# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Late night discussion with Mobeen uncovering what makes us attracted to people and why with psychologist Mamta Saha, relationship coach Wajeeha Amin and social media influencers Jazz Billan and Shahid Akhtar.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Asian Network - Mobeen Azhar, The Psychology of Attraction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Late night discussion with Mobeen uncovering what makes us attracted to people and why with psychologist Mamta Saha, relationship coach Wajeeha Amin and social media influencers Jazz Billan and Shahid Akhtar.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Late night discussion with Mobeen uncovering what makes us attracted to people and why with psychologist Mamta Saha, relationship coach Wajeeha Amin and social media influencers Jazz Billan and Shahid Akhtar.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Asian Network - Mobeen Azhar, The Psychology of Attraction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Late night discussion with Mobeen uncovering what makes us attracted to people and why with psychologist Mamta Saha, relationship coach Wajeeha Amin and social media influencers Jazz Billan and Shahid Akhtar.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most of these factors have in the past been attributed with how we've evolved as humans. Take familiarity, Dr Hart told Bitesize: "I think it links back to our evolutionary past. We are attracted to those who seem familiar to us, as familiarity provides predictability and safety."

One such theory that links with familiarity is something called 'imprinting'. Dr Alex Jones of the University of Swansea says it is slightly "out there", and explained it with reference to the animal kingdom: "When animals are very young they have this thing called 'sexual imprinting' which is where they use clues in their environment to figure out what a good mate might be, somebody who might be a good bet to try and reproduce with.

"That's usually based on characteristics that their parents have which, like I say, is a little bit weird."

So for example, if someone in your family or group of friends that you grew up with was really funny, and you enjoy their company, you might be likely to be more attracted to funny people when you grow up, because it's something that you're used to.

These factors can also be linked. Like proximity and familiarity: if you see someone every day, you're likely going to get used to their company over time, until it gets to a point where you're very comfortable with them and it would feel strange not having them around.

But none of these factors are the be all and end all. "Just because you're near someone it doesn't mean you're going to like them, because if your first impression of them is bad, then being near them all the time isn't going to solve that," explained Dr Hart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The psychology of attraction: Why do we fancy certain people?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most of these factors have in the past been attributed with how we've evolved as humans. Take familiarity, Dr Hart told Bitesize: "I think it links back to our evolutionary past. We are attracted to those who seem familiar to us, as familiarity provides predictability and safety."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Coldplay frontman Chris Martin has filed for a restraining order against a woman he says is stalking him.

Martin, 42, says the woman believes she is in a romantic relationship with him and is endangering the safety of his family.

According to legal documents filed in Los Angeles, the woman left a package at Martin's house in Malibu, California, and notes referring to death, suicide and Martin's children Apple, 14, and Moses, 12.

Martin has listed the children as needing protection from the woman.

He also listed his partner, actress and model Dakota Johnson, but not his ex-wife Gwyneth Paltrow, who is mother to Apple and Moses.

Martin says in the legal documents that he understands he is famous and has fans but that this particular woman is overly aggressive and he has become increasingly worried, according to The Blast.

Martin's security guard supports his claims.

The case will be heard in court next month but, until then, Martin has been granted a temporary restraining order, meaning the woman must stay at least 100 yards (91 metres) away from him.

Martin split with Paltrow in 2014 after 10 years of marriage, and has been with Johnson, 29, since late 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coldplay's Chris Martin files for restraining order against fan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coldplay frontman Chris Martin has filed for a restraining order against a woman he says is stalking him. Martin, 42, says the woman believes she is in a romantic relationship with him and is endangering the safety of his family.

# data[].attributes.headline
attractiveness - Scientifically beautiful face

# data[].attributes.subject
attractiveness - Scientifically beautiful face

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School Girl Has Britain's Most Scientifically Beautiful Face

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Florence Colgate has the kind of beauty many women are prepared to pay a lot of money for - a perfectly symmetrical face, with large eyes, full lips and high cheekbones. Speaking to Reuters Television from her home in the British seaside town of Deal, the teenager said she'd been overwhelmed with the level of interest since winning the competition.

# data[].attributes.body
Halo effect

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Big Bang Theory - Sheldon meets his date.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Stomach growling, but have no time for a meal? A snack will do. Drowsy and unable to concentrate? A short nap can be reviving when a good night's rest is unavailable. But what should you do when you are alone and feeling lonely?

New psychological research suggests that loneliness can be alleviated by simply turning on your favorite TV show. In the same way that a snack can satiate hunger in lieu of a meal, it seems that watching favorite TV shows can provide the experience of belonging without a true interpersonal interaction.

For decades, psychologists have been interested in understanding how individuals achieve and maintain social relationships in order to ward off social isolation and loneliness. The vast majority of this research has focused on relationships between real individuals interacting face-to-face. Recent research has widened this focus from real relationships to faux, "parasocial" relationships. Parasocial relationships are the kind of one sided pseudo-relationships we develop over time with people or characters we might see on TV or in the movies. So, just as a friendship evolves through spending time together and sharing personal thoughts and opinions, parasocial relationships evolve by watching characters on our favorite TV shows, and becoming involved with their personal lives, idiosyncrasies, and experiences as if they were those of a friend.

In a recent article published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Jaye Derrick and Shira Gabriel of the University of Buffalo and Kurt Hugenberg of Miami University test what they call the "Social Surrogacy Hypothesis."

The authors theorized that loneliness motivates individuals to seek out relationships, even if those relationships are not real. In a series of experiments, the authors demonstrated that participants were more likely to report watching a favorite TV show when they were feeling lonely and reported being less likely to feel lonely while watching. This preliminary evidence suggests that people spontaneously seek out social surrogates when real interactions are unavailable. The authors also found that participants who recalled a fight with a close person in their lives wrote for significantly longer about their favorite TV show than a non-favored TV show. It appears that experiencing a lack of belonging actually caused people to revel in their favorite TV shows, as though the parasocial relationships with TV characters replaced the flawed relationships that had been recalled.

A common experience following a threat to interpersonal relationships, such as a fight, or social rejection, is lowered self-esteem and negative mood. However, the researchers found that those participants who experienced a relationship threat and then watched their favorite TV show were buffered against the blow to self-esteem, negative mood, and feelings of rejection.

This research contributes to a broader literature regarding the fundamental nature of the need to belong. As social animals, humans are driven by an inherent need to win acceptance, and to form and maintain relationships with others. When the desire for connection is met with consistent, meaningful interactions, the craving subsides, but when it goes unmet, it intensifies like a hunger, forcing action.

Research has demonstrated that threats to belonging elicit a wide array of cognitions and behaviors directed at maintaining social connections. One particularly intriguing finding is that people appear to become highly sensitive to social cues following social rejection or when lonely. For example, individuals with a heightened need to belong are better at decoding emotional facial expressions and exhibit an enhanced memory for socially relevant information compared to their less socially-needy counterparts.

So, in much the same way as a person on a restrictive diet may salivate while poring over the buttery flakes of a warm croissant, a person who has few or fragile relationships experiences a similar perceptual shift which enhances their sensitivity to interpersonal cues. It follows that such a perceptual shift might cause a parasocial relationship to feel even more "real" or satisfying to a lonely person than to someone who is not lonely.

Unfortunately, the main advantage of a parasocial relationship is also its greatest drawback: its one sidedness. Social surrogates are the safest of social connections insofar as they can provide the psychological experience of a connection with none of the painful slights, time consuming maintenance, or personal sacrifice of a real relationship. A social surrogate is consistently available, at the same time, on the same channel, from week to week. As people's time becomes more limited by work and obligations, it seems much easier to flip on the TV than to spend time cultivating new friendships and risk rejection by doing so. Seeming to support this is the fact that the average American home has more TVs than people, and the average American watches more than four and a half hours of TV a day. Thus, our ability to satisfying our need to belong through television may ultimately come at the expense of real relationships where the risks are greater, but the potential rewards are greater as well.

It is also the case that even very popular TV shows eventually get taken off the air. In a study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,Jonathan Cohen, of the Department of Communication at the University of Haifa in Israel, examined the responses of television viewers to the potential loss of their favorite television characters. Cohen found that viewers anticipated experiencing the same negative reactions to parasocial breakups as they experience when their real social relationships dissolve. Even though parasocial relationships may offer a quick and easy fix for unmet belonging needs, individuals within these relationships may not be spared the pain and anguish of relationship dissolution.

It remains to be seen whether social surrogacy is like a candy bar in the vending machine, which briefly satiates the hunger of real belonging but is ultimately unsatisfying, or whether it serves as a meal, replacing real relationships in some lasting way.
Are you a scientist? Have you recently read a peer-reviewed paper that you want to write about? Then contact Mind Matters co-editor Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at the Boston Globe, where he edits the Sunday Ideas section.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stomach growling, but have no time for a meal? A snack will do. Drowsy and unable to concentrate? A short nap can be reviving when a good night's rest is unavailable. But what should you do when you are alone and feeling lonely?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Most Terrifying Celebrity Fan Obsessions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Parasocial Interaction with Fandoms, Athletes and Reality Stars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Imaginary friends and real-world consequences: parasocial relationships | Jennifer Barnes | TEDxOU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Psychology of Internet Dating: The Effect of Online Relationships on Face-to-Face Relationships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Presentation and Perception on Online Dating Sites

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meeting For The First Time Compilation || CompilationTV ✔

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Steve Duck (1998, 1982) suggested that the dissolution of relationships is an extended process composed of several different parts, which might be either sequential or compounded. In this approach the breakup of a relationship is not simply an event that occurs and to which two partners react. Rather it is a long-term psychological process involving internal reflection, discussion with a partner, consultation with social networks, and the creation of personally satisfying stories about the history of the relationship from beginning to end.

The first Intrapsychic Phase of this process involves an individual brooding on the fact that the relationship is not satisfactory in some way from his or her perspective. Although the complaints may be voiced to other people, the point here is that the persons complained to do not personally know the partner complained of. The point of this stage is mostly to vent (for example, to a hair-dresser, bartender, or distant colleague at work), but not to convey to the partner that dissatisfaction is felt. Such dissatisfaction may be about such things as partner's habits, feeling trapped in a relationship, a sense of injustice about distribution of effort, or a sense of hopelessness about resolution of an argument. In fact nothing more may come of the brooding: The person feels a sense of grievance but does not necessarily proceed to the next stage if the process of venting or reflection is adequate to relieve the sense of negativity about the relationship. Such brooding may be a recurrent activity, and probably occurs in most relationships at some time or another without leading to breakup. Alternatively, if the brooding Intrapsychic Phase does not result in satisfaction of the grievance by itself then the person moves to the next stage.

The Dyadic Phase emerges when the couple is confronted with the dissatisfaction experienced by one or both partners such that the dyad needs to discuss and evaluate it. Again, such discussions can be constructive and might lead to a rapprochement in the relationship or they can be threatening and unpleasant. Likewise, they could be recurrent complaints extended over a long period or sudden announcements of new concerns. Such discussion might be a shock to one partner, but in any case, it is likely that each person will be confronted with unknown perspectives on the relationship presented by the other person. Each person will have a view of the relationship and when challenged to present it as an individual, the person may break ranks from the usual points of view of the relationship that both members of the couple have previously shared. The tenor and outcome of the Dyadic Phase will be a large factor in the way that things proceed from it. One person may be determined to leave and proceed to do so, or both may want to give things another shot. It is only if things proceed to the next stage that the relationship gets into very serious difficulty that begins an almost unstoppable process of dissolution.

The next phase, a Social Phase, involves the social networks in which the dyad is necessarily embedded-all those other people whose lives intertwine with the couple or one of its members. Such people are not neutral observers but tend to comment on relationships and on the ways in which they are conducted, voicing opinions and common wisdom about how people "should" react to marital transgressions or to difficulties in relationships. Any dyad needs to exist within such groups and is therefore accountable to them to some extent. Such accounting, advice, and comparison go on throughout a relationship, not only when it is in trouble, but also are particularly important when a relationship hits the rocks. Dyad members then urgently consult with their associates to account for the breakdown of the relationship, or receive advice on how to stay together and deal with the difficulties. At this point, however, the breakdown becomes a social event-not merely something between the two members of the couple-and therefore becomes "official." As soon as other people know that the relationship is broken up then either partner becomes socially available as a partner to new people. However, it is important to note that the breakup of a given dyad in a relationship network has fallout for other relationships also. Relationships with couple friends, the partner's work associates, the partner's family, and so on may all dissolve because of the termination of the primary relationship. Of course, relationship dissolution creates a psychological toll on one or both members, members of the network (who do not want to see the relationship end), and children. Rarely does a relationship end that has no consequence for anyone else.

Last comes the Grave-Dressing Phase. An important and under-recognized feature of the breakup of relationships is the need for people to publish a record of the relationship and its death. For various reasons, both psychological and social, people "need" to justify themselves to other people and, in particular, to offer an account of the breakup that shows them in a favorable light relative to relational standards in the society. Such stories typically suggest that the breakup was inevitable and necessary for the person to bring about, or else maturely and mutually agreed, or else that the speaker was somehow duped or betrayed by the other person. Such stories serve a social function in placing the speaker in a good light that does not negatively affect their "face" for future relationships, as well as indicating that they are thinking and mature relaters-or innocent victims-who have learned a useful lesson. This sort of story is important for those people who seek to negotiate future relationships of a similar sort to the one lost. It is important that people are not perceived as irresponsible partners, damaged goods, or relationally naïve, all of which would be negative characteristics to take into a future relationship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Steve Duck (1998, 1982) suggested that the dissolution of relationships is an extended process composed of several different parts, which might be either sequential or compounded. In this approach the breakup of a relationship is not simply an event that occurs and to which two partners react.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In an earlier post, I began analyzing the marriage between Homer and Marge Simpson, one of America's most enduring fictional TV couples. As mentioned then, analyzing the stability of any relationship can be done via application of the Investment Model, ¹ which states that commitment between partners derives from three sources: (1) satisfaction, (2) dependence (based on perceived alternatives), and (3) investment level.2 Whereas Part 1 of this series focused on satisfaction, in Part 2 we move on to the second variable: Dependence.

The extent to which we are dependent on a relationship is driven by perceived alternatives. We've all questioned a relationship at some point in our past, and one of the first questions to pop up is probably: If I weren't in this relationship, what are my options? These perceived alternatives are referred to by Interdependence Theorists as or the "Comparison Level for Alternatives."3 Alternatives include other people you could date, being single, or simply enjoying the company of your cat - whatever floats your boat. If you don't have any other good options, you'll probably stay in the current situation because it's the best you can get (or at least, the best you think you can get). Are Homer and Marge dependent? Let's consider their alternatives.

Like many married couples, opportunities arise for each of them to have an affair. Surprisingly, other women have found Homer attractive over the years, including Mindy (a beautiful co-worker at the power plant) and Lurleen, an up-and-coming country music singer. While both of these women provide opportunities and potentially rewarding outcomes (e.g., a varied sex life, increased income as Lurleen's manager, etc.), Homer eventually rejects both of their advances, consciously choosing Marge and his established family life instead.

Marge has also considered other relationships. Most memorably, she almost had an affair with her bowling instructor, Jacques, after Homer gives her the infamous gift of a bowling ball with the word "Homer" engraved on it. Although she is greatly attracted to Jacques and entertains fantasies of what their lives would be like together, Marge also ultimately rejects this potential alternative in favor of staying with Homer.

Homer sums up the alternatives situation quite nicely in the episode "Large Marge," when he reassures Marge that she's the only woman for him: "Why would I want Purina when I've got Fancy Feast right here?" Repeatedly, both of them have chosen to stay together in spite of potential alternatives; the key is that they don't perceive those alternatives as being better than what they already have. Awww....

In the final part of this series, we'll look at the last piece of the Investment Model: Investments (hence the name).

Want to read more about Homer and Marge? Here are Part 1 and Part 3 of this series.

Interested in learning more about relationships? Click here for other topics on Science of Relationships. Like us on Facebook to get our articles delivered directly to your NewsFeed.
Note: This is a summarized version of a book chapter written by Dr. Goodfriend; the full chapter is available in the book, D'oh! The Psychology of the Simpsons, published by BenBella Books.
¹Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.

2Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37-57.

3Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Dr. Wind Goodfriend - Science of Relationships articles | Website/CV
Dr. Goodfriend's research focuses on cognitive bias within romantic relationships: how partners view each other in a subjective, instead of objective, way. These biases can sometimes be positive, but they can also perpetuate unhealthy or violent relationships.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
For Better, or Worse? Homer & Marge Simpson, Part 2 - | - Science of Relationships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In an earlier post, I began analyzing the marriage between Homer and Marge Simpson, one of America's most enduring fictional TV couples.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of America's most enduring fictional TV couples is Homer and Marge Simpson - The Simpsons have been on the air for over twenty years. Is their marriage a model example of how to make a long-term relationship endure, or is it an example of what not to do?

On the surface, the Simpsons' marriage seems riddled with trouble. Homer is overweight, unintelligent, bad at his job, and often makes bad relationship choices. In the episode called "The Fat and the Furriest," Homer decides to get revenge on a bear that attacks him. When his friends try to warn him that Marge will be upset, he responds, "Gentlemen, sometimes a man must put his marriage at risk, for reasons that are confusing, even to him." But Marge isn't perfect either--she consistently pushes her feelings down and avoids confrontation. For example, when Homer is kidnapped in "The Computer Wore Menace Shoes," the kidnappers send a fake Homer to take Homer's place. Marge immediately knows something is up, but the fake Homer says, "Please forgive my unexplained absence. To make it up to you, we will go out to dinner at a sensibly priced restaurant, then have a night of efficient German sex." Instead of continuing to try to look for her missing husband, Marge's response is, "Well, I sure don't feel like cooking..."

But are there good parts to their relationship? Certainly. For one, their sexual life seems healthy; several episodes show them having fun in the bedroom. They often display their love for each other, including jealousy over sexual rivals. Over the years, we see countless examples of them working through difficulties through dedication and eventual communication.

What does psychological theory have to say about their relationship? One answer comes from the Investment Model, ¹ one of the most popular and established methods in psychology for examining basic relationship dynamics. The theory suggests that to predict whether a certain relationship will last over time we need to know three things: (1) the couple members' satisfaction, (2) dependence (based on perceived alternatives), and (3) investment level. Let's start with the first factor for this post (the other two are coming in future posts): Satisfaction.

Satisfaction comes partially from weighing the pros vs. the cons in any relationship, which were described above. In addition, to decide if you're satisfied, you not only compare the good and bad; you also compare what you have relative to the other relationships you see, or what researchers refer to as the comparison level. What other relationship examples does Springfield offer? When Homer and Marge threw a couples dinner party, the Van Houtens (Milhouse's parents) screamed at each other and ended up divorced. Neither Patty nor Selma can stay in a relationship, and Homer catches Apu having an affair with the girl who delivers squishee syrup!

So while their relationship-like any other-has some problems, the Simpsons actually appear to have the most satisfying relationship in their community. Step one of the Investment Model is fulfilled: they appear satisfied--their outcomes are generally good, especially relative to their comparison level. Do they have the other two factors as well-dependence and investments? Two future posts will answer this question.

Want to read more about about Homer and Marge? Here's Part 2 and Part 3 of this series.

Interested in learning more about relationships? Click here for other topics on Science of Relationships. Like us on Facebook to get our articles delivered directly to your NewsFeed.
Note: This is a summarized version of a book chapter written by Dr. Goodfriend; the full chapter is available in the book, D'oh! The Psychology of the Simpsons, published by BenBella Books.
¹Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.

Dr. Wind Goodfriend - Science of Relationships articles | Website/CV
Dr. Goodfriend's research focuses on cognitive bias within romantic relationships: how partners view each other in a subjective, instead of objective, way. These biases can sometimes be positive, but they can also perpetuate unhealthy or violent relationships.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
For Better, or Worse? Homer & Marge Simpson, Part 1 - | - Science of Relationships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of America's most enduring fictional TV couples is Homer and Marge Simpson - The Simpsons have been on the air for over twenty years. Is their marriage a model example of how to make a long-term relationship endure, or is it an example of what not to do?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When it comes to understanding the fate of any given relationship, I'd argue that knowing something about a couple's commitment level, or their attachment to each other and long-term perspective on the relationship, is critical (see our previous article on predicting breakup here). Beyond predictions about staying together versus breaking up, commitment is also associated with all sorts of positive relationship outcomes (see our previous article on 5 Reasons Commitment is Good For Your Relationship). But how is commitment built in a relationship? More than 30 years of research on this topic has identified three pillars that form the foundation of commitment in relationships. 1,2
Pillar 1: Satisfaction
This one isn't particularly surprising - individuals who are happy in their relationships and feel positively about their partners (i.e., those with high satisfaction) are more likely to be in the relationship for the long haul. Satisfaction stems from the benefits and costs of being in a relationship. A satisfying relationship has a lot of benefits, like intimacy, emotional support, sexual fulfillment, security, and companionship. ³ But even the best relationships have some costs. For example, you may have less time to hang out with your friends if you are spending time getting the aforementioned benefits from your partner. These benefits and costs together form a global sense of "outcomes" associated with a relationship. Are the outcomes in your relationship positive? Are the benefits greater than the costs?

The second piece contributing to your satisfaction are the outcomes you expect to receive in your relationship. Do you have really high expectations for your relationship? If so, your outcomes need to be similarly high for you to be satisfied. However, if your expectations are low, it doesn't take much to make you happy. For example, imagine that Mitchell and Claire are each getting one backrub a month from their respective romantic partners. Claire has pretty low expectations; she only expects to get a backrub once a year, so her current relationship is wildly exceeding her expectations, and therefore she should be really satisfied with her outcomes. Mitchell, on the other hand, expects to get a backrub from his partner once a week, so if he only gets one each month he'll be very disappointed with his outcomes (and relationship). Of course, exclusively basing one's relationship expectations on the frequency of backrubs is overly simplistic, but substitute whatever outcomes you value in your relationship and it works just the same.

The bottom line is that relationships that meet and exceed your expectations will be satisfying, but not getting what you want and believe you should get from your partner is a recipe for dissatisfaction.
Pillar 2: (Low) Alternatives
Satisfaction is all about what you get from a current partner. But what about alternative partners, or those people who you could be with if you weren't with your current partner? Perhaps there is someone who could give you better outcomes than your current partner (e.g., more frequent or better backrubs). If you suspect that you could do better elsewhere, then your commitment to your partner is probably low. Why would you stay in your current relationship if you could be with someone who could better meet your needs for intimacy, emotional support, sexual fulfillment, security, and companionship? (To fully answer this question, see Pillar #3 below.)

Usually when we think about alternatives, it's that particular someone who you could imagine being with if you weren't with your current partner - that hot guy in class, the waitress at the coffee shop who always laughs at your jokes, or your neighbor who always likes to stop and chat when you run into each other while walking your dogs. But alternatives don't necessarily have to be specific "other" possible romantic partners. Maybe you could get better outcomes from spending more time with your friends or focusing on your schoolwork rather than being in your current romantic relationship. Having no relationship at all is a great alternative to being in an unsatisfying or unhealthy relationship.
Pillar 3: Investments
Some days are better than others in your relationship, and attractive alternatives may come and go from your life. As a result, satisfaction and alternatives both fluctuate. But when satisfaction is low (e.g., you just had an argument with your partner) and alternatives are high (e.g., you just found out that your ex wants you back), why do people stay in their relationships rather than breaking up? It comes down to the investments in your relationship.

Investments represent the things you'd lose if your relationship were to end - they are the stabilizing factors that keep things afloat during the tough patches that couples go through. They may be tangible items, like the house you and your spouse purchased together, or intangible things, like the work and effort you put into your relationship over the years. Investments can be from the past, like all of the memories you have with your partner, or may relate to the future, like the vacation you planned together for next summer. ⁴ Social networks, like friendships with others, are another sort of investment - if you were to break up with your partner, who would "get to keep" the friends you and your partner have in common? In short, investments are the things that you value in your relationships that would be lost if you broke up, and they make it harder for people to easily leave their relationships.

Numerous studies show that these three pillars (satisfaction, alternatives, and investments) pull the majority of the weight when it comes to relationship commitment. ² This isn't to say that other things don't contribute to commitment, but across the board, these three pillars are essential for understanding how commitment is built.

Interested in learning more about relationships? Click here for other topics on Science of Relationships. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get our articles delivered directly to your NewsFeed. Learn more about our book and download it here.

¹Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117.

² Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the Investment Model. Personal Relationships, 10, 37-57.

³Drigotas, S. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Should I stay or should I go?: A dependence model of breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 62-87.

⁴Goodfriend, W., & Agnew, C. R. (2008). Sunken costs and desired plans: Examining different types of investments in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1639-1652.

Dr. Benjamin Le - Science of Relationships articles | Website/CV

Dr. Le's research focuses on commitment, including the factors associated with commitment and its role in promoting maintenance. He has published on the topics of breakup, geographic separation, infidelity, social networks, cognition, and need fulfillment and emotions in relationships.

image source: phaseware.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Building a Lasting Relationship: The Three Pillars of Commitment - | - Science of Relationships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When it comes to understanding the fate of any given relationship, I'd argue that knowing something about a couple's commitment level, or their attachment to each other and long-term perspective on the relationship, is critical (see our previous article on predicting breakup here).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Although relationships, by their nature, are ever-changing, in some ways they remain constant. Still, a common question people often ask is "how do I know if this relationship will last?" Rusbult's (1980, 1983) Investment Model offers a lens that helps us better answer that question. This model is important as it has been able to predict whether or not couples remain together in studies ranging from 7 to 18 months (Impett, Beals, & Peplau, 2001; Rusbult, 1983), and even 15 years (Bui, Peplau, & Hill, 1996).

The Investment Model is based on four factors: satisfaction, investment size, quality of alternatives, and commitment. Satisfaction is considered the level of "positive versus negative affect experienced in a relationship'' (Rusbult et al., 1998, p. 359). Next, investment size ''refers to the magnitude and importance of the resources that are attached to a relationship-resources that would decline in value if the relationship were to end'' (Rusbult et al., 1998, p. 359). This entails both tangible and intangible qualities: one might think he/she would lose their partner's affection, family, resources, the stability of being together, the part of his/her identity that belongs to the relationship, and a myriad of other things.

Although counter-intuitive to some, quality of alternatives involves the perceptions of relational rivals or "the extent to which the individual's most important needs could be effectively fulfilled 'outside' of the current relationship'' (Rusbult et al., 1998, p. 359). The argument is that we are constantly evaluating new potential relational rivals in their abilities to be our romantic partner. Many of you reading this might scoff and say 'I don't have any alternatives'-the reality is that you do, but you're happy in your current relationship and therefore evaluate existing alternatives negatively.

The final factor, commitment is "an intent to persist in a relationship, including long-term orientation toward the involvement as well as feelings of psychological attachment '' (Rusbult et al., 1998, p. 359). The Investment Model argues that the first three factors - satisfaction, investment size, and quality of alternatives - form bases of dependence that predict commitment. Specifically, a person who is satisfied, has poor quality alternatives, and a considerable investment is dependent on his/her partner, which then predicts commitment.

Once again, these four factors have been able to predict whether or not couples remain together in studies spanning 15 years, reinforcing their importance (Bui et al., 1996). As a communication researcher, it is important to note that communication is related to these relational perceptions. My own research, for example, has shown that the frequency of affectionate communication, both given and received, is positively related to commitment and satisfaction. In other words, individuals who reported giving and receiving a lot of affection also reported being committed and satisfied. Interestingly, the amount of affection that participants received from partners was the strongest indicator of their satisfaction whereas the amount of affection participants expressed to partners was the strongest indicator of participants' commitment. We argue, then, that affectionate communication functions as a relational thermometer of sorts that allows individuals to gauge the temperature of their relationship based on affectionate messages (which are then related to these important relational factors).

If you believe that you're meant to spend your life with one person, then you must face the reality that a vast majority of your relationships will fail (until you find "the one"). Often individuals spend too much time in relationships that are not fulfilling or are stuck in toxic communicative patterns. The Investment Model, then, provides a framework for individuals to better understand if they should remain in problematic relationships or if the writing is on the wall.

Follow me on Twitter @therealdrsean for relationship commentary/links, complaints about mass transit, comments on bad TV, and support for WVU Athletics. Continue to follow this blog for future entries about deception, online dating, using affection to lie, workplace romance, and other issues that make obtaining and retaining a mate oh so interesting.

Selected references:

-Horan, S. M., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Investing in affection: An investigation of affection exchange theory and relational qualities. Communication Quarterly, 58, 394-413. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2010.524876

-Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 172-186.

-Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117.

-Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternative, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although relationships, by their nature, are ever-changing, in some ways they remain constant. Still, a common question people often ask is "how do I know if this relationship will last?" Rusbult's (1980, 1983) Investment Model offers a lens that helps us better answer that question.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Big Bang Theory - Penny's Christmas gift to Sheldon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Meet Nate and Angelica. Nate and Angelica are getting married. They've planned every detail of the ceremony, and checked all their reservations twice. The vows are written; the honeymoon getaway is booked. Maybe Nate daydreams about surprising Angelica on special occasions; maybe Angelica has her eye on a good preschool for their future children. Their future is set - or is it? What about the more mundane details of married life that are often overlooked?

Will Angelica be the one on kitchen duty, cleaning up after dinner? Will Nate be the one who picks up the kids when Angelica is working late? Will the person who earns less income contribute to the household in other ways, even if they both work 40 hours a week? Often, couples decide these matters based on convenience or preference, not according to a marital master-plan of equal give-and-take. But precisely because the average couple doesn't analyze the costs and benefits of every chore undertaken, an unfair division of labor may create resentment over time. For example, Angelica may realize Nate only takes their cats for shots once a year, whereas she has to change their kitty litter every day.

Equity theory suggests that that people wish to profit (or break even) in their relationship exchanges (e.g., working a job in exchange for money). When they aren't getting the benefits they expect, they become upset and end the relationship. But does equity work the same way in romantic partnerships, especially when people are committed to staying long-term? To answer this question, researcher Alfred DeMaris examined the data of approximately 700 married individuals who were interviewed six times between 1980 and 2000. ¹ These data were selected from a larger longitudinal study on marital quality. ² Longitudinal studies of this sort allow researchers to see how any given person's answers change over time, as well as how one person responds compared to how another person responds. That is, researchers could learn how Angelica's marriage changed (or didn't change) from her newlywed days to her "old married couple" days, as well as how her marriage compares to other couples' marriages.

The researcher selected individuals for the interview using a random phone-dialing technique, then chose either the husband or the wife at random to respond for the duration of the study. For the current study, the researcher examined only the individuals who had remained married to the same spouse for the full 20-year period or longer.

DeMaris was especially interested in the marital quality of individuals who perceived that they "gave more" to the marriagethan their spouses did (subjective underbenefit). Individuals also answered questions about their quantifiable contributions to the household income, hours spent on paid labor and household chores, and their health (objective underbenefit). Finally, the researchers measured marital quality by asking about satisfaction with aspects of the marriage, such as spousal understanding and the sexual relationship.

For both husbands and wives, perceiving they "gave more" to the marriage lowered marriage quality. In contrast, reporting greater objective contributions increased men's marital quality. Women were far more likely to think they "gave more" than their spouses did, and looking at their objective contributions, it appears that they did indeed contribute more (be it through income, hours worked, or housework completed).

Equity remained important to relationship quality throughout the 20-year study, regardless of how long the couples had been married. We might expect that in long-term relationships, romantic partners take turns making sacrifices, with these personal costs evening out over the years. However, this is not what DeMaris found. Angelica may be the one to make sacrifices every time, without Nate sacrificing in return, and such underbenefit leads to frustration and dissatisfaction.

Unlike business partners, couples might not "keep count" in a ledger or on a scoreboard, but feeling underbenefited over time could leave a spouse wondering: "What am I getting out of this marriage? Is there something better out there?" If they hope to reach their golden anniversary, Nate and Angelica may want to reevaluate and adjust their household contributions periodically as their lives together change. For instance, if Angelica always handled dinner preparation but must begin working overtime, the couple can agree to eat out more often, do the cooking ahead of time on weekends, or delegate the chore to a babysitter.

Interested in learning more about relationships? Click here for other topics on Science of Relationships. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get our articles delivered directly to your NewsFeed.

¹DeMaris, A. (2010). The 20-year trajectory of marital quality in enduring marriages: Does equity matter? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(4), 449-471. doi:10.1177/0265407510363428

²Amato, P. R., Johnson, D. R., Booth, A., & Rogers, S. J. (2003). Continuity and change in marital quality between 1980 and 2000. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 1-22. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00001.x

Dr. Helen Lee Lin - Science of Relationships articles | Website/CV
Helen's past research has focused on potential problems in relationships, such as keeping secrets from a significant other. She is also interested in communication as well as the use and consumption of media in relationships, and is planning to work in applied contexts for her future projects.

image source: cgfamilylawyers.files.wordpress.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
To Have and To Hold, To Share and Be Equitable - | - Science of Relationships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Meet Nate and Angelica. Nate and Angelica are getting married. They've planned every detail of the ceremony, and checked all their reservations twice. The vows are written; the honeymoon getaway is booked. Maybe Nate daydreams about surprising Angelica on special occasions; maybe Angelica has her eye on a good preschool for their future children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social exchange sample clip Despicable Me 2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1 Introduction to Social Exchange Theory 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A recent post discussed the role of similarity in romantic relationships; do "opposites attract" or do "birds of a feather flock together?" Fortunately, the science of relationships has been able to help flush out what could be regarded as conflicting advice about what to look for in a partner.

There is very little research to suggest that opposites really do attract when it comes to romantic partnerships. In fact, romantic partners have been found to typically be similar in a variety of qualities ranging from height and weight to attractiveness to educational, ethnic, and religious background.1It seems that most of us find validation in keeping company similar to ourselves and we tend to like others who have qualities that are familiar to us.

When it comes to personality (as opposed to demographic or descriptive) qualities, the research gets a bit more complex. Our research,2,3 consistent with a great deal of research addressing nonromantic dyads, suggests that individuals do desire partners similar to themselves. However, in order for couples to be happy - in other words rate their relationships as high in love and low in conflict - couples are best off when one partner is relatively dominant and one partner is relatively submissive. It doesn't matter which member of a couple - a man or a woman - fills these roles, but it seems that relationships function better when one individual is prepared to "take charge," and the other individual is prepared to go along, at least most of the time. This "fit" between members of a couple is sometimes called complementarity.

Recently, we've found one exception to this finding regarding complementarity in terms of dominance and submission.4 In a study of 72 lesbian couples, those that reported having the most loving and harmonious relationships were the couples comprised of two members who were either dominant or submissive. Why? Well, we can't be positive, but preliminary examination of this finding suggests that this likely has something to do with the prominent role of equality in same-sex relationships. Research suggests that gay and lesbian couples are similar to heterosexual couples in most ways, except for a premium that is placed on equality in the relationship.5,6 With equality being so important, it makes sense that these couples would not feel comfortable with one member taking charge and the other going along for the ride.

So, it seems that the happiest heterosexual couples are comprised of "opposites," but only in terms of dominance. However, happy lesbian couples tend to be birds of a feather flocking together in terms of most traits investigated to date. This is just one more example of everything Hollywood's romantic comedies get wrong; life and love is complex and rarely captured accurately in 90 minutes.

Interested in learning more about relationships? Click here for other topics on Science of Relationships. Like us on Facebook to get our articles delivered directly to your NewsFeed.

1Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73, 47-51.

2Markey, P. M., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Increasing acquaintanceship and complementarity of behavioral styles and personality traits among college roommates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 907-916.

3Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2007). Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment, and relationship experiences: The complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 517-533.

4Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2011a). The Complementarity of Behavioral Styles Among Lesbian Couples. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Interpersonal Theory and Research, Zurich, Switzerland.

5Kurdek, L. A. (2001). Differences between heterosexual-nonparent couples, and gay, lesbian, and heterosexual-parent couples. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 727-754.

6Markey, C. N. & Markey, P. M. (2011b). Leaving room for complexity in attempts to understand associations between romantic relationships and health: Commentary on Wanic and Kulik. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research.

Dr. Charlotte Markey - Science of Relationships articles | Website/CV
Dr. Markey's research addresses issues central to both developmental and health psychology. A primary focus of her research is social influences on eating-related behaviors (i.e., eating, dieting, body image) in both parent-child and romantic relationships.

Dr. Patrick Markey - Science of Relationships articles | Website/CV
Dr. Markey's research focuses on how behavioral tendencies develop and are expressed within social relationships, including unhealthy dieting, civic behavior, personality judgment, and interpersonal aggression after playing violent video games.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Similarity Versus Complementarity Among Lesbian Couples - | - Science of Relationships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent post discussed the role of similarity in romantic relationships; do "opposites attract" or do "birds of a feather flock together?" Fortunately, the science of relationships has been able to help flush out what could be regarded as conflicting advice about what to look for in a partner.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's almost a truism in the psychology of intimate relationships that similarity is a more fertile breeding ground for couples than complementarity. However, we all know of cases in which one partner's yang perfectly balances another person's yin. Maybe one partner is shy and reserved but the other can't get enough social interaction; somehow, though, they seem to enjoy each other's company. More to the point, their relationship withstands the test of time.

As it turns out, research published in a 2013 issue of the journal Social Cognition supports the idea that apart from whether they initially attract or not, opposites can work well together as a team on mutually shared goals. In two studies on romantic couples, University of Waterloo's Vanessa K. Bohns (2013) and colleagues investigated whether the way in which couples approach problems to be solved would predict their satisfaction with their relationship.

The theory behind the studies proposes that we have different ways of achieving our desired goals. Known as regulatory focus theory, this is an approach to understanding motivation in which people are classified according to two orientations to pursuing important goals. People who have the promotion orientation seek (as the term implies) improvement or advancement. In contrast, people who tend to take a prevention orientation are oriented toward the safe, secure, and steady path to getting what they want.

You might imagine that these two orientations could easily be at odds when partners are seeking the same goal. Something as simple as planning the week's menus could become a battleground if one partner wants to experiment with new and perhaps risky recipes while the other wants to keep cooking up the same old same old, which at least will produce predictable edible results. Assuming that both partners have the same goal, namely to have pleasant meals together, this could lead to grocery shopping battles if not outright war in the kitchen.

However, another way to think about people who have opposing ways of achieving the same goal is that the two approaches balance each other out, especially over time. The adventurous partner will provide, literally, some spice but the more conventional one's work in the kitchen will provide them with nutrition. Couples with these opposing approaches may both be able to satisfy their culinary needs by either splitting up the meal, adding one new dish at a time, or deciding to leave experimentation for nights when it won't matter if the meal is a flop such as when there's no one else coming over for dinner.

You can also think of complementarity with regard to goals as delegation of duties. If you know that one person is good at approaching certain kinds of tasks and the other can do others with ease, then it makes sense to divide the work accordingly. For example, if you're a technophile (i.e. you love technology) but your partner is a techno phobe (the opposite), then you'll be the one to set up the wireless router while your mate does the dusting. If you both decide to do half of each task, then not only will you both be miserable, but neither job will be done properly.

This second example shows how important it is for your personal, if not marital, satisfaction for you to be able to do what needs to be done in your preferred manner. You're happiest in your relationship when you can pursue the tasks you want to in the manner you enjoy. The happiness you experience then spills over to your happiness in the relationship as a whole.

To test regulatory focus theory, Bohns and her collaborators began by asking dating couples to complete a series of questionnaires on their preferred approach to achieving goals along with measures of their relationship satisfaction, self-esteem, and goal congruence.

The regulatory goals measure tapped their preferred approach with questions such as "How often have you accomplished things that have gotten you 'psyched' to work even harder?" (high promotion) and "Not being careful enough has gotten me into trouble" (low prevention). To measure relationship well-being, Bohns and team assessed the respondent's perception of satisfaction, trust, and commitment. They asked participants to indicate their degree of goal congruence by asking them to answer questions such as whether they and their partner are "on the same page" and "of one mind."

Consistent with the study's predictions, couples with a high degree of goal congruence had the highest relationship satisfaction when the partners had complementary approaches to achieving their goals. In other words, as long as partners had a shared sense of purpose, they were happiest when they and their partner provided a balance between adventurousness and stability.

Those were dating couples. You might be wondering how this would all play out with people who were in long-term committed relationships where opposing motivational approaches would have more time to play out. In the second study, Bohns and her coworkers did just that by including married couples who were, on average, in their 40s. Of course, the couples who had divorced were by definition not in this study, so the truly warring opposites would not be available to be tested. However, by assessing marital satisfaction, it was at least possible to examine how well couples from the opposite end of the motivational spectrum would fare.

This second study used a fascinating test to assess shared perspectives, known as the Inclusion of Other in Self (IOS) scale. As the term implies, the test asks participants to state how much they adopt their partner's interests, traits, and qualities as their own. If you're high on inclusion of the other in the self, you feel that what's important to your partner is important to you. The researchers also included measures of personality dominance and a marital satisfaction scale. Submissive partners would, we might expect, be more likely to see themselves as influenced by their partners and this would confuse the issue of shared perspectives.

As in the first study, the complementarity hypothesis was supported. Among married couples with a strong sense of shared purpose (high inclusion of the other in the self), those with opposing motivational approaches were the most satisfied in their relationships. If you and your partner have a shared sense of purpose, you'll be happier if both of you approach these shared goals in a way that's consistent with your overall style.

These findings have definite implications for your relationship satisfaction, whether you're still in the initial exploratory phases or have been together for many years and know each other very well. It might infuriate you at times that your partner is too risky or isn't risky enough, but as long as you both agree on what's important, your relationship has a better chance of working than you realize. Once you've settled on the "why," you'll be more satisfied when you and your partner can divide up the "how."
Follow me on Twitter Copyright Susan Krauss Whitbourne, Ph.D. 2014 @swhitbo for daily updates on psychology, health, and aging. Feel free to join my Facebook group, "Fulfillment at Any Age," to discuss today's blog, or to ask further questions about this posting.
References:

Bohns, V. K., Lucas, G. M., Molden, D. C., Finkel, E. J., Coolsen, M. K., Kumashiro, M., . . . Higgins, E. T. (2013). Opposites fit: Regulatory focus complementarity and relationship well-being. Social Cognition, 31, 1-14. doi: 10.1521/soco.2013.31.1.1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In Close Relationships, Opposites Might Attract After All

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The adage "opposites attract" is generally regarded in relationship research to be untrue. Similarity seems to breed stronger attraction at least in a relationship's early phases. Research on joint goal pursuits by romantic couples shows that if you want something done, however, your best bet for a partner is your psychological opposite.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died. Erma Bombeck

Concerning the classical question of whether "birds of a feather flock together" or "opposites attract," there is consistent evidence in support of similarity, but very little evidence supporting opposites. However, significant similarity may reduce attraction. To what extent, then, does similarity between lovers enhance or inhibit romance?

Similarity in background provides the appropriate circumstances for emotional comparison. Thus, we often envy or are proud of those who were born in the city of our birth, or we typically fall in love with a person who is similar to us or reminds us of someone from our past. Like memory, which improves when we are in circumstances similar to those of the original event, emotions also intensify when we confront circumstances similar to those of highly emotional events; for example, a cemetery, a place where two lovers first met, or the site of a battlefield.

Many findings indicate the importance of background similarity for choosing a mate; dissimilarity is often a source of dissatisfaction and conflicts. Background similarity is manifested in many aspects, including education, socioeconomic background, race, religion, cultural background, physical attractiveness, general attitudes concerning issues like desired family size, sex roles, abortion, capital punishment, and so on. Today, education is an important factor in this regard as it both provides occasions to meet other people and it often expresses the status and opportunities of the other person. It was found, for example, that college attendance is a far better predictor of marriage than religion, ethnicity, or even income.

In parental love, too, the perceived similarity is important. Perception that the child is different from the parent often reduces parental love. Likewise, after the death of a child, parental grief intensity is correlated with the child's similarity to the parent. The importance of similarity in parental love is expressed in the fact that when a new baby is born, one of the first questions asked is: Whom does the baby look like? Background similarity, especially genetic similarity, is probably a major factor in explaining why parental love is typically more intense than romantic love, despite the more exclusive nature of romantic love.

Proximity in current position is another important factor influencing romantic love. For example, proximity in socioeconomic status contributes to forming romantic bonds. Although initial romantic attraction depends on the partner's desirability, so that the most desirable partners elicit the strongest attraction, people eventually settle in relationships with partners whose attractiveness is about equal to their own. This does not mean that Cinderella's good fortune is not possible, but the likelihood of its happening is not high.

Similarity, however, is a somewhat vague property. Thus, one can find similarities and dissimilarities between any two human beings. Love depends upon many different factors, and it would undoubtedly be oversimplification to explain it by referring merely to similarity. Nevertheless, some measure of similarity is usually helpful in maintaining love relations.

Referring to the notion of a comfort zone, we may say that our partner should be within the core of our comfort zone; this requirement, which is fulfilled by the similarity factor, ensures that we will feel comfortable with the partner. However, in order to ensure excitement in the relationship, the partner should be able to expand our comfort zone; this may be fulfilled if the partner is somewhat different from us. Opposites do attract, since they may enlarge our comfort zone, but significant differences can throw us out of our emotional equilibrium into discomfort.

In the case of sexual desire, the relationship is more limited in nature, and the issue of background similarity is of less importance; differences and changes are more significant. The longer the sexual relationship endures, the more important the issue of similarity becomes, as these indicate the couple's compatibility.

Romantic partners show strong similarity in age, political, and religious attitudes; moderate similarity in education, general intelligence, and values; and little or no similarity in personality characteristics. For instance, Ryan, a divorcee in her late forties who holds conservative views, said: "I would not be able to marry a man who was a leftist, even if I found him very attractive-although most of the men I have slept with are leftists."

While strong attitudinal similarity clearly plays a part in mate selection, it is the similarity of personality related domains that ought to be considered when selecting a mate. Findings provided by Lou and Klohnen suggest a positive correlation between similarity and marital quality via personality-related domains but not via attitude related domains. It seems that, in fact, people are attracted to-and end up marrying partners with-similar attitudes and values, but the partners often differ in personality traits. However, once in a committed relationship, it is primarily the similarity in personality that influences marital happiness. The attitudinal similarity, which is easier to detect, seems to be more important for the initial stages of the relationship, but personality similarity becomes more important as the relationship increases in commitment.

We tend to fall in love and stay with people who share with us profound similarities, which can be expressed differently in various stages of the relationship; the presence of such essential similarities need not preclude-and may even encourage-differences related to surface manifestations within the basic similarity. Following Chomsky's distinction between deep structures underlying a linguistic expression and its surface forms, which manifest the same meaning in a different manner. Profound love involves deep common structures and different surface manifestations. Differences attract, but only within a shared general framework which leaves ample space for complementary differences. Nina, a married woman, compares herself to her lover thus: "There are so many deep things I find in him that are like me, and this attracts me so much. And on the surface I find so many exciting things that are new to me, and this attracts me to him so much, too."

We may say, then, that people with whom we share a similar background or social framework are those with whom we are most likely not merely to fall in love, but to maintain this love for a longer period of time.

Adapted from The Subtlety of Emotions, and In The Name of Love

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does Being Similar to You Make Me More Attractive, Darling?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Concerning the classical question of whether "birds of a feather flock together" or "opposites attract," there is consistent evidence in support of similarity, but very little evidence supporting opposites. However, significant similarity may reduce attraction. To what extent, then, does similarity between lovers enhance or inhibit romance?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FOX29 Personality Similarity in Romantic Relationships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Science of Sex Appeal: What Women Find Attractive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School Girl Has Britain's Most Scientifically Beautiful Face

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Florence Colgate has the kind of beauty many women are prepared to pay a lot of money for - a perfectly symmetrical face, with large eyes, full lips and high cheekbones. Speaking to Reuters Television from her home in the British seaside town of Deal, the teenager said she'd been overwhelmed with the level of interest since winning the competition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A few weeks ago, my roommate and I asked each other a set of questions. It began simple enough, with thirty-six inquiries concerning our heritage, families, and values. But a few minutes in, we began disclosing our greatest fears, what we like and don't like about ourselves, and how we view our relationships with our mothers (very secure, in case you were wondering). I have known said friend for quite some time, and I was certain I would know her answers before she spoke them. However, throughout the exercise, meaningful revelations were disclosed in a way I never predicted. This experience compelled me to start thinking critically about how revealing confidential information to another, or the process of self-disclosure, impacts relationships.

Self-disclosure is kind of like a funnel, beginning with more superficial questions and gradually narrowing into personal topics. This style of communication is typical of the social penetration theory, which holds that strangers begin discussing more superficial, impersonal topics, such as "Where are you from?" before dipping into meaningful conversation. If the small talk is satisfying, acquaintances will gradually reveal more personal information. Conversation begins to increase in breadth (a wide array of topics are discussed) and depth (personal significance attached to topics). In this way, self-disclosure begets familiarity and even fondness. When we divulge intimate information to another, we are more inclined to like this person. Although you might be thinking that we are likely to reveal personal information to those we like or are attracted to, in fact, the opposite can also occur: We grow to like others because we have self-disclosed to them.

More than straightforward factual disclosure ("I was born in Pennsylvania"), individuals find emotional disclosures quite satisfying-particularly, the kind of disclosures that reveal one's private thoughts, opinions, and judgments (insert deepest darkest secret here). Emotional admissions reveal innermost feelings, and thus lie most closely to the core of our self-definition. Couples who disclose more personal information tend to achieve higher levels of intimacy, as such revelations pave the way for the listener to respond in ways that support and confirm core aspects of the sharer. For example, if I were to reveal that I cry every time I watch a trailer for the The Help (this is hypothetical, people!), and someone responded with validation and respect, I'd immediately feel closer to this person.

Given the benefit of healthy self-disclosure, I was surprised to find an article from a popular magazine that suggested women should not engage in self-disclosure to men. The spurious reasoning behind this advice is that, by keeping their partners in the dark, women can subtly impel them to want to know more. This column also stated that men do not have the capacity to endure detailed accounts of women's lives, and for this reason fail to ask. Not only is such a claim an insult to both genders, this logic is also tenuous, since research has shown that men and women are equally capable of self-disclosing and receiving.

In fact, men often do self-disclose to women, and research supports the notion that the more couples share their feelings with each other, the happier they tend to be. More often, then, it is during the dissolution of a relationship that couples stop self-disclosing and revert to superficial small talk. So if you go out to dine with your partner and all you can talk about is whether you should order the shrimp for lunch, though you may be ordering fish for dinner, you may have cause for concern. (Yes, I did overhear this at a restaurant today. No, I was not eavesdropping. The tables were close together, I tell you!)

Perhaps a more responsible recommendation from this magazine would have been to suggest that partners should work to match each other's degrees of openness. For instance, if two people are talking, they should engage in reciprocal self-disclosure: One should not reveal too much too soon if the other person is revealing nothing in return. This level of sharing could violate the listener's expectations and scare him or her off. Instead, individuals should be patient and gradually engage in self-disclosure, taking cues from each other in order to create a balanced level of personal revelation. If your blind date says he likes vanilla ice cream more than chocolate, and you respond with "I think I may be in love with you," then, again, you may have cause for concern.

Ultimately, sharing your innermost thoughts with another person feels good and engenders trust. Those who self-disclose are generally more liked by others than those who withhold their opinions and feelings. Experiments conducted with undergraduate students has shown that strangers who engage in reciprocal self-disclosure reported more positive evaluations of their partner, than those who did not divulge as much. So go ahead and try this for yourself. Next time you're at work, at happy hour, or in class, start chatting with someone for at least an hour, gradually progressing from superficial small talk to more personal, meaningful revelations. If you find yourselves sharing secrets, laughing, or exchanging numbers, you may not have cause for concern. Oh, and in that event, my favorite flowers are peonies.

References

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23 363-377.

Laurenceau, J., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco, P. R. 1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1238-1251.

Miller, R. S. & Perlman, D. (2009). Intimate Relationships. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Sprecher, S. & Hendrick, S. S. (2004). Self-disclosure in intimate relationships: Associations with individual and relationship characteristics over time. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 857-877.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A few weeks ago, my roommate and I asked each other a set of questions. It began simple enough, with thirty-six inquiries concerning our heritage, families, and values. But a few minutes in, we began disclosing our greatest fears, what we like and don't like about ourselves, and how we view our relationships with our mothers (very secure, in case you were wondering).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Self-disclosure promotes attraction. People feel a sense of closeness to others who reveal their vulnerabilities, innermost thoughts, and facts about themselves. The sense of closeness increases if the disclosures are emotional rather than factual. Personal disclosures that are too general reduce the sense of openness, thus reducing the feeling of closeness. Disclosures that are too intimate often highlight character and personality flaws, thus decreasing likeability. People who make intimate disclosures too early in relationships are often perceived as insecure, which further decreases likeability.

Self- disclosure is a two-step process. First, a person has to make a self-disclosure that is neither too general nor too intimate. Second, the self-disclosure must be received with empathy, caring, and respect. A negative response made to a genuine self-disclosure can instantly terminate a relationship. Self-disclosures are often reciprocal. When one person makes self-disclosures, the listener is more likely to reciprocate by making similar self-disclosures. The exchange of personal information creates a sense of intimacy in relationships. A relationship in which one person makes personal self-disclosures while the other person continues to make superficial disclosures is an indicator that the relationship is not progressing and is likely to end.

When people find a person whom they can trust, they are tempted to open the emotional floodgates overwhelming the object of their affection. Disclosures should be made over a long period of time to ensure that the relationship slowly increases in intensity and closeness. A steady trickle of personal information increases the longevity of the relationship because each partner continually feels the closeness that comes with self-disclosures.

Mutual self-disclosures create trust. People who make personal disclosures become vulnerable to the person to whom the disclosures are made. Mutual self-disclosures also create a safety zone because each person has exposed their vulnerabilities and tend to protect the disclosures to avoid mutual embarrassment resulting from a breach of trust.

Social network users tend to rely more on self-disclosures to create a sense of closeness because they do not receive verbal and nonverbal cues that would be otherwise exchanged in face-to-face communications. The veracity of information exchanged online is suspect, thus forcing online daters to spend more time verifying information from their online counterpart. Once veracity has been established, the lack of a physical presence increases the probability of more intimate disclosures online leading to the illusion of a close relationship and, likewise, increases the intensity of the disappointment when a relationship goes wrong.

For more information on how to build, maintain, and repair relationships refer to The Like Switch: An Ex-FBI Agent's Guide to Influencing, Attracting, and Winning People Over.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Self-disclosure promotes attraction. People feel a sense of closeness to others who reveal their vulnerabilities, innermost thoughts, and facts about themselves. The sense of closeness increases if the disclosures are emotional rather than factual. Personal disclosures that are too general reduce the sense of openness, thus reducing the feeling of closeness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Please listen carefully and try to hear what I am not saying . . .
What I'd like to be able to say . . .
What for survival I need to say . . .
But what I can't say."

Through my self-disclosure, I let other know my soul. They can know it, really know it, only as I make it known. In fact, I am beginning to suspect that I can't even know my own soul except as I disclose it. I suspect that I will know myself "for real" at the exact moment that I have succeeded in making it known through my disclosure to another person.

Sidney Jourard, The Many Me's of the Self-Monitor

Self-Disclosure is one of the major concepts of the Social Penetration Theory. It refers to the gradual process of unfolding ones' inner self. This process, in the writings of Altman and Taylor, is possible only after an established intimacy and closeness. It is quite difficult for a person to divulge all his/her secrets to another person he barely knows. And it is nearly impossible for a person to disclose the innermost layers of his/her self.

So, self-disclosure is a process of sharing with someone information which helps him or her understand you. Self-disclosure is most revealing when the sharing is in the present and least revealing when the sharing is about the past.

Disclosure may include sharing both high-risk and low-risk information as well as personal experiences, ideas and attitudes, feelings and values, past facts and life stories, and even future hopes, dreams, ambitions, and goals. In sharing information about yourself, you make choices about what to share and with whom to share it.

Competent communicators use self-disclosure selectively. They make choices about disclosing information judiciously, with awareness of the positive and negative consequences of doing so. They may weigh the impact that disclosing information might have on the growth and well-being of a relationship. In addition, they may consider how learning personal information about themselves may affect another person, especially in light of that person's receptivity and trustworthiness to respond well to what has been disclosed.

Altman and Taylor developed the social penetration theory to describe self-disclosure as the gradual sharing of information about oneself.

There are multiple approaches and multiple definitions of interpersonal self-disclosure. Look at these three concepts:

S. Jourard (in The Transparent Self) defines self-disclosure as making ourselves "transparent" to others through our communication--i.e., when we tell others things about ourselves which help them to see our uniqueness as a human being.

Culpert distinguishes between self-description vs. self-disclosure. Self-description involves communication that levels "public layers" whereas self-disclosure involves communication that reveals more private, sensitive, and confidential information.

Pearce & Sharp make an interesting distinction among three related terms: Self-disclosure, confession, and revelation:

o Self-disclosure -- voluntarily communication of information about one's self to another.

o Confession -- forced or coerced communication of information about one's self to another.

o Revelation -- unintentional or inadvertent communication of information about one's self to another.

A useful way of viewing self-disclosure is the Johari window. The Johari window is a way of showing how much information you know about yourself and how much others know about you. The window contains four panes:

Open Pane - Known to self / Known to others. The Open Pane includes information such as hair color, occupation, and physical appearance.

Hidden Pane - Open to Self / Hidden from others. The Hidden Pane contains information you wish to keep private, such as dreams or ambitions.

- Blind to self / Seen by others. The Blind Pane includes information that others can see in you, but you cannot see in yourself. You might think you are poor leader, but others think you exhibit strong leadership skills.

Unknown Pane - Unknown to self and others. The Unknown Pane includes everything that you and others do not know about yourself. You may have hidden talents, for example, that you have not explored.

Through self-disclosure, we open and close panes so that we may become more intimate with others.

Rewards and Costs of Self-Disclosure

What motivates you to self-disclose? The kinds of low-level self-disclosures that occur as part of the strategy of uncertainty reduction invite others to reciprocate and share their own information. So, one great payoff of self-disclosing is the reduction of uncertainty and the stress that it creates. And later in a relationship, when a deeper level of self-disclosure occurs, we experience the rewards of having greater intimacy with people we like. We may also self-disclose information in order to gain the help and support of others or to achieve the catharsis that comes from unburdening ourselves from carrying difficult and painful emotional experiences by ourselves. Support, empathy, compassion, and understanding are all powerful rewards that motivate self-disclosure.

At the same time, costs and risks may be incurred as a result of self-disclosure. We may lose face with another or risk a breach of confidence. Sometimes, the cost of disclosure is a burden to the relationship itself, especially when disclosure is associated with demands or expectations that a relational partner does not feel comfortable assuming. In deciding whether to self-disclosure, we must weigh these actual and perceived costs against the anticipated rewards.

Reflecting from his perspective as a gay man, John observes that he faces a quandary in deciding when and with whom to disclose that he is gay. Moreover, it's clear that sharing information about one's sexual orientation and relational status is a matter of breadth for most heterosexuals but an issue of disclosing depth for him:

Most straight people that I know don't hesitate to announce to the world if they are married or dating someone. Many of the other teachers at my school have photos of their husbands and kids on their desks that anyone can see. For them, sexual orientation is one of the "outer layers of the onion" for self-disclosure.

I don't think it is the same for a lot of gay people. I have to gauge carefully whether to tell someone that I am gay or whether to talk about my partner. That is a matter of disclosing from my depth when you consider the kinds of risks that are involved and the vastly different comfort levels of potential listeners.

Sharing what most people consider to be basic facts of life becomes a struggle. I have to weigh the costs against the benefits. There is the fear of being rejected or retaliated against professionally if I am open. On the other hand, if I am not totally honest or open, there is the personal cost of not being authentic or of appearing two -dimensional to friends or co-workers who never hear the day-to-day details of my life or hear them only in guarded or sanitized versions.

Altman and Taylor describe the process of self-disclosure as social penetration. By this, they mean that self-disclosing and learning about others is the process of penetrating deeper into the selves of those people-and enabling others to penetrate ourselves and gain a deeper understanding of us. This process of penetration is a gradual one, in which each communicator reveals layers of personal depth.

As a way of visualizing this process, Altman and Taylor use the metaphor of an onion and its layers of rings. Disclosure begins on the outer layer and proceeds to the core of the onion. These authors also suggest that there are two levels of disclosure. The first level is called the breadth dimension. This is the skin of the onion and its most outer layers. In terms of self-disclosure, this layer is largely made up of superficial information about ourselves that we commonly share with a number of different people. On this superficial level, there is a great deal of information that will likely cost little to disclose. This peripheral information will likely be exchanged early in a relationship. Moreover, Altman and Taylor observe that when we share superficial information-that is, from the breadth dimension of ourselves-the process of penetration is fairly quick.

Later, in a relationship, communicators gradually share depth of information. Again, using the onion metaphor, these are the inner layers and the core of the onion. Information at the depth level is more significant and more central to who we are. Thus, sharing information from our depth may incur greater risk taking. The information from this dimension of self is typically known by and held in confidence by only a few people. Sometimes, it includes very strong feelings, beliefs, and concerns. It may also include secrets, regrets or hurtful experiences, and painful memories. Information from the depth dimension, which is more private and significant, will likely be exchanged later in a relationship.

While the research is still ongoing, and there is no bottom to the psychological studies, there certain trends and findings, which were recently uncovered:

Disclosure increases with increased relational intimacy.

Disclosure increases with the need to reduce uncertainty in a relationship.

Disclosure tends to be reciprocal.

Disclosure tends to be incremental.

Disclosure tends to be symmetrical.

Liking is related to positive disclosure, but not to negative ones.

Positive disclosure does not necessarily increase with the intimacy of the relationship; but negative disclosure is directly related to the intimacy of the relationship.

Relational satisfaction and disclosure have a curvilinear relationship -- satisfaction is highest with moderate levels of disclosure.

For years, psychologists have known that sharing aspects of oneself with other people is a crucial part of human social life. It's the escalation from small talk to more personal details that often forms the foundation of friendship and romantic intimacy. But the Harvard psychologists wanted to know why people talk about themselves so frequently.

In a series of experiments that utilized methods from neuroscience and cognitive psychology, the researchers found evidence that revealing even relatively mundane facts about oneself - such as reporting whether a person still likes Dr. Seuss books, or enjoys listening to musicals - seems to trigger the brain circuits that respond to rewards such as food and money.

In the first set of experiments, researchers designed experiments in which participants placed in a brain scanner were asked to either disclose their opinions or personality traits or to judge those of another person. The scientists found that when participants were communicating information about themselves, the brain's reward circuits lighted up with a significantly stronger response than when they disclosed how they felt about others.

In various trials, researchers asked participants to choose among different combinations of questions: a fact-based question, a question about themselves, or a question about another person. The participants were offered differing amounts of compensation, depending on which question they chose to answer.

If all else were equal, people should choose to maximize their income by always answering the question that offered the biggest monetary reward. Instead, the participants were willing to accept a loss of 17 percent of potential earnings to answer questions about themselves, suggesting they placed value on talking about themselves. When the payoffs were equal, people chose to answer questions about themselves more than two-thirds of the time.

In another experiment, the researchers found that participants preferred to share with others those answers about themselves - suggesting that it was not just thinking about themselves but communicating about themselves that was valued.

When clinical psychologists first began using computers in their offices, one of the applications, besides patient records and billing, was the computerized interview. Clients would sit at a terminal and answer questions about themselves, their problems, and their beliefs about their own behavior, and the computer would dutifully record the responses. The computerized interview was controversial at first, though it was certainly a time saver. Many practitioners thought the client should be talking to a human being and developing a rapport, so even now, not many use it. However, a strange thing started happening. Clients seemed to be more forthcoming when they were interviewed by a computer compared to when they were talking to a person who was jotting notes.

The tendency for people to disclose more to a computer - even when they know a person will be reading what they say - is an important ingredient in what seems to be happening on the Internet. Yes, it can be an impersonal, cold-blooded medium at times. Yet it can also be what Joseph Walther describes as hyperpersonal. You sit at a computer screen feeling relatively anonymous, distant, and physically safe and you sometimes feel closer to the people on the other side of your screen whom you have never seen than to the people in the next room. You may reveal more about yourself to them, feel more attraction to them, and express more emotions - even when all you have is a keyboard. At the keyboard you can concentrate only on yourself, your words, and the feelings you want to convey. You don't have to worry about how you look, what you're wearing, or those extra pounds you meant to shed. "The waist is a terrible thing to mind," as Walther suggests, and online you can reallocate your energies to the message. You can also endlessly idealize those personas with whom you are interacting. Someone you know only as "Moonbeam" who has told you many intimate details of her life - but not her name, address, or phone number - is like a canvas with just a few iridescent brush strokes. You can fill in the rest of that minimalist art work with your imagination.

Sources and Additional Information:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Please listen carefully and try to hear what I am not saying . . . What I'd like to be able to say . . . What for survival I need to say . . . But what I can't say." Through my self-disclosure, I let other know my soul.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
6.4 Self-Disclosure and Interpersonal Communication

Learning Objectives

1. Define self-disclosure.

2. Explain the connection between social penetration theory, social comparison theory, and self-disclosure.

3. Discuss the process of self-disclosure, including how we make decisions about what, where, when, and how to disclose.

4. Explain how self-disclosure affects relationships.

Have you ever said too much on a first date? At a job interview? To a professor? Have you ever posted something on Facebook only to return later to remove it? When self-disclosure works out well, it can have positive effects for interpersonal relationships. Conversely, self-disclosure that does not work out well can lead to embarrassment, lower self-esteem, and relationship deterioration or even termination. As with all other types of communication, increasing your competence regarding self-disclosure can have many positive effects.

So what is self-disclosure? It could be argued that any verbal or nonverbal communication reveals something about the self. The clothes we wear, a laugh, or an order at the drive-through may offer glimpses into our personality or past, but they are not necessarily self-disclosure. Self-disclosure Purposeful disclosure of personal information to another person. is purposeful disclosure of personal information to another person. If I purposefully wear the baseball cap of my favorite team to reveal my team loyalty to a new friend, then this clothing choice constitutes self-disclosure. Self-disclosure doesn't always have to be deep to be useful or meaningful. Superficial self-disclosure, often in the form of "small talk," is key in initiating relationships that then move onto more personal levels of self-disclosure. Telling a classmate your major or your hometown during the first week of school carries relatively little risk but can build into a friendship that lasts beyond the class.

Theories of Self-Disclosure

Social penetration theoryTheory that states we engage in a reciprocal process of self-disclosure that changes in breadth and depth and affects how a relationship progresses. states that as we get to know someone, we engage in a reciprocal process of self-disclosure that changes in breadth and depth and affects how a relationship develops. Depth refers to how personal or sensitive the information is, and breadth refers to the range of topics discussed. You may recall Shrek's declaration that ogres are like onions in the movie Shrek. While certain circumstances can lead to a rapid increase in the depth and/or breadth of self-disclosure, the theory states that in most relationships people gradually penetrate through the layers of each other's personality like we peel the layers from an onion.

Social penetration theory compares the process of self-disclosure to peeling back the layers of an onion.

The theory also argues that people in a relationship balance needs that are sometimes in tension, which is a dialectic. Balancing a dialectic is like walking a tightrope. You have to lean to one side and eventually lean to another side to keep yourself balanced and prevent falling. The constant back and forth allows you to stay balanced, even though you may not always be even, or standing straight up. One of the key dialectics that must be negotiated is the tension between openness and closedness. We want to make ourselves open to others, through self-disclosure, but we also want to maintain a sense of privacy.

We may also engage in self-disclosure for the purposes of social comparison. Social comparison theory Theory that states we evaluate ourselves based on how we compare with others. states that we evaluate ourselves based on how we compare with others. We may disclose information about our intellectual aptitude or athletic abilities to see how we relate to others. This type of comparison helps us decide whether we are superior or inferior to others in a particular area. Disclosures about abilities or talents can also lead to self-validation if the person to whom we disclose reacts positively. By disclosing information about our beliefs and values, we can determine if they are the same as or different from others. Last, we may disclose fantasies or thoughts to another to determine whether they are acceptable or unacceptable. We can engage in social comparison as the discloser or the receiver of disclosures, which may allow us to determine whether or not we are interested in pursuing a relationship with another person.

The final theory of self-disclosure that we will discuss is the Johari window, which is named after its creators Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham. The Johari windowConcept that can be applied to a variety of interpersonal interactions in order to help us understand what parts of ourselves are open, hidden, blind, and unknown. can be applied to a variety of interpersonal interactions in order to help us understand what parts of ourselves are open, hidden, blind, and unknown. To help understand the concept, think of a window with four panes. As you can see in Figure 6.2 "Johari Window", one axis of the window represents things that are known to us, and the other axis represents things that are known to others. The upper left pane contains open information that is known to us and to others. The amount of information that is openly known to others varies based on relational context. When you are with close friends, there is probably a lot of information already in the open pane, and when you are with close family, there is also probably a lot of information in the open pane. The information could differ, though, as your family might know much more about your past and your friends more about your present. Conversely, there isn't much information in the open pane when we meet someone for the first time, aside from what the other person can guess based on our nonverbal communication and appearance.

Figure 6.2 Johari Window

The bottom left pane contains hidden information that is known to us but not to others. As we are getting to know someone, we engage in self-disclosure and move information from the "hidden" to the "open" pane. By doing this, we decrease the size of our hidden area and increase the size of our open area, which increases our shared reality. The reactions that we get from people as we open up to them help us form our self-concepts and also help determine the trajectory of the relationship. If the person reacts favorably to our disclosures and reciprocates disclosure, then the cycle of disclosure continues and a deeper relationship may be forged.

The upper right pane contains information that is known to others but not to us. For example, we may be unaware of the fact that others see us as pushy or as a leader. Looking back to self-discrepancy theory from Chapter 2 "Communication and Perception", we can see that people who have a disconnect between how they see themselves and how others see them may have more information in their blind pane. Engaging in perception checking and soliciting feedback from others can help us learn more about our blind area.

The bottom right pane represents our unknown area, as it contains information not known to ourselves or others. To become more self-aware, we must solicit feedback from others to learn more about our blind pane, but we must also explore the unknown pane. To discover the unknown, we have to get out of our comfort zones and try new things. We have to pay attention to the things that excite or scare us and investigate them more to see if we can learn something new about ourselves. By being more aware of what is contained in each of these panes and how we can learn more about each one, we can more competently engage in self-disclosure and use this process to enhance our interpersonal relationships.

"Getting Plugged In"

Self-Disclosure and Social Media

Facebook and Twitter are undoubtedly dominating the world of online social networking, and the willingness of many users to self-disclose personal information ranging from moods to religious affiliation, relationship status, and personal contact information has led to an increase in privacy concerns. Facebook and Twitter offer convenient opportunities to stay in touch with friends, family, and coworkers, but are people using them responsibly? Some argue that there are fundamental differences between today's digital natives, whose private and public selves are intertwined through these technologies, and older generations. Even though some colleges are offering seminars on managing privacy online, we still hear stories of self-disclosure gone wrong, such as the football player from the University of Texas who was kicked off the team for posting racist comments about the president or the student who was kicked out of his private, Christian college after a picture of him dressed in drag surfaced on Facebook. However, social media experts say these cases are rare and that most students are aware of who can see what they're posting and the potential consequences. The issue of privacy management on Facebook is affecting parent-child relationships, too, and as the website "Oh Crap. My Parents Joined Facebook." shows, the results can sometimes be embarrassing for the college student and the parent as they balance the dialectic between openness and closedness once the child has moved away.

1. How do you manage your privacy and self-disclosures online?

2. Do you think it's ethical for school officials or potential employers to make admission or hiring decisions based on what they can learn about you online? Why or why not?

3. Are you or would you be friends with a parent on Facebook? Why or why not? If you already are friends with a parent, did you change your posting habits or privacy settings once they joined? Why or why not?

The Process of Self-Disclosure

There are many decisions that go into the process of self-disclosure. We have many types of information we can disclose, but we have to determine whether or not we will proceed with disclosure by considering the situation and the potential risks. Then we must decide when, where, and how to disclose. Since all these decisions will affect our relationships, we will examine each one in turn.

Four main categories for disclosure include observations, thoughts, feelings, and needs. Observations include what we have done and experienced. For example, I could tell you that I live in a farmhouse in Illinois. If I told you that I think my move from the city to the country was a good decision, I would be sharing my thoughts, because I included a judgment about my experiences. Sharing feelings includes expressing an emotion-for example, "I'm happy to wake up every morning and look out at the corn fields. I feel lucky." Last, we may communicate needs or wants by saying something like "My best friend is looking for a job, and I really want him to move here, too." We usually begin disclosure with observations and thoughts and then move onto feelings and needs as the relationship progresses. There are some exceptions to this. For example, we are more likely to disclose deeply in crisis situations, and we may also disclose more than usual with a stranger if we do not think we'll meet the person again or do not share social networks. Although we don't often find ourselves in crisis situations, you may recall scenes from movies or television shows where people who are trapped in an elevator or stranded after a plane crash reveal their deepest feelings and desires. I imagine that we have all been in a situation where we said more about ourselves to a stranger than we normally would. To better understand why, let's discuss some of the factors that influence our decision to disclose.

Generally speaking, some people are naturally more transparent and willing to self-disclose, while others are more opaque and hesitant to reveal personal information. Interestingly, recent research suggests that the pervasiveness of reality television, much of which includes participants who are very willing to disclose personal information, has led to a general trend among reality television viewers to engage in self-disclosure through other mediated means such as blogging and video sharing. Whether it is online or face-to-face, there are other reasons for disclosing or not, including self-focused, other-focused, interpersonal, and situational reasons.

Self-focused reasons for disclosure include having a sense of relief or catharsis, clarifying or correcting information, or seeking support. Self-focused reasons for not disclosing include fear of rejection and loss of privacy. In other words, we may disclose to get something off our chest in hopes of finding relief, or we may not disclose out of fear that the other person may react negatively to our revelation. Other-focused reasons for disclosure include a sense of responsibility to inform or educate. Other-focused reasons for not disclosing include feeling like the other person will not protect the information. If someone mentions that their car wouldn't start this morning and you disclose that you are good at working on cars, you've disclosed to help out the other person. On the other side, you may hold back disclosure about your new relationship from your coworker because he or she's known to be loose-lipped with other people's information. Interpersonal reasons for disclosure involve desires to maintain a trusting and intimate relationship. Interpersonal reasons for not disclosing include fear of losing the relationship or deeming the information irrelevant to the particular relationship. Your decision to disclose an affair in order to be open with your partner and hopefully work through the aftermath together or withhold that information out of fear he or she will leave you is based on interpersonal reasons. Finally, situational reasons may be the other person being available, directly asking a question, or being directly involved in or affected by the information being disclosed. Situational reasons for not disclosing include the person being unavailable, a lack of time to fully discuss the information, or the lack of a suitable (i.e., quiet, private) place to talk. For example, finding yourself in a quiet environment where neither person is busy could lead to disclosure, while a house full of company may not.

Deciding when to disclose something in a conversation may not seem as important as deciding whether or not to disclose at all. But deciding to disclose and then doing it at an awkward time in a conversation could lead to negative results. As far as timing goes, you should consider whether to disclose the information early, in the middle, or late in a conversation. If you get something off your chest early in a conversation, you may ensure that there's plenty of time to discuss the issue and that you don't end up losing your nerve. If you wait until the middle of the conversation, you have some time to feel out the other person's mood and set up the tone for your disclosure. For example, if you meet up with your roommate to tell her that you're planning on moving out and she starts by saying, "I've had the most terrible day!" the tone of the conversation has now shifted, and you may not end up making your disclosure. If you start by asking her how she's doing, and things seem to be going well, you may be more likely to follow through with the disclosure. You may choose to disclose late in a conversation if you're worried about the person's reaction. If you know they have an appointment or you have to go to class at a certain time, disclosing just before that time could limit your immediate exposure to any negative reaction. However, if the person doesn't have a negative reaction, they could still become upset because they don't have time to discuss the disclosure with you.

Sometimes self-disclosure is unplanned. Someone may ask you a direct question or disclose personal information, which leads you to reciprocate disclosure. In these instances you may not manage your privacy well because you haven't had time to think through any potential risks. In the case of a direct question, you may feel comfortable answering, you may give an indirect or general answer, or you may feel enough pressure or uncertainty to give a dishonest answer. If someone unexpectedly discloses, you may feel the need to reciprocate by also disclosing something personal. If you're uncomfortable doing this, you can still provide support for the other person by listening and giving advice or feedback.

Once you've decided when and where to disclose information to another person, you need to figure out the best channel to use. Face-to-face disclosures may feel more genuine or intimate given the shared physical presence and ability to receive verbal and nonverbal communication. There is also an opportunity for immediate verbal and nonverbal feedback, such as asking follow-up questions or demonstrating support or encouragement through a hug. The immediacy of a face-to-face encounter also means you have to deal with the uncertainty of the reaction you'll get. If the person reacts negatively, you may feel uncomfortable, pressured to stay, or even fearful. If you choose a mediated channel such as an e-mail or a letter, text, note, or phone call, you may seem less genuine or personal, but you have more control over the situation in that you can take time to carefully choose your words, and you do not have to immediately face the reaction of the other person. This can be beneficial if you fear a negative or potentially violent reaction. Another disadvantage of choosing a mediated channel, however, is the loss of nonverbal communication that can add much context to a conversation. Although our discussion of the choices involved in self-disclosure so far have focused primarily on the discloser, self-disclosure is an interpersonal process that has much to do with the receiver of the disclosure.

Effects of Disclosure on the Relationship

The process of self-disclosure is circular. An individual self-discloses, the recipient of the disclosure reacts, and the original discloser processes the reaction. How the receiver interprets and responds to the disclosure are key elements of the process. Part of the response results from the receiver's attribution of the cause of the disclosure, which may include dispositional, situational, and interpersonal attributions. Let's say your coworker discloses that she thinks the new boss got his promotion because of favoritism instead of merit. You may make a dispositional attributionIdentifies the cause of a disclosure with the personality of the sender. that connects the cause of her disclosure to her personality by thinking, for example, that she is outgoing, inappropriate for the workplace, or fishing for information. If the personality trait to which you attribute the disclosure is positive, then your reaction to the disclosure is more likely to be positive. Situational attributionsIdentifies the cause of a disclosure with the context or surroundings in which the disclosure takes place. identify the cause of a disclosure with the context or surroundings in which it takes place. For example, you may attribute your coworker's disclosure to the fact that you agreed to go to lunch with her. Interpersonal attributions Identifies the relationship between the sender and receiver as the cause of the disclosure. identify the relationship between sender and receiver as the cause of the disclosure. So if you attribute your coworker's comments to the fact that you are best friends at work, you think your unique relationship caused the disclosure. If the receiver's primary attribution is interpersonal, relational intimacy and closeness will likely be reinforced more than if the attribution is dispositional or situational, because the receiver feels like they were specially chosen to receive the information.

The receiver's role doesn't end with attribution and response. There may be added burdens if the information shared with you is a secret. As was noted earlier, there are clear risks involved in self-disclosure of intimate or potentially stigmatizing information if the receiver of the disclosure fails to keep that information secure. As the receiver of a secret, you may feel the need to unburden yourself from the co-ownership of the information by sharing it with someone else. This is not always a bad thing. You may strategically tell someone who is removed from the social network of the person who told you the secret to keep the information secure. Although unburdening yourself can be a relief, sometimes people tell secrets they were entrusted to keep for less productive reasons. A research study of office workers found that 77 percent of workers that received a disclosure and were told not to tell anyone else told at least two other people by the end of the day! They reported doing so to receive attention for having inside information or to demonstrate their power or connection. Needless to say, spreading someone's private disclosure without permission for personal gain does not demonstrate communication competence.

When the cycle of disclosure ends up going well for the discloser, there is likely to be a greater sense of relational intimacy and self-worth, and there are also positive psychological effects such as reduced stress and increased feelings of social support. Self-disclosure can also have effects on physical health. Spouses of suicide or accidental death victims who did not disclose information to their friends were more likely to have more health problems such as weight change and headaches and suffer from more intrusive thoughts about the death than those who did talk with friends.

Key Takeaways

Through the process of self-disclosure, we disclose personal information and learn about others.

The social penetration theory argues that self-disclosure increases in breadth and depth as a relationship progresses, like peeling back the layers of an onion.

We engage in social comparison through self-disclosure, which may determine whether or not we pursue a relationship.

Getting integrated: The process of self-disclosure involves many decisions, including what, when, where, and how to disclose. All these decisions may vary by context, as we follow different patterns of self-disclosure in academic, professional, personal, and civic contexts.

The receiver's reaction to and interpretation of self-disclosure are important factors in how the disclosure will affect the relationship.

Exercises

1. Answer the questions from the beginning of the section: Have you ever said too much on a first date? At a job interview? To a professor? Have you ever posted something on Facebook only to return later to remove it? If you answered yes to any of the questions, what have you learned in this chapter that may have led you to do something differently?

2. Have you experienced negative results due to self-disclosure (as sender or receiver)? If so, what could have been altered in the decisions of what, where, when, or how to disclose that may have improved the situation?

3. Under what circumstances is it OK to share information that someone has disclosed to you? Under what circumstances is to not OK to share the information?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Define self-disclosure. Explain the connection between social penetration theory, social comparison theory, and self-disclosure. Discuss the process of self-disclosure, including how we make decisions about what, where, when, and how to disclose. Explain how self-disclosure affects relationships. Have you ever said too much on a first date? At a job interview?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sexual Selection | Learn Science at Scitable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Charles Darwin proposed that all living species were derived from common ancestors. The primary mechanism he proposed to explain this fact was natural selection: that is, that organisms better adapted to their environment would benefit from higher rates of survival than those less well equipped to do so.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Birds-of-Paradise Project: Natural & Sexual Selection

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The birds-of-paradise are among the most beautiful creatures on earth--and an extraordinary example of evolutionary adaptation. On this site you can find what few have witnessed in the wild: the displays of color, sound, and motion that make these birds so remarkable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 12 Days of Evolution - Complete Series!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Animal Behaviour of the Australian bowerbird | David Attenborough | BBC wildlife