Table Of ContentCONCEPTUALIZINGCOLLEGIATEDATINGCONFLICT:
ABIOEVOLUTIONARYAPPROACH
By
ALVINW.LAWRENCE,JR.
ADISSERTATIONPRESENTEDTOTHEGRADUATESCHOOL
OFTHEUNIVERSITYOFFLORIDAINPARTIALFULFILLMENT
OFTHEREQUIREMENTSFORTHEDEGREEOF
DOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITYOFFLORIDA
2001
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IwouldliketothankDr.MartinHeesacker,mychairperson,forhissupportand
guidancethroughoutthisprocess.Hispatienceandflexibilitywereintegraltomy
completionofthisprojectandIgreatlyappreciatetheconfidencehehashadinme
throughoutmyyearsintheprogram.
Iwouldalsoliketothankmycommitteemembers,Drs.CarolynTucker,Edward
Delgado-Romero,PeterSherrard,andRobertZillerfortheirtimeandeffortinhelping
mecompletethisproject.Iwouldliketoexpressspecialappreciationtomyclinical
supervisorforthelast16months.Dr.PaulSchauble.Heprovidedamixtureofchallenge,
encouragement,andsupportthathelpedkeepmeenergizedthroughsomeofthemore
tryingtimesofthisdissertation.
ToAllisonCrew,1amgratefulforthelove,supportandunderstandingshehas
givenmethroughoutthisprocess.Icannotexpresshowmuchthishasmeanttome.Ican
onlyexpressmyloveandappreciationinhopesthatsheunderstands.Icouldnothave
askedforabetterpartner.
Iwouldalsoliketoexpressmyloveandappreciationtomyfamily,whohasbeen
asourceofnever-endingsupportthroughoutmyeducation.Itrulycouldnothavemadeit
withoutthem.Lastly,Iwouldliketodedicatethisworktomymother,LindaLawton.My
lifewouldbeverydifferenthadInothadsucharemarkablewomanasmyrolemodel.
Withher,1sharethissuccess.
TABLEOFCONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
ABSTRACT v
CHAPTERS
1INTRODUCTION 1
PurposeoftheDissertation 7
Hypotheses 9
2REVIEWOFLITERATURE 12
Buss'sBioevolutionaryTheory 13
MateSelection 15
AttractingaMate 37
Conflict 48
SocialExchangeTheory 58
Romans'OperantPsychologyApproach 59
Blau'sEconomicApproach 63
ThibautandKelley'sTheoryofInterdependence 66
FoaandFoa'sResourceTheory 71
Walster,Berscheid,andWalster'sEquityTheory 73
3METHOD 77
Study1 78
Study2 81
Analyses 84
4RESULTS 89
ResearchQuestion 94
AncillaryAnalyses 96
5DISCUSSION 102
ResultsandInterpretationsofHypothesisTestsandResearchQuestions 102
LimitationsandRecommendationsforFutureResearch 106
ImplicationsforCounseling 108
Summary/Conclusions 110
APPENDIXA RATER'SITEMLIST 112
APPENDIXB RATER'STRAININGMATERIAL 119
APPENDIXC MULTIPLECHOICETESTS 145
APPENDIXD RATER'SSAMPLEITEMS 149
APPENDIXE SAMPLEITEMRATINGS 151
APPENDIXF STUDY2QUESTIONNAIRE 153
APPENDIXG STUDYITHEORY-FITSCORESFOREACHITEM 159
LISTOFREFERENCES 161
BIOGRAPHICALSKETCH 169
AbstractofDissertationPresentedtotheGraduateSchool
oftheUniversityofFloridainPartialFulfillmentofthe
RequirementsfortheDegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy
CONCEPTUALIZINGCOLLEGIATEDATINGCONFLICT:
ABIOEVOLUTIONARYAPPROACH
By
AlvinW.LawrenceJr.
May,2001
Chairman:MartinHeesacker,Ph.D.
MajorDepartment:Psychology
ThetwostudiesreportedinthisdissertationevaluatedBuss'sbioevolutionary
theory.Thisevaluationinvolvedbothitsabilitytoexplainthesourcesofdatingconflicts
experiencedbycollegians,aswellasthedegreetowhichitmakesauniquecontribution
inunderstandingdatingconflict,overandabovethecontributionmadebysocial
exchangetheory.Socialexchangetheoryisarguablythemostviablealternative
explanationforunderstandingdatingconflicts.
Inthefirstofthesetwostudiesan80-iteminstrumentwasdevelopedusingdata
fromapreliminarystudy.Inthepreliminarystudy,asampleofundergraduateslistedthe
problemstheyhadexperiencedfindingpeopletodateandproblemsthattheyhadwith
peoplewhomtheyactuallydated.
Study1linkedtheitemsontheinstrumenttothetwotheoriesofinterest.Buss's
bioevolutionarytheoryandsocialexchangetheory.Thesedatawerethenusedin
combinationwithtliedatafromStudy2,whicliincludedparticipants'reportsregarding
problemfrequencyandimportance,fromasecondsampleofcollegestudents.Thesedata
wereanalyzedtoassesshowmucheachtheoryaccountedforparticipants'dating
problems,weightedbyproblemfrequencyandimportance.
Supportwasfoundforthehypothesisthatbioevolutionarytheorywouldexplaina
greaterproportionofthevarianceinproblemfrequencyandimportancethansocial
exchangetheory.Furtheranalysisrevealedthatthesuperiorabilityofthebioevolutionary
theorytoexplainproblemvarianceintheoverallmodelwasprimarilyduetoitsabilityto
accountfortheproblemsreportedbywomenparticipants.Themethodologicallimitations
ofthesestudiesandtheimplicationsofthesefindingsforpracticeandresearchare
discussed.
INCTHRAOPDTUECRTI1ON
TheresearchtobereportedevaluatestheeffectivenessofDavidBuss's(1994)
bioevolutionarytheoryofhumanmatingbehaviorinunderstandingmen'sandwomen's
datingconflicts.Buss's(1994)theoryproposesthathumanmatingandcourtship
behaviors,likemanyotherbehaviors,havebeennaturallyselectedovergenerations,
throughevolution.FromBuss'sperspective,thereasonpeopleengageinparticular
matingandcourtshipbehaviorsisthatthosebehaviorshavebeensuccessfulinproducing
offspringfortheirancestors,whothemselvesreproducedandcontinuedtopassthese
behaviorsontosucceedinggenerations.Thisworkhasthepotentialtoenhancepeople's
understandingoftheirownsexaswellastheothersex.Thisandrelatedscholarship
holdsthepromiseofgreaterconsonancebetweenthesexes,byunderstandinginter-sex
antipathiesfromtheperspectiveofsexdifferentiatedhumanreproductivestrategies,
aboutwhichBussandcolleagueshavetheorizedandcollecteddata.
Inter-sexconflicthasbeenasignificantpartofhumanhistory.Whatappearsto
havechangedovertheyearsiswherethe"blame"forthatconflicthasbeenplaced.For
centuriesthatblamehasrestedwithwomen,whowerethoughttobeinferiortomen.
Therefore,theinter-sexconflictswereviewedastheirfault.Themorerecentanswerto
thisviewhasbeenfeminism,whichseekstoputwomenonaplaneequaltomen.
Feminismhasofferedanopposing(Firestone,1970),but,Iwouldargue,similarlyflawed
view,thatmenareprimarilytoblameforinter-sexconflicts.Theproblem,accordingto
feminism-basedperspectives,liesintraditionalmasculinityitself(Brooks,1998).Whatis
1
offeredhereisamodelinwhiclineithersexisascribedprimaryblameforinter-sex
conflict.Instead,thismodelpositsthatsurvivalstrategiesthatarespecializedaccording
tosexsometimesnaturallyconflict,thusaccountingformuchofinter-sexconflict.
ThisresearchevaluatestheutilityofBuss's(1994)theoryofhumanmating
behaviortoexplain,andpredictdifficultiesexperiencedbycollegestudentsindatingand
relationships.Buss'stheoryprovidesalessblame-ladenandascientificallymore
satisfyingexplanationthantheviewpointthat"menarebad"(seeBrooks,1998foran
exampleofthemaleroleblamingperspective).
ItwouldconstituteamisunderstandingofBuss'stheorytoviewitasanexcuse
formen'smisdeedsorasalicenseformentobeabletodowhatevertheywant.Rather,a
Buss-basedapproachshouldbeviewedasanattempttoprovideanunderstandingofthe
originofsomeoftheseconflictual,inter-sexbehaviors,aswellasanexplanationofwhy
theyhaveendured.
Buss's(1994)theoryproposesthathumanmatingandcourtshipbehaviorshave
beennaturallyselectedovergenerationsthroughevolution.Accordingtothisperspective,
thereasonpeopleengageinparticularmating-relevantbehaviorsisbecauseinthepast,
thesebehaviorshaveresultedinoffspringwhothemselvesreproduced.Thatis,these
behaviorshavesurvivedbecausethegenesofpeopleexhibitingthosebehaviorshave
beensuccessfullypassedontofuturegenerations.Lesseffectivereproduction-related
behaviorshavedeclinedbecausethegenesofpeoplewhoengagedinthosebehaviors
werelesslikelytosurvivetothepresent.Attheheartofthisexplanatoryapproachis
recognitionofthepowerofpassingone'sgenesontothenextgenerationinshaping
humanbehavior,particularlymatingbehavior.
FromBuss'sperspective,thegoalistliesameformenandwomen,buttlie
effectivestrategiesforachievingthisgoaldiffer.Thoughoftenunspokenandperhapsnot
evenconsciouslyrecognized,bothsexeshavethemotivetoincreasethechancesthatthey
willhaveoffspringandthattheseoffspringwillsurvivetoreproduce.Becauseamancan
impregnatemorethanonewomanatatime,themalestrategywiththehighestsurvival
value,accordingtoBuss(1994),istofatherasmanyoffspringashecan,inorderto
increasethechancethatoneormoreofthemwillsurvivetopassonhisgenes.
Ontheotherhand,womentypicallyhaveonlyonechildatatime.Therefore,
women'sbestsurvivalstrategyistomaximizethechancesofeachchildsurviving,
accordingtoBuss.Awomanpursuesthisstrategybytryingto"husband"andallocateas
manyresourcesasshecantoensurethewellbeingofheroffspring.Theseresourcescan
includesuchthingsasanabundantfoodsupply,safety,shelter,andsocialstatus.
Inpatriarchalcultures,suchastheU.S.culture,theseresourcestraditionallyhave
beendisproportionatelyinthepossessionofmen.EvenbeforetherewereWestern
cultures.Busswouldarguethatthedemandsoffeedingandnurturingchildrenoften
reducedwomen'scapabilitiesingarneringtheseoffspring-relevantresources.Itis
thereforeinawoman'sbestinterest,asfarasgenesurvivalisconcerned,tosecurethe
resourcesofamale,especiallythechild'sfather,who,likethemother,hasavested
interestinthatchild.Ideally,shewouldwanttohaveallofthisparticularman'sresources
atherdisposal.This,accordingtoBuss,isindirectcontrastwiththeman'sstrategy,ashe
wantstoconserveasmanyofhisresourcesaspossibletogainaccesstomorewomen
whocanproducemoreoffspring.Thus,theconflictisborn,accordingtoBuss'sanalysis.
AnexampleoftheutilityofBuss'sperspectivecomesfromananalysisof *
researchbyHeesackerandLawrence(1994)andHeesacker,Smith,&Lawrence,(1998),
inwhichdifferenceswerediscoveredinthefrequencywithwhichcollegemenand
womendesiredspecificbehaviorsfromtheirromanticpartners,inordertofeelloved.
Thesebehaviorsweredividedviafactoranalysisintofourcategories:(a)caringactions
(e.g.,Cookaspecialmealforjustthetwoofus.),(b)scripting(e.g.Say,"rilalwayslove
you."),(c)relationshipsupport(e.g..Beagoodlistenertome.),and(d)sex(e.g.,Initiate
sex.).Significantdifferenceswerefoundinthreeofthesefourfactors.Inordertofeel
loved,womendesiredbothrelationshipsupportandscriptingbehaviorsmoreoftenthan
mendid.Mendesiredsexualbehaviorsmoreoftenthanwomendid.Therewasno
significantdifferenceinthefrequencywithwhichmenandwomendesiredbehaviorsin
thecaringactionscategory.
ThispatternofpreferencesiseasilyexplainedbyBuss'stheory,accordingto
whichmenwouldprefersexmoreoftenthanwomenwouldbecausemoresexfits
directlyintotheirreproductivestrategyofproducingnumerousoffspring.Womenprefer
toreceivemorerelationshipsupportandscriptingbehaviorsbecausetheysignalahigher
levelofcommitmentofapartnertotherelationshipandtherebyincreasethechancesofa
commitmentofthatmale'sresourcestoherandheroffspring.
OnewaytoevaluatetheutilityoftheBussapproachistocompareittoolderand
widelyacceptedtheoriesofinter-sexconflict.Ofthescientifictheoriesthatattemptto
explaintheseconflicts,socialexchangetheoriesareinalllikelihoodthemostwidely
accepted.Thereareseveralapproachestosocialexchange,eachtakingaslightlydifferent
viewofthedecision-makingprocessoneundergoesduringanexchange,thepatternsof
