Factors Affecting Attraction in Rships Flashcards
what is meant by self disclosure in rships
revealing of personal information about one’s self to another individual we like - creates sense of trusst when the information disclosed is kept secret - crucial element for rship formation.
must be apprpriate level of self disclosure
what are the 3 theories about self disclosure in romantic rships
social penetration theory - ALTMAN AND TAYLOR, by gradually revealing emotions and experiences + listening to their reciprocal sharing = greater understanding of each other gained.
traumatic experiences
breadth adn depth of SD - as both increase, commitment rises.
‘onion metaphor’ - people share superficial aspects of themselves (music, hobbies).
too much too soon (off limit topics) = breadth
overtime, build trust in partner’s understanding, breadth increases and depth also
= high rick of info no longer of limits (family issues) = depth
reciprocity of SD - once you have reveals aspects of your true self and intimate info hopefully partner responds in rewarding way with EMPATHY + OWN INTIMATE THOUGHTS + FEELINGS
= balanced achieved and greater feelings of intimacy deepens rship
positive EV self disclosure
research - HAAS + HARTFORD found that around 55% gay men and women considered open SD as a main way to maintain close rships.
= importance of SD in romantic rship
research - SPENCER + HENDRICK studied heterosexual couples who were dating and found as SDD increased, so did rshp satisfaction (persistant)
so if less skilled partners learn to SD more appropriately this could lead to lots of benefits
= utilised in couples therapy to secure rship
negative EV of SD
unlikely SD plays role by itself in determining attraction - likely combined with other factors (personality)
if extroverted and tells a lot of people alot abt themselves = may not feels special
indv receiving private info may not feel comfortable knowing such intimate details + may not know how to act
- SD seems to be more important in women than men
= SD as a factor is more complicated than assumed
explain the physical attractiveness hypothesis
evolutionary explanation of attraction states that traits associated with attractiveness act as indications of good genetic info and health.
by choosing attractive partner = ensuring healthy partner and healthy child.
perceived health:
- partner going to be physically able to bear children / provide for family
- good chance that genes they carry will produce healthy offspring
explain HALO effect
if something looks good on the outside, we assume all characteristics are good in the inside as well.
people deemed to be attractive tend to benefit from favourable perceptions from society (more sociable and trustworthy).
typically the first thing we notice in a partner
exlplain the matching hypothesis
poeple will seek partners of similar physical attractiveness to themselves.
attempting to punch over your weight carries the increased risk of rejection that could damage self esteem. (play with you anxiety).
if one feels aprtner is more attractive there is likely to be fears that partner will leave for more attractive partners.
Positive EV matching hypothesis and attractiveness and halo effect
Research for matching hypothesis - MURSTEIN asked pts to judge attractiveness of photos of REAL + FAKE couples
Results = couples ratings of attraction was significantly closer than that of fake couples
= idvs seek people of similar attractiveness to themselves
Research support halo effect
PALMER + PETERSON - found that physically attractive people were rated as more practically knowledgable + competent than unattractive - president when told these people have no political expertise
= potential negative implications for political system
Negative EV physical attractiveness
Physical beauty important in determining attraction but there can be other factors in play - HATFIELD
For complex matching (multiple matching criteria and physical attributes is just 1)
In reality people COMPENSATE with other attractive traits (money)
= matching hyp is more complex
Argued that research tends to use subjective measurements of attractiveness when matching photographs - MURSTEIN used simple photos (miss out multiple aspects)
Using rating scale is subjective
= lack of scientific approach + real validity
Explain the Filter Theory
1st level (social demography - Age, gender) - idvs with similar demographics (social class, education, ethnic groups)
Proximity permits accessibility - no effort to meet
Helps explain HOMOGAMY in rships (likely to be similar to partner)
2nd (similarity in attitudes)
- more likely to meet people with similar attitudes and beliefs - choice limited
- more important in formation - we must agree with basics as it allows for deeper communication (and SD)
3rd (complementarity)
- how much the individual meets their partner’s needs (especially emotional)
-Important for making it past initial stages
- do they have the traits the other one lacks (one likes nurture and one likes to be nurtured)
- important for LT rships
Positive EV filter theory
Research - TAYLOR found that ethnicity (social demographics) was an important factor in selecting partner
- found that 85% of Americans married to someone of their own ethnicities
- shared lots of demographics, helped form the rship
= support social demographics importance
Negative EV Filter Theory
Emphasis on societal factors largely influencing potential partners
TOO DETERMINISTIC
- little control over potential mates + idvs outside our location + social circles occurs before we even start looking for partners
- negative factor because we aren’t in full control over our rship behaviour and neglects factors like experience sharing
= not acknowledging freewill - pessimistic
