Transcript document
Psychology 301 Social Psychology Lecture 19, Nov 6, 2008 Attraction and Relationships Instructor: Cherisse Seaton Overview Concluding Group processes Cooperation and competition Communication and threat The need for affiliation I. Attraction Propinquity Reciprocal liking Similarity Physical attractiveness Physiological arousal Current applications: Broader level Zimbardo interview “It’s not bad apples, it’s the barrel” Is the situation always that powerful? http://video.on.nytimes.com/index.jsp?fr_story=d3cee 846a166e3b7bad1e51843da3375feecde91 Roots of Conflict Conflict questions: Who has won (competition)? Who gets what (resource distribution)? Who is in charge (power struggles)? Who decides (decisional conflict)? Who do I like (personal conflict)? Who gets what (resource distribution)? Evolutionary Basis? Are we biologically predispose to monitor the payoffs we receive relative to others? E.g., Others are benefiting more from the same activity Monkeys reject unequal pay Brosnan and de Waal (2003) – Nature, 425 Using Threat to Resolve Conflicts When caught in a conflict many of us are tempted to use threats to get the other party to comply. E.g., Threaten children with punishment Research (Deutsch & Kraus, 1960, 1962) suggest that threats are not an effective means of reducing conflict. Deutsch & Krauss Trucking Game Effects of Communication Research suggests that communication: Can resolve conflict, if it fosters trust. Cannot resolve conflict, if it conveys threats. Negotiation is a form of communication between opposing sides in a conflict in which: Offers and counteroffers are made. A solution occurs only when both parties agree. An integrative solution is a solution to a conflict whereby: The parties make trade-offs on issues according to their different interests. Each side concedes the most on issues that are unimportant to it but important to the other side. Summary: Social dilemmas: Public good Mixed motive situations Factors that might increase cooperation: Change payoffs Group identity Communicate cooperative norms Attraction and relationships Readings for this section Aronson et al. Chapter 9 History in Psychology Psychological study of attraction & relationships Relatively new – last 30 years Primary interest in studying individual Many thought it non-scholarly work or impossible to study scientifically Most work to date on initial attraction, not long term relationships What are the benefits of social bonds? Emotional benefits Being around others makes us happy Married people are happier Health benefits People who have many relationships live longer Relationships have a stronger impact on mortality than smoking Social Support Spiegel et al. (1989) Breast cancer patients in support groups lived 18 months longer than women in control groups Strength of need for affiliation Top of list of things that lead to happiness Lack of meaningful relationships leads to feelings of: Loneliness Depression Worthlessness Alienation $6,500+ for hyper-realistic dolls I. Attraction First impressions? Several characteristics have been found to play a role in “attraction” Some factors that influence whether friendships or romantic relationships will form are: 1.) The propinquity (proximity) effect 2.) Reciprocal liking 3.) Similarity 4.) Physical attractiveness 5.) Physiological arousal 1.) The propinquity effect Definition: “The finding that the more we see and interact with people, the more likely they are to become our friends” Physical distance Repeated exposure “For every person, there is a perfectly matched mate somewhere in the world”? 1.) The propinquity effect Alphabetical seating arrangement Adjacent or nearly adjacent names Segal (1974) 60 police recruits (strangers) 6-week training Roommate & class seating assigned alphabetically More than 50% named ‘best friends’ with adjacent last names 1.) The propinquity effect Festinger, Schachter & Back (1950) Couples in apartment complexes 65% same building Within building: 41% next door 22% two doors apart 10% opposite ends of hall Why this effect? Functional distance Certain aspects of architectural design that make it likely some people will come into contact with each other more often than others E.g. location of rest room, stairs, elevator, or mailboxes. More likely to ‘run into each other’ Familiarity The Mere Exposure Effect or the Frequency of Exposure effect (Zajonc, 1970) “The finding that the more exposure we have to a stimulus, the more apt we are to like it” Frequency of Exposure Faces previously viewed rated higher More attractive More trustworthy Etc Infants smiled more at repeatedly exposed faces (Brooks-Gunn & Lewis, 1981) Exceptions: Neg. initial reaction Simple stimulus Proximity in the computer age Online dating New field of study Overall, online dating seems to be very similar to traditional dating Positives: People feel more comfortable disclosing information & selfdisclosure promotes closeness The problem with online dating Frost et al. (2008) Goal: establish exactly how people use currently well-established online dating systems Surveyed of 132 internet daters Users of a profile-based online dating site spent seven times as long screening other people's profiles and sending emails than they did actually interacting face-to-face on real dates. As a result participants reported finding online dating unsatisfying and aversive. Internet use & Affiliation (outside of virtual dating) The Internet connects us with people we might otherwise never meet, but…. Kraut et al. (2008) Longitudinal study: As use of the Internet increased: Feelings of social support decreased Number of social activities decreased Feelings of depression and loneliness increased National survey data: Only 22 percent of people made a new friend on the Internet, and those friendships tend to be of low quality. Isolation increases with Internet use 2.) Reciprocal-Liking Definition: “When you like someone and that person also likes you” Discovery of another’s attraction We like those who like us Limitation: Must be sincere 3.) Similarity Definition: “Attraction to people who are like us” Match between: Interests/Activities Background Values Attitudes Physical attractiveness Personality Life style (smoking, morning / evening person) Age, race, education, religion, IQ, skills Most research indicates that similarity, not complimentarity, that draws people together Attitude similarity and attraction Attraction toward other person (range = 2-14) Byrne and Nelson (1965) 13.00 The greater the proportion of attitudes subjects shared with the stranger, the more subjects liked him. 12.00 11.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 .00 .20 .40 .60 .80 1.00 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 behaviour (e.g., likes/dislikes, interests) D) They will like us also (reciprocal) Matching of admirable characteristics Most desirable personality traits in a romantic partner listed by both men and women: Confidence, integrity, warmth, kindness, intelligence, dependability, emotional stability, good sense of humor, loyalty, and being affectionate However…. Although people insist again and again these types of traits are the most important to them, their actions don’t always indicate this is the truth. Instead, physical attractiveness appears to be the single most important predictor of ‘likeability’ 4.) Physical attractiveness Walster (Hatfield) et al. (1966) Randomly matched 752 incoming students for blind dates to a dance Students’ rated partner’s physical attractiveness and desire to see their date again Only physical attractiveness predicted the desire to date again (not intelligence, sincerity, sensitivity, etc.) 4.) Physical attractiveness Internet dating: Profiles & ‘click what you are looking for’ e harmony – matched according to ‘personality’ Yet creator of Plenty of Fish Markus Frind says “actions speak louder than words” “For example, Susie says she wants a solid, stable man who earns $100,000-plus but keeps clicking on profiles of musclebound bad boys.” What is attractive? Widespread consensus Media influence Evolutionary? i. The “Mature” Baby Face ii. The Average Face iii. Your Style iv. Age i. The “Mature” Baby Face Cunnigham (1986) Women Large eyes Prominent cheekbones cheekbones Small chin Big smile Small nose Narrow cheeks High eyebrows Men Large eyes Prominent Large chin Big smile ii. The ‘Average’ Face Computer-digitized photos – technology ‘morphs’ photographs of faces Why are averaged faces attractive? Symmetrical – extreme features Evolutionary theory (Etcoff, 99): “Survival of the Prettiest” Symmetry = health (parasite resistance) Averaged face looks typical, or familiar The Face of Tomorrow iii. Your style Year book studies Cultural and ‘Style’ differences over time Preference for faces that resemble our own Morphed own face preferred iv. Age Baize and Schroeder (1995): Personal Ads research Coded ads (age, education, income) Correlated with # of responses Female Ads: Age Men: Age Education Height Income Physical Attractiveness “What’s beautiful is good” Stereotype Advantages: Greater overall liking (best predictor of desire to date) More desirable character traits (e.g., sensitive, warm, intelligent) Higher income Higher evaluation of work performance More lenient treatment in the legal system Better mental health 5. Arousal & Attraction Aronson et al (2007) suggest: Take date to scary movie, or Over a high bridge Misattribution of arousal Definition: “The process whereby people make mistaken inferences about what is causing them to feel the way they do” Arousal & Romantic Attraction Dutton & Aron (1974) Conditions: Capilano suspension bridge “Experimental bridge” Low bridge “Control bridge” Researcher approached single men Arousal & Romantic Attraction As they crossed: Questionnaire Gave phone number Male or female researcher Arousal & Romantic Attraction Arousal & Romantic Attraction % of Subjects Calling Experimenter 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Low Bridge Capilano Bridge Where Done Arousal & Romantic Attraction Meston &Frohlich (2003) Conceptual replication Roller coaster vs. non-threatening ride Same results Problem? Can we really conclude from this study that arousal lead to increased attraction? Correlation research Not likely that attraction lead to increased arousal, but… Could be some third variable contributing to the relationship What are some possible third variables? Evidence for Misattribution of arousal Schachter and Singer (1962) - two factor theory of emotion Provoked physiological arousal with a shot of adrenaline. Some were told that there would be a physical reaction and others told nothing. While they were waiting they had to fill out a questionnaire that asks increasingly insulting questions. Confederate in the room acts angry or euphoric Participants who did not know what to expect mistakenly assigned arousal to being angry or euphoric and they too became angry or euphoric. But does physiological arousal increase attraction? Need for Affiliation Fear arouses temporary ‘attraction’ to others Schachter (1959) Manipulated anxiety level: Strong, painful shock Weak, innocuous shock Participants could chose to wait with another, or wait alone Results of Schachter’s “Dr. Zilstein study” 20 20 18 18 # of Subjects 16 16 14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 Choose to wait alone Nonanxious subjects Anxious subjects The results indicated that anxious subjects chose to wait with others more than non-anxious subjects. Choose to wait with others Also, a follow-up study found that anxious people preferred to wait with other anxious people rather than those who were not anxious Next class… **NO CLASS Tuesday Nov 11 (Remembrance Day)** First impression exercise II. Relationships Similarity Self-disclosure Satisfaction Breaking up e harmony or Plenty of Fish??