Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships

SELF DISCLOSURE ; PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS ; FILTER THEORY

Self-disclosure:

Revealing personal information about yourself. Romantic partners reveal more about their true selves as their relationships develop. These self-disclosures about one’s deepest thoughts and feelings can strengthen a romantic bond when used appropriately.

Key ideas about self-disclosrure:

• involves revealing perosnal infor abt youself to strengthen a bond/create trust

• romantic partners reveal more about true selves as relationship develops, moving from superficial info to deeper, personal thoughts + feelings

• revelations strengthen relationship when used appropriately, but can weaken it if inequitable or overwhelming.

Social penetration theory - Altman and Taylor (1973):

• relationships are a gradual process of revealing inner self to someone

• in romantic, involves reciprocal exchange of information between partners - leads to a deeper understanding of each other’s lives

• 2 elements: breadth and depth

• as disclose more and more, romantic partners ‘penentrate more deeply into each others lives - greater understanding

• basic feature of romantic relationships - difficult to ‘bear one’s soul’, therefore doing so means relationship reached certain stage where self-disclosure welcomed and reciprocated.

Breadth and depth in self-disclosure:

• as both of these increase, romantic partners become more committed to one another

• Altman and Taylor use metaphor of onion layers

• we disclose a lot at start, but this is superficial (onion’s outer layers); low-risk info

• breadth of disclosure is narrow at start as many topics are “off-limits” - if we reveal too much, “TMI!”, which could threaten relationship before it truly begins

• as relationship develops, self-diclosure becomes deeper, revealing intimate, high risk-info

• Altman and Taylor used depenetration: describes how dissatisfied partners self-disclose less as they gradually disengage from relationship.

Reis and Shaver (1988): Reciprocity of self-disclosure:

• has to be a reciprocal element - tends to be a balance of self disclosure in successful romantic relationships (increases feelings of intimacy and deepens relationship)

• poorly timed disclosure can lead to problems in relationships

Sprecher and Hendrick(2004):

studied heterosexual dating couples, found strong correlations between several measures of satisfactionn and self-disclosure for both partners.

men and women who used self-disclosure(and believed their partners did too) were more satisfied with + committed to romantic relationships

cannot generalise further than heterosexual relationshups

Sprecher et al (2013):

shower relationships more closer + more satisfying when partners take turns to self-disclose

Haas and Stafford (1998):

found 57% of homosexual men and women sid that open and honest self-disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened their relationships.

csnnot standardise “open and honest self-disclosure”, ppl have different views of self-disclosure

Tang et al (2013):

reviewed reserach into sexual self-disclosure

concluded men and women in US (generally an individualist culture) self-disclose significantly more sexual thoughts + feelings than men and women in china (generally a collectivist culture)

despite lower disclosure levels in China, satisfaction levels were no differen from US.

demonstrates how difficult it is to standarise self-disclosrure, HOWEVER does not justify its ineffectiveness as a theory, just how self-disclosure is used in multiple different ways.

AO3: Research Support for self-disclosure theory:

• Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) - heterosexual dating, strong correlations between satisfaction + self-disclosure

• Sprecher et al (2013) - when partners take turns to self-disclose, relationships closer

• these increase theory’s validity that reciprocared self-disclore → satisfaction

• BUT, much research is correlational. Assumes this link, but alternative explanations likely. May be the more satisfied partners are, the more they self-disclose. Or perhaps self-disclosure and satisfaction are independent of one another and caused by a 3rd variable (e.g. time spent together) → reduces theory’s predictive validity.

AO3: RWA of self-disclosure:

• romantic partners can use self-disclosure to deliberately increase intimacy, strengthen bond

• Haas and Stafford (1998) - 57% of homosexual people sais open self-disclosure main way deepend relationship

• if less-skilled partners learn to use self-disclosure, this could bring several benefits to relationship in terms of deepening satisfaction

• psych. insights can be valuable in helping ppl w relationships

AO3: Cultural differences in self-disclosure theory:

• not true for all cultures increasing depth and breadth leads to more satisfying relationship

• Tang et al (2013): differences in self-disclosure between cultures, despite same satisfaction levels

• self-disclosure limited theory and explanation, based on findings from ind. cultures, therefore not necessarily generalisable to other cultures

• ethnocentric

AO3: Self-disclosure and breakdown:

• according to social penetration theory, romantic relationships more satisfying as self-disclosure incerases

• conversely, partners find non-disclosure dissatisfying, assoc. w relationshup breakdown

• but, theories of relationship breakdown point out partners often self-disclose more often + deeply as relationshup detoriates → this does not increase satisfaction and often not enough to save relationship

AO3: Reductionism and self-disclosure theory:

• reduces behaviour down to simple terms - some relationships may connect physically for example, therefore this invalidates theory, it is too simplistic

• ignores role of physical attraction

• benefits: helps w practical application, couples therapy

Nomo/Idio approach for self-disclosure:

• nomothetic

  • general laws - however all data is correlational, cannot establish laws therefore

  • trying to create a trend

  • large-scale studies

• should be idio, as relationships do not have a linear progression + cultural distinctions (Tang et al) - can lead to imposed etic, as assumes general laws everywhere.

Physical attractiveness:

An important factor in formation of romantic relationships. Term usually applies specifically to how appealing we find a person’s face. There is general agreement within and across cultures about what is considered physically attractive, and an assumption that we seek to form relationships with the most attractive person available.

Matching hypothesis (physical attractiveness):

The belief we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but rather are attracted to a person who approx. ‘matches’ us in physical attractiveness → implies we take into account our own attractiveness ‘value’ to others when seeking a romantic partner.

Explaining the importance of physical attractiveness:

• Shackelford and Larsen (1997): found people w symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive, as it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (difficult to fake facial symmetry)

• peopler are also attracted to neotenous (baby-face) features (e.g. widely seperated and large eyes), as they trigger a protective/caring instinct

The ‘Halo’ Effect:

• physical attractiveness may matter as we have preconceived ideas about personality traits attractive people must have - almost universally positive

• physical attractiveness stereotype: a widely-accepted view of attractive view that ‘what is beautiful is good’ (from Dion and colleagues, 1972)

• Dion et al:

• halo effect: to descrive how one distinguishing feature (physical attractivess) tends to haev a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes (e.g. personality)

Dion et al:

physically attractive people consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and succesful compared to unnatractive → this belief they have these characteristices makes them more attractive, so we behave more positively towards thme - self-fulfilling prophecy

Walster and Walster (1969) - Aims and Ideas on the matching hypothesis research:

• matching hypothesis suggests we look for partners similiar to us in physical attractiveness, instead of choosing most appealing people

• Walster et al (1966) designed a study: ‘The Computer Dance Study’.

• the more socially desirable a person is, the more desirable we would expect them a dating or marrige partner to be

• inds would most often choose to date a partner of approximately their own attractiveness + their realistic choice:

  • the desirability of the potential match (what they want)

  • the probability of person saying yes

Walster et al (1996): The Computer Dance Study - Procedure

• male and female students invited to a dance

• rated for physical atttractiveness by objective obervers at start, and also completed a questionnaire abt themselves

• pps told data abt themselves and this information would be used by a computer to decide their partner for evening (they were in fact randomly paired)

Walster et al (1966): The computer dance study - Findings:

• hypothesis was not supported

• most liked partners were also most physically attractive, rather than pps taking own attractiveness level into account

• Berscheid et al (1971): replicated study but each pp was able to select partner from ppl of varying attractiveness degrees - pps tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness

Walster et al (1966): The computer dance study - Conclusions:

• we tend to seek + choose partners whose attractivess mathces own

• choice of partner is a compromise - we risk rejection in selecting most attractive people available, so we settle on those who are in ‘our league’ physically.

• our perceived attractiveness rather than actual similarity in attractivess influences initial attraction and partner evaluations.

Research support for halo effect: Palmer and Peterson (2012):

found physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgable and competent than unattractive people; halow effect was so powerful it persisted when when pps knew that these ‘knowledgable’ people had no particular expertise

these findings have imps for political process - dangers for deomocracy is politicians are judged as suitable for office due to being physically attractive.

AO3: Role of physical attractiveness is research support for evolutionary processes - Cunningham et al (1995):

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

• researchers conc. that what is considered physically atractive is v consistent across different societies

• attractive features (e.g. symmetry) sign of genetic fitness, therefore perpetuated similarly in all cultures (sexual selection)

  importance of physical attractiveness makes sense at an evolutionary level.

Taylor et al (2011):

• studied the activity logs of a popular online dating site

• a real-world test of matching hypothesis as it measured actual date choices, not just preferences

• found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them

undermines validity of mathicng hypothesis as contradicts central prediction abt matching hypothesis

Feingold (1988):

carried out meta - analysis of 17 studies, fidning a sig. correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners(inds tended to choose partners w similiar physical attractiveness levels

Research challenging the matching hypothesis:

• matching hypothesis not supported by real-world research into dating - Taylor et al (2011): studied activity logs of online dating sites, finding daters seeked partners more physically attractive than them - undermines validity of mathicng hypothesis as it contradicts central prediction abt matching attractivess

• BUT, choosing inds for dating could be considered a different situation from selecting a partner for a romantic relationship

• Feingold (1988): meta-analysis; found a sig. correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners

• online dating selection may just be ‘fantasy’, therefore there is support for the matching hypothesis

AO3: Individual differences in physical attractiveness:

• most evidence highlights importance of physical attractiveness in inital formation of romantic relationshups

• BUT, also evidence some ppl do not attach much importance to attractiveness

• Touhey (1979): measured sexist attitudes of men and women (using MACHO scale), finding low scoreres were relatively unnafected by physical attractiveness when judging likeability of potential partners.

Issues and debates with physical attraction theory:

• halo efect can explain social stereotypes we have in society - move away

• could be used for bad (e.g. politics)

• does this mean an ugly person will never find love?

Limitations to research into physical attraction:

• many rely on self-report and/or lab research - lowers ecological validity of subsequent findings

• most labs reesearch based more on fantasy than reality - highlighted by Feingold

• conclusions drawn from research is euro and andro centric - assumed ‘ideal’ is based on Western and male preference stereotypes; research often suffers from beta bias

Limitation of physical attraction theory: Too descriptive

not explanatory nor predictive

Filter theory:

An explanation of relationship formation, stating that a series of different factors progressibely reduces the range of available romantic partners to a much smaller pool of possibilities, leading to partners fit for LT relationships.

Filters: social demography, similarity in attidues, complementarity

Social demography definition:

1st filter level

demograhics: features that descrive populations like geog location, social class ; such factors filter out large number of partners, meaning many relationships formed between partners who share social demographic characteristics.

Similarity in attitudes definition:

2nd filter level

We find partners who share our basic values attractive in the earlier stages of relationship.

Complementarity deifnition:

3rd filter level

Similiarity becomes less important as relationship develops; replaced by a need for partner to balance your traits w opposite ones of their own,

Kerckhoff and Davis (1962):

• compared attitudes and personalities of student couples in ST (defined as <18 months) and LT relationshups

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

• for partner choice, we have a field of availables(entire set of potential romantic partners)

• there are 3 main factors, filters which narrow our range to a field of desirables

• theory suggests individuals apply filters sequentially, w earlier filters being more crucial in initial stages of relationship formation, while later filters become more significant as relationship progresses.

What are the 3 filters in filter theory?

1. social demography

2. similarity in attitudes

3. complementarity

Key ideas about social demography:

• refers to a wide range of factors which influence chances of potential partners meeting in fitst place (e.g. proximity) → more likely to meet ppl who are physically close to you; though we meet ppl who live further away, most meaningul interactions w people nearby

• benefit to proximity is accessibility (requires little effort to meet)

• though vast range, realistic field narrower as our choices are consrained by social circumstances (anyone who is too ‘different’ discounted as potential partner) → this leads to homogamy (you are more likely to form relationshups w someone who is socially/culturally similiar)

Key ideas about similarity in attitudes:

• partners often share importnat beliefs due to first filter

• Kerckhoff and Davis found mainly important to dev. of romantic relationshups, but mainly for couples who had been together less than 18 months - need for partners to agree over basic values, as this encourages greater and deeper communication + promotes self-disclosure

• Bryne(1997): decribed the consistent findings that similarity causes attraction as the law of attraction - if such similiarity does not exist (little in common), the relationship likely to fizzle.

Key ideas about complementarity:

• concerns ability of romantic partners to meet each other’s needs

• 2 partners complement each other when they have traits the other lacks

• Kerckhoff and Davis found the need for complementariy was more importatnt for LT couples; at later stages of a relationshup, opposites attract

• complementarity attractive as it gives romantic partners the feeling that together htey form a whole, adding depth to relationship and making it more likely to flourish.

Markey and Markey (2013):

found lesbian couples of equal dominance were the msot satisfied. Their sample of couples had been romantically involved for a mean time of >4.5 years. (no need for complementarity)

Montoya et al (2008):

did a meta-analysis of 313 studies. Found actual similarity affected attraction on in very ST lab-based interactions. In real-world relationships, perceived similarity was a stronger predictor of attraction.

Another interpretation is that partners may perceive greater similaries as they become more attracted to each other.

AO3: research support for filter theory:

• support from Kerckhoff and Davis’s og study

• researchers conducted a longitudinal study, where both partners in couples completed questionnaires to assess two main factors - similarity of attitudes/values and complementarity of needs. Relationship ‘closeness’ measured by another questionnaire 7 months later.

• Study found closeness was assoc. w similairity of values, but only for couples together less than 18 months. For couples in longer relationships, complementarity of needs predicted closeness

  • study provides evidence that wilst similarity is important in early stages, complementarity important later on

• BUT, Levinger (1974) highlighted many studies failed to replicate OG findings of Kerckhoff and David - put this down to social changes over time, and problems in defining depth of relationship interms of length (researcher chose 18 month cut off as they assumed partners who had been together longer were more committed and in a deeper relationsup - a questionable assumption meaning filter theory undermined by a lack of validity of its evidence base)

AO3: Problems with complementarity (filter theory):

• prediction of theory is that most satisfying partners are complementary

• COUNTER RESEARCH: Markey and Markey (2013)

• suggests similarity of needs rather than complementariy may be assoc. w LT satisfaction, at least in some couples

AO3: Actual vs perceived similarity (Filter theory):

• actual similarity matters less in a relationshup than whether partners perceive or believe themselves to be similar

  • supported by Montoya et al (2008)

• therefore, perceived similarity may be an effect of attraction rather than a cause(partners may perceive more similarity as they go on in relationship) - not predicted by filter model

AO3: Social change (for filter theory)

• theory claims demographic factors (e.g. location) reduce field of availables to a relatively small pool of people similiar to ourselves (homogamy)

• but, role of filters have changed over time. In terms of 1st filter level, online dating and apps have increased field of availables, as location no longer limits partner choice (physical apperance more important)

• social changes have led to relationships that were less common 30 years ago (between partners from differing ethnic backgrounds e.g. )

How is Kerckhoff and Davis’ research limiting

chose an 18 month cut off as a LT relationship. Assumes that this was typical of all relationships, both hetero and homosexual and beyond Western society.

Anderson et al (2003):

argued, from the results of their longitudinal study, that the emotional responses of partners in long-term relationships become more alike over time rather than being similar from the start

Davis and Rusbult (2001):

found that attitudes in long-term couples become aligned with time, suggesting that similarity of attitudes is an effect of attraction rather than a cause. This contradicts the claims made by the Filter Theory, which claims that people need to have similar attitudes from the start for relationships to develop.