Factors affecting attraction (Relationships) Flashcards
Self Disclosure
Revealing personal information about yourself
More info revealed as a relationship progresses where trust is built
This leads to a strengthened relationship
Altman and Taylor (1973)
Social Penetration Theory
Relationships are a gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone
As relationships develop interpersonal communications breadth and depth increase from shallow to more intimate
The onion metaphor (layers) explains this
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
R and S (1988)
Relationships will only develop if both individuals are active in disclosing information and responding appropriately
Reis and Shaver (1988) found that there tends to be a balance of self disclosure in successful romantic relationships
Attributions of self disclosure
Individuals consider the motivations behind self disclosure
Someone who discloses to everyone is seen as less attractive than someone who reveals information to fewer people
Appropriateness of self disclosure
While revealing information is generally seen as improving relationships, breaking social norms or revealing information too early can lower attraction.
Positive evaluation of self disclosure
Sprecher and Hendrick (2004)
observed couples self disclosure on dates. Men and women were found to have similar levels of self-disclosure
A positive correlation was found between the amount of self disclosure and quality of satisfaction
Laurenceau (2005) - Self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships
Negative evaluation of self disclosure
Correlational research does not establish a cause. Therefore, it is not a valid conclusion to draw that greater self-disclosure creates more satisfaction
Women are thought to be better communicators and more willing to share info so could be alpha bias where differences are exaggerated
Physical Attractiveness
We are more attracted to physically good-looking people
Facial symmetry, body shape and youth; from an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense to mate with someone capable of conceiving (genetically fit) and successfully raising a child and passing on the best genes possible
The Halo effect
Dion et al. (1972)
- 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
- 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
- We avoid the pain of rejection by not chasing partners we see as too attractive
- We retain our partners by not choosing someone who will leave us for someone else
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
Positive Evaluations of Physical Attraction and Matching Hypothesis
Murtstein (1972) found that real-life couples were more likely to be of similar attractiveness, supporting the idea that people match based on appearance
Feingold (1988): meta analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners
Negative evaluation of physical attraction and matching hypothesis
Taylor (2011) found that on online dating sites, people sought partners who were more physically attractive than them
Not all people place importance on physical attractiveness
Filter Theory
Kirchhoff & Davies (1962) argue while “field of availables” is very large (people you could theoretically form a relationship with) we only become attracted to those people who pass through a series of filters. these people form the “field of desirables”
Kirchkoff and Davies (1962)
1st Filter: Social Demography
We are more likely to come into contact with people who live nearby and share characteristics like social class, level of education and economic status
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
Kirchhoff & Davues (1962)
2nd Filter: Similarity in attitudes
Due to social demography, we are more likely to come into contact with people with similar core values, cultural and social backgrounds; these people are seen as more compatible
These shared attitudes also help to help self-disclosure at the start of the relationship
Kirchhoff & Davies (1962)
3rd Filter: Complementarity
We are attracted to those people who provide for our emotional needs. In this way, partners can have mutually beneficial differences.
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
Positive Evaluations of Filter theory
Kirchhoff & Davies (1962) found similarity of attitudes was the most important factor for short term relationships (<18 months) and complementarity was the most important factor in long term relationships (>18 months)
Byrne (1997) ‘law of attraction’ found consistent findings to suggest similarity of attitudes encourages a relationship to flourish
Negative Evaluations 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
Anderson et al (2003) found that similarity increases over time, suggesting that complementing each other is not necessarily a feature of longer-term relationships
