Factors affecting attraction (Relationships) Flashcards
Self Disclosure
• involves revealing personal information about yourself
• romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as the relationship develops
• these revelations strengthen the relationship if used appropriately
Altman and Taylor (1973)
Social Penetration theory
• relationships are a gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone
• in romantic relationships it involves reciprocal exchange of information between partners. This leads to a deep understanding of each others lives. There are two elements to this idea - breadth and depth
• Altman and Taylor use the onion metaphor (layers) to explain this
• low risk information is revealed early on in a relationship and high risk information comes out as the relationship progresses.
Altman and Taylor’s onion metaphor
- (outermost) Biographical data (Age, Gender, Name)
- Preference in clothes, food and music
- Goals, aspirations
- Religious convictions
- Deeply held fears and fantasies
- (innermost) Concept of self
Reciprocity of self-disclosure
Reis and Shaver (1988)
• there tends to be a balance of self disclosure in successful romantic relationships as well as breadth and depth
• after disclosing information, you want your partner to respond in a rewarding way, with understanding and empathy
• increases intimacy and deepens the relationship
Factors influencing the relationship between disclosure and attraction
• Appropriateness of the disclosure: sometimes disclosing personal information is inappropriate, e.g. on a first date - suggests that the individual is lacking in social skills. More attractive people could be sensitive to these norms
• Attributions for the disclosure: the reasons we believe a person is self-disclosing to us are important. Less attraction occurs if an individual is seen as the kind of person who discloses personal information to everyone. However, more attraction occurs if we believe an individual sees us as someone they especially want to disclose intimate information to.
• Sex differences: females are generally seen as better communicators of and more interested in intimate information, therefore intimate self-disclosures by males may be seen as less appropriate than those by females. Alternatively, self-disclosure by a male may be seen as very regarding by a female. Meanwhile, males may feel threatened by females self-disclosing intimate details to them.
• Content for disclosure: disclosure of highly intimate information may be seen as inappropriate and as violating social norms, especially if a relationship is in its early stages. This could decrease attraction. Attraction is strongest when self-disclosure is of moderate intimacy and weaker when too high or low.
(Evaluation of self disclosure) Support from research studies
• several predictions about self-disclosure derived from the social penetration theory have been supported by research
• Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong positive correlations between several measures of relationship satisfaction and self-disclosure (both theirs and their partners)
Laurenceau (2005)
• used a method that involved writing daily diary entries. They found that self-disclosure in a partner were linked to higher levels of intimacy in long term married couples
• the reverse was also true- less intimate couples self disclosed les often
• this supportive evidence increase the validity of the theory that self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships
(evaluation of self disclosure) real life applications
• research into self-disclosure can help people who want to improve communication in their relationships. Romantic partners probably use self-disclosure deliberately and skilfully from time to time to increase intimacy and strengthen the bond
• Hass and Stafford (1998) found that 57% of homosexual men and women said that open and honest self disclosure was the main way they maintained their relationships. This finding demonstrates the value of psychological insight (in other words, if people understand how important self disclosure is, they may be more likely to do it!)
(evaluation of self disclosure) cultural differences
Tang et al. (2013)
• reviewed research regarding sexual self-disclosure and concluded that men/women in USA disclose significantly more sexual thoughts than men/women in China (individualist vs collectivist cultures)
• both are linked to relationship satisfaction in those cultures
• however: cultural bias
(evaluation of self disclosure) satisfaction
• social penetration theory claims that romantic relationships become more intimate as self-disclosures deepen and broaden
• using the onion metaphor, relationship breakdown is accompanied by the reduction in self-disclosures
• however, according to theories of relationship breakdown often recognise how couples discuss and negotiate the state of their deteriorating relationships in an attempt to save it or return it to an ealier level of satisfaction
• these discussions will frequently involve deep self-disclosures of very intimate thoughts and feelings, and yet these might not be enough to save the relationship. In fact these might even contribute to the breakdown of the relationship
(evaluation of self disclosure) individual differences
• the personality of recipients may be an important factor in whether self—disclosure increases the attractiveness of potential partners
• different individuals would have different needs for levels of intimacy in relationships and this would affect how attractive they would find intimate self-disclosures
(evaluation of self disclosure) too reductionist
• it is unlikely thee attractiveness of a potential partner would be reliant purely on the level/type of self-disclosure that an individual makes
• it is more likely that self-disclosure would interact with other considerations, such as level of physical attractiveness, similarity of interests/attitudes, for example
(evaluation of self disclosure) correlation vs. causation
• correlational research does not establish a cause. Therefore, it is not a valid conclusion to draw that greater self-disclosure creates more satisfaction (Sprecher and Hendrick 2004)
• There could be alternative explanations for this correlation
Physical Attractiveness
• an important factor in the formation of romantic relationships
• the term usually applies specifically to how appealing we find a person’s face
• there is a general agreement within and across cultures about what is considered physically attractive
Examples of physical attractiveness
• Shackleford and Larson (1997) found people with symmetrical faces are more attractive as they have an honest signal of genetic fitness
• people are also attracted to baby-face features (neotenous)- large eyes, delicate chin and a small nose as they trigger an instinct of protection and caring
importance of physical attractiveness
• Mcnutly et al. (2008): physical attractiveness continues to be an important feature of a relationship after marriage, for at least several years
The halo effect
Dion et al. (1972)
• “What is beautiful is good”
• physically attractive people are rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people
• the belief that good looking people will have such characteristics makes them more attractive to us, so we behave more positively towards them- a self fulfilling prophecy
Matching Hypothesis
Walster et al. 1966
• people choose romantic partners who are roughly of similar physical attractiveness to each other
• focus is on our own attraction
• to do this we have to make a realistic judgement about our own ‘value to a potential partner
• balance of our desire for a partner for evolutionary, social, cultural, and psychological reasons with being rejected by someone out of our league
- the more socially desirable a person is (in terms of physical attractiveness, social standing, intelligence) the more desirable they would expect a dating or marriage partner to be
- an individual would most often chose to date a partner of approximately their own attractiveness
• they argue that individuals looking for a partner will be influenced by the notion of realistic choices:
• the desirability of the potential match
• the probability of the person saying ‘yes’
Walster et al. 1966
Method:
• a computer dance was advertised in a handbook given to new university students -376 men and 376 women
• those selling the tickets secretly rated each student for attractiveness, participants were not aware
• participants were paired randomly with somebody of the opposite sex
• during the dance they filled in a questionnaire about their own date, they were contacted 4-6 months later to find out if they’d tried to go any further dates
Results:
• participants paired with similarly attractive partners were not significantly more likely by their date than those paired with people with a different rating
• more attractive participants were more likely to be asked on further dates
Conclusion:
• the matching hypothesis was not supported- the results showed that people prefer attractive partners regardless of their own attractiveness
Evaluation:
• the computer dance was quite different from usual dating- participants did not choose one another and neither of them had to ask each other on a date- low ecological validity
• the way attractiveness was judged may not have been reliable
Research support for the halo effect
• Palmer and Peterson (2012) found physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgable and competent than unattractive people
• persisted when people knew that the knowledgable people had no expertise
• obvious implications for the political process
Research support for the matching hypothesis
• Feingold (1988): meta analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners
• this approach was more realistic as they used actual partners
• however, this was more supportive for pairs of friends
(evaluation of physical attraction) individual differences
• not all people place importance on physical attractiveness
• Touhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information
• completed a questionnaire to measure sexist attitudes (MACHO Scale, Villemez and Touhey (1977))
• Participants who scored highly on the questionnaire were more influenced by physical attractiveness when making their judgement on likability
(evaluation of physical attractiveness) Role of cultural influences
consistency across cultures
• Cunningham et al. (1995)- female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by White, Hispanic and Asian males
• Wheeler and Kim (1997)- Korean and American students judged physically attractive people to be more trustworthy, concerned for other people, mature and friendly
Filter Theory
• people filter possible mates from a range of eligible candidates. The theory suggests that people use different methods at different levels of the process
• we start with proximity variables such as geographical location. We then move to more similarity variables such as race and social class
• we then move onto complementary variables, where we are likely seek personality characteristics which complement our own values and augments what we are lacking
Filters: Kerchkoff and Davies (1962)
Social demographic filter
• proximity: most people will form a relationship with people close to them geographically.This is mainly due to chance they will meet, speak or generally become aware of one another.
• physical attraction: how good looking someone is has been found to be one of the most important factors in initial relationship formation, as well as longer lasting relationships
Similarity in attitudes filter
• similarity: most people will come into contact with people from the same social or cultural background. This can also be the case for internal characteristics such as attitudes or personality traits
Complementarity filter
• complement of needs: not all personality characteristics need to be the same, we are often attracted to people who can give us what we lack. A dominating person may like a submissive person
• competence: how intelligent and competent one appears can be influential in how attractive they are
Filters (general)
Filter 1 (social demographic): revolves around the fact that we only meet a very small fraction of people living in our area (proximity filter)
Filter 2: most of those we meet tend to be of a similar social class, education level and maybe even the same ethnicity or racial group
Filter 3: based on psychological (internal) factors. The chances of a short term relationship becoming more permanent, depends most on shared beliefs and values, and personality variables
Kerchkoff and Davis study
Survey of female university students and their male partners who were considering marriage
• personalities, attitudes and their relationship
• 7 months later they completed a follow up survey about progression
• couples who had been together for <18 months were more likely to progress towards marriage if they had similar values
• >18 moths it was couples who had complementary needs
Social Demographic
• realistically our field of choice is much narrower because our choices are constrained by our social circumstances
• anyone ‘too different’ is discounted
• outcome is homogamy- form relationships with someone who is socially or culturally similar
Similarity in Attitudes
• more important for couples who had been together for less than 18 months
• better to agree over basic values as it encourages greater and deeper communication and promotes self-disclosure
• Byrne (1997) ‘law of attraction’
• consistent findings to suggest similarity of attitudes encourages a relationship to flourish
• positive correlation between the proportion of attitudes associated with a person and an attraction to that person
Complementarity
• nurtured - nurture
• made to laugh - making laugh
• dominant - submissive
• more important for long term couples
• opposites attract and in the relationship you become a whole and flourish
(evaluation of filter theory) support from research
• FT assumes key factors change over time which makes sense- face validity
• Winch (1958) found similarities of personality, interests and attitudes are typical in the earliest stages of relationships
• echoes MH- between married partners, complementing each other is more important than similarity
(evaluation of filter theory) failure to replicate
• Levinger (1974) pointed out many studies have failed to replicate the original findings that formed the basis of filter theory
• chose 18 month cut off point to distinguish between short/long term relationships. They assumed those who had been together longer were more committed and had a deeper relationship
• highlights the problems in applying filter theory to heterosexual couples in individualistic cultures, never mind to homosexual partners or other cultures
(evaluation of filter theory) direction of cause and effect
• FT suggests people are initially attracted to each other because they are similar
• Anderson et al. (2003) found cohabiting partners became more similar in their emotional responses over time, a phenomenon called emotional convergence
• Davis and Rusbult (2001)discovered an attitude alignment effect in longer term relationships
(evaluation of filter theory) lack of temporal validity
• rise of online dating has reduced the importance of social demographic variables
• mobile apps like Tinder have made meeting partners easier than ever
• may pursue a relationship with someone outside the usual demographic limits
(evaluation of filter theory) similarity or complementarity?
• Anderson et al (2003) found that similarity increases over time, suggesting that complementing each other is not necessarily a feature of longer-term relationships
• Gruber-Baldini et al (1995) conducted a longitudinal study of married couples
• similarities were found between spouses in terms of intellectual abilities and attitudinal flexibility increased over a 14 year period
