SPECIFICATION: FACTORS AFFECTING ATTRACTION IN ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS: Filter Theory:

• The process of narrowing down potential partners based on specific criteria, including:

• Social Demography: Factors such as age, location, and social background.

• Similarity in Attitudes: Shared values and beliefs.

• Complementarity: The balance of traits that complement each other in a relationship.

HORMONES

Several hormones play crucial roles in romantic love and sexual behaviour:

1. Oxytocin: Often called the "love hormone" or "cuddle hormone," oxytocin is associated with bonding, trust, and intimacy. It is released during physical affection, such as hugging, kissing, and sexual activity, promoting attachment between partners.

2. Vasopressin: Similar to oxytocin, vasopressin is involved in pair bonding and attachment. It influences behaviours related to mate guarding, territoriality, and aggression, particularly in males.

3. Testosterone: Testosterone is primarily known as the male sex hormone, but it also plays a role in female sexual desire and arousal. It influences libido, sexual motivation, and aggression in both sexes.

4. Oestrogen: Oestrogen is the primary female sex hormone, but it is also present in males in smaller amounts. It contributes to regulating menstrual cycles, ovulation, and fertility in females. In males, estrogen helps maintain bone density and libido.

5. Progesterone: Progesterone is mainly associated with the female reproductive system, particularly during pregnancy and the menstrual cycle. It influences mood, libido, and sexual receptivity.

6. Dopamine: Dopamine is a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure, reward, and motivation. It is involved in the brain's reward system and plays a crucial role in the anticipation and experience of sexual pleasure.

7. Serotonin: Serotonin is involved in regulating mood, appetite, and sleep, but it also affects sexual desire and arousal. Imbalances in serotonin levels can lead to changes in libido and sexual function.

8. Prolactin: Prolactin is primarily known for its role in lactation and milk production in females. However, it also influences sexual satisfaction and behavior by suppressing libido and inducing feelings of sexual satiety after orgasm.

SELF DISCLOSURE

Key components of the theory of self-disclosure include:

1. Reciprocity: Self-disclosure typically involves a reciprocal process, where one individual shares personal information, prompting the other to reciprocate with similar disclosures. This reciprocal exchange fosters trust, intimacy, and connection between individuals.

2. Depth and Breadth: Self-disclosure varies in depth (the level of intimacy or personal significance of the disclosed information) and breadth (the range of topics covered). As relationships progress, individuals tend to disclose deeper and broader aspects of themselves, leading to greater intimacy and understanding.

3. Social Penetration Theory: Developed by Altman and Taylor, this theory posits that self-disclosure follows a gradual process of social penetration, akin to peeling back layers of an onion. Initially, individuals share superficial information, but as trust and intimacy develop, they reveal deeper and more personal aspects of themselves.

4. Factors Influencing Self-Disclosure: Various factors influence the likelihood and extent of self-disclosure, including individual differences (such as personality traits), situational factors (such as the context of the interaction), and relational variables (such as the level of trust and closeness between individuals).

5. Benefits and Risks: Self-disclosure can have both positive and negative consequences. When appropriately timed and reciprocated, it can strengthen relationships, foster intimacy, and enhance psychological well-being. However, inappropriate or excessive self-disclosure can lead to discomfort, rejection, or damage to relationships.

The self-disclosure theory highlights the importance of open and honest communication in fostering meaningful connections and relationships. It emphasizes the dynamic interplay between disclosure, trust, and intimacy in social interactions and underscores the role of self-disclosure in shaping interpersonal dynamics. Psychological research supporting the theory of self-disclosure in psychology has been conducted across various domains, including interpersonal communication, social psychology, and relationship studies. Here are some key studies that provide empirical support for the theory:

1. Altman and Taylor (1973): In their seminal work on the Social Penetration Theory, Altman and Taylor conducted a series of studies examining the process of self-disclosure in interpersonal relationships. Their research demonstrated that self-disclosure tends to follow a gradual trajectory, with individuals disclosing increasingly personal information as relationships deepen.

2. Derlega and Chaikin (1976): This study investigated the role of self-disclosure in forming and maintaining friendships. The researchers found that individuals who engaged in reciprocal self-disclosure reported higher levels of intimacy and satisfaction in their friendships compared to those who did not engage in such exchanges.

3. Jourard (1971): Sidney Jourard conducted several studies exploring the link between self-disclosure and psychological well-being. His research showed that individuals who engaged in open and honest self-disclosure experienced greater self-acceptance, reduced anxiety, and improved interpersonal relationships.

4. Collins and Miller (1994): Collins and Miller examined the impact of self-disclosure on romantic relationships. Their longitudinal study found that couples who engaged in mutual self-disclosure reported higher levels of relationship satisfaction and longevity compared to those who did not share personal information.

5. Reis and Shaver (1988): In their study on intimacy in close relationships, Reis and Shaver found that self-disclosure played a crucial role in fostering feelings of closeness and intimacy between romantic partners. They identified self-disclosure as a key predictor of relationship satisfaction and commitment.

6. Sprecher and Hendrick (2004): This study investigated gender differences in self-disclosure and relationship satisfaction. The researchers found that women tended to disclose more personal information than men and that mutual self-disclosure was positively associated with relationship satisfaction for both genders.

7. Laurenceau et al. (1998): Laurenceau and colleagues researched the role of self-disclosure in couples coping with stress. Their findings indicated that couples engaged in open and supportive self-disclosure during stress experienced greater relationship cohesion and adaptive coping strategies.

These studies collectively provide empirical support for the theory of self-disclosure, the theory of self-disclosure has garnered substantial empirical support, it is not without criticisms and limitations. Some critiques and evaluations include:

1. Cultural Variability: Critics argue that the self-disclosure theory may not fully account for cultural differences in communication styles and norms. Self-disclosure norms vary across cultures, with some cultures valuing privacy and restraint in communication, while others encourage open expression of thoughts and emotions.

2. Gender Differences: While research suggests gender differences in self-disclosure patterns, some critics argue that these differences may be influenced by societal expectations and stereotypes rather than inherent differences between men and women. Additionally, the theory may oversimplify the complexities of gender and communication.

3. Temporal Dynamics: Self-disclosure theory often portrays disclosure as a linear and gradual process. However, research indicates that self-disclosure patterns may fluctuate over time, influenced by situational factors, relationship changes, and individual differences.

4. Measurement Challenges: Assessing self-disclosure and its effects can be challenging due to subjective interpretations and self-report biases. Researchers often rely on self-report measures, which may not capture the full range of disclosure behaviours or their impact on relationships accurately.

5. Overemphasis on Reciprocity: While reciprocity is a central tenet of the theory, critics argue that it may overlook asymmetrical patterns of self-disclosure in relationships. Not all disclosures are reciprocated equally, and power dynamics, social norms, and individual differences may influence the balance of disclosure in relationships.

6. Limited Scope of Research: Much of the research on self-disclosure focuses on close interpersonal relationships, such as friendships and romantic partnerships. The theory's applicability to other contexts, such as professional relationships or online interactions, is less well-understood.

7. Predictive Validity: While self-disclosure is associated with various positive outcomes in relationships, such as intimacy and satisfaction, its predictive validity for relationship longevity and stability is unclear. Other factors like communication styles, conflict resolution strategies, and external stressors may also influence relationship outcomes.

Overall, while the theory of self-disclosure provides valuable insights into interpersonal communication and relationship development, it is essential to consider its limitations and contextual factors when interpreting research findings and applying the theory in practice.

THE MATCHING HYPOTHESIS

The Matching Hypothesis is a psychological theory that suggests people tend to form romantic relationships with individuals who are approximately equally attractive or similar to themselves in terms of physical attractiveness. In other words, it proposes that individuals are more likely to choose partners who are on a similar level of physical attractiveness as themselves.

The theory posits that this preference arises from a desire to maximize the likelihood of a successful and long-lasting relationship. If both partners are of similar attractiveness, they are more likely to share common interests, values, and experiences, leading to better communication and relationship satisfaction. Additionally, individuals are believed to fear rejection from highly attractive partners, so they tend to pursue individuals within their attractiveness range to avoid potential rejection.

The Matching Hypothesis has been studied in various social interactions but is most commonly associated with romantic relationships. Research has shown mixed results regarding how individuals follow the Matching Hypothesis when selecting partners. While some studies support that people tend to pair up with partners of similar attractiveness, others suggest that personality, shared interests, and social compatibility may play a more significant role in partner selection.

Overall, the Matching Hypothesis provides a framework for understanding how people perceive and choose romantic partners based on physical attractiveness. Still, it is just one of many factors that influence the dynamics of romantic relationships.

FILTER THEORY

THEORY

One suggestion as to why humans form relationships is the filter theory. This theory is as you would expect from its name- that is, there are several filters that potential partners must get through before we form a relationship with them. It focuses on gradually eliminating (or filtering) individuals according to several characteristics. This explanation suggests that we are more likely to form and sustain relationships with individuals who sustain certain criteria.

Kerchoff and Davis (K and D) argued that relationships develop through three filters, making different factors important at different times. K and D referred to the ‘field of availability’ as the possible people we could have relationships with. They argued that we ‘filter out’ potential partners for different reasons at different times so that the ‘field of available’ is gradually narrowed down to a relatively small ‘field of desirables’ – those we would consider potential partners. 

1ST FILTER: SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC SIMILARITY

The first stage of the filter theory focuses on social and demographic variables, particularly proximity. The first filter is possibly the most critical; this is known as the ‘field of available’, and, simply put, this filter says that we will not form a relationship with anyone we don’t meet. This may seem obvious, but it is very important. It is all very well for us to give the criteria of the perfect reason why two people will form a relationship, but if they never meet, it will never happen. In other words, we are more likely to filter out people who do not live or work near us, those who are not close to us(simply because we don’t meet them). Though this is not always the case, it is implied that, for the most part, we will meet people of a similar class, ethnicity, religion and wage band as us simply because most people tend to mix with people who are pretty similar to them, e.g. many people in Orpington are white, middle class, Christian, conservatives. A much larger group of people who live in other places and come from different backgrounds are rarely encountered.

Included in this filter are physical features. It is suggested that we filter out potential partners based on whether they are physically appealing to us. It may be that a woman is looking for a tall man rather than a short man, or the other way around and will filter out what they are not looking for. Therefore, we will only talk to someone who suits our criteria. Individual characteristics play a small part in this first stage.

2ND FILTER: SIMILARITY OF ATTITUDES AND VALUES ('FIELD OF DESIRABLES')
Then is a filter called similarity of attitudes and values, which is judged when we meet someone and begin talking to them. It is thought that we will want to form a relationship with someone with similar attitudes and beliefs. This filters psychological features- shared beliefs are considered pivotal here—for example, diet, music, politics, ambitions, etc. K and D thought this stage was most closely related to the probability of the relationship becoming stronger. People with different values, attitudes, interests, etc., will be filtered out at this stage.

3RD FILTER: COMPLEMENTARITY OF EMOTIONAL NEEDS ('FIELD OF DESIRABLES')
The final filter is the ‘complementarity of emotional needs’ after the relationship has formed. K and D believe if couples have this third filter, their relationship will be more likely to be long-term (longer than 18 months). Complementarity of emotional needs suggests that a relationship will last if the couple suits each other in areas, such as how their personalities gel, e.g., one could be domineering and seek a submissive partner, or an extrovert may need another extrovert. It could be as simple as whether they both enjoy snuggling up on a night in or partying nonstop night after night- this will affect how they function as a couple, determining whether they stay together.

ANALYSIS FILTER THEORY

Cultural bias: The Filter theory is ethnocentric in its assumption that all relationships will be formed according to Western/individualistic ideas of relationships. The premise of the Filter theory is that relationship formation is down to individual choice, e.g., choosing a partner with similar attitudes, beliefs and values. There are many cultures and subcultures, mainly in Collectivist societies, where families or communities often arrange relationships; individual choice is rarely an option (Moghadden, 1993). Indeed, the collectivist way of forming relationships is so vastly different from the individualistic culture that some psychologists believe that theories on formation, like the Filter Model, can never be seen from an Elitist point of view, as there are no universal behaviours. To understand the effect of cultural influences on behaviour, this research area would need to be analysed emically.’

LACK OF TEMPORAL VALIDITY (HISTORICAL BIAS)

The Filter theory was formulated over fifty years ago, in 1962. Is it relevant to today as there is a completely different zeitgeist? For example, internet dating has changed how relationships are conducted. Perhaps it has reduced the importance of the filter and social demography. People can now choose to date people who do not live or work near them - this means that potential partners might be out of our social demography, e.g., different cultures, ethnicities, etc.

METHODOLOGY PROBLEMS:

APFC RESEARCH
Much research has been done to support this theory, the most famous of which was by Kerckhoff and Davis, in which students in relationships answered questions on shared beliefs and complementarity of emotional needs and were then assessed later to see if their relationship had endured. Their research supported the idea that shared beliefs are fundamental to forming a relationship and that the complementarity of social needs is central to maintaining a relationship.

Most research surrounding the filter theory has tended to focus on questionnaires and establishing correlations. For example, Spreecher (1998) conducted a longitudinal study over a twenty-year-one-year period. Findings suggested that couples similar in intelligence, education and social background were more likely to stay together. This correlation supports both the first and second stages of the Filter Theory.

Several further studies have pointed to a link between proximity and the formation of relationships. See your textbook for studies on similarity and proximity.

• Participants, biased sample? Was there any external/population validity? Do students represent relationship formation in general? Students are only young; they may not know much about relationships. Expectations of relationships may be different in teens and early twenties.

• Questionnaires are subject to demand characteristics and social desirability bias, you may be embarrassed to talk about relationship, not loyal, also socially sensitive, if you admit you have different attitudes you may worry the information will not be confidential.

• How did they get their sample? Participants who respond to adverts on relationships may be similar in character and relationship satisfaction, e.g., only those happy with their partner respond.

• Also participants may drop out because of embarrassment over the cause of their breakup. The remaining pps may reflect a bias in the sample.

IS PSYCHOLOGY A SCIENCE? Is the research for the filter model scientific? No, it’s non-experimental questionnaires that are then correlated. Can it be scientific? This is the only way it can be studied, too many variables, and can’t experiment. Triangulate or meta analyse.

REDUCTIONIST:  Reduces relationship formation to three filters and ignores biological, cultural and cognitive factors.

DETERMINISM: Yes, it says you will be more likely to form relationships with similar people who live near you and complement your personality. What about the Internet and people who meet in cyberspace?

NATURE VERSUS NURTURE:  Nurture theory ignores biological influences.

Perhaps proximity is simply a repercussion of several factors linked with similarity. 

What exactly is meant by a filter? For example, are there qualitatively different types of behaviour and emotions during different filters? Do later filters depend on coping successfully with earlier filters? Do people go through filters in the same way for the same amount of time? 

ANALYSIS OF BOTH THEORIES

Another problem that affects both theories is that of reductionism. For the filter theory, Rubin suggests that it implies we like people who are similar to us because we assume that they will like us on the same merit. Most of us are vain enough to think that anyone who shares the same views as us is worth our time- and anyone who does not- is not! Similarly, reward/need theory may suggest that even if we don’t suit someone, we will stay with them if we have had enough good experiences. It could be suggested that we know from experience this is not the case. Therefore, perhaps we should consider that either theory may go some way to explain why we form relationships but does not explain fully and should be used within a broader explanation.