factors affecting attraction - self disclosure Flashcards
define self-disclosure.
revealing personal info about yourself. romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationship develops. these SDs about ones deepest thoughts and feelings can strengthen a romantic bond when used appropriately.
who developed the social penetration theory of how relationships develop?
Altman and Taylor (1973).
describe social penetration theory.
gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else - giving away your deepest thought and feelings.
in romantic relationships it involves the reciprocal exchange of info between intimate partners. when one partner reveals personal info they display trust - to go further the other partner must also do so.
as they increasingly display more info, partners penetrate more deeply into each others lives, gaining a greater understanding for each other.
SD has two elements - what are they?
depth and breath.
describe breath and depth of self disclosure.
as depth and breath increase, romantic partners become more committed to one another. researchers use the metaphor of an onion to describe this process.
disclose a lot at the start, but this info is superficial - ‘on the surface’ like the outside layer of an onion. low risk info wed reveal to anyone like friends and co workers.
breath of disclosure is narrow because many topics are off limits in the early stages of a relationship - if we reveal too much too soon we may get a response of TMI, threatening a relationship.
as relationship develops, SD becomes deeper, removing more layers of the onion to reveal our true selves and encompassing a wide range of topics that matter most to us.
eventually prepared to reveal intimate, high risk info - painful memories and experiences, beliefs and secrets.
discuss research support as a strength of SD.
several predictions from social penetration theory about SD have been supported by research.
Sprecher and Henrick (2004) studied heterosexual dating couples and found strong correlations between measures of satisfaction and SD. men and women who used SD and those who believed their partners did also were more satisfied in their relationship.
supports the theory of SD.
HOWEVER -
this research is correlational. although it is usually assumed that greater SD creates more satisfaction, a correlation does not tell us causation - therefore the support these findings can give the theory of SD is limited.
HOWEVER -
there is further research evidence for SD.
Laurenceau et al (2005) used a method involving writing daily diary entries. found SD and the perception of SD in a partner linked to high levels of intimacy in long term married couples. also, less intimate couples SD less often.
these supportive research findings increase our confidence in the validity of the theory that SD leads to more satisfying relationships.
discuss real life application as a strength of SD.
can help improve communication in relationships.
romantic partners probably use SD deliberately from time to time to increase intimacy and strengthen their bond.
researchers found that 57% of gay men and women in their study said that open and honest SD was the main way they maintained and deepened their committed relationships.
less skilled partners who limit communication can learn to use SD and this could bring benefits to the relationship in terms of increasing satisfaction.
this demonstrates the value of SD.
discuss cultural differences as a limitation of SD.
one limitation of SD is that there are cultural differences.
the prediction that increasing breath and depth of SDs will lead to a more satisfying relationship is not true for all cultures.
it depends on the type of SD. Tang et al (2013) reviewed research regarding sexual SD and concluded that men and women in the USA SD more sexual thoughts than men and women in China. both these levels of SD are linked to relationship satisfaction in those cultures.
SD is therefore a limited explanation of romantic relationships, based on findings from individualist cultures which aren’t necessarily generalisable to other cultures, limiting the theory’s value.
