Transcript Interpersonal Attraction Slides

Quotes
"Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each
other but in looking outward together in the same direction." --Antoine de Saint-Exupery
It is with true love as it is with ghosts; everyone talks about it, but
few have seen it. --- La Rochefoucauld
"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most
insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are
required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal,
and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part.“ -- George Bernard Shaw
Early Attraction Factors *
• Proximity and attraction (Propinquity Effect; from Latin propinquitas,
meaning "nearness”)
(The more you see and interact with people, the more likely you’ll
become friends with them)
Role of physical distance and functional distance (e.g., common paths,
web)
Related to the “Mere Exposure Effect” (the more you are exposed to a stimulus, the
more you will like it)
Sit together in school = more likely to be friends a year later (Back et al., 2008)
Attitude similarity and attraction (“General
Law of Attraction”) *
Attraction toward other person (range = 2-14)
Byrne and Nelson (1965) asked to
rate how much they liked a stranger
after learning he agreed with
varying proportions of their
attitudes expressed on a
questionnaire. (Higher numbers
indication greater liking.)
13.00
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
.00 .20 .40
.60
.80 1.00
As the graph shows, the
greater the proportion of
attitudes subjects shared
with the stranger, the
more subjects liked him
Proportion of similar attitudes held by
other person
Why such a powerful effect of similarity?
A) Cognitive Consistency
(We like ourselves, therefore we like those who are like us)
B) Social Comparison (validation of one's beliefs)
C) Anticipate/Predict other's behavior (e.g., likes/dislikes, interests)
D) They will like us also (reciprocal) – Told to imagine that someone you had a crush
on likes you = Can partly offset the tendency to focus on attractive faces (e.g., Koranyi
& Rothermund, 2012)
• In long-term relationships, perceived similarity predicted liking and attraction
more than actual similarity (e.g., Montoya et al, 2008)
• For low-commitment relationships (flings) low similarity may be desired (e.g.,
Amodio et al., 2005)
Similarity, Appearance, & Affiliation
People sit next to those who are physically similar to
them (3 separate studies)
1) Both wearing glasses
2) Have same hair color
3) Similar facial features (e.g., Mackinnion et al., 2011)
Similarity & Physical Attractiveness
(Matching Hypothesis)
Length of
relationship
Short
Long
Often different in
physical
attraction
Couple is
equal in
physical
attraction
Similarity & Physical Attraction: Morphed participants faces
with opposite-sex photo = Rated opposite-sex “clone” pic highest
(e.g., Little & Perrett, 2002)
Technology & Similarity
Web contact and popularity (e.g., Taylor, et al., 2011)
• Popular web users contacted other popular web users
more often than chance
• Low popularity web users contacted other low
popular users
--- Matching process may be operating from very early
on in relationship development
Application of Similarity Theory
Key Dimensions Used by eHarmony
[http://www.eharmony.com/singles/servlet/about/dimensions]
Stated goal: “eHarmony … creates compatible matches based on 29 dimensions
scientifically proven to predict happier, healthier relationships”
Core Traits --Social Style (Character, Kindness, Dominance, Sociability, Autonomy, Adaptability):
How do you relate to other people? Do you crave company, or prefer to be alone? Are
you more comfortable leading, or do you prefer to go along with the group?
Cognitive Mode (Intellect, Curiosity, Humor, Artistic Passion)
How do you think about the world around you? Are you motivated by an insatiable
curiosity about the world and events around you? Are you constantly looking for
intellectual challenges? Do you find humor to be your favorite coping strategy when
dealing with the world?
Physicality (Energy – Physical, Passion – Sexual, Vitality & Security, Industry,
Appearance). How do you relate physically with the world? How do you relate
physically with yourself? Are you energetic, athletic and constantly in motion? Or are
you more comfortable and happy walking than running?
Application of Similarity Theory (cont.)
From eHarmony
Relationship Skills (Communication Style, Emotion Management – Anger,
Emotion Management – Mood, Conflict Resolution)
The amount of effort and skill that you devote to making a relationship work are
key elements of who you are, and what type of person you are most likely to
succeed with in a relationship
Values and Beliefs (Spirituality, Family Goals, Traditionalism, Ambition,
Altruism). Values and Beliefs are at the center of most of our life experiences.
How we feel about spirituality, religion, family and even politics for a enormous
part of how we think about the world, and who we are going to be most
comfortable sharing our lives with.
Key Experiences (Family Background, Family Status, Education) All of your life
experiences combine to affect who you are and how you relate to the world.
Although many of the effects of these experiences are represented by the other
Core Traits and Learned Attributes, the following components of the 29
Dimensions are considered separately as part of your Key Experiences in your
compatibility profile
Role of the Internet in Dating
Role of the Internet in Dating
On-Line Dating – Accuracy of Narrative
Information
No gender differences in accuracy (compared profile narrative
with actual data) and people were aware of the inaccuracies
using self-ratings of profile accuracy – they realized they had
“stretched the truth” (Toma et al., 2008)
On-Line Dating – Accuracy of Photographs *
Asked judges to rate the accuracy of current photo versus one
posted on dating profile site (Hancock & Toma, 2009)
Most common judged inaccuracies were related to age, appearing thinner,
skin quality (e.g., wrinkles, acne, smoothness) looking younger, hair style
(color, texture) and use of retouching. Seemingly unconscious process here
Repulsion Hypothesis
Basic premise: Differences are disliked; perceived as threatening
“Lab” studies
Avg. attraction score
• Similar attitudes
5.5
• No information regarding attitudes
5.2
• Dissimilar attitudes
2.1 (less attraction)
No
difference
Iowa Caucus Study (Democratic)
Democrat
Description of person
No party affiliation
Republican
No
difference
Disliked
D S S D S
DS
S D D
DDD S
S D
Reject those who are
dissimilar
DDSDDD
S D D S D
S
S
S
End result is that we are
left with similar people to
interact with
S
S
S
S
S
The motivational value of dissimilarity is various other
theories in social psychology:
•
Balance Theory
Imbalance is motivating
•
Congruity Theory
Incongruity is motivating
•
Dissonance Theory
Dissonance is motivating
•
Equity Theory
Inequity is motivating
Naturally discovering similarity/dissimilarity (rather
than being given other’s attitudes is quite different)
Active search process
Physical Attractiveness
[Reflects the “What is beautiful is good” stereotype]
• Greater overall liking and best predictor of desire to date
(Walster et al., 1966)
•
More desirable personality traits - sociable, popular,
happy (e.g., Eagly, 1991) -- Halo Effect
•
Higher income (10-15% more; e.g., Hurst & Simon, 2009)
•
Higher performance evaluations (e.g., Rinolo et al., 2006)
•
Health (e.g., neonatal care by nurses – attractive babies
gained more weight, shorter hospital stay)
“What is Beautiful is Good” and the Role of Culture
Traits Common to U.S., Korean, and Canadian Stereotype
Sociable
Extraverted
Likable
Happy
Popular
Well--adjusted
Friendly
Mature
Poised
Sexually warm,
reponsive
Other Traits Shared in the U.S., & Canada Stereotype
Strong
Assertive
Dominant
Other Traits Within the Korean Stereotype
Sensitive
Empathetic
Honest
Trustworthy
Generous
From: Eagly et al., 1981; Feingold, 1992, Wheeler & Kim, 1997
The “Bridge” Study
Misattribution of Emotional Arousal
• Tilted, swayed (6 ft.), wobbled
• Low handrails (3 feet)
• 230 foot drop to rocks and rapids
Misattribution of Emotional Arousal
versus
Misattribution of Emotional Arousal (cont.)
Measures: 1) TAT (men wrote stories) scored for sexual content
2) % of men who called female back
Higher TAT sexual content scores scores and greater
percent called back when on the dangerous bridge
Why??? --- Arousal (anxiety) misattributed as partly due to sexual attraction
Gender Differences in Mate Preferences *
%
Money
spent
40
High Budget
%
Money
spent
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Physical
attractiveness
Social status
Men
Women
Low Budget
Physical
attractiveness
Social status
Sex Differences in Mate Preferences (cont.)
Do such sex difference findings in mate preferences reflect attitudes
rather than behavior?
How much are such sex differences in mate preference due to
evolutionary factors (e.g., ovulation/peak fertility and more
preference for males with signs of good reproductive health
(muscles, masculine face, strong jawline) versus social/situational
ones (e.g., social roles, economic/social status, media influences)?
For both heterosexual and homosexual men and women, physical
attractiveness is rated the highest factor that leads to sexual
desire
Findings to Consider Regarding Mate Selection
Females with more money and economic value =
more likely to rate male physical attractiveness
highly (e.g., Rosenblatt, 1974)
On-line dating, speed dating, or face-to-face:
Females are more selective as to who to date (e.g.,
Hitsch, Horacsu, & Ariely, 2010; Schutzwohl, et al.,
2009
WHY?
Speed Dating Study
(Finkel & Eastwick, 2009)
12 females visited by 12 men; desire to see person
again = females more selective (lower romantic
desire, few possible dating partners) ….. BUT,
Switched roles:12 males visited by 12 females
Women no longer pickier than men! Indeed, females
reported MORE chemistry with partners and chose
more possible dating partners
Misattributions of Friendly Behavior
Routine
Conversation
Female
Male
Viewed female as
promiscuous; were attracted to
the female; saw themselves as
flirtatious and seductive
Female
Observers
Male
Sexual
Interaction
lens
Viewed males as behaving
in a sexual manner;
females as promiscuous
Social Exchange Theory *
[We “buy” the best relationship we can get, one that gives us the best value for
our emotional dollar]
• Perceived
Rewards
• Perceived
Costs
Companionship, sexual
fulfillment, status, greater income,
friendships, etc.
Loss of freedom, $, time, effort,
annoying habits, etc.
Outcome
(Rewards
minus
Costs)
• Comparison Level
What we expect the outcomes of a
relationship to be in terms of costs and
rewards (what we deserve)
• Comparison Level for
Alternatives
Expectations about the level of rewards
(benefits) and punishments (costs) they
would receive in an alternative relationship
When outcomes (rewards – costs) match one’s comparison level, satisfaction and
commitment are higher – Alternatives are viewed as less desirable
~ Exchange Theory ~
Investment Model -- Relationship Satisfaction and
Commitment
From: Rusbult, 1983
~ Exchange Theory ~
The Role of Investments
From: Rusbult, 1983
Equity Theory *
[Role of the perception of fairness]
We evaluate the amount of rewards and costs that exist in a
relationship and determine the perceived fairness of the situation
• Comparison process results in relationships being viewed as either
over benefitted (“getting more than you deserve”) or under
benefitted (“getting less than you deserve”)
• Best relationships are those that are perceived as equitable or fair
(where levels of rewards and costs are roughly equal)
Assumes people keep track of such factors. Less likely to do so in
so-called “communal relationships” (e.g., longer-term); cost-benefit
assessment less direct, more focused on helping each other
Marital Satisfaction over Time
Ratings of marital quality
In a longitudinal study that spanned ten years, married couples rated the quality of their marriages. On
average, these ratings were high, but they declined among both husbands and wives. As you can see, there
were two steep drops, occurring during the first and eighth years of marriage. (Kurdek, 1999.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Years of marriage
Wife
Husband
8
9
10
Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love
Intimacy
Liking
Companionate
Romantic
(Intimacy &
Passion)
Passion
Infatuate
(Intimacy &
Commitment)
Consummate
Fatuous
(Passion &
Commitment)
Commitment
Empty
Sample Question Based on Sternberg’s Triangular
Love Theory
˜ Intimacy Component ˜
I am actively supportive of _____'s wellbeing.____
I have a warm relationship with _____.
I am able to count on _____ in times of need.
˜ Passion Component ˜
Just seeing ________ excites me.
I find myself thinking about _____ frequently during the day.____
My relationship with ___________ is very romantic.
˜ Commitment Component ˜
I know that I care about _____.
I am committed to maintaining my relationship with _____.
Because of my commitment to ________, I would not let other people
come between us.
Sternberg’s 8 Components of Love
Non-Love
Liking
Intimacy
Passion
Commitment
x

x
x

x
x
x
x

x



x



Infatuated
Empty
Romantic
Companionate
Fatuous
Consummate
x
x


x

Ending Intimate Relationships
The current American divorce rate is nearly 50%
of the current marriage rate and has been for
the past two decades
Countless romantic relationships between
unmarried individuals end every day.
So, social psychologists are now beginning to
explore the end of the story
Changes in Life Satisfaction Before and After Divorce
Life Satisfaction Ratings
In this study, 817 men and women who were divorced at some point rated how satisfied they were with
life on a scale of 0 to 10 every year for eighteen years. Overall, divorcees were less satisfied than their
married counterparts-a common result. On the question of whether time heals the wound, you can see
that satisfaction levels dipped before divorce, rebounded afterward, but did not return to original levels.
It appears that people adapt but do not fully recover from this experience. (Lucas, 2005.)
0.00
-0.50
Divorce
-1.00
-8
-6
-4 -2
0
2
Years Before and After Divorce
4
6
Ending of Relationships
Typically, goes through several phases (Duck, 1982)
•Intrapersonal (e.g., assess partner’s behavior, withdrawal costs)
•Dyadic (e.g., discuss relationship, attempt repair)
•Social (e.g., talk with friends, create own account of issues)
•Intrapersonal (ending activities, retrospection)
Role of destructive and constructive behaviors --- (e.g., Rusbult,
1987, Rusbult et al., 1996)
• Destructive/Active (e.g., abuse, infidelity)
• Destructive/Passive (e.g., allowing problems to continue)
• Constructive/Active (e.g., discussing issues, counseling)
• Constructive/Passive (e.g., support, optimism)
No gender differences in who initiates breakups more
Key is how conflict is handled
The Breaking-Up Experience *
One’s Perceived Role in the Decision
Breakers (lot of responsibility for the decision) Less negative effects
Breakees (little responsibility for decision) Most negative effects
Mutuals (equal responsibility)
Who wants to remain friends after breakups?
Heterosexual men breakers and breakees = less interest
Heterosexual females = more interest in being friends
Greater investment = greater interest in remaining friends