Factors that affect attraction

According to the specification you need to know how to describe, apply and evaluate all of the terms below for your exams. They can ask specific questions about these theories and key terms which would be in SAQ format or as larger 16 or 8 marked questions.

Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: self-disclosure; physical attractiveness, including the matching hypothesis; filter theory, including social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity.

Self Disclosure is defined as revealing personal information about yourself to another person.

Social Penetration Theory

Social Penetration theory is the gradual process of revealing yourself to someone else. Typically, we don’t reveal everything right at the start. we gradually get to know each other and find out more about each other as time goes on. According to this theory the more you disclose about yourself the more likely the relationship is to develop into a stronger attraction.

Why do you think this is?

By revealing ourselves to another person, we share our likes and dislikes, our hopes and fears, our interests and attitudes. We share what really matters to us. Our partner understands us better and we them.

Used correctly, self-disclosure can, according to psychologists, help the course of true love run smooth!

Self- Disclosure has to be reciprocal!

Altman & Taylor found that self disclosure only goes as far as one half of the pair is willing to share.  If one person is willing to share and the other isn’t then this shows a lack of willing intimacy. It is scary disclose to a complete stranger, and therefore you want them to do the same in order to make you feel comfortable.

Self Disclosure- Breadth and Depth

At first, people often share a lot of information about certain aspects of themselves (Breadth) but consider some topics to be ‘off-limit’ (Depth).

As they build trust in their partner’s understanding, breadth increases and then depth also increases.

Onion metaphor for breadth and depth:

At the beginning we reveal a lot however it’s only basic, superficial information. The skin of the onion! (We don’t want too much too soon)

As it progresses, we reveal more layers, getting into the deeper information that is a lot more personal that we are less likely to tell others people about. Intimate, high risk information.

Evaluation of Self Disclosure as a factor affecting attraction

16 markers for this could involve the following:

Discuss/ Describe and evaluate self disclosure as a factor affecting attaction

Discuss / Describe and evaluate research into self disclosure as a factor affecting attraction.

They could also bring in some applications to these if they want or give you a few curveball SAQs on them.

1. Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) studied heterosexual couples who were dating, and found that as self-disclosure increased, so did relationship satisfaction. This was supported by another study of dating couples, conducted by Laurenceau et al. (2005). They asked participants 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. The reverse was true as well – couples who complained about lack of intimacy self-disclosed less often. Has and Hartford (1998) found that 57% of gay men and women considered open self-disclosure as a main way to maintain close relationships. Hmmm… what kind of research are these? Is there anything we can comment on here?

• Self-disclosure may not provide an explanation of attraction in online relationships. “Boom and bust” phenomenon in online relationships. Cooper and Sportolari (1997) found that anonymity of online interactions gave web-users a sense of security and made them disclose personal information much earlier in relationships than they would face-to-face, making relationships exciting and intense (‘boom’). However, because the necessary trust foundation had not been established, the intensity of the relationship was impossible to sustain, leading to break-up (‘bust’). Therefore, this suggests that self-disclosure is not a good explanation for online relationships, as the theory suggests that as self-disclosure increases, the attraction and satisfaction of the relationship increases, but this research does not support this. However, it may provide useful advice for those dating online, and encourage people to meet up face to face in order to maximise the impact of self-disclosure.

• The idea that an increase in self-disclosure will lead to greater attraction may not be applicable in all cultures. Tang et al. (2013) found that men and women in the USA tended to disclose more sexual thoughts and feelings than romantic partners in China; however, the level of relationship satisfaction was high in both cultures. Therefore, this research suggests that it is the type of self-disclosure that may have more of an impact on attraction, rather than self-disclosure in itself. Consequently, the self-disclosure theory is based on individualist cultures, and therefore, may not be able to provide an accurate theory of attraction in collectivist cultures.
• Research to oppose: Social penetration theory claims that romantic relationships become more intimate as self-disclosures deepen and broaden. However, theories of relationship breakdown (such as Duck’s theory) often recognise how couples discuss and negotiate the state of their deteriorating relationship in an attempt to save it or return to an earlier level of satisfaction. These discussions frequently involve deep self-disclosures of very intimate thoughts and feelings, and yet these may not be enough to rescue the relationship. In this case the increased self-disclosure does not enhance the relationship, but instead could contribute to the ending of the relationship. The self-disclosure theory would also suggest that if a couple discloses less often, then this leads to a break down, whereas Duck is claiming that more frequent self-disclosure could lead to a break up. Therefore, the research on relationship breakdown challenges social penetration theory because deeper self-disclosure does not always lead to a deeper relationship in these circumstances.
• Real/Useful Applications: Research into self-disclosure can help people who want to improve communication in their relationships. 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. Such real-life application demonstrates the value of the psychological insights.

Physical Attractiveness: The Halo Effect and The Matching Hypothesis

Of course most people would agree the how someone looks is at least part of why you are attracted to them, for some people that might be the main factor. The Evolutionary Explanation would state that certain features are deemed as more attractive because they demonstrate a better ability to reproduce and protect offspring, but some explanations think there is more to it than just offspring and survival.

The Halo Effect

This theory states that it is stereotypes that determine whether we are attracted to someone or not. We have preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive people must have, which are almost always positive.

“What is beautiful is good” (Dion 1972)

Karen Dion (1972) found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people. Because we have these preconceived ideas about them, we then act more positively towards them, which is likely to reinforce/ confirm the perception we already had. A bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hence the term Halo Effect – we perceive them to have a halo and this therefore makes them appear more desirable both on a physical level and a personality level. Perhaps this could explain why people become besotted with people that really don’t have that much to offer, they’re blinded by love- or attractiveness at least!

The Matching Hypothesis

Another explanation into how someone looks can affect attraction is the matching hypothesis. This is the idea that we look for someone who is a similar level of physical attractiveness. Logic tells us that not everyone can be in a relationship with someone who is a 10. We also know that, if we are not a 10, chances are we won’t be able to begin or maintain a relationship with a 10, because we just don’t match up. Another 10 will probably come along and steal that person or we won’t stand a chance even trying to seduce them.

However we do still wants the best looking person we can find. Therefore we make a compromise. Firstly, we assess our own ‘value’ or attractiveness to others. Then from there we can try to get the most physically attractive person we can but balancing this with the risk of being rejected. So we aim to go for someone who is a similar attractiveness level to us so ensure optimum evolutionary, social and cultural benefit but reduce the risk of going for someone who is out of our league.

Evaluation of Physical Attraction being a Factor of Attraction

• Palmer and Peterson (2012) asked participants to rate attractive and unattractive people in terms of how politically competent and knowledgeable they believed them to be. It was found that attractive people were consistently rated higher on these characteristics compared to unattractive ones.

• Original research into the matching hypothesis was conducted by Elaine Walster, in 1966.  They invited 752 first-year students at the University of Minnesota to attend a dance party. They were randomly matched to a partner; however, when students were picking up their tickets, they were secretly judged by a panel in terms of attractiveness. During the intervals at the dance party, and 4 to 6 months later, students were asked whether they found their partner attractive and whether they would like to go on a second date with them. Contrary to the matching hypothesis predictions, students expressed higher appreciation of their partner if the partner was attractive, regardless of their own level of attractiveness.

• Feingold (1988) found supportive evidence for the matching hypothesis by carrying out a meta-analysis of 17 studies using real-life couples. He established a strong correlation between the partners’ ratings of attractiveness, just as predicted by the matching hypothesis.

• Towhey (1979) gave participants photos of strangers and some biographical information about them; participants were asked to rate how much they liked the people on photographs. Towhey found that physical attractiveness was more important for participants who displayed sexist attitudes (measured by a specially designed questionnaire).

• Cunningham et al. (1995) found that white, Asian and Hispanic males, despite being from different cultures, rated females with prominent cheekbones, small noses and large eyes as highly attractive. This universality of findings suggests that using attractiveness as a decisive factor in choosing a partner might be a genetically reproduced mechanism, aiding sexual selection.

• Meltzer et al. (2014) found that men rate their long-term relationships more satisfying if their partner is physically attractive, while for women their partner’s attractiveness didn’t have a significant impact on relationship satisfaction.

Filter Theory

This theory is different from the other two factors as its not about what you want or how much you are willing to contribute, but more about what is available to you.

In the world, there is a whole massive group of people out there who you could potentially be attracted to and who could be attracted to you. These are field of availables before any filters have been applied. However, these people are not all easily available to us. Distance, social class, education, opposing views can all prevent any relationship from taking off.

Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) studied student couples (mainly in short-term relationships of fewer than 18 months) and discovered several important criteria people use to choose a partner.

So this is where we hit the first filter: Social Demography

Your Field of Availables will be reduced down based on the following things;

• Geographical proximity
• Social class
• Level of education
• Ethnic or religious groups

The key idea to the first filter is how easily accessible are people to you. The idea is that people who fit into the same criteria and areas as you, are the people who are going to remain in your Field of Availables.

Then comes the second filter: Similarity of Attitudes

Of the people left over in your Field of Availables, anyone who shares important belief and values are more likely to remain within it. This is because it will make self- disclosure easier. You are reinforcing each other by agreeing but also promoting more SD as a result of this, as you build more and more trust. Eventually when you move further on into the relationship you have enough intimacy and trust that when you do disagree you have the strong foundations already built to withstand the consequence of the disagreement.

Finally, we move on to the third and final filter: Complementarity

Your field will be narrowed down by meeting people that have traits which benefit you and you have traits which benefit you. Where you may be lacking, they may excel and vice versa. For example, some people might like to make others laugh and do it well, they will pair well with someone who likes being made to laugh but isn’t so good at cracking the jokes themselves. Therefore, their strengths and weaknesses are complementing each other to form a strong need or connection with that other person. Other examples might be that one is more dominant and the other submissive or one likes to be nurturing whilst the other likes to be nurtured. The idea is that from this newly formed partnership or team, they make a whole adding depth to the relationship and dependency.

Evaluation of the Filter Theory

Use the research examples below and GRAVER SAUNDERS to develop evaluation PEECC’s of the filter theory

1. Gruber-Baldini et al. (1995) carried out a longitudinal study of couples aged 21 and found that those who were similar in educational level and age at the start of the relationship were more likely to stay together and have a successful relationships.
2. Winch (1957) found that similarity of interests, attitudes and personality traits were very important for couples in the beginning of relationships, and complementarity of needs had more impact on long-term relationships.
3. Compared with 20-30 years ago, people nowadays are more likely to develop relationships with someone who is not in their geographical proximity or from the same culture.
4. Some studies have failed to replicate Kerckhoff and Davis’ original findings. Psychologists such as Levenger (1974) claim that this may be due to the difficulty of correlating length of relationships and depth of relationships, and of determining what constitutes short-term and long-term relationships. Kerckhoff and Davis set the cut-off point for short-term relationships at 18 months, assuming that if people have been in relationships longer, it signifies greater commitment. However, this doesn’t apply to all heterosexual couples, nor does it describe the experience of homosexual couples or couples from collectivist cultures.
5. 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.
6. Most research supporting the Filter Theory uses participants from individualist, Western cultures. Individualist cultures value free choice in relationships, and describe the choice of partners in terms of individual preferences. In these cultures, people may apply the criteria described by the Filter Theory freely and usually without much influence from other people.
7. Filter Theory does not explain why many people stay a long time in abusive relationships despite the lack of complementarity that is theorised as being a factor of long-term relationships.