factors affecting attraction Flashcards
what are self disclosure a01 points
self disclosure definition
social penetration theory
onion analogy
breadth and depth of self-disclosure
self disclosure definition
-revealing info about yourself
-as relationship develops, partners reveal more about themselves
-deep thoughts strengthen bond in romantic relationships when used appropriately
social penetration theory
-gradual process of revealing info about inner self
-romantic-involves reciprocal exchange of info between partner
-one partner reveals personal info and then other reveals sensitive info
-when info exchanged, signalling ‘i trust you’
-as go further, sensitive info revealed
-disclose more means penetrating more into each others lives
onion analogy
-relationship progresses, more layers of onion removed
-represents deeper and more meaningful info
-only occurs if info is reciprocal
-deep exchanges make more serious relationships by trust
-
breadth + depth of self-disclosure
both increase, relationship become more commited to each other
-at start, what we reveal is superficial, on surface like outer layers of skin
-low risk info which we would reveal to anyone
-breadth disclosure is narrow as most topics off limit at early stages
-reveal to much too soon, TMI might threaten relationship
-as relationship gets deeper, self disclosure deeper as reveal more
-cover wide range of topics
-eventually able to reveal high risk info e.g past painful experiences
a03 points for self-disclosure
strength-support research studies
weakness-support research studies
weakness-cultural differences
weakness- support from research studies
-speecher and Hedrick studied heterosexual dating couples
-found strong positive correlation between satisfaction and self-disclosure
-men and women who used self-disclosure and those thought partner did likewise, more satisfied and committed in relationship
-weakness as correlation does not establish cause+effect
weakness-cultural differences
-social penetration theory not applicable to all cultures
-Tang et al concluded men and women in us (individualist) self disclose more sexual thoughts then china (collectivist)
-weakness as not generalisable to all cultures
-limited explanation of romantic relationships
physical attractiveness a01 points
shackleford and Larsen-symmetrical face no baby face
-mcnulty et al-important all the way till marriage
-halo effect
-matching hypothesis
physical attractiveness
-shackelford and larson
-found people with symmetrical faces rated as more attractive
-may be signal of genetic fitness(difficult to fake it)
-people attracted to baby face features e.g separated large eyes, small chin and small nose
-these trigger caring and protective instinct valuable for women wanting to reproduce
-mcnutley et al found that initial attractiveness continued to be an importation feature in relationship even up to several years of marriage
halo effect
-tendnacy to associate attractive people with preconceived disproportinately postive characteristics e.g wealth
-even tho not linked
-more likely to view attractive people as kind, sociable rather then unattractive people
-what is beautiful is good
-belief good looking people probs have these characteristics making them even more attractive so we believe positively towards them-self fulfilling prophecy
the matching hypothesis
-key to successful relationship is striking a balance between attractiveness of a mate and realistic chances of attaining that mate
-states people choose romantic partner who is roughly similar attractiveness to each other
-we desire most psychically attractive people for evolutionary, social, cultural reasons
-however, we balance this against wish to not be rejected by someone out of league or just not thinking we’re physically attractive
-difference between what we would like in ideal partner and what we prepared to settle for
filter theory
(SSC)
-an explanation of relationship formation
-suggest several criteria i.e filters to go through potential partners and find the right one
-these filters include social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementary
social demography
all wide range of factors which influence potential partners from ever meeting each other
these may include
Proximity (geographical location)
social class
level of education
religion
ethnic group
similarity in attitudes
-find partners who share our basic values attractive in early stages of relationships
-tend to discount individuals who differ in attitudes then us
-there is a need for partners to agree with basic values in early stages
-creates stronger and deeper communication and promotes self-disclosure
complementary
-third filter concerns the ability to meet each others needs
-similarity becomes less important as relationship develops
-becomes more important to balance your traits with opposite ones of their own
-e.g. one partner might like making partner laugh, then other likes being made to laugh
social demography
refers to wide range of factors that influence chances of potential partners meeting each other in first place
may include
geographical location (proximity)
social class
level of education
religion
ethnic group