PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
Men in particular place value in attractiveness as a cue for health and therefore fertility and reproductive
value. More recent research e.g. from Eastwick et al. (2011) found that for women, male physical
attractiveness was important in short-term relationships e.g. one night stands, and less important for
long term relationships, whereas males relied more on physical attractiveness in the long term.
The matching hypothesis
Claims that when seeking relationships individuals go for those whose social desirability matches that of
their own. So when choosing a partner individuals must first assess their own value in the eyes of a
potential partner and then select the best available candidates who would most likely be attracted to
them. By opting for partners of similar social desirability to themselves they can maximise their own
chances of success.
Walster (1996)
P - 177 males 170 females randomly selected to take part. When coming to pick up their ticket, they
were rated on physical attractiveness. They completed a lengthy questionnaire to assess who their
partner for the dance would be, but in reality the partner was chosen at random. During the dance and 6
months after they were asked to complete a questionnaire about their dates
F- DID NOT SUPPORT MATCHING HYPOTHESIS: once they had met their dates, regardless of their
own physical attractiveness, they responded more positively to physically attractive dates and were
more likely to try and arrange a follow up date with them.
EVALUATION: COMPLEX MATCHING
- Spencer and hatfield (2009) - suggests why research often fails to find evidence for the matching
hypothesis
- People may compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness with other desirable
qualities such as money - they refer to this as ‘complex matching’
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS = MEN: WOMEN MORE FERTILE/REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS.
MATCHING HYPOTHESIS (EQUAL SOCIAL DESIRABILITY), WALSTER (DANCE
QUESTIONNAIRES), COMPLEX MATCHING
SELF DISCLOSURE
= when people reveal intimate details about themselves to someone else - leads to greater feeling of
intimacy
Research: shows the level of SD received in a relationship was a better predictor of liking than the level
of SD given
> SPRECHER: studied 50 dating couples and found that the amount of SD was predictive of whether
they stayed together for longer than 4 years - positive for relationship stability.
EVALUATION: CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN PATTERNS OF SD
- In the west people typically engage in more intimate self disclosure than non-westerners.
- E.g. Chen (1995) found Americans disclose more than the japanese.
- Cultural norms also shape how comfortable we are in self disclosing
- Nakanishi: japanese women prefer a lower level of personal conversations than japanese
men - opposite to in the west
-
SELF DISCLOSURE = REVEALING INTIMATE DETAILS, CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
, FILTER THEORY (Kerchoff and Davis)
= we choose romantic partners by using a series of filters (e.g. age) that narrow down the field of
availables from which we can make our choice.
1. Social demography = things in common e.g. religion where we are more likely to come into
contact with them
2. Similarity in attitudes = best predictor of the relationship continuing & becoming stable
3. Complementarity of needs = how well 2 people fit together as a couple and meet each other’s
needs
EVALUATION: A PROBLEM FOR FILTER THEORY
- Assumes that relationships progress when partners discover shared attitudes and values with
their partner and the possession of needs that compliment them
- However, these needs are constantly changing over time and in many instances people are not
aware of those of their partner
- E.g. in a study of young Americans over a few decades there was a decrease in the desire to
marry and have children, and a more relaxed attitude towards cohabitation and more egalitarian
attitudes toward gender roles in marriage.
FILTER THEORY = SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHY, SIMILARITY IN ATTITUDES, COMPLEMENTARITY OF
NEEDS, A PROBLEM FOR FILTER THEORY (CHANGES OVER TIME)
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
= the likelihood of a person staying in a relationship is determined by an assessment of what they get
out of the relationship compared to what they put in
1. Profit and loss - all social behaviour is a series of exchanges where individuals attempt to
maximise their rewards and minimise their costs. This theory stresses that commitment to a
relationship is dependent on the profitability
2. Comparison level (CL) - product of our experiences in other relationships / what we might expect.
If a new relationship exceeds our CL then it is judged as worthwhile and the other person will be
seen attractive as a partner and vice versa
3. Comparison level for alternatives (CLA) - weighs up a potential increase in rewards from another
partner, minus any costs associated with ending the current relationship
EVALUATION: REAL WORLD APPLICATION - RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
- Individuals in unsuccessful marriages frequently report a lack of positive behaviour exchanges
with their partner and an excess of negative exchanges
- Positive to negatives exchange ratio in successful marriages = 5:1,unsuccessful = 1:1
- The primary goal of Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT) is to increase the proportion
of positive exchanges and decrease the negative ones
- Christensen (2004) tested over 60 distressed couples using ICBT and found that about ⅔
reported significant improvements in the quality of their relationships.
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY = PROFIT AND LOSS, COMPARISON LEVEL, COMPARISON LEVEL
FOR ALTERNATIVES, REAL WORLD APPLICATION - RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
Men in particular place value in attractiveness as a cue for health and therefore fertility and reproductive
value. More recent research e.g. from Eastwick et al. (2011) found that for women, male physical
attractiveness was important in short-term relationships e.g. one night stands, and less important for
long term relationships, whereas males relied more on physical attractiveness in the long term.
The matching hypothesis
Claims that when seeking relationships individuals go for those whose social desirability matches that of
their own. So when choosing a partner individuals must first assess their own value in the eyes of a
potential partner and then select the best available candidates who would most likely be attracted to
them. By opting for partners of similar social desirability to themselves they can maximise their own
chances of success.
Walster (1996)
P - 177 males 170 females randomly selected to take part. When coming to pick up their ticket, they
were rated on physical attractiveness. They completed a lengthy questionnaire to assess who their
partner for the dance would be, but in reality the partner was chosen at random. During the dance and 6
months after they were asked to complete a questionnaire about their dates
F- DID NOT SUPPORT MATCHING HYPOTHESIS: once they had met their dates, regardless of their
own physical attractiveness, they responded more positively to physically attractive dates and were
more likely to try and arrange a follow up date with them.
EVALUATION: COMPLEX MATCHING
- Spencer and hatfield (2009) - suggests why research often fails to find evidence for the matching
hypothesis
- People may compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness with other desirable
qualities such as money - they refer to this as ‘complex matching’
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS = MEN: WOMEN MORE FERTILE/REPRODUCTIVE SUCCESS.
MATCHING HYPOTHESIS (EQUAL SOCIAL DESIRABILITY), WALSTER (DANCE
QUESTIONNAIRES), COMPLEX MATCHING
SELF DISCLOSURE
= when people reveal intimate details about themselves to someone else - leads to greater feeling of
intimacy
Research: shows the level of SD received in a relationship was a better predictor of liking than the level
of SD given
> SPRECHER: studied 50 dating couples and found that the amount of SD was predictive of whether
they stayed together for longer than 4 years - positive for relationship stability.
EVALUATION: CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN PATTERNS OF SD
- In the west people typically engage in more intimate self disclosure than non-westerners.
- E.g. Chen (1995) found Americans disclose more than the japanese.
- Cultural norms also shape how comfortable we are in self disclosing
- Nakanishi: japanese women prefer a lower level of personal conversations than japanese
men - opposite to in the west
-
SELF DISCLOSURE = REVEALING INTIMATE DETAILS, CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
, FILTER THEORY (Kerchoff and Davis)
= we choose romantic partners by using a series of filters (e.g. age) that narrow down the field of
availables from which we can make our choice.
1. Social demography = things in common e.g. religion where we are more likely to come into
contact with them
2. Similarity in attitudes = best predictor of the relationship continuing & becoming stable
3. Complementarity of needs = how well 2 people fit together as a couple and meet each other’s
needs
EVALUATION: A PROBLEM FOR FILTER THEORY
- Assumes that relationships progress when partners discover shared attitudes and values with
their partner and the possession of needs that compliment them
- However, these needs are constantly changing over time and in many instances people are not
aware of those of their partner
- E.g. in a study of young Americans over a few decades there was a decrease in the desire to
marry and have children, and a more relaxed attitude towards cohabitation and more egalitarian
attitudes toward gender roles in marriage.
FILTER THEORY = SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHY, SIMILARITY IN ATTITUDES, COMPLEMENTARITY OF
NEEDS, A PROBLEM FOR FILTER THEORY (CHANGES OVER TIME)
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY
= the likelihood of a person staying in a relationship is determined by an assessment of what they get
out of the relationship compared to what they put in
1. Profit and loss - all social behaviour is a series of exchanges where individuals attempt to
maximise their rewards and minimise their costs. This theory stresses that commitment to a
relationship is dependent on the profitability
2. Comparison level (CL) - product of our experiences in other relationships / what we might expect.
If a new relationship exceeds our CL then it is judged as worthwhile and the other person will be
seen attractive as a partner and vice versa
3. Comparison level for alternatives (CLA) - weighs up a potential increase in rewards from another
partner, minus any costs associated with ending the current relationship
EVALUATION: REAL WORLD APPLICATION - RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
- Individuals in unsuccessful marriages frequently report a lack of positive behaviour exchanges
with their partner and an excess of negative exchanges
- Positive to negatives exchange ratio in successful marriages = 5:1,unsuccessful = 1:1
- The primary goal of Integrated Behavioural Couples Therapy (IBCT) is to increase the proportion
of positive exchanges and decrease the negative ones
- Christensen (2004) tested over 60 distressed couples using ICBT and found that about ⅔
reported significant improvements in the quality of their relationships.
SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY = PROFIT AND LOSS, COMPARISON LEVEL, COMPARISON LEVEL
FOR ALTERNATIVES, REAL WORLD APPLICATION - RELATIONSHIP THERAPY
