RELATIONSHIPS Flanagan p.59REDP3 GRN

1
RELATIONSHIPSFlanagan p.59RED/P3 GRN

• Attraction and formation of relationships
• Interpersonal attraction
• Formation of relationships

2
INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION p.59

• 5 main areas have been researched
• Physical attractiveness
• Proximity
• Attitude similarity
• Demographic similarity
• Personality similarity

3
SPECIFICATION

• Attraction and formation of relationships
• Interpersonal attraction
• Formation of relationships
• Maintenance and dissolution of relationships
• Maintenance (social exchange , equity)
• Dissolution (sequence of events)
• Explanations of love (romantic/ companionate)
• Cultural and subcultural differences
• Individualistic vs. Collectivist
  
• Voluntary vs.
  Involuntary
• Permanent vs. Impermanent
• Gay and lesbian relationships
• Electronic friendships

4
Physical attractiveness

• Women - face like a baby, big eyes, small nose
  chin
• Men - mature face, square jaw, small eyes,
  thin lips
• BRIGHAM 71 found that physically attractive
  people are thought to be generally attractive.
• Both males and females believed that physically
  attractive people are
• Poised and sociable
• Interesting and independent
• Exciting and sexually warm

5
THE MATCHING HYPOTHESIS

• This states that we are attracted to people of
  equal physical attractiveness to ourselves.
• In this way, we avoid rejection.
• WALSTER 66 found that people preferred to be
  partnered with very good looking people.
• APFC p.61/p.5

6
WALSTER AND WALSTER 69

• repeated the computer dance but Ps met their
  partner beforehand.
• It was found that they tended to be attracted to
  people of the same level of physical
  attractiveness

7
MURSTEIN 72

• tested the matching hypothesis using photos of
  engaged couples cut apart.
• His findings supported the matching hypothesis.

8
EVALUATION OF MATCHING HYPOTHESIS

• TOWHEY 79 asked Ps how much they would like
  a person
• a) if they saw a photo
• b) if given life information
  about person.
• Those high on macho scale chose a)
• Those low on macho scale chose b)
• MURSTEIN AND CHRISTY reported that married
  couples tend to be very similar in physical
  attractiveness, but this can be replaced by
  wealth and status, so that
• Good looking old fat ugly
  wealth or
• Woman man status

9
PROXIMITY

• Being physically near to people increases their
  chance of becoming friends.
• FESTINGER ET AL studied married graduates who
  had been allocated flats in a building.
• 2/3 of closest friends also lived there.
• Twice as likely to be living on the same floor.
• People near stairs had more friends.

10
Australian research

• 40 of Australians used technology to form
  important relationships
• 5 had relationships using technology which
  resulted in marriage

11
BASARD 32

• examined 5,000 marriage licences. Found a clear
  tendency for people getting married to live close
  to each other.
• BUT
• This is probably no longer the case because of
  increased mobility.

12
EVALUATION of PROXIMITY RESEARCH

• 1. Proximity also increases antagonism
• 2. This is all a bit obvious. Kerchoff and
  Davis 62 used a filter system to explain
  relationship formation

13
DEMOGRAPHIC SIMILARITY

• Demographic variables include
• Age, sex, race, social status,
  
• geographical location, religion
• KANDEL 78 - asked secondary school pupils to
  identify their best friend. They tended to be of
  the same sex, social class, religion, age, and
  ethnic background.

14
Attitude similarity

• This is thought to be one of the main factors
  determining interpersonal attraction.
• NEWCOMB 61 obtained information about Ps
  beliefs and attitudes. Ps were assigned to a
  room either
• a) with people of similar attitudes
• b) with people of different attitudes
• 50 in a) formed friendships
• 25 in b) formed friendships

15
EVALUATION OF ATTITUDE

• BYRNE 68
• even more effective is IMPORTANCE of attitude.
• People reported feeling more attracted to people
  who held attitudes to them if the attitude really
  mattered.
• WERNER AND PARMALEE 79 found evidence that
  similarity in leisure activities was more
  important than attitude similarity.

16
SIMILARITY IN PERSONALITY

• Similarities have been found in
• Physical attractiveness
• Attitudes
• Demographic variables
• Amongst friends, engaged and married couples.
• With personality, do birds of a feather flock
  together or opposites attract?

17
COMPLEMENTARITY VS SIMILARITY

• WINCH 58 found that married couples who were
  different in personality were happier than if
  they were similar, because their needs
  complemented each other.
• DO OPPOSITES
• ATTRACT?
• OR DO BIRDS OF A
• FEATHER FLOCK
• TOGETHER?