relationships P3 Flashcards
factors affecting attraction consists of?
physical attractiveness
filter theory
self disclosure
What does physical attraction consist of?
Halo effect
-symmetry
-baby faces
Matching hypothesis
Why does symmetry affect attractiveness? shackleford & Larsen 1997
S&L found that people with more symetrical faces are rated as more attractive
- signal of genetic fitness that can’t be faked - making it an ‘honest’ signal
- an evolutionary explanation -attributes that signal high quality and naturally selected
Why are baby faces seen as attractive?
Neotenous features trigger protective and caring instincts, related to the formation of attachment in infancy
-evolutionary, as features strengthen attachment -> naturally selected
What is the Halo effect describing?
how physical attractiveness is generalised
-hold preconceived ideas about the attributes of physically attractive people, belief that all over attributes are overwhelmingly positive
Dion 1972
what did dion 1972 find in relation the halo effect?
that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared with unattractive people
what is meant by matching hypothesis?
we choose partners who match us in attractiveness (physical and intelligence etc)
-Waltser 1996
what was the procedure of walster 1966?
computer dance-752 first year students at university of minnesota, students rated on physical attractiveness when picking up tickets by objective observers and completed questionnaires about attraction
ppts told data used was to pair partners but was randomly paired
what was the findings of walster?
physically attractive partners were most liked and more likely to be asked on another date - not support
what did Berschied 1971 find when they replicated waltsers experiment?
replicated the study
students selected partners themselves
-chose partners of similar physical attractiveness
-suggests we tend to seek and choose partners whose physical attractiveness matches our own
-partner choice is a compromise, we avoid rejection by the most physically attractive and settle for those in our league
A strength for physical attractiveness is RS for halo effect
Palmer & Peterson 2012 found that physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
- this halo effect persisted even when participants were told the ‘knowledgeable’ people had no expertise
- > this suggests dangers for democracy if politicians are elected just because they are considered physically attractive by enough voters
A strength for PA is RS for evolutionary processes.
Cunningham 1995 found large eyes and a small nose in females were rated as attractive by white, Asian and Hispanic males
- > what is considered physically attractive is consistent across cultures - attractive features are of a sign of genetic fitness and therefore perpetuated (sexual selection)
- > therefore the importance of physical attractiveness makes sense in evolutionary terms
A limit for physical attraction is real-world research does not support matching hypothesis
Taylor 2011 studied online dating activity logs, which measured actaul dating choices and not fantasy preferences.
this real-world test of the hypothesis found that people sought dates with partners who were more physically attractive than themselves.
-> this contradicts the central prediction that real couples seek to match attractiveness
A counterpoint of physical attractiveness, of the limit
choosing people for dating is different from real-world romance
Feingold’s 1988, meta-analysis found a significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners
-ppl who may express ideals in dating selection and also in lab research
->this shows there is support for the matching hypothesis from real-world studies
What is meant by filter theory?
a field of available and field of desirables
- Kerckhoff & Davis 1962 explains attraction in terms of attitudes & personalities
1. we consider the field of availables - potential partners who are accesible
2. from this we select the field of desirables via three filters of varying importance at different stages of a relationship
what is the 1st filter?
-social demography
factors that influence chance of meeting
-features which decribes populations, social demographics include geographical locations & social class
-more likely to meet & have meaningful encounters with ppl who are physically close & share other features with yourself
-anyone who is too different is not a potential partner -> filtered out before next stage -> outcome = homogamy, partner is similar to you
what is the 2nd filter?
similarity in attitudes
- sharing beliefs & values, important for couples who have been together less than 18months, in early stages of relationship, agreeing on basic values promotes good communication & self disclosure
- law of attraction, bryne 1997, found that similarity in attitudes causes mutual attraction, no similarity exists -> relationship fades after few dates
what is the 3rd filter?
complementarity
- partners meet each other’s needs, partners complement each other when they have traits the other lacks e.g. one may enjoy making the other laugh & other enjoys being made to laugh
- important in longer term, complementarity is thought to give the romantic partners feeling of togetherness & making a whole
A strength of the filter theory is support from Kerckhoff & Davis’ original study
Dating couples completed questionnaires to measure similarity of attitudes/values, complementarity of needs & relationship closeness.
closeness was linked to similarity of values only for partners together less than 18months. complementarity of needs was more important in longer relationships
-> this is evidence that similarity is important in the early stages of a relationship, but complementarity becomes more important later
A counterpoint of strength for filter theory
original findings not replicated perhaps due to social changes and assumption that partners together more than 18 months must be more committed.
-> this assumption is questionable so filter theory is based on research evidence that lacks validity
A limitation of filter theory is that complementarity doesn’t always predict satisfaction
filter theory predicts high levels of satisfaction in a relationship with complementarity e.g. one partner needs to be dominant and the other needs to submissive.
but Markey & Markey 2013, found that long term lesbian romantic partners were most satisfied when both partners were equally dominant.
-> Therefore similarity of needs rather than complementarity may be associated with long-term satisfaction, at least in some couples
A limit or filter theory is that perceived similarity matters more
Actual similarity is linked to attraction only in very brief lab-based interactions. Perceived similarity found more important in real-world relationships. One interpretation is that romantic partners perceive they have more similarities as they become more attracted to each other.
-> this means that perceived similarity may be an effect of attraction and not a cause - not predicted by filter theory.
A extra eval for filter theory is social change
Filter theory claims physical location & other demographic factors initially filter the field of availables down to people similar to ourselves (homogamy).
However, the role of filters had changed - online dating increases the field of availables beyond location. Such social changes increase relationships between people from different backgrounds.
-> this means filter theory needs to be adapted to explain modern relationships by completely revising the features of the 1st level filter
eval extra for physical attractiveness is individual differences
A lot of evidence indicates the important role of physical attractiveness in relationship formation e,g, sexual selection.
But some people are not affected by attractiveness, Touhey found that people with non sexist attitudes were uninfluenced by physical attraction when judging the likeability of potential partners.
-> this shows that the impact of physical attractiveness is moderated by other factors
what is the theory of romantic relationships consisted of?
Social exchange theory
Equity theory
Rusbult’s model
Ducks phase model
what is meant by self disclosure?
it’s important early in relationships
-refers to revealing intimate information to another person
e.g. fears, likes and dislikes
share what really matters to us
most ppl are careful about disclosing too much too soon
-important role in developing a relationship beyond initial attraction
why does the social penetration theory relate to self disclosure?
- self disclosure is limited at the start of relationships, Altman & taylor 1973 suggests it is a gradual process revealing your inner self to someone else, a sign of trust & partner needs to reciprocate
- penetration -> development, as reveal more, become more penetrated into each others lives, deprenetration - dissatisfied partners disclose less as they disengage
- breadth of info is narrow to begin with, as if too much info is revealed it can be off putting
- depth increases -> more layers are gradually revealed, revealing more intimate info like painful memories etc.
what is meant by reciprocity of self disclosure?
a need for reciprocity for a relationship to develop
- Reis & Shaver 1988 suggest that in addition to a broadening and deepening of self disclosure, there must be reciprocity
- successful relationships will involve disclosure from one partner which is recieved sensitively by the other partner -> leading to further self disclosure from other partner
A strength for self disclosure is support from research studies
Sprecher & Hendrick 2004 found strong correlations between measures of satisfaction and self disclosure in heterosexual couples. Men and women who used self disclosure were more satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationship.
-> this supports the validity of the view that reciprocated self disclosure is a key part of a satisfying relationship
Counterpoint for support of self disclosure
Researchers found strong positive correlations but this does not mean that self disclosure causes relationships to be satisfying, it may be that satisfied partners disclose morre or both caused by time spent together.
-> this suggests that self disclosure may not cause satisfaction directly, which reduces the validity of social penetration theory
