Interpersonal attraction

Propinquity (mere exposure) Similarity

Physical appearance Inferences of personality Other factors (e.g., arousal, emotion)

Interpersonal attraction

propinquity

 Festinger,

Schacter, & Back (1950)

Next door Two doors down Opposite ends of hall

Conceptual replications
Priest

and Sawyer (1967) Segal (1974)

Why propinquity matters

Several reasons, but mere exposure/familiarity likely to play a role, as we have already seen in earlier chapters Book implies that its only familiarity, but this is probably not correct (too simple)

Interesting demonstration of the power of familiarity on liking:

Mita, Dermer, & Knight (1977)

self

++ ++
original reversed

People you know

Similarity and attraction

There is no strong evidence for the complementarity view (i.e. that opposites attract) Rather, similarity is a powerful predictor of attraction Classic study by Newcomb (1961) Link between similarity and attraction is quite robust:
Opinions and personality Interpersonal style Interests and experiences

Why does similarity matter?

We expect that people who are similar to us will also like us

Increases the probability of initiating

contact

Self-validation Disagreement is aversive

On the importance of physical attractiveness

On the power of attractiveness: empirical demonstrations

Elaine (Walster) Hatfield, 1966

Mother of all blind dates:

752 students paired up, at random!

Subsequent replication with gay couples by Sergios and Cody (1985)

Gender differences
Do men regard physical attractiveness as more important than do women? Complex Self report vs. actual behavior

On self-report, men often, although not

always, say that p.a. is more important But behaviorally, differences are much smaller.

What are the cues for physical attractiveness?

In women: large eyes, small nose, small chin, prominent cheekbones, narrow cheeks, high eyebrows, large pupils, big smile Men: large eyes, prominent cheekbones, large chin, big smile Some overlap herepeople like baby-like features in the opposite sex (e.g. large eyes)
But this is especially pronounced in terms of

female beauty

Surprisingly, these findings do generalize cross culturally.

Interesting twist: the apparent appeal of typicality

Researchers have tested the degree to which people rate individuals vs. compositesimages that are based on the average of several people (e.g., Langlois et al. 1987)
Data indicate that the composites are usually liked better than the

individuals that went into the composites

Does this mean that the average face is most attractive?

No. We are clearly most attracted to very atypical faces. But when comparing composites to most individuals, the

composites win out Suggests rank ordering

Highly attractive individuals with strong loadings on key facial cues (statistically rare) Composites (based on ordinary, run of the mill individuals, not including movie stars, etc) Most individuals

On the market value of being attractive

Highly valued commodity On the rub-off influence of

Friends Dating partners, spouses

++

man
(same) man woman (same) woman

Attractive woman
Unattractive woman Attractive man Unattractive man

--

Beliefs vs. reality

Attractive people are believed to be more

Likeable, friendly, sociable, extraverted,

popular, happier, sexier, assertive this is narrow?? (see p. 329)

Cross cultural differences Reality?

Battle about the sexes (and about sex)

genetic (innate) differences between men and women?

dating/mating strategies
what qualities they find attractive ?

Some issues that often get confused

Really, two questions Are there observable differences

between men and women? If so, why?

Evolutionary/sociobiological hypothesis Socialization hypothesis The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive

What might be those differences?

Different preferences for # of sexual partners short vs. long term sexual relationships age of partner physical appearance But again: if so, WHY?

Sociobiological hypothesis: General idea:

Behavior in humansor any other speciescan be viewed as the result of thousands of years of evolution in which successful genes survive and prosper whereas unsuccessful genes die out. In Darwinian terms, success defined as those genes which are passed on to the next generation through reproduction.

Parental investment hypothesis (Trivers, 1985)

Females: greater biological investment

females have more to lose by unwise mating; hence

choosier

Implications (according to Trivers)

Mating strategies (all species) For humans: relationship preferences, basis for

attraction, dating styles, etc.

Quote from Trivers (1985).

The sex that invests more in offspring should be more choosy about potential mates than the sex that invests less in offspring. An ancestral woman who had sex with 100 men in the course of a year would still have produced a maximum of one child. An ancestral man who had sex with 100 women during the same time would have most likely produced substantially more than one child.In sum, for the high-investing sex (typically, females), the costs of indiscriminate sex are high whereas for the low investing sex (typically, males), these costs are low.

So, whats the evidence? pro and con

Pro: Cross species patterns of sexual behavior

Males are almost always more promiscuous, aggressive in courtship pattern is reversed among oddball species in which males have greater investment

E.g., Pipefish, Phalaropes, Panamanian poisonarrow frog, certain species of waterbugs, and the mormon cricket.

Cross-cultural similarities in human studies: Buss and Schmitt (1993)

Number of sexual partners desired Probability of consenting to sexual intercourse Preferred age difference Importance of spouse being a good financial prospect Importance of physical attractiveness

Number of sexual partners desired.

Probability of consenting to sexual intercourse

Preferred age difference

Importance of financial status of mate

The critics speak: con

1. selective analysis 2. self-report 3. some data equally supportive of socialization 4. theory can be difficult to test
5. Males arent the only one doing the selectingfemales are selecting as well

Alpha females

6.

Some Darwinian theories tend regard organisms as solitary creatures, acting unilaterally and toward their own selfish interests

But behavior doesnt take place in vacuumeverything is in context. Likely to involve a complex set of interactions between males and females

Foundation for the principles of Game Theory

General discussion of game theory

In reality, it is not always in the best interest of the male to literally mate indiscriminately
Such actions could serve as a neon sign to femalesstay away

from this dude. Likely to elicit extreme aggression by male competitors

What strategy should male follow, then?

Be monogamous, or. Give the impression of being monogamous, but practice deceit

However, latter strategy could encourage females to be especially good at detecting when the male is lying
Which could encourage better lying techniques by males, etc

In theory, as this dynamic is repeated over million of years, it has implications for the success of certain genetic traits

summary

Two counterintuitive findings in attraction

Social costs of physical attraction When mistakes lead to greater liking

Positive attributes

Negative attributes

Greater liking

Social costs
Major,

Carrington, & Carnevale (1984)

Attractive* vs. nonattractive* participants write essay

seen Positive feedback attribution

not seen

Attribution of positive evaluation to writing not seen augmentation seen not seen discounting

seen

Unattractive

Attractive

When mistakes make people like us more

Bay

of Pigs incident Aronson, Willerman, & Floyd (1966)

mistake high performer low performer 30.2 No mistake 20.8

-2.5

17.8

Longer term relationships

Contrast with the research considered thus far.

Three general models

Social exchange theory Equity theory Rusbults investment model

I. An Economic Approach: Social Exchange Theory

Buying the best relationship we can get for our emotional dollar Key factors

Benefits Costs Global outcome (how it feels) Comparison level

Comparison level for this relationship Comparison level for alternatives

Evaluation of social exchange theory

Received a great deal of support, overall But not without criticism

What about fairness? People sensitive to how their cost/benefit ratio

compares to that experienced by the other person something not considered by social exchange theory

II. Equity Theory

Similar in some respects to social exchange theory, except

Equity is assumed to be a powerful norm;

people wish to avoid imbalances, of two sorts

Underbenefited vs. Overbenefited

As one might expect, being underbenefited is more unpleasant than being overbenefited.

III. Rusbults investment model

The previous two models dont adequately explain why people often stay in relationships even when things are not going well (either short term, or long term) Investment is key Unhappy marriages; Battered woman syndrome

Rusbults Investment Model of Commitment

Rewards

Costs

Satisfaction with relationship

Comparison level

Level of investment Quality of alternatives

Commitment to relationship Stability of relationship

satisfaction

Test of investment model

alternatives investment

.85
.50

.84
.32

.62
.28

Commitment

Decision to break up

Will relationship last? Satisfaction + Investment Alternatives

Stay:
Leave:

Note: bottom of p. 347 to middle of p. 349 is very confusing and contradictory of previous portion of chapterignore it.

Attachment Theory
Harlow, 1959: Monkeys with 2 mothers:
-Wire with bottle
-Cloth without bottle

Babies clung to cloth mother much more, despite the fact that the wire one offered food.

Attachment Theory
We form two working models while young
1. Towards the self: self-worth or self-esteem. 2. Towards others: interpersonal trust.

These determine Attachment Style

Attachment Styles:
Secure: An expectation about social relationships characterized by trust, a lack of concern with being abandoned, and a feeling of being valued and well liked.
Avoidant: An expectation about social relationships characterized by a lack of trust and a suppression of attachment needs. Anxious- Ambivalent: An expectation about social relationships characterized by a fear that others will not return affection.

Attachment style influences relationships throughout our lives:

Relationship:

Frequency
Secure ?

Satisfaction

Length

Avoidant

Anxious