Attraction

Question 1

Physical attractiveness effects on relationships?

Answer 1

1. One of the most obvious factors affecting whether a relationship will begin is whether or not people find each other physically attractive,
2. Attraction isn’t always about physical features, but there are various features which have been found to match up with attractiveness,
3. Generally, men are more likely than women to report appearance as important in attraction, but both women and men consider appearance important for a short-term partner.

Question 2

Cunningham (1986), method and findings?

Answer 2

1. Asked 75 male undergraduate students to rate photos of 50 females for attractiveness,
2. He found several features that correlated positively with attractiveness - large eyes, small noses, small chins, prominent cheekbones, and narrow cheeks.

Question 3

Li and Kendrick (2006), method and findings?

Answer 3

1. Asked participants to choose between different characteristics they would like in a partner for a casual relationship,
2. Both men and women chose physical attractiveness as the most important.

Question 4

What is self-disclosure?

Answer 4

1. Is sharing information about yourself, including your views and feelings,
2. Collin and Miller’s (1994) meta-analysis showed that people tend to like somebody more if that person has self-disclosed to them. They also found that self-disclosing to somebody tends to increase liking for that person.

Question 5

How does Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) explain the development of relationships?

Answer 5

1. Using filter theory,
2. The theory proposes that there are a series of ‘filters’ that operate at different stages of forming a relationships:
3. The social demographic filter; Similarity in attitudes filter; Complementarity filter.

Question 6

What is the social demographic filter?

Answer 6

1. Initially we form a ‘field of availabilities’ - these are potential people to form a relationship with,
2. The first filter is based on social and demographic factors such as age, religion, living near each other, and so on.

Question 7

What is the similarity in attitudes filiter?

Answer 7

1. We narrow the set of available people down to a smaller ‘field of desirables’,
2. These are people who a relationship is more likely to progress with,
3. This filter is based on sharing similar attitudes, values, and interests.

Question 8

What is the complementarity filter?

Answer 8

1. In the longer term, relationships will progress if both partners are fulfilling each other needs, i.e. both partners provide what the other needs,
2. So, this filter is based on two people being a good complement to each other.

Question 9

Kerckhoff and Davis (1962), method?

Answer 9

1. Surveyed female university students and their male partners, who were considering marriage,
2. The survey asked about their personalities, attitudes, and their relationships,
3. 7 months later they conducted a follow-up survey to see if the couple’s relationship had progressed towards a permanent partnership.

Question 10

Kerckhoff and Davis (1962), findings?

Answer 10

1. They found that couples who had been together for less than 18-months were more likely to have progressed towards a permanent partnership if they had similar values,
2. However, among couples who had been together for more than 18-months, it was couples who had complementary needs, i.e. each partner met the needs of the other, who were more likely to have progressed towards a permanent partnership.

Question 11

Winch (1958), findings in support of filter theory?

Answer 11

1. Surveyed 25 couples who had been married for less than 2 years,
2. He found a significantly stronger correlation in spouses between complementary needs than between similar needs.

Question 12

Levinger et al. (1970), evidence against filter theory?

Answer 12

1. Replicated Kerckhoff and Davis’ study across other universities, but their results didn’t support the theory,
2. They found no significant difference over time in the correlation between relationships progress and either sharing values or having complementary needs.

Question 13

Walster et al. (1966), what theory did they posit?

Answer 13

1. The matching hypothesis,
2. States that people tend to choose partners who are as attractive as themselves.

Question 14

Walster et al. (1966), method?

Answer 14

1. A ‘computer dance’ was advertised in a handbook given out to new university students, and tickets were sold to 376 men and 376 women,
2. The people selling the tickets secrely rated each student for attractiveness,
3. The students weren’t told they were participating in a study. Instead, they were told that a computer would match them with a date for the dance who shared their interests,
4. In fact, the participants were paired randomly with someone of the opposite sex, although no men were paired with taller women,
5. During the dance, the participants filled in questionnaires about their date,
6. Participants were contacted four to six months later to find out if they’d tried to go on any further dates with their dance date.

Question 15

Walster et al. (1966), results?

Answer 15

1. Participants paired with a similarly attractive partner were not significantly more liked by their date than those paired with a partner with an attractiveness rating different to theirs,
2. Instead, participants who were rated as more attractive were more liked by their date,
3. More attractive participants were also more frequently asked out on further dates than less attractive participants, whereas there was no correlation between similarity in attractiveness in a pair and the number of times participants were asked out again.

Question 16

Walster et al. (1966), conclusion?

Answer 16

1. The matching hypothesis was not supported,
2. The results showed that people prefer attractive partners, regardless of their own attractiveness.

Question 17

Walster et al. (1966), evaluation?

Answer 17

1. The computer dance was quite differnet from usual dating, the participants didn’t choose another, and neither of them had to ask each the other on a date,
2. This means that the study has low ecological validity - the results can’t really be applied to dating in real-life,
3. The way attractiveness of the participants was judged may mean the results are not that reliable - the raters had to judge attractiveness very quickly,
4. The participants were dressed up at the dance, and they had several hours to judge each other’s attractiveness, so their perception might not have matched the rating.

Question 18

Murstein (1972), in support of the matching hypothesis?

Answer 18

Murstein (1972) asked 99 real couples and 98 fake couples to rank themselves on attractiveness. An independent judge was also asked to rate the couples. For those in a real relationship there was a strong positive correlation between the attractiveness of the two partners,

Question 19

White (1980), in support of the matching hypothesis?

Answer 19

White (1980) studied 123 couples. He found that couples who were only dating at the start of the study were more likely to have progressed to a serious relationship 9 months later if both partners were similarly attractive.

Question 20

Weaknesses of the matching hypothesis?

Answer 20

1. The results of Walster et al. (1966) computer dance didn’t support the matching hypothesis,
2. The hypothesis says that matching effects who we choose to start a relationship with, but the evidence supporting the theory comes from relationships that have already started.