Attraction (Buss et al., 1990; proximity, reciprocity, similarity, self-disclosure) and Rollie and Duck's phase model of relationship dissolution (QCE Psychology Unit 4)

What this dot point is asking

Unit 4 Topic 2 (Interpersonal processes) in the 2025 syllabus includes three dot points on relationships, all examinable in the external assessment:

1. describe biological and cultural explanations of attraction, with reference to Buss et al. (1990);
2. describe the social and cognitive origins of attraction: proximity, reciprocity, similarity and self-disclosure;
3. determine the stages of relationship dissolution using Rollie and Duck's phase model: intrapsychic, dyadic, social, grave-dressing and resurrection.

The syllabus also notes that forming relationships is influenced by cultural norms and expectations, which links to the cross-cultural psychology topic.

The answer

Biological and cultural explanations: Buss et al. (1990)

David Buss and a large international team studied what people want in a long-term partner. They collected 37 samples from 33 countries on six continents and five islands, with 9,474 participants, who rated and ranked characteristics such as kindness, intelligence, physical attractiveness, good earning capacity and chastity.

Evidence for a biological (evolutionary) explanation. Across cultures there were consistent sex differences: men valued physical attractiveness in a mate more than women did, and women valued good earning potential more than men did. The authors argued that these support evolution-based hypotheses: physical attractiveness (and youth) signal reproductive value, and resources support the survival of offspring, so these preferences would have increased reproductive success. Because they appear in very different cultures, they are unlikely to be purely learnt.

Evidence for a cultural explanation. The study also found strong effects of culture. Each culture had its own unique ordering of preferred characteristics, and chastity was the characteristic on which cultures varied the most. The cultures fell along a traditional versus modern dimension, with China, India, Iran and Nigeria at the traditional end and the Netherlands, Great Britain, Finland and Sweden at the modern end. These differences reflect each culture's values and norms and cannot be explained by evolved sex differences alone. On most characteristics, sex made little difference.

A balanced conclusion: both biological and cultural factors shape attraction, and the study shows similarities across all cultures as well as clear cultural differences.

Social and cognitive origins of attraction

• Proximity. We are more likely to form relationships with people who are physically close to us: neighbours, classmates, colleagues. Proximity increases the chance of meeting, and repeated exposure increases familiarity and liking. Online platforms now create a form of proximity without physical closeness.
• Reciprocity. We tend to like people who like us. Knowing someone likes us is rewarding, and it lowers the risk of rejection, so liking is returned.
• Similarity. We are attracted to people who share our attitudes, values, interests and background. Similar others validate our views, and interactions with them are easier and more predictable.
• Self-disclosure. Revealing personal information about ourselves, such as thoughts, feelings and experiences, builds intimacy and trust, especially when it is reciprocated and increases gradually. Disclosing too much, too early, can reduce attraction.

Relationship dissolution: Rollie and Duck's phase model

Rollie and Duck (2006) described five phases that relationships commonly pass through as they end.

The phases describe a common pattern, not a fixed sequence: some are skipped, repeated or overlap, and a relationship can be repaired at the dyadic stage.