Topic 2 Factors Affecting Attraction Flashcards
What is self disclosure?
- Refers to how much information one is willing to share –> Romantic partners self disclose more about their true selves as the relationship develops
What is the social penetration theory?
1) Altman and Taylor –> Focused on how a relationship developed, They found that it involves a reciprocal exchange of information –> According to them there are two elements to this, breath and depth
2) They use the onion analogy to explain this: a) Superficial information such as age, gender. b) Intimate, preference in music and clothes. c) Personal, goals and aspirations, religious beliefs d) Core, deep held fears and fantasies and the concept of self
3) We reveal low risk information early in the relationship, high risk information is revealed as the relationship develops –> Revealing information too soon leads to ‘too much information’ –> possibly threatening the relationship before it gets going.
4) Reis and Shaver –> For a relationship to develop, there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure
Evaluation 1:
Sprecher and Hendrick –> Observed couples on dates and found a positive correlations between several measure of relationship satisfaction and self-disclosure which suggests that self disclosure plays an important role in becoming more intimate
Evaluation 2:
Much of the research into self- disclosure is correlational –> means that there is a casual relationship that cannot be easily determined –> Instead may be that it is the attraction that is leading to it
Evaluation 3:
Tang et al –> reviewed research regarding sexual self disclosure significantly more than men/women in china (collectivist vs individualist cultures) –> Cultural bias as the self-disclosure theory can be only identified with individualist cultures as there are different norms and values
Importance of physical appearence
1) Physical appearence can be seen as a range of indicators of underlying characteristics
2) Singh: Women with a favorable hip ratio are seen as attractive because they are perceived to be more fertile.
3) Langois et al: Symmetrical faces are more attractive
4) Little et al: Examined preferences for symmetry in both the UK and Hadza and found that both groups find symmetry attractive and it was the strongest in Hazda –> Cross cultural research
5) The Halo effect –> A form of cognitive bias with preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive people must have and are almost universally positive. Dion: “What is beautiful is good” –> The belief that good looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive towards us
6) Stewart found that attractive people get lighter criminal sentences.
What is the matching hypothesis?
1) This hypothesis states that people choose romantic partners who are roughly of similar attractiveness to each other
2) Walster suggests that it is important to evaluate their own attractiveness and from this find partners who are within their league. –> This identification of those who those who have a similar level of attraction and therefore provide a balance between the level of competition (intrasexual) is known as matching.
Hypothesis in stages:
1) More socially desirable a person is in terms of physical attractiveness, social standing and intelligence etc, the more desirable they would expect a dating or marriage partner to be.
2) Couples who are matched are more likely to have, happy, enduring relationships than couples who are mismatched in terms of social desirability.
3) A person rates a potential partner for attractiveness and compares it with their own level –> Determines whether they will pursue the person as a potential mate.
Evaluation 1: Research support for the halo effect
Palmer and Peterson: Physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people –> So powerful that even when people knew that had no particular expertise they were seem more knowledgeable.
–> While it supports the Halo effect it has implications for the political process and the dangers for the democracy.
Evaluation 2:
Towhey: Gave males and females a set of photos and biographical information about people, asked them to judge how much they would like a target individual based on photograph.
- Found that participants who scored highly on the MACHO scale were significantly more influenced by physical attraction than those who scored lower. –> Which means physical attractiveness influences those who were rated high on the MACHO scale.
Evaluation 3:
Feingold: conducted a meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation between the perceived attractiveness of actual partners rated by independent participants. Supports the study as it was found that the matching hypothesis looks at actual partners
Evaluation 4: Contradiction
Taylor = Online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more attractive than them, it seemed that they did not consider their own level of attractiveness when making decisions on who to date.
What is the Filter theory?
Kerckhoff and Davis –> Suggests that when selecting partners from ‘a field of availables’ people will use three filters to narrow down the choice to those who they have the best chance with.
1) Filter 1 = Social Demography –> Refers to factors such as Social class, Ethnic group, Religion, proximity –> More likely to meet people who are physically close to you and those who share some demographic characteristics (accessibility)
2) Similarity in attitudes –> K and D found from a longitudinal study that similarity of attitudes was important to the development of romantic relationships but only for couples who had been together less than 18 Months –> A need for partners to self disclose. Bryne –> Similarity causes attarction , lack of common interests leads it to fizzle out
3) Complementary –> Concerns the ability of romantic partners to meet each other’s needs. Two partners complement each other when they have the traits that the other lacks K and D –> Important for long term couples –> Opposites attract
Evaluation 1: Festinger et al
Festinger et al –> Observed friendships that formed in a block of apartments for married students. Students were 10x more likely to form a friendship with people who lived in their own building. –> Most popular people lived nearest to the staircases and post-boxes because they were most likely to be ‘bumped into’ –> Known as functional distance
Supports the 1st filter –> Proxmity is key here
Evaluation 2: Walster et al
Walster et al –> Advetised ‘computer dance’for students, as students arrived four independent judges assessed each student’s physical attractiveness –> Participants were asked to fill questionnaire claiming that it will match someone up with similarities. However it was done at randoms –> Found that physical attractive students were liked more by their partners than the less attractive students. Attractiveness proved to be the most important factor in liking however it supports the 2nd filter Similarities in attitudes –> They had precieved that their computer dance partner was similar to them
Evaluation 3:
Levinger: Pointed that many studies failed to replicate the basis of the original filter theory –> Put this down to social changes over time and diffiulties in defining depth of relationship. K and D chose 18 months as a cut off point to distinguish between a short term and long term relationship –> Assumed that partners who been longer together than this were more commited and had deeper relationship
Highlights the problems in applying the filter theory even to other heterosexual couples in individualist cultures
