relationships factors affecting attraction in romantic relationship Flashcards
factors affecting attraction in romantic relationship
-physical Attractiveness
-demographic similarity
-proximity
-attitude similarity
-personality similarity
brigham
rated physical attractiveness as being socianle interesting and exciting than less attractive people
wheeler and kim
attractive Canadians rated as more sociable friendly and happy however attractive Koreans were judged sensitive and generous
halo effect
people judge on surface characteristics and physical attraction as most important
cunningham
physical features that men find youth and health e.g. childlike face relatively large eyes and widely seperated
physically attractive in women males want…. (maths)
mathmetically mean with equally spaced out eyes prefect average
langlois and roggman method
looking at average face picture of individuals were shown an original and an amalgamated picture(perfect average) shown to 300 p
langlois and roggman results
amalgamated pictures was rated more attractive on likert scale than original
alley and cunningham
+ perrett et al
relationship between physical attractiveness and symmetry
brown et al
rate body symmetry highly - strong indicator of biological fitness
females rated tall broad shoulders
men rated woman large hips long legs
who developed matching hypothesis
elaine hatfield
when was the matching hypothesis developed
1960
matching hypothesis suggests that..
people are attracted to potential partners that are similar to them in physical attractiveness
murstein results
photographs of couples in genuine relationship were rated as similar in physical attractiveness than individuals who had posed as couples
Silverman results
observers found those with similar physical attractiveness appeared happier and more intimate
than who were not matched in physical attractiveness
Silverman method
nature observational study in a natural dating situation
Burscheid et al method
asked students what kind of partner they wanted in physical attractiveness
Burscheid et al results
student greater liking same level of physical attractiveness as themselves
Burscheid et al conclusion
due to fear of rejection and not just down to evolutionary pressures
3 strengths of matching hypothesis
real life application - high ecological validity
has been used matching other factors such as wealth or intelligences- testing of evolutionary theory women wanting wealth
murstein and christy
murstein christy supporting evidence
married couples displayed significant levels similar in terms of physical attractiveness
limitation of matching hypothesis
towhey
cultural biased - imposed etic physical attractiveness in western cultures - non western arranged marriage common - less choice
ethnocentric - assume the choice of individuals have in western societies is better than restricted individuals in non western
towhey results n- conclusion limitation
found those who scored highly on macho scale ( attitudes of opposite sex stereotypes and behaviour) valued physical attractiveness more than people who had low score
towhey aim
importance of physical attraction varies from person to person
towhey method
asked men and woman to rate how much they would like a person based on a photo and brief biography
demographic similarity
variables such as age or sex or social status
demographic similarity - research
Kandel and Newcomb - people are more likely to form friendship with people who are demographically similar to themselves
failure - lead to rejection
proximity
how near we live to potential partner
home school work
bossard
5000 couples over half of them lived very close proximity to each other before they were married
attitudes similarity research
bryne et al
werner parmalee
bryne et al
people were more likely to like a ‘fake student’ when they responded in the same way on topics that were important to them
burgess and wallin support results and method
matched
1000 couples and found that they were similarly matched on many of the personal characteristics - leadership
winch results not supporting the matching hypothesis
not similar complementary
couples had happier and long lasting relationship when they had complementary rather than similar characteristics
e.g. dom and sub fulfil each others needs
who developed the factor of self disclosure
stenberg
what is self disclosure
individuals revealing intimate, personal information about themselves to partner
e.g. thoughts feelings goals
collins and millers
3 things - how it affects the individual
revealing a secret makes others like us and we become more attractive
individuals disclose more to those they actually like
individuals feel closeness to people they have self disclosed to
altman and taylor
matching energy
social penetration theory individuals will match level of self disclosure to the other person. (reciprocity)
if one reveals too much early they could be off-putting other person may run away
archer - response
way in which a person reacts to the person self disclosing is important the one displaying self disclosure wants to be understood not just heard
empathetic and responsiveness ae more attract to who’s self disclosing
gibbs et al method
personal profiles of individuals on online dating sites
gibbs et al results
found those looking for long term relationship showed high levels of self disclosure - hoping for honesty for disclosing will attract others who also want the same and would reciprocate this
filter theory social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity
who built on the five main factors affect relationships
kerckhoff and davis
Kirchhoff and Davis filter theory
3 stages
social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity
order of the filter theory
SD, SIA,C
social demography
first stage only meet a very small amount of people - close proximity
small pool filtered into shared soical class, age or education
similarity in attitudes
relationship become more permanent attitudes with shared values and beliefs
complementarity
long term relationship
filter ability to complement and meet emotional needs
kerckhoff and davis method
longitudinal study seven months student couples
questionnaire couples felt
kerckhoff and davis results
similarity in attitudes was most important until 18 months
complementarity was seen as most important - different factors more important in different stages
brehm 1992
factors affect attraction in early stage of romantic relationship - different factors become more important -
strengths of brehm
high vailidity and reliability
kerckhoff and davis limiation two
lacks temporal validity - old study 1962 not relevant - today go uni move meet people outside of proximity
correlational
sprecher
supports
couples in LT relationships tended to be similar social background than couples split
