Propinquity (mere exposure) Similarity
Physical appearance Inferences of personality Other factors (e.g., arousal, emotion)
Schacter, & Back (1950)
Next door Two doors down Opposite ends of hall
and Sawyer (1967) Segal (1974)
Why propinquity matters
Several reasons. but this is probably not correct (too simple)
. but mere exposure/familiarity likely to play a role. as we have already seen in earlier chapters Book implies that it’s only familiarity.
Dermer.Interesting demonstration of the power of familiarity on liking:
Mita. & Knight (1977)
People you know
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
.Similarity and attraction
There is no strong evidence for the complementarity view (i. that opposites attract) Rather.e.
Why does similarity matter?
We expect that people who are similar to us will also like us
– Increases the probability of initiating
Self-validation Disagreement is aversive
On the importance of physical attractiveness
On the power of attractiveness: empirical demonstrations
Elaine (Walster) Hatfield. at random!
Subsequent replication with gay couples by Sergios and Cody (1985)
– ―Mother of all blind dates‖:
– 752 students paired up.
say that p. although not
.a. actual behavior
– On self-report. men often. is more important – But behaviorally.Gender differences
Do men regard physical attractiveness as more important than do women? Complex Self report vs. differences are much smaller.
these findings do generalize cross culturally. small chin. big smile Some overlap here—people like ―baby-like‖ features in the opposite sex (e. big smile Men: large eyes. prominent cheekbones. narrow cheeks.g. large eyes)
– But this is especially pronounced in terms of
Surprisingly. prominent cheekbones. high eyebrows.What are the cues for physical attractiveness?
In women: large eyes. small nose.
. large chin. large pupils.
– But when comparing composites to most individuals. We are clearly most attracted to very atypical faces..Interesting twist: the apparent appeal of typicality
Researchers have tested the degree to which people rate individuals vs. Langlois et al.g. run of the mill individuals. 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. the
composites win out – Suggests rank ordering
Highly attractive individuals with strong loadings on key facial cues (statistically rare) Composites (based on ordinary. etc) Most individuals
. ―composites‖—images that are based on the average of several people (e. not including movie stars.
(same) man woman (same) woman
Unattractive woman Attractive man Unattractive man
.On the ―market value‖ of being attractive
– Highly valued commodity – On the ―rub-off‖ influence of
Friends Dating partners.
popular. extraverted. happier. reality
Attractive people are believed to be more
– Likeable. 329)
Cross cultural differences Reality?
. sociable. friendly.Beliefs vs. assertive – this is “narrow‖?? (see p.
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
Evolutionary/sociobiological hypothesis Socialization hypothesis The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive
. two questions – Are there observable differences
between men and women? – If so.
. long term sexual relationships – age of partner – physical appearance But again: if so.What might be those differences?
Different preferences for… – # of sexual partners – short vs.
success defined as those genes which are passed on to the next generation through reproduction.Sociobiological hypothesis: General idea:
Behavior in humans—or any other species—can 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.
attraction. dating styles. 1985)
Females: greater biological investment
– females have more to lose by unwise mating.
Implications (according to Trivers)
– Mating strategies (all species) – For humans: relationship preferences.Parental investment hypothesis (Trivers. 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. females). the costs of indiscriminate sex are high whereas for the low investing sex (typically. males). 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. these costs are low. for the high-investing sex (typically.
So. aggressive in courtship pattern is reversed among ―oddball‖ species in which males have greater investment
– E.g. Pipefish. Phalaropes. certain species of waterbugs. and the mormon cricket.. what’s the evidence? pro and con
Pro: Cross species patterns of sexual behavior
Males are almost always more promiscuous. Panamanian poisonarrow frog.
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
Some Darwinian theories tend regard organisms as solitary creatures. theory can be difficult to test
5. Males aren’t the only one doing the ―selecting‖—females are selecting as well
6. Likely to involve a complex set of interactions between males and females
Foundation for the principles of Game Theory
. self-report 3. selective analysis 2. acting unilaterally and toward their own selfish interests
But behavior doesn’t take place in vacuum—everything is in context.The critics speak: con
1. some data equally supportive of socialization 4.
– Likely to elicit extreme aggression by male competitors
What strategy should male follow. but practice deceit
However.General discussion of game theory
In reality. etc…
In theory. or…. as this dynamic is repeated over million of years. then?
– Be monogamous. – Give the impression of being monogamous. it is not always in the best interest of the male to literally mate indiscriminately
– Such actions could serve as a neon sign to females—stay away
from this dude. it has implications for the success of certain genetic traits
. latter strategy could encourage females to be especially good at detecting when the male is lying
– Which could encourage better lying techniques by males.
Two counterintuitive findings in attraction
Social costs of physical attraction When mistakes lead to greater liking
& Carnevale (1984)
Attractive* vs.Social costs
Carrington. nonattractive* participants write essay
―seen‖ Positive feedback attribution
Attribution of positive evaluation to writing not seen augmentation seen not seen discounting
-2.When mistakes make people like us more
of Pigs incident Aronson.2 No mistake 20. Willerman.8
. & Floyd (1966)
mistake high performer low performer 30.
.Longer term relationships
Contrast with the research considered thus far….
Three general models
Social exchange theory Equity theory Rusbult’s investment model
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
– As one might expect. being underbenefited is more unpleasant than being overbenefited.
people wish to avoid imbalances.II. except
– Equity is assumed to be a powerful norm. Equity Theory
Similar in some respects to social exchange theory. of two sorts
Rusbult’s investment model
The previous two models don’t adequately explain why people often stay in relationships even when things are not going well (either short term.III. Battered woman syndrome
. or long term) Investment is key ―Unhappy marriages‖.
Rusbult’s Investment Model of Commitment
Satisfaction with relationship
Level of investment Quality of alternatives
Commitment to relationship Stability of relationship
Decision to break up
Test of investment model
Will relationship last? Satisfaction + Investment – Alternatives
347 to middle of p.
Note: bottom of p.
. 349 is very confusing and contradictory of previous portion of chapter—ignore it.
despite the fact that the wire one offered food. 1959: Monkeys with 2 ―mothers‖:
-Wire with bottle
-Cloth without bottle
Babies clung to cloth ―mother‖ much more.
We form two working models while young—
1. Towards others: interpersonal trust.
These determine Attachment Style…
. Towards the self: self-worth or self-esteem. 2.
Ambivalent: An expectation about social relationships characterized by a fear that others will not return affection. Anxious. and a feeling of being valued and well liked. a lack of concern with being abandoned.
Avoidant: An expectation about social relationships characterized by a lack of trust and a suppression of attachment needs.Attachment Styles:
Secure: An expectation about social relationships characterized by trust.
Attachment style influences relationships throughout our lives: