Factors Affecting Attraction in Romantic Relationships (AQA A Level Psychology): Flashcards

Upward comparison occurs when someone feels that others, or specifically their partner, are superior to them, e.g. better-looking, richer or more intelligent.

Downward comparison occurs when someone feels that others, or specifically their partner, are inferior to them, e.g. less interesting or less athletic.

A person might:

• disclose personal information to gauge the partner's reaction, e.g. 'Have I made myself look silly?'

• disclose achievements to gain self-validation through praise

• disclose beliefs and values to judge how similar or different they are to the other person

Self-disclosure creates trust between partners and reinforces the special bond they share, which SPT argues is essential if a relationship is to develop and thrive.

If one partner discloses and the other fails to reciprocate, the relationship becomes unbalanced with inequality in trust; disclosing high-risk details also gives the other person power and leaves the discloser vulnerable, so SPT suggests only low-level details are disclosed at first.

Each partner reflects the discloser's image by affirming or denying their self-image, and therefore their self-esteem, which helps each partner decide whether to pursue the relationship.

Collins and Miller's meta-analysis showed that self-disclosure plays a key role in attraction: people who disclose intimate information tend to be liked more than those who disclose less.

Using questionnaires and diaries from 113 cohabiting couples, they found that couples with higher levels of mutual self-disclosure expressed more satisfaction with their relationship.

Self-disclosure, and the perception of self-disclosure in a partner, were linked to higher intimacy in long-term married couples; the reverse was also true, as less intimate couples disclosed less often.

Men and women in the USA (individualist) disclose significantly more sexual thoughts and feelings than those in China (collectivist), yet both levels were linked to satisfaction, so high self-disclosure is not essential and SPT may be culturally biased.

With its emphasis on open communication, self-disclosure can guide relationship counselling in Westernised nations, and its rewards extend to friendships, family bonds and professional relationships.

57% of gay men and women reported that open self-disclosure was the main way they maintained and deepened committed relationships, showing the research applies beyond heterosexual relationships.

Self-disclosure is open to subjective interpretation, so the associated theories lack the features of science.

They do not explain how some relationships do not follow the 'rules' yet remain healthy, e.g. one partner discloses a lot while the other rarely discloses anything of depth.

Much of the research is correlational, e.g. Sprecher and Hendrick (2004) found strong correlations between satisfaction and self-disclosure in dating couples, so it may be that satisfied couples simply disclose more.

Each partner finds the other's physical appearance pleasing, which further motivates the couple to spend more time together.

People are drawn to the appealing, unthreatening features of babies, e.g. large eyes and soft, blemish-free skin, which act as social releasers prompting nurture and protectiveness in the observer.

Faces close to the population mean with symmetry, dimorphism and youthfulness are preferred across cultures, as these may signal the ability to develop normally whatever the environment.

False.

Langlois et al. (2000) found that attractive children and adults are judged more positively even by those who know them.

Feingold found that physically attractive people tend to be less lonely, less socially anxious and more popular.

Zebrowitz and McDonald (2001) found that attractive people may receive less harsh punishments in a court of law than unattractive people.

The halo effect, coined by Dion et al. (1972), is the array of positive qualities, traits and skills attributed to good-looking people, e.g. being sociable, kind and intelligent: the 'what is beautiful is good' stereotype.

False.

The halo effect operates outside gender, age and cultural parameters and appears universal; Wheeler and Kim (1997) found both Korean and American students judged attractive people to be more trustworthy, mature and friendly.

Heroes and heroines are attractive while 'baddies' are generally 'ugly' (hooked noses, hunched backs, bad skin), perpetuating the stereotype that beauty equals goodness.

It involves generalising conclusions and forming an impression of a good-looking person based only on their attractiveness and no other available information.

The matching hypothesis (Walster et al., 1966) assumes that people tend to pair up with partners of roughly the same level of attractiveness as themselves.

It uses self-rating and rating of others based solely on physical appearance, e.g. 'I rate as a 7 out of 10, so I'm looking for another 7, but may settle for a 6'.

An 'ugly' partner may lower a person's social standing while a 'looker' raises their social status, and either outcome affects whether they view themselves as worthy.

A person must weigh up aiming for someone 'out of their league' and risking rejection, or 'settling' for a partner who is less attractive than them.

Dopamine-rich areas of the brain were activated when males were shown pictures of beautiful female faces.

Features such as a small nose, large eyes, small chin and large smile were positively correlated with attractiveness ratings by males, who also showed a higher tendency towards prosocial behaviour.

Participants consistently rated photos of attractive people more favourably, imbuing them with positive qualities and life outcomes such as marital happiness and career success.

False.

The best predictor of being asked on a date was how attractive that person was, regardless of the asker's attractiveness, though this may be due to unreliable measurement, as raters had only a few seconds to judge each participant.

Feingold's meta-analysis of 17 studies using actual couples found a significant correlation in attractiveness between romantic partners, which increases the external validity of the theory.

Male participants graded the same essay more highly when it was attributed to an attractive female writer than to an unattractive one.

Activity logs from an online dating site showed people do not necessarily apply the matching hypothesis, professing a preference for the most attractive members on the site.

Participants scoring highly on the MACHO scale (measuring sexist attitudes) were more influenced by physical attractiveness when judging likeability, so its effects are moderated by individual differences rather than being significant for all potential partners.

The halo effect and facial preferences are remarkably consistent across cultures, e.g. Cunningham et al. (1995) found the same female features rated attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian males, though Western ideals promoted via mass media may explain this rather than an innate preference.

It often focuses on how men rate women's looks, treating male perspectives as the default and reinforcing stereotypes that women are valued for appearance, while female preferences are less explored, limiting validity.

A filter is a type of criterion applied to a field of availables to determine which of them is likely to provide a good 'match'.

They compared the attitudes and personalities of student couples in short-term (under 18 months) and long-term relationships, and concluded that people apply filters to narrow the field of availables down to a field of desirables.

False.

Filters are entirely subjective: one person's idea of 'desirable' is another person's idea of 'undesirable'.

Hollywood films may romanticise long-distance love, but it is easier to form a relationship with someone who lives around the corner than on the other side of the world, so proximity is key at the first stage of filtering.

Social demography is the first level of filtering: a broad sweep of variables that determine who a person is likely to come into contact with in everyday life, such as geographical location (proximity), social class, level of education, ethnic group, religion and age.

Students living in adjoining rooms or on the same corridor formed more and closer friendships with each other than with students on a different corridor, floor or block.

Level of education and religious and political beliefs contribute to the first level of filtering because they involve the meeting of like-minded people.

Similarity in attitudes is the second level of filtering, where people form relationships with those who share their attitudes, outlook and worldview; more stringent criteria apply, as there has to be a 'meeting of minds'.

Similarity in attitudes is key only in the first 18 months or so of relationship formation; once the relationship is established, this filter has passed.

If the couple do not share values, beliefs and attitudes, there is no firm foundation on which to build the relationship once the first heady rush is over.

Byrne (1997) described the consistent finding that similarity causes attraction as the 'law of attraction'.

Complementarity is the third level of filtering, where each partner provides what the other needs and brings something the other cannot, e.g. Sam does the cooking while Jen does the gardening.

False.

Kerckhoff and Davis argued complementarity is not so important early on but is crucial for long-term happiness.

Each person fulfils the needs of their partner, so the relationship is a whole rather than two separate individuals.

Attraction shifted from proximity to those who most closely matched the men's attitudes, as they gravitated towards people with similar views as relationships progressed.

Liking is linked to similarity, but participants in high-commitment relationships were more likely to favour a similar partner than those in less committed relationships.

Emotional convergence (Anderson et al., 2003) is when partners become emotionally similar as the relationship progresses, making them more cohesive; this challenges the direction of cause and effect in filter theory, as couples may become similar because they are together.

Davis and Rusbult (2001) found the 'attitude alignment' effect, in which romantic partners bring their attitudes into line with each other's over time.

Winch found that similarities of personality, interests and attitudes are typical of the earliest stages of a relationship, while complementarity of needs mattered more between partners happily married for several years, supporting the claim that different factors matter at different stages.

The theory makes sense: people do tend to form relationships with those from their neighbourhood, home town, college or workplace who share similar attitudes.

Relationships that defy the odds, such as long-distance couples, couples opposed in attitudes, and couples so alike that they do not complement each other, so the theory lacks full explanatory power.

The proliferation of online dating and contact via social media means that proximity, for example, is no longer an issue in relationship formation.

Over 14 years, similarities between spouses in intellectual abilities and attitudinal flexibility increased over time, suggesting similarity is an effect of being in a relationship rather than a cause, and that complementarity does not simply replace similarity.

It is based on research in Western, individualistic societies where freedom of choice is the norm; in collectivist cultures arranged marriages and family approval may override the filters, so the theory lacks universal applicability.

It aims to apply general laws about how relationships form, but real-life relationships are often idiographic, so the theory may overlook individual differences and lack flexibility in explaining exceptions.