Revision Library

revisionlibrary.co.uk

A-Level · Psychology

PSY.OPT2 Factors in Attraction: Self-Disclosure and Physical Attractiveness

AQA 7182 · Calculators not allowed · about 50 minutes

Total Marks

Name: _______________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______

At least three of the short-answer questions require full sentences. Complete the whole pack in about 50 minutes.

Outline Altman and Taylor's (1973) social penetration theory of self-disclosure in the context of romantic attraction, naming the two key metaphors 'breadth' and 'depth'.

(Total for Question 1 is 2 marks)

Describe the halo effect as it relates to physical attractiveness and first impressions in romantic attraction research.

(Total for Question 2 is 2 marks)

Outline Walster et al.'s (1966) matching hypothesis and briefly name the experimental test they used to investigate it.

(Total for Question 3 is 3 marks)

Explain, with reference to self-disclosure, why two people might feel closer after sharing personal hopes and worries during a series of dates.

(Total for Question 4 is 3 marks)

A short vignette: Kwame meets Erin at university. Erin is rated by others as very attractive, while Kwame considers himself average in looks. After a month, Kwame acts more confidently around Erin and she reciprocates with friendly disclosure. Using the matching hypothesis, explain two reasons why Kwame and Erin might still form a relationship despite differing attractiveness ratings.

(Total for Question 5 is 4 marks)

Explain one methodological critique of Walster et al.'s computer dance study (1966) regarding ecological validity and how this matters for applying the matching hypothesis to real-world dating.

(Total for Question 6 is 4 marks)

Identify two ways in which the halo effect could bias research measures of attractiveness and briefly suggest how a researcher could reduce this bias in a study of first impressions.

(Total for Question 7 is 4 marks)

The social penetration model emphasises reciprocity of self-disclosure. Describe an empirical method a researcher could use to test whether reciprocal disclosure predicts relationship satisfaction in new couples, including one operationalised IV and DV.

(Total for Question 8 is 6 marks)

State two findings or features from Altman and Taylor's model that support the idea that self-disclosure builds intimacy, and give one limitation of the model.

(Total for Question 9 is 3 marks)

Explain how online dating apps might affect the temporal validity of findings about physical attractiveness and matching from the 1960s and 1970s research literature.

(Total for Question 10 is 4 marks)

A small study finds that couples who rate each other as similarly attractive report higher relationship satisfaction. Identify whether this finding can support the matching hypothesis causally, and explain one alternative explanation using self-disclosure.

(Total for Question 11 is 4 marks)

Explain two ethical issues a researcher should consider when studying intimate self-disclosure in new couples, and give a practical safeguard for each.

(Total for Question 12 is 6 marks)

Evaluate the role of self-disclosure and physical attractiveness in romantic attraction. Refer to social penetration theory (Altman and Taylor 1973), the halo effect, and Walster et al.'s (1966) matching hypothesis and computer dance study. Discuss supporting and challenging evidence, methodological issues, ethical considerations where relevant, and the effect of modern dating contexts on the validity of older findings.

Evaluate the role of self-disclosure and physical attractiveness in romantic attraction. In your answer, discuss relevant theories and evidence, consider methodological strengths and weaknesses, and comment on the extent to which findings remain valid given modern practices such as online dating.

(Total for Question 13 is 16 marks)

Mark scheme · PSY.OPT2 Factors in Attraction: Self-Disclosure and Physical Attractiveness

Question 1

B1 states that social penetration theory describes how relationships deepen through increasing self-disclosure oe
B1 identifies breadth and depth as key dimensions: breadth means range of topics and depth means personal significance of topics oe
Answer: Social penetration theory says relationships develop as partners gradually disclose more about themselves; breadth is the number of topics shared and depth is how personal or intimate disclosures become.

Question 2

B1 defines the halo effect as the tendency to assume someone with one positive quality, such as attractiveness, has other positive traits oe
B1 applies it to attraction by noting that physically attractive people are often judged as more kind, sociable or trustworthy on first impressions oe
Answer: The halo effect is the bias where a physically attractive person is assumed to have other positive qualities; in attraction this means attractive people are judged more favourably on traits like warmth or intelligence based on looks alone.

Question 3

M1 states the matching hypothesis: people form relationships with others of similar levels of physical attractiveness oe
M1 explains the proposed reason: to avoid rejection and to maximise chances of a successful partnership oe
A1 names the computer dance study (computer dance or 'dance partner' experiment) as Walster et al.'s test of the idea oe
Answer: The matching hypothesis says individuals pair with partners who match their own physical attractiveness to reduce rejection risk; Walster et al. tested this using the computer dance study where participants were paired for a dance and attractiveness ratings were compared to partner choices.

Question 4

M1 applies social penetration theory: revealing personal information increases depth of disclosure oe
A1 explains that greater depth leads to increased trust and intimacy and so feelings of closeness oe
A1 may note reciprocity: each partner responds with similar disclosure, reinforcing the relationship oe
Answer: Sharing personal hopes and worries increases depth of self-disclosure, which builds trust and perceived intimacy; if disclosure is reciprocated this further strengthens closeness between the two people.

Question 5

M1 suggests that non-physical factors (e.g. mutual self-disclosure, shared interests) can outweigh exact matching in attractiveness oe
A1 explains that reciprocity and growing intimacy through disclosure can make perceived overall attractiveness or compatibility more similar, reducing the impact of initial mismatch oe
M1 offers that people sometimes pursue higher attractiveness partners if they have other compensating assets, such as confidence or social status oe
A1 explains that Kwame's increased confidence and Erin's friendly disclosure may function as compensatory traits, making a relationship more likely despite differences in looks oe
Answer: Matching is not purely physical: strong reciprocal self-disclosure and shared interests can make partners feel more compatible, and compensating traits such as Kwame's confidence can offset a physical attractiveness gap, so the pair may form a relationship despite initial differences.

Question 6

M1 identifies ecological validity as a problem, e.g. the dance event is an artificial, brief situation oe
A1 explains that partner choice in a one-off dance may not reflect long term mate choice, where many factors matter oe
M1 identifies another methodological issue such as sample bias: participants were university students and mostly young oe
A1 explains this limits generalisability to other ages and cultures, so the matching hypothesis may not hold universally in everyday dating contexts oe
Answer: The dance study is artificial and measures brief partner choice, not long term relationship formation, reducing ecological validity; combined with a student sample, the findings may not generalise to real-world dating across ages and cultures.

Question 7

M1 identifies a halo effect bias, e.g. attractive people rated higher on unrelated positive traits such as intelligence or kindness oe
A1 explains that this can inflate correlations between attractiveness and other judged qualities, confounding conclusions oe
M1 identifies a second bias, e.g. researcher or rater expectations influence ratings (expectancy effect) oe
A1 suggests reduction: use blinded raters or objective measures and separate attractiveness ratings from trait ratings to reduce halo influence oe
Answer: Halo bias can cause attractive people to be rated higher on unrelated traits and can create expectancy effects from raters; using blind rating procedures and separating attractiveness from other trait measures reduces these biases.

Question 8

M1 describes a suitable method, e.g. a longitudinal questionnaire study of new couples over several weeks oe
M1 operationalises the IV: level of reciprocity, measured by coding the number and intimacy level of disclosures reciprocated by each partner during structured conversations oe
M1 operationalises the DV: relationship satisfaction score from a validated scale, given at multiple time points oe
A1 explains data collection procedure: couples recorded brief conversations or completed disclosure logs and completed satisfaction scales at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months oe
A1 notes an appropriate analysis: correlate reciprocity scores with later satisfaction or use regression to predict satisfaction controlling for initial closeness oe
A1 mentions ethical safeguards such as informed consent, confidentiality and support if disclosures raise distress oe
Answer: Example: a longitudinal study where new couples take part in structured conversations that are coded for reciprocal disclosures (IV: reciprocity score) and complete a validated relationship satisfaction scale at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months (DV). Correlations or regression could test whether higher reciprocity predicts later satisfaction, with informed consent and debriefing included.

Question 9

B1 supports: increasing depth leads to greater trust/intimacy oe
B1 supports: reciprocity of disclosure accelerates relationship development oe
B1 limitation: model is descriptive and may not account for cultural differences in acceptable disclosure or the fact that disclosure can sometimes harm relationships oe
Answer: Support: greater depth of disclosure tends to increase trust and intimacy; reciprocal disclosure accelerates closeness. Limitation: the model is descriptive and may not account for cultural variation or situations where disclosure damages rather than builds a relationship.

Question 10

M1 identifies temporal validity issue: modern online dating changes how people meet and the salience of visual cues oe
A1 explains that profile pictures increase the speed and dominance of appearance-based judgements, potentially strengthening attractiveness effects compared with earlier face to face contexts oe
M1 identifies that algorithms and filters can match people on many dimensions beyond physical attractiveness oe
A1 explains that these technologies may weaken pure matching on looks and increase assortative pairing on interests or values, reducing the direct applicability of early matching-hypothesis findings oe
Answer: Online dating emphasises quick visual judgements via profile pictures, which may strengthen the role of attractiveness compared with the 1960s context, but matching algorithms and filtering for interests may reduce the simple effect of matching on looks, so early findings may not fully apply today.

Question 11

M1 identifies that correlation does not equal causation, so the finding does not establish that matching causes satisfaction oe
A1 explains that third variables or reverse causation could account for the association, such as happier couples perceiving each other as more attractive oe
M1 offers alternative explanation: similarity in self-disclosure could produce both higher perceived similarity and greater satisfaction oe
A1 explains that mutual disclosure builds intimacy and satisfaction which could lead partners to rate each other more positively, independent of initial matching on looks oe
Answer: The finding is correlational and cannot prove matching causes satisfaction; happier couples might see each other as more attractive. Alternatively, reciprocal self-disclosure could increase satisfaction and perceived similarity, explaining the association without invoking causal matching on physical attractiveness.

Question 12

M1 identifies issue: risk of distress from discussing sensitive personal topics oe
A1 gives safeguard: provide full informed consent, allow withdrawal at any time and offer information about support services oe
M1 identifies issue: confidentiality and privacy concerns when storing sensitive disclosures oe
A1 gives safeguard: anonymise data, store securely and limit access to authorised researchers only oe
M1 identifies issue: power imbalance or coercion if partners feel pressured to disclose oe
A1 gives safeguard: ensure separate consent from each partner and verify that participation is voluntary without partner pressure oe
Answer: Issues and safeguards: discussing sensitive topics can cause distress, so obtain informed consent, allow withdrawal and provide support contacts. Confidentiality is vital, so anonymise and securely store disclosures. Finally, partners may feel pressured, so collect separate voluntary consent and ensure no coercion.

Question 13

Level 4 (13-16): Knowledge is comprehensive and accurate. Evaluation is balanced and perceptive, integrating theory, empirical evidence and methodological critique. There is well developed discussion of real world implications and temporal validity, with coherent and effective use of examples. Specialist terminology is used precisely.
Level 3 (9-12): Knowledge is generally accurate with some detail. Evaluation is clear and covers strengths and limitations, with some integration of theory and evidence. There is reasonable comment on applications and modern contexts. The answer is organised and uses appropriate terminology.
Level 2 (5-8): Knowledge is present but limited in detail. Evaluation is present but may be superficial or one sided. Connections to modern contexts or evidence may be brief or underdeveloped. The answer lacks depth and precision in terminology.
Level 1 (1-4): Limited knowledge and little or no evaluation. Response may be a list of unsupported points. Specialist terminology is largely absent and the answer lacks organisation.
Level 0 (0): No creditworthy material.
Indicative content:
- AO1 points: social penetration theory (Altman and Taylor 1973) proposes development of intimacy through increasing breadth and depth of self-disclosure and reciprocity; reciprocity of disclosure builds trust and perceived intimacy.
- AO1 points: physical attractiveness plays a role via the halo effect, where attractive individuals receive positive trait attributions; matching hypothesis (Walster et al. 1966) suggests people pair with partners of similar attractiveness to minimise rejection.
- AO1 evidence: Walster et al.'s computer dance study provided experimental evidence about attractiveness and partner choice, though results are open to multiple interpretations.
- AO3 methodological critique: much evidence for matching is correlational, so causal claims are weak; Walster et al.'s experimental context had low ecological validity and student samples limit generalisability.
- AO3 methodological critique: measures of attractiveness are culturally and temporally specific and vulnerable to halo bias; ratings should be blinded and separated from other trait measures to avoid confounding.
- AO3 theoretical critique: social penetration is descriptive and may not apply equally across cultures where norms about disclosure differ; disclosure can sometimes reduce attraction or cause harm if too rapid.
- AO3 supporting evidence: research shows reciprocal self-disclosure predicts relationship development and satisfaction, supporting the theory's core claim about intimacy building.
- AO3 challenging evidence: not all relationships follow matching on looks; compensating assets such as status or personality can lead to asymmetrical pairings, and longitudinal research sometimes finds appearance similarity emerges over time rather than driving initial choice.
- AO3 ethical and practical considerations: studies of intimate disclosure raise confidentiality and distress issues; researchers must ensure consent and support.
- AO3 temporal validity and application: online dating increases the salience of visual cues and quick attractiveness judgements, which may strengthen the role of looks; conversely, algorithms and profile information emphasise other matching criteria, so early findings may not map neatly onto modern contexts.
- AO3 conclusion: both self-disclosure and physical attractiveness are important, but their relative influence depends on stage of relationship, cultural context and modern meeting methods. Strong evidence supports a role for reciprocal disclosure in developing intimacy, whereas attractiveness effects are robust for first impressions but complex in predicting long-term pairings.

Factors in Attraction: Self-Disclosure and Physical Attractiveness - Worksheets, Questions and Revision