AQA - Option 1 - Topic 9:
Relationships
Learning Outcomes
1. Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: self-disclosure;
physical attractiveness, including the matching hypothesis; filter theory,
including social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity.
2. Theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory, equity theory
and Rusbult's investment model of commitment, satisfaction, comparison
with alternatives and investment. Duck's phase model of relationship
breakdown: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing phases.
3. Online relationships: self-disclosure, use of deception, effects of absence
of gating.
4. Parasocial relationships: levels of parasocial relationships, the absorption
addiction model and the attachment theory explanation.
1. Factors Affecting Attraction in Romantic
Relationships
1. Self-Disclosure
Definition
The process of revealing personal information about oneself to another
person.
Includes thoughts, feelings, experiences, and desires.
Believed to be a key factor in developing romantic attraction and intimacy.
Social Penetration Theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973)
AQA - Option 1 - Topic 9: Relationships 1
, Central idea: Relationships develop through a gradual increase in self-
disclosure, allowing partners to penetrate each other's "layers" (like an onion).
Breadth: At the start, breadth of topics is wide but superficial (e.g., hobbies,
favorite food).
Depth: Over time, depth increases (e.g., childhood traumas, deepest fears).
Reciprocity: Disclosure must be balanced; one-sided disclosure can create
mistrust.
Timing: Disclosing too much too early can cause discomfort, but too little may
slow intimacy.
Supporting Research
Sprecher & Hendrick (2004) – Studied dating couples; positive correlation
between self-disclosure and satisfaction. Partners who disclosed more were
more committed.
Has & Hartford (1998) – In homosexual couples, 57% reported open self-
disclosure as the main method for maintaining closeness.
Aron et al. (1997) – Pairs who answered 36 questions from superficial →
intimate reported feeling significantly closer; mutual gaze increased intimacy.
Collins & Miller (1994) – Meta-analysis: People who disclose more are liked
more, and people like others more if they believe they have disclosed to them.
Cooper & Sportolari (1997) – Boom and Bust in online relationships: Early,
intense disclosure (due to anonymity) creates excitement but often collapses
without a trust foundation.
Evaluation of Self-Disclosure
Strengths Weaknesses
1.) The importance of establishing trust in a 1.) However, much of the research into self-
partner before revealing more intimate disclosure is correlational which means that
information about ourselves is supported a causal relationship cannot be easily
by the so-called 'boom and bust' determined
phenomenon in online relationships, → it may be that it is the attraction between
described by Cooper and Sportolari (1997). partners which leads to greater self-
AQA - Option 1 - Topic 9: Relationships 2
, Strengths Weaknesses
- They found that anonymity of online disclosure, rather than the sharing of
interactions gave web-users a sense of information which leads to greater intimacy.
security and made them disclose personal
information much earlier in relationships 2. Cultural bias
than they would face-to-face, making - Tang et al. (2013): US couples disclose
relationships exciting and intense ('boom'). more sexual thoughts than Chinese couples,
- However, because the necessary trust but satisfaction is high in both → self-
foundation had not been established, the disclosure not universally essential.
intensity of the relationship was impossible
to sustain, leading to break-up ('bust'). 3. Reductionism
→ This shows that breadth of relationships - Overemphasis on one factor; ignores
needs to be established first, before physical attraction, shared values, and
proceeding to a deeper self-disclosure, situational influences.
just as Social Penetration Theory suggests.
2. Most support for the concept of self-
disclosure comes from correlational
research. While there is undoubtedly a link
between self-disclosure and greater
relationship satisfaction, cause and effect
cannot be established, reducing the
validity of the concept.
Issues & Debates
Cultural Bias – Developed in Western individualist contexts; collectivist
relationships may prioritize group/family harmony over personal openness.
Nomothetic Approach – Attempts to create general laws; an idiographic focus
might capture unique partner dynamics better.
Free Will vs Determinism – Suggests we can consciously choose to disclose,
but in reality, personality traits and cultural norms may unconsciously dictate
disclosure levels.
2. Physical Attractiveness: Including the Matching
Hypothesis
Definition & Evolutionary Basis
AQA - Option 1 - Topic 9: Relationships 3
, Physical attractiveness refers to how pleasing someone's appearance is
perceived to be, which often serves as a cue for health, fertility, and genetic
fitness.
Evolutionary psychology explains attraction through sexual selection — traits
signaling reproductive value are favored because they increase the chances
of passing on genes.
Examples of Evolutionary Cues:
Symmetry – Indicates absence of developmental abnormalities (Little & Jones,
2003). Symmetry suggests an organism has developed without major genetic
mutations or illness.
Facial Neoteny (baby-face features) – Large eyes, small nose, and full lips
signal youth and fertility.
Waist-to-Hip Ratio (WHR) – Singh (2002) found WHR of ~0.7 was universally
rated attractive in women, signaling optimal fertility.
Sexual Dimorphism – Features signaling testosterone (in men) or estrogen (in
women) indicate reproductive health.
The Halo Effect
Cognitive bias where attractive individuals are assumed to possess other
socially desirable traits (e.g., intelligence, kindness, competence).
This bias extends into politics, education, law, and employment.
Research Support:
1. Dion, Berscheid & Walster (1972) – Participants rated attractive individuals as
more socially skilled, happier, and more successful in relationships ("what is
beautiful is good").
2. Palmer & Peterson (2012) – Attractive people rated more politically competent
and knowledgeable than unattractive ones, regardless of actual knowledge.
3. Landy & Aronson (1969) – In a mock jury setting:
Attractive victims led to harsher sentences for unattractive defendants.
AQA - Option 1 - Topic 9: Relationships 4
Relationships
Learning Outcomes
1. Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships: self-disclosure;
physical attractiveness, including the matching hypothesis; filter theory,
including social demography, similarity in attitudes and complementarity.
2. Theories of romantic relationships: social exchange theory, equity theory
and Rusbult's investment model of commitment, satisfaction, comparison
with alternatives and investment. Duck's phase model of relationship
breakdown: intra-psychic, dyadic, social and grave dressing phases.
3. Online relationships: self-disclosure, use of deception, effects of absence
of gating.
4. Parasocial relationships: levels of parasocial relationships, the absorption
addiction model and the attachment theory explanation.
1. Factors Affecting Attraction in Romantic
Relationships
1. Self-Disclosure
Definition
The process of revealing personal information about oneself to another
person.
Includes thoughts, feelings, experiences, and desires.
Believed to be a key factor in developing romantic attraction and intimacy.
Social Penetration Theory (Altman & Taylor, 1973)
AQA - Option 1 - Topic 9: Relationships 1
, Central idea: Relationships develop through a gradual increase in self-
disclosure, allowing partners to penetrate each other's "layers" (like an onion).
Breadth: At the start, breadth of topics is wide but superficial (e.g., hobbies,
favorite food).
Depth: Over time, depth increases (e.g., childhood traumas, deepest fears).
Reciprocity: Disclosure must be balanced; one-sided disclosure can create
mistrust.
Timing: Disclosing too much too early can cause discomfort, but too little may
slow intimacy.
Supporting Research
Sprecher & Hendrick (2004) – Studied dating couples; positive correlation
between self-disclosure and satisfaction. Partners who disclosed more were
more committed.
Has & Hartford (1998) – In homosexual couples, 57% reported open self-
disclosure as the main method for maintaining closeness.
Aron et al. (1997) – Pairs who answered 36 questions from superficial →
intimate reported feeling significantly closer; mutual gaze increased intimacy.
Collins & Miller (1994) – Meta-analysis: People who disclose more are liked
more, and people like others more if they believe they have disclosed to them.
Cooper & Sportolari (1997) – Boom and Bust in online relationships: Early,
intense disclosure (due to anonymity) creates excitement but often collapses
without a trust foundation.
Evaluation of Self-Disclosure
Strengths Weaknesses
1.) The importance of establishing trust in a 1.) However, much of the research into self-
partner before revealing more intimate disclosure is correlational which means that
information about ourselves is supported a causal relationship cannot be easily
by the so-called 'boom and bust' determined
phenomenon in online relationships, → it may be that it is the attraction between
described by Cooper and Sportolari (1997). partners which leads to greater self-
AQA - Option 1 - Topic 9: Relationships 2
, Strengths Weaknesses
- They found that anonymity of online disclosure, rather than the sharing of
interactions gave web-users a sense of information which leads to greater intimacy.
security and made them disclose personal
information much earlier in relationships 2. Cultural bias
than they would face-to-face, making - Tang et al. (2013): US couples disclose
relationships exciting and intense ('boom'). more sexual thoughts than Chinese couples,
- However, because the necessary trust but satisfaction is high in both → self-
foundation had not been established, the disclosure not universally essential.
intensity of the relationship was impossible
to sustain, leading to break-up ('bust'). 3. Reductionism
→ This shows that breadth of relationships - Overemphasis on one factor; ignores
needs to be established first, before physical attraction, shared values, and
proceeding to a deeper self-disclosure, situational influences.
just as Social Penetration Theory suggests.
2. Most support for the concept of self-
disclosure comes from correlational
research. While there is undoubtedly a link
between self-disclosure and greater
relationship satisfaction, cause and effect
cannot be established, reducing the
validity of the concept.
Issues & Debates
Cultural Bias – Developed in Western individualist contexts; collectivist
relationships may prioritize group/family harmony over personal openness.
Nomothetic Approach – Attempts to create general laws; an idiographic focus
might capture unique partner dynamics better.
Free Will vs Determinism – Suggests we can consciously choose to disclose,
but in reality, personality traits and cultural norms may unconsciously dictate
disclosure levels.
2. Physical Attractiveness: Including the Matching
Hypothesis
Definition & Evolutionary Basis
AQA - Option 1 - Topic 9: Relationships 3
, Physical attractiveness refers to how pleasing someone's appearance is
perceived to be, which often serves as a cue for health, fertility, and genetic
fitness.
Evolutionary psychology explains attraction through sexual selection — traits
signaling reproductive value are favored because they increase the chances
of passing on genes.
Examples of Evolutionary Cues:
Symmetry – Indicates absence of developmental abnormalities (Little & Jones,
2003). Symmetry suggests an organism has developed without major genetic
mutations or illness.
Facial Neoteny (baby-face features) – Large eyes, small nose, and full lips
signal youth and fertility.
Waist-to-Hip Ratio (WHR) – Singh (2002) found WHR of ~0.7 was universally
rated attractive in women, signaling optimal fertility.
Sexual Dimorphism – Features signaling testosterone (in men) or estrogen (in
women) indicate reproductive health.
The Halo Effect
Cognitive bias where attractive individuals are assumed to possess other
socially desirable traits (e.g., intelligence, kindness, competence).
This bias extends into politics, education, law, and employment.
Research Support:
1. Dion, Berscheid & Walster (1972) – Participants rated attractive individuals as
more socially skilled, happier, and more successful in relationships ("what is
beautiful is good").
2. Palmer & Peterson (2012) – Attractive people rated more politically competent
and knowledgeable than unattractive ones, regardless of actual knowledge.
3. Landy & Aronson (1969) – In a mock jury setting:
Attractive victims led to harsher sentences for unattractive defendants.
AQA - Option 1 - Topic 9: Relationships 4
