Self-disclosure and physical attractiveness

Self-disclosure — revealing personal information about yourself. Altman and Taylor's social penetration theory compares it to peeling an onion: relationships develop through the gradual, reciprocal removal of layers, moving from superficial 'breadth' to intimate 'depth'. Disclosing too much too soon is off-putting. Reis and Shaver added that disclosure must be reciprocal — your partner must respond with empathy and their own disclosure — for intimacy to grow.

Physical attractiveness

• Symmetry and neoteny. Shackelford and Larsen (1997) found people with more symmetrical faces were rated as more attractive — symmetry is thought to be an honest signal of genetic fitness because it cannot be faked. Neotenous (baby-face) features such as large eyes and a small nose are also attractive, thought to trigger a protective, caring instinct.
• The halo effect. Dion et al. (1972) found that physically attractive people were consistently rated as kind, sociable and successful — 'what is beautiful is good'. The belief becomes self-fulfilling: we behave more positively towards attractive people, and they respond in kind.
• The matching hypothesis (Walster et al., 1966). The 'computer dance' study: 752 students were rated for attractiveness by independent judges, then randomly paired at a dance. Participants were asked to rate their date. The prediction that they would prefer a partner of similar attractiveness was not supported — the most-liked partners were simply the most attractive ones, regardless of the participant's own rating. Walster's own study therefore contradicted the hypothesis.

Evaluation: physical attractiveness matters, but the matching hypothesis in its original form is not well supported. There are also individual differences: Towhey (1979) found that participants who scored high on a 'macho' sexist attitude scale were the most affected by physical attractiveness, while low scorers were less influenced — so the effect is moderated by attitudes, and is not the universal law the research implies.

Kerckhoff and Davis's filter theory (1962)

We do not have an infinite field of availables. Three filters narrow it to a field of desirables, and different filters matter at different stages:

• 1. Social demography — geographical proximity, social class, education, religion, ethnicity. It filters out the vast majority of people before we ever meet them, so those we do meet tend already to be homogamous (similar to us).
• 2. Similarity in attitudes — most important in the early stages (Kerckhoff and Davis found in the first 18 months). Sharing beliefs promotes self-disclosure. Byrne calls the finding that similarity causes attraction the 'law of attraction'.
• 3. Complementarity — most important later. Partners meet each other's needs precisely because they differ: one likes to make the other laugh, one likes to be made to laugh. It gives a feeling of 'making a whole'.

The study: Kerckhoff and Davis followed couples using questionnaires, comparing those who had been together for less than 18 months with those together longer. Similarity of attitudes predicted closeness in short-term couples; complementarity of needs predicted it in longer-term ones.

Evaluation: Levinger (1974) argued the theory has been undermined by a failure to replicate the original findings, which he attributed to social change and to the difficulty of defining the '18-month' cut-off — some couples are deeply committed after a few months. Anderson (2003) found in a longitudinal study that cohabiting partners became more similar in emotional responses over time — 'emotional convergence' — suggesting similarity may be an effect of the relationship, not a cause of it. Filter theory is also less applicable to online dating, where social demography filters far less.

Which filter?

Social exchange theory and equity theory

Social exchange theory (Thibault and Kelley) — relationships are an economic exchange. We seek to maximise rewards (company, sex, emotional support) and minimise costs (time, stress, opportunity cost). Profit = rewards − costs. Satisfaction is judged against two comparison levels:

• Comparison level (CL) — the amount of reward we believe we deserve, based on past relationships and on social norms (films, novels, friends' relationships). A relationship is worth pursuing if its profit exceeds our CL. Someone with low self-esteem has a low CL and will therefore be satisfied with much less.
• Comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) — 'could I do better elsewhere — or alone?' Duck argued that the CLalt we adopt depends on the state of our current relationship: if we are satisfied, we barely notice the alternatives.
• Four stages: sampling → bargaining → commitment → institutionalisation.

Equity theory (Walster et al.) corrects SET's biggest flaw. What matters is not the size of the profit but its fairness: both partners' level of profit should be roughly equal relative to their inputs. Crucially, equity is not equality — a partner who puts in a great deal and gets a great deal out is in an equitable relationship. Both under-benefitting (anger, resentment) and over-benefitting (guilt, discomfort) reduce satisfaction. Perceived inequity produces distress and attempts to restore equity — or a cognitive revision of what counts as a fair input.

Evaluation: SET is criticised because it is hard to quantify rewards and costs — the same behaviour may be a reward to one person and a cost to another — which makes the theory hard to falsify. SET also fails to explain why people stay in clearly unprofitable, even abusive, relationships. Equity theory does better, but individual differences undermine it: Huseman et al. identify 'benevolents' who are content to under-benefit and 'entitleds' who believe they deserve to over-benefit — so equity is not a universal need. There is also a cultural problem: research suggests couples in collectivist cultures are more satisfied when over-benefitting, so the theory may be a Western construct.

Rusbult's investment model and Duck's phase model

Rusbult's investment model — extends SET by explaining why people stay in relationships that are not profitable. Commitment, not satisfaction, is what keeps a relationship going, and commitment has three determinants:

• Satisfaction — the profit level, judged against the CL.
• Comparison with alternatives — would I be better off elsewhere or alone?
• Investment size — Rusbult's key addition. Intrinsic investments are resources put directly into the relationship (money, possessions, self-disclosures, energy). Extrinsic investments are resources that did not previously exist but are now bound up with it (children, a shared home, shared memories and friends).

High investment explains why people stay in abusive relationships: satisfaction is low and alternatives may exist, but investment is so great that leaving means losing everything. Committed partners engage in relationship maintenance mechanisms — accommodation, willingness to sacrifice, forgiveness — and show positive illusions about their partner while being derogatory about tempting alternatives.

Duck's phase model of breakdown — breakdown is a process, not an event. Each phase is marked by a threshold:

• Intra-psychic ("I can't stand this any more") — a private, brooding dissatisfaction, focused on the partner's shortcomings; often shared with a trusted friend.
• Dyadic ("I would be justified in withdrawing") — confrontation with the partner. Anxieties about commitment and equity surface; the outcome is either a determination to repair, or the resolve to break up.
• Social ("I mean it") — the breakdown is made public. Friends take sides, gossip is traded, and the split becomes hard to reverse.
• Grave-dressing ("It's now inevitable") — constructing a favourable account of the break-up that protects your reputation and 'tidies up' the memory. Duck later added a fifth, resurrection phase — turning to future relationships with lessons learned.

Evaluation: Duck's model has real practical application, since identifying the phase a couple is in suggests the appropriate intervention (in the intra-psychic phase, encouraging the partner to think about the relationship's positives). But the original model is incomplete — the resurrection phase was added precisely because breakdown is not a linear march to an end point, and people often move back and forth between phases. The model is also based mainly on research from individualist cultures, where relationships are voluntary and can be ended, so it may not describe breakdown in cultures where marriages are arranged and divorce is difficult or shameful.

Which concept?

Online relationships

Two competing theories about self-disclosure online:

• Reduced cues theory (Sproull and Kiesler, 1986) — computer-mediated communication (CMC) lacks the non-verbal cues we rely on face-to-face: facial expression, tone of voice, physical appearance. This leads to de-individuation and to a reduced sense of individual identity, which in turn encourages disinhibition — blunt, aggressive, even hostile communication ('flaming'). On this view, people are reluctant to disclose in virtual relationships, so they are less likely to develop.
• The hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1996) — the opposite prediction. Online relationships can be more personal and involve more self-disclosure than face-to-face ones, and they can develop very quickly, because CMC lets the sender manipulate their self-image. Disclosure is selective and self-presentation is hyper-controlled — you can edit before you send. Walther calls the sender a 'selective self-presenter', and the resulting intimacy can be intense but fragile. Anonymity matters too: as Bargh et al. note, this is the 'strangers on a train' effect — knowing the other person cannot identify you makes you feel less accountable, so you disclose more.

Absence of gating. A gate is any obstacle to the formation of a face-to-face relationship — physical unattractiveness, a stammer, shyness, social anxiety. McKenna and Bargh argue that a great advantage of CMC is that it is gate-free: relationships can form on the basis of self-disclosure rather than superficial features, which particularly benefits shy and socially anxious people. But the absence of gating also allows people to create untrue identities and deceive others in ways impossible face-to-face.

The use of deception. Because online partners cannot verify what they are told, deception is easy and common — from flattering photographs and edited biographies to wholly invented identities ('catfishing'). Some deception is mild selective self-presentation; some is exploitative. The absence of gating cuts both ways: it liberates the shy, and it enables the dishonest.

Evaluation: reduced cues theory is probably wrong to claim non-verbal cues are absent — they are simply different (emojis, style of language, timing of a reply). Research support is also mixed because it fails to distinguish the many different types of CMC: disclosure on a public social media feed is nothing like disclosure in a private message, and research that lumps them together produces contradictory findings.

Parasocial relationships

A parasocial relationship is one-sided: the fan expends emotional energy, commitment and time on a celebrity who is entirely unaware of their existence. There is no risk of rejection.

Levels of parasocial relationship (Maltby et al., 2006), from the Celebrity Attitude Scale:

• Entertainment-social — celebrities are a source of entertainment and gossip among friends. The least intense level.
• Intense-personal — intensive and compulsive feelings, obsessive thoughts, a sense of a genuine bond ('she is my soulmate'). Maltby found this level was associated with neuroticism, which in turn relates to anxiety and depression.
• Borderline pathological — uncontrollable fantasies and extreme behaviours, including spending large sums or being willing to break the law on the celebrity's behalf.

Explanations

• The absorption-addiction model (McCutcheon, 2002). Parasocial relationships compensate for deficiencies in a person's real life — a weak sense of identity, or a lack of fulfilment. Absorption: seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship motivates the individual to focus attention on the celebrity and become preoccupied with them. Addiction: like a substance addiction, the person needs stronger and stronger doses to sustain the feeling, which can lead to delusional and extreme behaviour. The model predicts a trigger — a stressful life event — can push a person from one level to the next.
• The attachment theory explanation. Bowlby's internal working model suggests that early attachment difficulties create adult relationship problems. Ainsworth identified insecure-resistant attachment as the most likely to produce parasocial relationships: these individuals want their needs met but fear rejection and criticism, and a celebrity offers a relationship with no possibility of rejection. Insecure-avoidant types avoid relationships of any kind, real or parasocial.

Evaluation: support is largely correlational, so a poor real-life relationship history may be an effect of celebrity absorption rather than a cause. McCutcheon et al. (2006) measured attachment types and celebrity-related attitudes in 299 participants and found no significant difference in the tendency to form parasocial relationships between those with insecure and secure attachments — a serious challenge to the attachment explanation. Almost all the research relies on self-report, which is open to social desirability bias.

Which level?

Matching hypothesis

Absence of gating

Which parasocial explanation?

SET or equity?

Which phase of breakdown?

Reduced cues or hyperpersonal?

Name the theory

Tap a concept, then the theory it belongs to.

Study and finding

Tap an item on the left, then its partner on the right.

The big ideas to know

You have covered the whole of AQA 4.3.2 Relationships. Press Finish to see your score.