Formation of Personal Relationships: Sociocultural Theories of Attraction (DP IB Psychology)

Proximity

• Proximity is based on the idea of distance as a key factor in the formation of relationships (romantic or platonic) 

• Proximity theory assumes that people find their become or romantic partners from those they live or work close to, for example:

  • Someone who lives in your neighbourhood, town, street

  • Someone who  your office

  • Someone who attends the same gym classes as you 

• One explanation of proximity is that it is simply less effortful and more convenient to form a relationship with someone who lives or works nearby than to go to the trouble of finding friends and partners who are some distance away

• Proximity may well be linked to another sociocultural theory  – familiarity:

  • What is well known to an individual may appear to be more attractive than what is unknown

  • Seeing someone around your neighbourhood or at work means that they become familiar

Familiarity

• The concept of familiarity as a sociocultural factor in relationship formation is based on the idea that the more familiar a person become, the more attractive they appear to be

• Familiarity uses the premise of the mere exposure effect, a psychological phenomenon by which people develop a preference for what is well-known and encountered often, for example:

  • ‘I see that guy every morning at the coffee shop; he’s quite dishy’

  • ‘I know that JimBob is my friend but I’m starting to think he’s rather attractive’

  • ‘Esmerelda has been coming to my bell-ringing class for a few weeks now and I’m starting to feel attracted to her’

• Zajonc (1968) stated that it is sufficient for an individual simply to see a person several times in a short period of time in order to begin to feel attracted to them

• The overlap with proximity theory is clear – we are bound to see more of those to whom we live closest

Culture 

• Collectivist cultures are not as well represented in psychological research as are individualistic cultures yet it is usually assumed that theories of relationship formation apply universally

• Taking a universalist approach to research is ethnocentric as it ignore the perspectives of cultures which are not Westernised or individualistic

• One of the main ideological differences between individualist and some collectivist cultures is that of arranged marriages versus ‘love’ marriages

• Arranged marriages are part of the cultural norm in some countries, for example:

  • India

  • South Korea

  • Indonesia

  • Bangladesh

• The idea of having a marriage arranged by a third party (often family) is in direct opposition to the idea of a ‘love-match’ in which emotion, passion and personal choice are valued 

• Individualist cultures tend to have high divorce rates  which may highlight some flaws in the romantic model 

Evaluation of sociocultural theories of attraction

Strengths 

• These theories offer a more holistic view of relationship formation as they each consider a range of factors which affect and influence attraction

• Real-world evidence shows the validity of sociocultural theories, for example:

  • Many people do end up marrying someone they went to college with or who they work with

  • People may feel a sense of loyalty to those they are familiar with, perhaps because they view them as part of their ingroup

Limitations

• The theories cannot be tested using objective, scientific methods which means that they lack reliability

• The theories are overly deterministic and do not consider alternative outcomes, for example:

  • Living or working close to someone does not meant that liking/loving will follow

  • Long-distance relationships do work for some people

  • Familiarity does not always result in attraction, in fact it may result in dislike for the other person

Research which investigates sociocultural theories of attraction

• Festinger et al. (1950) proximity explained via occupation of student accommodation blocks

• Moreland & Beach (1992) familiarity explained via regular sightings of a student during lectures

• Gupta & Singh (1982) arranged marriages versus love marriages

Festinger et al. (1950), Moreland & Beach (1992) and Gupta & Singh (1982) are available as ‘Three Key Studies of Sociocultural Theories of Attraction’ – just navigate the Formation of Personal Relationships section to find them.