positive social pictures were liked by men, and that men in relationships pulled the
joystick slower, showing that they were more hesitant to like the picture. Task 2 also makes it
evident that the effect of oxytocin is highly specific and selective to the group of stimuli of
(attractive) women. Scheele et al concludes that the neurotransmitter oxytocin causes men
in relationships to keep greater distance from attractive women that are not their partner,
thus promoting infidelity.

One of the strengths of the study is it being a double-blind study, which lowers the
probability of researcher bias influencing any results achieved in the study. However, some
limitations are also present in the study. Some of the participants were in a ‘stable
relationship’, an attribute which cannot be quantified, measured or tested (how close the
partners are/ the quality of the relationship). Instead, focus groups or questionnaires should
have been introduced to gain more information on the participants’ relationships. The
participants keeping distance from the ‘attractive woman’ , which is subjective, may be due
to their personal comfort levels and not necessarily due t oxytocin, making it a confounding
variable. Additionally, Scheele et al is lab-conducted experiment, which lowers its ecological
validity.
This neurochemical explanation for the maintenance of personal relationships provides
insights into how oxytocin play a role in human fidelity. However, it is important to evaluate
this theory, as it disregards cognitive and social aspects of personal relationships, as it, like
the evolutionary theory of attraction, reduces humans to their biology, simultaneously
ignoring personal choice and environmental factors. Social theories of attraction suggest
that there is a role that society and social stimulations play in creating attraction in human
relationships. Jones et al conducted a study in 2007 to investigate social proof- a theory that
suggests that humans are more likely to be attracted to individuals who are well-accepted by
society.

In this study, women’s mate preferences were investigated. Female participants were shown
pairs of male faces and asked to rate their attractiveness. Later, they were shown the same
pairs of faces again, but this time one picture in each pair had a female face at its side. The
female face was shown staring at one of the men’s face with either a smile or a neutral
expression. The participants were asked to rate the attractiveness of the male faces again.
The results showed that the second round of ratings did not change for the male faces that
were not accompanied by a female face facing it. Ratings in the second round were higher
for the male faces that did have a smiling woman staring at it, but ratings were lower for
pictures where the woman staring at it had a neutral expression. This leads to the conclusion
that when forming attraction, humans may use social clues and mimic the attitudes of other
women to men.

However, since there was use of pictures and cut-up images, the study doesn’t mimic real-
world situations or environments , therefore lowering its ecological validity. Despite this, this
study shows that in social contexts, biological factors (age of men) do not strongly influence
attraction of women to men, but rather the presence of acceptance well-likedness of a
person in a society, illustrating that social desirability plays a role in the formation of
personal relationships. However, cognitive factors are not explained in the social theory. A
cognitive theory for the formation of relationships is the similarity-attraction hypothesis,
which suggest that perceived similarity is a predictor of attraction. It claims that humans are
attracted to others when they somehow resemble ourselves e.g in appearance, values,
attitudes)

To investigate this theory, Byrne conducted a study in 1961 to investigate the relationship
between interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. Participants were given a
questionnaire to rank a number of issues ranging from God to western movies on their
importance from least to most important. Two weeks later they were shown an ‘anonymous
questionnaire’ from another participant, which was faked so that the responses were either
identical to that of the participants on all issues, opposite to that of the participant on all
issue, similar on unimportant issues or similar on important issues. The participants were
then asked to indicate their feelings towards the stranger and rate this person on
characteristics such as intelligence and morality. The results of this study showed that
participants rated strangers whose attitudes were similar more positively. Additionally,
similarity in important attitudes was more closely associated with positive ratings than
similarity in less important attitudes, showing that perceived similarity of attitudes does
increase interpersonal attraction.
This study is relatively old, so the values and attitutdes of that time may not reflect those of
now. Because it is old, participants might be more likely to answer questionnaires with social
desirability bias, as e.g positive opinions on some issues such as premarital sex were not
accepted in society in the 60s. However, the study helps provide evidence for the similarity-
attraction hypothesis, demonstrating that relationships may be formed through cognitive
factors of similar values. This study and theory, does not take biological or social factors into
consideration, as the participants were only given questionnaires, and not pictures of the
individual, which may have influenced their ratings.

In conclusion, Biological theories for personal relationships present explanations for the
evolutionary roots in attraction and the neurochemical reasons for the maintenance of
relationships. However, they reduce the complexity of human relationships down to our
natural instincts and our biology. Cognitive and social theories provide insights into other
reasons for the formation of relationships. The similarity-attraction hypothesis shows that
humans can connect through their personal values, while the Social proof theory shows that
socially desriable individuals are directly more romantically desirable to others. Therefore,
biological theories for relationships don’t provide explanations for certain situations
(homosexuality) or for formations of relationships on social and cognitive levels.