4.3.2 - Factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships
Why does one acquaintance become a romantic possibility while another does not? This lesson in the optional Relationships topic explains how sharing personal information, physical attractiveness and social filters can affect attraction. You will distinguish first impressions from partner choice and use research to judge how far each explanation reaches.
Self-Disclosure And Intimacy
Self-disclosure means revealing information about yourself to another person. It explains how attraction can deepen after people begin interacting. In romantic relationships, partners usually do not reveal their most private feelings immediately. Disclosure tends to become more personal as trust develops.
Altman and Taylor (1973) proposed social penetration theory. Their basic claim was that relationships develop as partners move from superficial disclosure to more intimate disclosure. The familiar "onion" comparison is useful: early conversations reveal outer layers, such as hobbies and everyday opinions; later conversations reveal deeper layers, such as fears, painful experiences, important values and private hopes.
Breadth of self-disclosure
The range of topics a person reveals information about.
Depth of self-disclosure
The personal significance or intimacy of the information revealed.
Early disclosure is often relatively shallow; its breadth varies with the people and situation. Two people may discuss films, work or weekend plans, but avoid money, family conflict or past relationships. As a relationship develops, both breadth and depth can increase. The couple may discuss more topics and those topics may become more emotionally meaningful. Breadth and depth are separate: discussing ten hobbies is broad but need not be intimate, whereas revealing one private fear can be narrow but deep.
Reciprocity
Mutual exchange of personal information: one person responds to a disclosure by making a disclosure of their own. Responsiveness is related but distinct: it is the understanding, validation and care shown by the listener.
Reciprocity matters because one-sided disclosure can feel uncomfortable. If Leila shares a painful family memory and Sam only says "okay" and changes the subject, Leila may feel exposed rather than closer. If Sam responds with empathy and shares something relevant from his own life, disclosure is more likely to create trust.
Named evidence: Laurenceau, Barrett and Pietromonaco (1998). These researchers tested Reis and Shaver's interpersonal process model of intimacy using diary methods. Participants recorded social interactions over one or two weeks and rated self-disclosure, partner disclosure, perceived partner responsiveness and intimacy. Self-disclosure and partner disclosure predicted feelings of intimacy, with partner responsiveness acting as an important part of the process. This supports the idea that disclosure is not just "telling secrets"; it becomes intimate when the listener responds as understanding, validating and caring.
Named evidence: Sprecher and Hendrick (2004). They studied young adult dating couples using longitudinal data from both partners. Disclosure was positively associated with relationship quality, including satisfaction, love and commitment. However, it generally did not predict whether couples stayed together. An association with feeling close is therefore not automatically a prediction of relationship survival, and neither result proves that disclosure alone causes satisfaction.
Named evidence: Sprecher et al. (2013). In structured initial interactions between unacquainted people, immediate turn-taking produced greater liking and closeness than one person disclosing while the other listened. The difference persisted even when the latter pairs later switched roles. This supports a benefit of the timing of reciprocity in getting acquainted; it does not establish the long-term outcome of romantic relationships.
AO2 example. Nia has been dating Rowan for a month. At first they mostly talked about music and lessons. Recently Nia told Rowan that she worries about disappointing her parents, and Rowan replied by describing pressure in his own family. Nia now feels they understand each other. This illustrates increasing depth of self-disclosure and reciprocity.
AO3 balance. The evidence for self-disclosure is useful, but much of it is correlational. Happy couples may disclose more because they already feel secure, rather than becoming happy only because they disclose. Disclosure can also be too intimate too soon: revealing highly private material before trust develops may cause discomfort rather than attraction. Norms about privacy and appropriate intimacy vary between people, families and cultural settings. A study of one dating population cannot establish that a particular amount or topic of disclosure will help every couple; variation within a culture matters too.
Physical Attractiveness And Matching
Physical attractiveness can influence attraction before people know much about each other. This is not only because someone looks appealing. It is also because appearance can shape expectations about personality, popularity and social value.
Halo effect
A cognitive bias in which one positive feature of a person, such as physical attractiveness, leads to positive judgements about other unrelated qualities, such as intelligence, kindness or confidence.
Dion, Berscheid and Walster (1972) called this the physical attractiveness stereotype. In their classic study, participants judged target people who varied in attractiveness. Physically attractive targets were judged more favourably on socially desirable traits and expected life outcomes than less attractive targets. The conclusion is that attractiveness can create a positive "halo": people assume someone who looks good is also good in other ways.
Attractiveness ratings reflect perceivers and social standards; they are not an objective measure of a person's worth. This matters for romantic attraction because the first impression may be richer than "I like how they look". A person may infer that an attractive partner is warm, socially skilled or exciting, even before there is evidence for those qualities. Over time, this can even create a self-fulfilling prophecy if attractive people receive more positive attention and become more socially confident.
The matching hypothesis adds a different point. It predicts that people make realistic partner choices. Someone may find a very attractive person appealing, but still approach people they see as similar to themselves in attractiveness because this reduces the risk of rejection and makes the relationship feel more balanced.
Named evidence: Walster et al. (1966). In the "Computer Dance" field study, 752 freshmen bought tickets and were rated for physical attractiveness by student judges. They completed questionnaires and were randomly paired for a dance, although they believed computer matching was involved. At the intermission they rated their date, and a later follow-up checked attempts to date again. The findings did not support the matching hypothesis in this setting: the attractiveness of the date was the strongest predictor of liking, desire to date again and actual attempts to date again. Participants did not especially prefer dates who matched their own attractiveness.
This is a useful evaluation point. Walster et al. tested actual behaviour at a real social event, which gives the study ecological strength. However, participants were assigned partners rather than freely choosing from a realistic dating pool. A randomly assigned first date tests immediate responses under a particular opportunity structure. It does not reproduce freely choosing and maintaining a relationship, so its challenge to matching needs that qualification.
Named evidence: Feingold (1988). Feingold conducted a meta-analysis of studies of attractiveness similarity in romantic couples and same-sex friends. For romantic couples, partners' attractiveness ratings were positively correlated, with an average correlation around .39 across 27 couple samples. This supports the matching hypothesis in established couples, although it does not prove that people consciously choose matching partners. Similarity may also result from opportunity, social circles or different rates of relationship continuation; the meta-analysis alone cannot distinguish these possibilities.
AO2 example. Denzel says he would love to date the most attractive person in his year, but he mostly asks out people he thinks are "about as good-looking as me". That is matching. If classmates also assume a very attractive student must be funny, clever and kind before knowing them, that is the halo effect.
AO3 balance. Physical attractiveness is a strong factor in initial attraction, but an answer that treats it as the whole explanation is reductionist. Long-term relationships also depend on disclosure, trust, similarity, practical opportunities, shared values and commitment. Physical attractiveness may open a door, but it does not explain everything that happens inside the relationship.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account