factors affecting attraction

what is self-disclosure

• Learning about a romantic partner makes us like them more, by revealing ourselves to them we are sharing likes and dislikes, hopes and fears and interests/attitudes

  • We share what matters

  • We understand each other more

  • This self-disclosure has a vital role beyond the initial attraction, if used wisely and effectively it can help the course of love run smoother

• Jourard 1971 - revealing personal information about yourself, such as thoughts, feelings and experiences

• More disclosure = greater feelings of intimacy and vulnerability

what is social penetration theory

• Self-disclosure is a major concept within Altman and Taylor's (1973) social penetration theory of how relationships develop.

  • It is the gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone else, of giving away your deepest thoughts and feelings.

  • In romantic relationships, it involves the reciprocal exchange of information between intimate partners.

  • When one partner reveals some personal information, they display trust; to go further the other partner must also reveal sensitive information.

  • As they increasingly disclose more and more information to each other, romantic partners 'penetrate' more deeply into each other's lives and gain a greater understanding of each other.

• It is a basic feature of romantic relationships.

• After all, it's difficult to 'bear one's soul' to a relative stranger.

  • Doing so means that a relationship has reached a certain stage where such self-disclosure will be welcomed and hopefully - reciprocated.

breadth and depth

• Altman and Taylor 1973 - both breadth and depth are important in self-disclosure as these increase commitment

• We are like onions - reveal a lot of superficial information at the beginning, as relationship progresses, disclose more intimate details to reveal our true selves

• Little restricted at first as some topics are 'off limits' (so less breadth) but as depth increases so can breadth

  • If we reveal too much info then we might get told there is too much information and it can threaten the relationship

• But as the relationship develops self-disclosure becomes deeper, progressively removing more and more layers to reveal our true selves and encompassing a wider range of topics

  • Eventually we can reveal intimate, high-risk information (secrets, painful memories)

  • Partners become more committed to each other

• Altman and Taylor use the term depenetration to describe how dissatisfied partners self-disclose less as they gradually disengage from the relationship

reciprocity

• Reis and Shaver 1988 point out for a relationship to develop as well as an increase in breadth and depth there needs to be a reciprocal element to disclosure

• Once you have decided to disclose smth that reveals your true self, the partner should respond in a way that is rewarding with empathy and their own thoughts and feelings

• Balance of self-disclosure between both partners for successful romantic relationship, increases feelings of intimacy and deepens the relationship

strengths of SD

• Strength - research supports self-disclosure and relationship satisfaction

  • Concept of self-disclosure has been investigated in numerous studies

  • Sprecher and Hendrick 2004 studied heterosexual couples who were dating, and found that as self-disclosure increased, so did relationship satisfaction - was a strong correlation for both partners

    • Men and women who used self-disclosure were more satisfied with and committed to their romantic relationship

    • Later - Sprecher et al 2013 - showed that relationships are closer and more satisfying when partners take turns to self-disclose (disclosure is reciprocated)

    • Increases validity of the theory that reciprocated self-disclosure leads to more satisfying relationships

  • Laurenceau et al 2005 asked ppts to write daily diary entries about progress in their relationships and found that self-disclosure and perception of disclosure in a partner led to greater feelings of intimacy in a couple

    • Reverse was true as well, couples complaining about lack of intimacy self-disclosed less often

 

• Strength - research into self-disclosure can help people who want to improve communication in their relationships.

  • Romantic partners probably use self-disclosure deliberately and skilfully from time to time to increase intimacy and strengthen their bond.

  • Hass and Stafford (1998) found that 57% of gay men and women in their study said that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their committed relationships.

  • If less-skilled partners, for example, those who tend to limit communication to 'small-talk', can learn to use self-disclosure then this could bring several benefits to the relationship in terms of deepening satisfaction and commitment.

  • Psychological insights can be valuable in helping people who are having problems in their relationships

weaknesses of SD

• Limitation - much self-disclosure research is correlational.

  • Although it is usually assumed that greater self-disclosure creates more satisfaction within a relationship, a correlation does not tell us if this is a valid conclusion to draw.

  • Alternative explanations are just as likely

  • May be that the more satisfied the partners are, the more they self-disclose - bidirectional ambiguity

  • Self-disclosure and satisfaction may be independent of each other and both are caused by a third variable instead such as time spent together

  • Reduces validity of social penetration theory of self-disclosure

 

• Limitation - the prediction that increasing depth and breadth of self-disclosures will lead to a more satisfying and intimate romantic relationship is not true for all cultures.

  • To a large extent it depends on the type of self-disclosure.

  • For example, Nu Tang et al. (2013) reviewed the research literature regarding sexual self-disclosure (that is, disclosures related to feelings about specific sexual practices).

  • They concluded that men and women in the USA (an individualist culture) self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than men and women in China (a collectivist culture).

    • Despite lower levels in China, levels of satisfaction were no different from those in US

  • Self-disclosure theory is a limited explanation of romantic relationships because it is based on findings from individualist cultures which are not necessarily generalisable to other cultures

physical attractiveness and facial symmetry

• Physical attractiveness does matter because of evolution

  • Refers to how appealing we find a partner's appearance, meaning their face/facial features

 

• Symmetrical faces - evolutionary theory related to sexual selection

  • People with symmetrical faces are perceived to be more attractive as this is a sign of good genes (Shackelford & Larsen, 1997)

  • It is thought that this is a sign of genetic fitness that cannot be faked - making it an honest signal

    • Used to be hard to fake facial symmetry

    • Not anymore as we have plastic surgery, make-up and filters

  • Associated 'robust' genes are passed onto future offspring

neotenous faces and halo effect

• Neotenous facial features

  • Widely separated and large eyes, delicate chin and small button nose all trigger protective and caring instinct, which is useful resource particularly for females wanting to reproduce

    • Look more youthful

  • These features are related to formation of attachment in infancy

  • Evolutionary feature as features that strengthen attachment are adaptive

 

• Halo effect - one distinguishing feature tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person's other attributes such as personality

  • Based on the idea that physical attractiveness is generalised

  • We hold preconceived ideas about the attributes of attractive people, usually universally positive

  • Dion et al 1972 - found that people rate attractive people as being more kind, strong and sociable compared with unattractive people

  • Belief that good looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, behave positively towards them - self-fulfilling prophecy

matching hypothesis theory

• Walster et al 1966 proposed that people who are similar in many ways end up together

• Individual would most often choose to date a partner who would be similar to them not only in terms of physical attractiveness but also in terms of other socially desirable trains (e.g. social standing, intelligence) instead of choosing the most appealing people

• Argue that individuals looking for a partner will also be influenced by the notion of realistic choices

  • Desirability of potential match (what they want)

  • Probability of person saying 'yes' (what they think they can get (i.e. chances of having their affection reciprocated))

• We do this to avoid risk of rejection, make a compromise

matching hypothesis study

• Walster et al. advertised a 'computer dance' for new students at the University of Minnesota.

• 376 males and 376 females were selected to take part in the study.

• When they came to pick up their tickets, four student accomplices surreptitiously rated each of them for physical attractiveness.

• The participants were then asked to complete a lengthy questionnaire (e.g., to assess personality, intelligence, etc.) and told that the data gathered from these questionnaires would be used to allocate their ideal partner for the evening of the dance.

• In fact, the pairing was done completely randomly.

• During the intermission part of the dance, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire about their dates, with a follow-up questionnaire distributed six months after the dance.

• Findings

  • The findings from this study did not support the matching hypothesis.

  • Once ppts had met their dates, and regardless of their own physical attractiveness, they responded more positively to physically attractive dates and were more likely to subsequently try to arrange dates with them if they were physically attractive.

  • Other factors, such as personality and intelligence, did not affect liking the dates or any subsequent attempts to date them.

• Berscheid et al. (1971) replicated the Walster et al. (1966) study but this time participants were able to select their partner from people of varying degrees of attractiveness.

  • This time the ppts tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness.

  • This finding might be due to the fact that we have a fear of rejection/intimidation, protecting our positive self-identity - difference between making a choice and being given the chance  

strengths of physical attractiveness

• Murstein (1972), Silverman (1971) conducted correlational studies with couples - psychologists measured the attractiveness level of each partner of actual couples by using more than one 'judge' provided the ratings of each member of the couple individual (often using photos)

  • The high number of judges established good inter-rater reliability

• Significant similarity between partners' levels of physical attractiveness found

  • However, correlational study so despite there being a relationship between the two co-variables, we cannot say that the reason why X partner choice another partner Y is due to the fact that they match in attractiveness

  • Use of photos - may not accurately reflect what the people look like in everyday life

  • Attractiveness ratings are still ordinal, subjective data and so arbitrary scale does not have fixed increments

• Another strength is that the role of physical attractiveness is research support for evolutionary processes

  • Cunningham et al 1995 found that women who had features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose, and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian men

  • Researchers concluded that what is considered attractive is consistent across different societies

  • Attractive features (symmetry) are a sign of genetic fitness and therefore perpetuated similarly in all cultures (sexual selection)

• Importance of physical attractiveness makes sense at an evolutionary level

weaknesses of physical attractiveness

• Weakness - role of the third party, matching is sometimes influenced by third parties such as friends, family, colleagues or dating sites

  • Sprecher 2009 suggests it is likely that individuals are more likely to consider compatibility than similarity/attractiveness alone

  • Families play a big role in selection of a partner in collectivist - there is notion that you are marrying into a family rather than an individual so you have to match and be compatible with whole family

  • Theory lacks cultural validity, can be criticised for beta bias - minimises differences between individualist and collectivist cultures

 

• One limitation is the matching hypothesis is not supported by real-world research into dating

• Taylor et al 2011 - studied the activity logs of a particular online dating site, was a real-life test of the matching hypothesis because it measured actual date choices not just preferences

  • In keeping with the theory which concerns realistic choices rather than fantasies

  • Online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attracted than them

  • Seems their own level of attractiveness when making decisions about who to date was not important

  • Undermines validity of matching hypothesis because it contradicts the central prediction about matching attractiveness

• HOWEVER, online daters seeking more attractive partners does not mean they get them, so dating selection may be just a fantasy as in laboratory research

what is filter theory

• Kerckhoff and Davis 1962 - compared 'short-term couples' (together for less than 18 months) with 'long-term couples' (18 months or more) over 7 month period

• In terms of partner choice, we have a field of available, the entire set of potential romantic partners, all the people we could realistically form a relationship with

  • They devised a filter theory to explain how romantic relationships form and develop

• There are three main factors that act as filters to help us narrow down our range of partner choice to a field of desirables

  • Not everyone is desirable

what is the first filter

• Social demography - 1st level of filter - age, geographical location/proximity, ethnicity, religion

  • Determines likelihood of individuals meeting in the first place

  • Much more likely to meet people who are physically close to you and they hold the most memorable and meaningful interactions

    • There’s considerable preselection of the types of people we come into contact with, namely, those from our own ethnic, racial, religious, social class and educational groups; these are the types of people we tend to find most attractive initially, since similarity makes communication easier and we’ve something immediately in common with them.

  • Key benefit of proximity is accessibility - doesn't require much effort

  • Social circumstances such as age and location reduce the 'field of available' - people that are realistically (as opposed to theoretically) available for us to meet

  • Effectively, anyone who is 'too different' (too far away, different social close) is discounted as a potential partner which leads to homogamy meaning people are more likely to form a relationship with someone who is socially or culturally similar

    • At this point, attraction has little to do with other people’s individual characteristics.

what is the second filter

• Similarity in attitudes - 2nd level of filter - basic values and attitudes

  • Involves psychological characteristics - field of availables is already narrowed down to those with social and cultural similarities

  • Similarity meaning to agree over basic values and things that matter, helps to promote self-disclosure (which leads to greater intimacy and vulnerability) and deeper communication

    • Byrne 1997 described findings that similarity causes attraction = law of attraction

  • Was found to be the best predictor of the relationship becoming more stable and permanent - those who had been together for less than 18 months tended to have stronger relationship when partner's values coincided

  • Without this similarity the relationship will fizzle out

what is the third filter

• Complementarity - 3rd level of filter - harmoniousness of needs

  • Ability of romantic partners to meet each other's needs

  • Best predictor of a longer term commitment

    • At later stages of relationships, opposites attract

  • Your partner having traits that you may lack but together would make a whole

    • One partner likes to laugh, other enjoys making people laugh

    • Woman who likes to nurture attracted to a man who likes to be nurtured

  • Complementary behaviours take account of each other's needs, helping to make a perfect whole and relationship feel less superficial which increases attraction

    • The idea of making a whole - adds depth to relationship and makes it more likely to flourish

Kerckhoff and Davis original study

• Kerckhoff and Davis' original study, based on which they formulated the filter theory, was a longitudinal study involving student couples

  • Both partners in dating couples completed a questionnaire to assess similarity of attitudes and complementarity of needs, relationship closeness was measured by another questionnaire 7 months later

  • The study found that closeness was associated with similarity of values but only for couples who have been together for less than 18 months - for couples in longer relationships, complementarity of needs predicted closeness

  • The study provided evidence that similarity is important in the early stages of a relationship but complementarity is more important later on

strengths of filter theory

• One strength is support from Kerckhoff and Davis' original study - see above

 

• Strength - Filter theory assumes that the key factors in a relationship change over time.

  • This makes sense and agrees with most people's experience of romantic relationships, so the theory has face validity.

  • More importantly, however, it also benefits from some research support.

  • For example, Winch (1958) found evidence that similarities of personality, interests, and attitudes between partners are typical of the earliest stages of a relationship.

    • This echoes the matching hypothesis, but not just in terms of physical attractiveness.

    • Between partners happily married for several years, complementarity of needs is more important than similarity, according to Winch.

• Supports the filter theory as evidence shown which 3rd filter is shown to be more important in longer-term marriages/relationships so supports the dynamic idea of filter theory. Super good support - exact support of the theory. THEORY's main strength is that it acknowledges how relationships are dynamic

weaknesses of filter theory

Limitation - social change, filter theory claims that demographic factors (location etc,) reduce field of available to relatively small pool of people who are similar to us (homogamy)

• Role of filters has changed over time

• However, the rise of online dating in recent years has changed beyond recognition the process of beginning a romantic relationship

  • Has reduced the importance of some social demographic variables

  • Technology such as the Internet and mobile apps like Tinder have made meeting potential partners easier than ever, to the extent that we might well pursue a date with someone outside the usual demographic limits than would have applied, say 40 years ago

  • Migration now is a lot easier than in the past due to cheaper travel, so communities are more diverse so less likely to find people who are similar to you

  • We have social media and facetime, can maintain a long distance relationship

  • So social demography may lack temporal validity as a theory

• Weakness - complementarity may not be central to all longer-term relationships

  • Prediction of filter theory is that in most satisfying relationships partners are complementary

  • Markey and Markey 2013 found that lesbian couples of equal dominance were most satisfied

  • Their sample of couples had been romantically linked for mean time of more than 4.5 years

  • May suggest similarity of needs is associated with long-term satisfaction, at least in some couples