Factors affecting attraction Flashcards
1
Q
What are the three elements of self disclosure
A
- social penetration theory
- breadth and depth of self-disclosure
- reciprocity of self disclosure
2
Q
What is self disclosure?
A
the sharing of personal info about the self, which leads to increased attraction
3
Q
What is social penetration theory?
A
The gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else revealing your deepest thoughts and feelings
- when one partner reveals personal info they are signalling that they trust the person that they are disclosing to
-as each partner discloses more and more they penetrate more deeply into each other’s lives
4
Q
What is breadth of self disclosure?
A
at the start of the relationship we disclose low-risk info we wld share with many others, bc if we reveal too much too soon this could reduce the attractiveness of a person
5
Q
What is depth of self disclosure?
A
As the relationship develops SD becomes deeper as we progressively reveal more about ourselves. High risk info such as painful memories and strong beliefs are discussed
6
Q
What is reciprocity of self disclosure?
A
must be a reciprocal element to high-risk self disclosure
there is an expectation that if one person begins to SD high-risk info then the response should be understanding and empathetic
this increases attraction due to increased intimacy that deepens the relationship
7
Q
What are limitations of the role of self disclosure?
A
- doesn’t consider online relationships
- evidence is correlational
8
Q
What are strengths of the role of self disclosure
A
- supporting evidence
- practical applications
9
Q
Evaluate supported by evidence from Sprecher and Hendrick as strength of self disclosure
A
- supporting evidence from Sprecher and Hendrick
- they conducted a longitudinal study of white middle-class hetero couples using questions and found strong correlations between satisfaction measures and reciprocal self-disclosure. They found that bouth men and women who self-disclosed and believed their partner also did were more satisfied and commited to their relationship
- this is a strength of self disclosure as is supports its claims
- therefore findings support that self disclosure plays a large part in relations satisfaction and adds validity
10
Q
Evaluate Cultural bias as a counter argument of supporting evidence of self disclosure
A
- Sprecher and Hendrick, mainly studied white, middle-class, American couples. However, another metanalysis concluded that men and women in the US (individualist culture), self disclosed significantly, more sexual thoughts and feelings than those in China (collectivist culture).
- Each of these levels of self disclosure was linked to relationship satisfaction in those cultures suggesting that I love sexual self-disclosure and a key feature of relationships in China
11
Q
Evaluate Correlation and evidence as a limitation of self disclosure
A
- Evidences correlational
- Which self-disclosure research is correlational, which does not demonstrate causation.
- This is a limitation because evidence doesn’t enable us to conclude self-disclosure causes a partner to be seen as attractive but cld another factors such as perceived similarity. Factors, other than high levels of self disclosure, may explain why some romantic relationships are successful, and why others fail
- Those there’s only big evidence for the social penetrating theory of factors, affecting attraction in romantic relationships, and it’s likely that several factors play a role in attraction
12
Q
Evaluate practical applications as a strength of self disclosure
A
- It can offer practical applications
- I can help people who want to improve communication of leadership and strengthen their romantic bond with their partner. Hass and Stafford Found that 57% of gay men and women in the study said that open and honest, self-disclosure maintained and deepen their relationship
- Strength because if less skilled individuals such as those who limit communication to Small talk, learn self-disclosure effectively this cld could bring benefits their relationship
- Therefore, effective applications in relationship counselling suggests that self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships and is therefore valid
13
Q
Evaluate Online relationships as a limitation of self disclosure
A
- Limitation of the self-disclosure is it varies depending on how people have met in 2015 to 2019 32% of relationships began online
- Individual is communicating over the Internet are often anonymous. This may lead to them revealing more information about themselves (boom and bust phenomenal) when people reveal more info about themselves earlier than they would in a face-to-face interaction relationships get intense very quickly. However, because othe underlying trust and knowledge of the other person isnt there to support, the relationship becomes Difficult to sustain
- Limitation because self disclosure theory doesn’t consider these relationships that start online and if current trends continue more people will meet up on online and than off-line
14
Q
What Is the Halo effect?
A
We Have perceived ideas about personality traits that an attractive person must have, and they are all universally positive
- Attractive people are consistently rated is kind and sociable compared to those deemed unattractive, so we behave more positively towards them
15
Q
What Is Shackleford and Larson’s theory of physical attractiveness?
A
People With symmetrical faces are rated as more tractive, as it may be a signal of genetic fitness
16
Q
What are strengths of physical attraction as a factor affecting attraction
A
- Supporting evidence from Eastwick and Finkel
- Supporting evidence from Meltzer
- Research support for evolutionary processes
17
Q
Evaluate supporting evidence from Eastwick and Vinkle, as a strength of physical attractiveness
A
- Supported by evidence
- Eastwick and Vinkle aim to investigate with a physical attractiveness, predicts real life, partner choice for men and women. They used evidence from speed dating and backed this up with a longitudinal follow up procedure 30 days later. Ppts showed traditional sec differences when stating the importance of physical attractiveness, no significant sex difference emerged in the degree to which judgements of the target’s physical attractiveness or earning prospects influences speed dater’s interest
- strength bc it shows that physical attractiveness does play a part in attraction increasing the validity
18
Q
Evaluate support for evolutionary processes as a strength of physical attraction
A
- there is research support for evolutionary processes
- Cunningham et al found that female features of large eyes small nose etc were rated as horribly attractive by white hispanic and asian males. researchers also concluded that what is considered physically attractive is consistent across different societies. Facial symmetry is a sign of genetic fitness and thus perpetuated similarly in all cultures
- strength because it shows the importance of physical attractiveness on an evolutionary level - if what is considered attractive is the same across many cultures then it stands to reason that its evolutionary. So physical attraction has cross cultural validity
19
Q
What is the matching hypothesis?
A
claims that when people look for a relationship they look for someone whose level of attractiveness matches their own
20
Q
Why do we look for a partner with a similar attractiveness?
A
we can maximise our chances of a successful outcome
perusing someone who is ‘more attractive’ increases risk of rejection
doesn’t make evolutionary sense as you wont have the opportunity to reproduce and pass on genes
21
Q
What is a strength of the matching hypothesis
A
supporting evidence from Murstein
22
Q
What are limitations of the matching hypothesis?
A
- doesn’t establish cause and effect (Murstein)
- there’s contradictory evidence
- cultural bias
23
Q
Evaluate supporting evidence from Murstein as a strength of the matching hypothesis
A
- supported by evidence
- photographed both partners in a relationship and they were scored by independent judges who didn’t know who was in a couple with who. Partners rate their and their partner’s attractiveness and both partners and judges rated a control group. It was found that couples received similar ratings that were more alike than the ratings of random couples.
- strength because this study supports the matching hypothesis because is shows that people form relationships with ppl whoa re equally attractive.
24
Q
Evaluate not establishing cause and effect as a limitation of Murstein’s study into the matching hypothesis
A
- doesn’t establish cause and effect
- Murstein’s research demonstrates a +ve correlation between couples’ ratings. The study suggests ppl form relationships with those equally attractive as them but it cant prove this is the only reason that a relationship is initiated
- limitation because people come to a relationship offering many desirable characteristics and physical attractiveness is only one of them. A person may compensate for a lack of attractiveness with other qualities such as harm money etc. This tendency to compensate is known as complex matching
the matching hypothesis alone is too simplistic to explain attraction
25
Evaluate contradictory evidence as a limitation of the matching hypothesis
- contradictory evidence
- Taylor et al studied a popular dating site and found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than themselves, contradicting the matching hypothesis. There was no evidence that daters' decision were driven by a similarity between their own and potential partners' attractiveness but instead there was an overall preference for attractive partners
- the limitation as it suggests that people don't take their physical attraction into account in the initial stages of attraction but aim for someone more desirable.
- weakens the validity of the theory
26
Evaluate cultural bias as a limitation of the matching hypothesis
- cultural bias
- Matching looks may be more important in individualistic cultures where couples form the relationship voluntarily and the relationship can be temporary. In collectivist cultures where relationships can be arranged and are seen as permanent greater importance is placed on economic considerations and family alliances
- limitation because the matching hypothesis is better at explaining relationships in individualistic cultures not collectivist so it isn't a universal theory
27
What is the filter theory
a serious of factors progressively reduces the range of available romantic partners to a smaller pool of possibilities
28
What are the filters in filter theory
social demography
similarity in attitudes
complementarity of needs
29
What is social demography?
factors that influence the chances of potential partners meeting in the first place
including: **proximity, social class, ethnic grp, religion etc**
- when we have **more in common we find someone more attractive**
- the benefit of proximity is accessibility
30
Explain similarity in Attitudes
- involves psychological characteristics specifically their agreement on attitudes and basic values
- similarly in attitudes is the centre of importance in relationships under 18 months and the best predictor of whether the relationship wld be stable
- encourages deeper communication and promotes SD
31
Explain complementary of needs
the ability of romantic partners to **meet eachother needs. people with different needs** like each other bc they **provide each other with mutual satisfaction**
- important bc it ensures your needs are likely to be met and gives partners
- needs are **harmonious rather than conflicting**
32
What are the strengths of filter theory
- supporting evidence from Kerckhoffk and Davis
- allows people to make predictions about future interactions
33
What are limitations of filter theory?
- evidence may not be reliable
- direction of causality may be wrong
- filters changed overtime
- supported by evidence from Markey
34
Evaluate supporting evidence from Kirckhoff and Davis as a strength of filter theory
- supporting evidence
- they carried out a longitudinal study of couples where both **partners completed questionnaires that assessed similarity of attitudes and complementarity of needs**. Relationship closeness was assessed using another questionnaire months later. It was found that closeness was associated with a similarity of values but only for couples who had been together for less than 18 months. For couples in longer reltionships complementarity of needs predicted closeness
- provides evidence that **similarity of attitudes is important in the early stages** of a relationship and that **complementarity is important in long term couples** as suggested by the filter theory therefore giving it validity
35
Evaluate how supporting evidence from Kerckhoff and Davis may be unreliable as a limitation of filter theory
- may not be reliable
- Levinger et al **failed to replicate the results** of their study. In their study, 330 couples who were steadily attached went through the **same procedures and there was no evidence that similarity of attitudes and complementarity of needs influenced the progress towards the relationships.** They found no significant difference between the length of relationships and the influence of these different variables. This could be due to the changes in social values that occurred in the years between the two studies. Also, **K&D used an 18 month cut off** to determine long and short-term relationships but this may be a problem because **someone in a 6-month relationship may be more committed than someone in an 18 month**
- limitation as findings aren't reliable therefore filter theory may be an outdated factor affecting attraction. It was valid at some point but is less relevant now
36
Evaluate making predictions about a relationship as a strength of filter theory
- allows people to make predictions about their future interactions and avoid investing in a relationship that won't work
- each person conducts a series of explorations disclosing bits of information about themselves and making enquires about the other. Bases on these exchanges partners may decide to continue with a relationship or stop
- strength because individuals may end a relationship before becoming too deeply involved thus preventing emotional suffering if they were to break up further down the line
37
Evaluate direction of causality as a limitation of filter theory
- the direction of causality may be wrong
- A longitudinal study of married couples found that similarities of spouses in terms of intellectual abilities and attitudinal flexibility increased over a 14-year period. Cohabiting partners became more similar in their emotional responses over time (emotional convergence). There is an attitude alignment effect in longer-term relationships - people become more similar
- limitation because rather than already being alike partners overtime bring their attitudes online with each others. Suggests that similarity is an effect of attraction and not the cause, weakening the filter theory
38
Evaluate how the role of filters has changed overtime as a limitation of filter theory
- the role of filters has changed over
- In terms of social demography online dating apps increase the field of available partners and location no longer limits partner choice. An individual may start messaging someone across the country because they like their dating profile, those who use dating apps may give more importance to physical attraction
- limitation as it suggests filter theory especially social demography is an outdated concept
