Week 9

Chapter 9
Interpersonal Attraction:
From First Impressions to Close Relationships
Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Discussion Question
• Have you ever become romantically

involved with someone you first met online
or using a mobile app?

Learning Objectives
•
10.1 How do people decide whom they like and want to get
to know better?
•
10.2 How have new technologies shaped attraction and
social connections?
•
10.3 What is love and what gives people satisfaction in
close relationships?
•
10.4 What does research demonstrate about romantic
breakups?

What Predicts Attraction?
10.1 How do people decide whom they like and want to
get to know better?

The Person Next Door: The Propinquity
Effect (1 of 5)
• One determinant of interpersonal attraction is
proximity.
– Sometimes also called propinquity

Effect (2 of 5)
• Propinquity Effect
– The finding that the more we see and interact with

people, the more likely they are to become our friends

Effect (3 of 5)
• 41% of the next-door neighbors indicated they
were close friends (Festinger, Schachter and Back
(1950)
• 22% of those who lived two doors apart
• Only 10% of those who lived on opposite ends of

the hall

Effect (4 of 5)
• Functional distance refers to certain aspects of

architectural design that make it more likely that
some people will come into contact with each
other more often than with others

Effect (5 of 5)
• The Propinquity Effect occurs due to Mere Exposure.
Mere Exposure Effect
The finding that the more exposure we have to a stimulus,

the more apt we are to like it

Figure
Your social life likely has more to do with floor plans than you think! The physical
layout of a building can play a surprising role in relationship formation. Research
indicates that in a residential building like the one pictured here, the closer two
people’s apartments are, the more likely they are to become friends. And those
residents who live near the stairs or elevator are more likely to make friends with
people who live on other floors of the building.
Source: Shutterstock

Similarity
• “Birds of a feather flock together” (similarity)
• What about “opposites attract” (complementarity)?
• Research overwhelmingly supports
– Similarity
– Not complementarity (Bersheid & Reis, 1998; Byrne,

1997; McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook (2001).

Opinions and Personality
• Greater similarity leads to more liking
• Newcomb (1961): College men became friends

with those who were similar in
– Demographics
– Attitudes
– Values

Interests and Experiences
• Situations you choose to be in expose you to

others with similar interests.
• Then, when you discover and create new

similarities, they fuel the friendship.
• Close friendships are often made in college, in

part because of prolonged propinquity.

Cartoon: A Snail’s Pledge of Love
“I don’t care if she is a tape dispenser. I love her.”
Source: Sam Gross/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank

Similarity in Appearance
• Seek physical proximity to those similar in

appearance
• Seek others with similar degree of physical

attractiveness

Similarity in Committed Relationships
Versus “Flings”
• For committed relationship
– Choose a similar partner
 Relationships based on differences can be difficult to maintain
– Perceived similarity more important than actual

similarity
• Low level of commitment (fling)

– Choose dissimilar partners

Reciprocal Liking
• We like people who like us
• For initial attraction, reciprocal liking can

overcome
– Dissimilarity in attitudes
– Attentional biases to attractive faces

Always Looking
One indicator of just how important physical appearance is in attraction
is our nearly chronic tendency to shift visual attention to attractive others
in our immediate vicinity.
Source: Radius Images/Getty Images

Physical Attractiveness (1 of 3)
• Physical attractiveness
– Plays an important role in liking

• Gender differences?
– Differences are larger when attitudes are measured
 Men more likely than women to report attraction is important
– Gender similarities in behavior

• The finding that we like people who like us

suggests that the strategy of “playing hard-to-get”
can sometimes backfire.
• Recent research suggests that the strategy tends

to decrease how much another person likes you,
all the while potentially increasing how much that
person wants to be with you.

Female Faces—What Is Attractive?
• High attractiveness ratings are associated with:
– Large eyes
– Small nose
– Small chin
– Prominent cheekbones
– High eyebrows
– Large pupils
– Big smile

Male Faces—What Is Attractive?
• High attractiveness ratings are associated with:
– Large eyes
– Prominent cheekbones
– Large chin
– Big smile

Cultural Standards of Beauty
• Facial attractiveness perceived similarly across
cultures
– Symmetry is preferred
 Size, shape, and location of the features on one side match

the other side of face
– “Averaged” composite faces preferred
 Lost atypical or asymmetrical variation

Averaging for Beauty
Physical attractiveness of composite faces. Langlois and Roggman
(1990) created composites of faces using a computer. Pictured here is
the first step in the process: The first two women’s photos are merged to
create the “composite person” at the far right. This composite person has
facial features that are the mathematical average of the facial features of
the two original women.
Source: Dr. Judith Langlois

The Power of Familiarity (1 of 2)
• Familiarity may be crucial variable for

interpersonal attraction.
• People prefer faces that most resemble their own.

The Power of Familiarity (2 of 2)
• Propinquity
– Gain familiarity through mere exposure
• Similarity
– If similar will also seem familiar
• Reciprocal liking
– People we who like and get to know become familiar

Assumptions About Attractive People
(1 of 3)
• Benefits of beauty
• Beauty has been associated with:

– better health outcomes for infants in hospitals
– better earnings
– better teaching evaluations
– winning elections

(2 of 3)
• Physical beauty affects attributions
• Halo Effect:
– A cognitive bias by which we tend to assume that an

individual with one positive characteristic also
possesses other (even unrelated) positive
characteristics

(3 of 3)
• “What is beautiful is good” stereotype

• The beautiful are thought to be more:
– Sociable
– Extraverted
– Popular
– Sexual
– Happy
– Assertive

All Princesses Are Beautiful in Children’s Movies
It’s no coincidence that in children’s movies, the hero is traditionally
attractive and the villain ugly. In addition to finding it pleasing to look at
attractive others, we also tend to assume that “what is beautiful is good.”
Source: WALT DISNEY PICTURES/Album/Newscom

Table 10.1
Culture and the “What Is Beautiful Is Good” Stereotype
Traits Shared in the Korean, American, and Canadian Stereotype
sociable extraverted likable
happy popular well-adjusted
friendly mature poised
sexually
warm/responsive
Additional Traits Present in the American and Canadian Stereotypes
strong assertive dominant
Additional Traits Present in the Korean Stereotypes
sensitive empathic generous
honest trustworthy
The “what is beautiful is good” stereotype has been explored in both individualistic cultures (e.g., North America) and collectivistic cultures (e.g.,
Asia). Male and female participants in the United States, Canada, and South Korea rated photographs of people with varying degrees of
physical attractiveness. Responses indicated that some of the traits that make up the stereotype are the same across cultures, while other
traits associated with the stereotype are different in the two cultures. In both cultures, the physically attractive are seen as having more of the
characteristics that are valued in that culture than do the less physically attractive.
(Based on Eagly, Ashmore, Makhhijani, & Longo, 1991; Feingold, 1992b; Wheeler & Kim, 1997)

Attractive People and the Self-Fulfilling
Prophecy (1 of 2)
• Highly attractive people:
– Do develop good social interaction skills
– Report having more satisfying interactions with others
• Self-fulfilling prophecy
– The beautiful receive a great deal of social attention
– Helps them develop good social skills

Attractive People and the Self-Fulfilling
Prophecy (2 of 2)
• Can a “regular” person be made to act like a

“beautiful” one via the self-fulfilling prophecy?
• Yes!
– If men talking to women on the phone believe she is

attractive
 Elicit warmer, friendlier responses
– Same for women

Evolution and Mate Selection (1 of 4)
• Evolutionary Psychology
– The attempt to explain social behavior in terms of

genetic factors that evolved over time according to the
principles of natural selection

• Evolutionary approach to mate selection

– Men and women are attracted to different
characteristics in each other that maximize
reproductive success
 Women are attracted by men’s resources
– Reproductive success: raising offspring to maturity
– Greater resources increases chances of survival
 Men are attracted by women’s appearance
– Reproductive success: maximize number of offspring
– Symmetrical faces indicates positive health and “good genes”

• Evidence for evolutionary approach:

– Asked more than 9,000 adults in 37 countries desirable
marriage partner characteristics (Buss, 1989; Buss et
al., 1990)
– Women: valued ambition, industriousness, and earning
capacity more than men
– Men: valued attractiveness more than women
• Top characteristics for both the same:

– honesty, trustworthiness, pleasant personality

• Evidence for evolutionary approach (cont.):
– When women are near their ovulation and fertility peak:
 Greater preference for men who exhibit signs of reproductive

fitness
– Symmetrical face, masculine face, muscular physique

Alternate Perspectives on Sex Differences
• Gender differences are status differences
– Women often have less power and wealth
• Difficult to disentangle “nature” from “nurture”
– “Evolved” gender differences due to dating paradigms

where men approach and women are approached
(Finkel & Eastwick, 2009)

Making Connections in the Age
of Technology
10.2 How have new technologies shaped attraction and
social connections?

Technology Shapes Attraction and
Social Connection
• How are attraction and social connection affected
by modern technology?
– Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, Tinder, text, virtual reality
• Example: Field experiment of 100 real-life

interactions
– Pairs with mobile device rated connectedness and

empathy lower than pairs without devices

Don’t Bother Me, Can’t You See I’m Texting?
As amazing as the technologies are, mobile devices like smartphones
can also impair our feelings of social connectedness to others during the
course of face-to-face interaction.
Source: nyul/Fotolia

Attraction 2.0: Mate Preference in
an Online Era
• Propinquity
– In Internet world, not that many degrees of separation
• Similarity
– People seek others with similar “popularity” in online
dating sites
• Familiarity
– Liking decreased after meeting (compared to liking
based on online profile)
 Inaccuracy of online information

The New World of Internet Dating
One question surrounding attraction is how tendencies regarding mate
preference that have evolved over generations play out in the modern
era of Internet dating, speed-dating events, and Facebook.
Source: Peter Scholey/SuperStock

The Promise and Pitfalls of
Online Dating (1 of 2)
• Benefits
1. Aggregates a large number of profiles
2. Provides opportunity for communication
3. Matching users based on analyses of compatibility
 But success rate not higher than other “old-fashioned”

methods

The Promise and Pitfalls of
Online Dating (2 of 2)
• 81% provide inaccurate information in their profile

for at least one characteristic
– Lies about weight, age, height
– No gender differences
• Deceptive, misleading photos

Cartoon: Where Nobody Knows You’re a Dog
Source: Peter Steiner/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank

Love and Close Relationships
10.3 What is love and what gives people satisfaction in
close relationships?

Defining Love (1 of 2)
• Companionate Love
– The intimacy and affection we feel when we care

deeply for a person
– Do not experience passion or arousal in the person’s

presence.

Defining Love (2 of 2)
• Passionate Love
– An intense longing we feel for a person, accompanied

by physiological arousal
– When our love is reciprocated, we feel great fulfillment

and ecstasy
– When it is not, we feel sadness and despair

Companionate Love
• Nonsexual relationships
– Close friendships
• Sexual relationships
– Psychological intimacy without “heat” and passion

Passionate Love
• Intense longing for another person,

characterized by:
– The experience of physiological arousal
– The feeling of shortness of breath
– Thumping heart in loved one’s presence

Table 10.2
Cross-Cultural Evidence for Passionate Love Based on Anthropological
Research in 166 Societies
Cultural Area Passionate Love Present Passionate Love Absent

Mediterranean 22 (95.7%) 1 (4.3%)
Sub-Saharan Africa 20 (86.9%) 6 (23.1%)
Eurasia 32 (97.0%) 1 (3.0%)
Insular Pacific 27 (93.1%) 2 (6.9%)
North America 24 (82.8%) 5 (17.2%)
South and Central America 22 (84.6%) 4 (15.4%)
(Based on data from Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992)

Passionate and Companionate Love
Across Cultures
• Americans value passionate love more than the
Chinese
• The Chinese value companionate more
• Taita of Kenya value both equally

Culture and Love (1 of 3)
• Love is a universal emotion

• Cultural differences about love
– Think about
– Define
– Experience
• Example:
– Romantic love viewed as more crucial in individualistic
cultures compared to collectivistic ones

• Japanese amae
– Totally passive love object, indulged and taken care of
by one’s romantic partner
• Chinese gan qing

– Achieved by helping and working for another person
• Korean jung
– Connection that ties people together

• Romantic love universal
• Cultural rules alter:
– Experience
– Expression
– Memory

Weddings Across Cultures
Although people all over the world experience love, how love
is defined varies across cultures.
Source: (left) imageBROKER/Alamy; (right): vario images GmbH & Co.KG/Alamy

Attachment Styles in Intimate
Relationships
• Attachment Styles
– The expectations people develop about relationships
with others, based on the relationship they had with
their primary caregiver when they were infants
• There are three styles of attachment:

– Secure
– Anxious/Ambivalent
– Avoidant
The Permanence of Attachment Styles
Attachment theory predicts that the attachment style we learn as infants
and young children stays with us throughout life and generalizes to all of
our relationships with other people.
Source: Ian Hooton/DK Images

Three Styles of Attachment (1 of 3)
• Secure Attachment Style
– Trust, a lack of concern with being abandoned
– View that one is worthy and well-liked

• Anxious/Ambivalent Attachment Style
– Concern that others will not reciprocate one’s desire for

intimacy
– Results in higher-than-average levels of anxiety

• Avoidant Attachment Style
– Suppression of attachment needs, because attempts to

be intimate have been rebuffed
– People with this style find it difficult to develop intimate

relationships

Table 10.3
Measuring Adult Attachment Style
Secure style 56% “I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am
comfortable depending on them and having them depend on
me. I don’t often worry about being abandoned or about
someone getting too close.”
Avoidant style 25% “I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it
difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to
depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets close, and
often love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel
comfortable being.”
Anxious style 19% “I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I
often worry that my partner doesn’t really love me or won’t
stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person,
and this desire sometimes scares people away.”
As part of a survey of attitudes toward love published in a newspaper, people were asked to choose the
statement that best described their romantic relationships. The attachment style each statement was designed
to measure and the percentage of people who chose each alternative are indicated.
(Adapted from Hazan & Shaver, 1987)

Early Attachment Styles Stay With Us
• Key assumption of attachment theory:
– Attachment style learned in infancy becomes schema for
all relationships
• Secure Attachment:
– More likely to develop mature, lasting relationships
• Avoidant Attachment:
– Less able to trust others and find it difficult to develop
close, intimate relationships
• Anxious/Ambivalent Attachment:
– Want closeness, but worry partner will not return
affection
Attachment Style Is Not Destiny
• If people had unhappy relationships with their

parents, they are not doomed to repeat this!
• People’s experience in relationships can help

them learn new and more healthy ways of relating
to others.
• People may develop more than one attachment

style over time.

This is Your Brain… in Love
• Recruited college students in love

– IV: Participants brought in two pictures
 Beloved and acquaintance
– DV: Images on fMRI scanner
• Results? When looking at their beloved
– Participants who self-reported higher levels of romantic
love showed
 Greater activation in the brain’s ventral tegmental area (VTA)
and caudate nucleus
– Reward and motivation brain circuits
• Also fires when people eat chocolate!

Theories of Relationship Satisfaction
• Social Exchange Theory
– People’s feelings about a relationship depend on

perceptions of rewards and costs, the kind of
relationship they deserve, and their chances for having
a better relationship with someone else
– Is an economic model of costs and benefits!

Social Exchange Theory (1 of 3)
• Basic concepts
– Rewards
 Positive, gratifying aspects of relationship
– Costs
 Negative aspects of relationship
– Outcome
 Comparison of rewards versus costs
– Comparison level
 Expectations

• People’s expectations about the level of rewards

and punishments they are likely to receive in a
particular relationship.
• Relationship satisfaction depends on your

comparison level.

• Relationship satisfaction also depends on your

perception of the likelihood that you could replace
it with a better one!
Comparison Level for Alternatives
People’s expectations about the level of rewards and

punishments they would receive in an alternative relationship

Investment Model of Commitment
• People’s commitment to a relationship depends

not only on their satisfaction
• Also depends on investment and what would be

lost by leaving it

Figure 10.1
The Investment Model of Commitment
People’s commitment to a relationship depends on several variables. First, their satisfaction with the relationship is based on their comparing their rewards to their costs and
determining if the outcome exceeds their general expectation of what they should get in a relationship (or comparison level). Next, their commitment to the relationship
depends on three variables: how satisfied they are, how much they feel they have invested in the relationship, and whether they have good alternatives to this relationship.
These commitment variables in turn predict how stable the relationship will be. For example, a woman who feels her relationship has more costs and fewer rewards than
she considers acceptable would have a low satisfaction. If she also felt she had little invested in the relationship and a very attractive person had just asked her for a date,
she would have a low level of commitment. The end result is low stability; most likely, she will break up with her current partner. (Adapted from Rusbult, 1983)

Figure 10.2
A Test of the Investment Model
This study examined the extent to which college students’ satisfaction with a relationship, their comparison level for alternatives, and their
investment in the relationship predicted their commitment to the relationship and their decision about whether to break up with their
partner. The higher the number, the more each variable predicted commitment and breakup, independent of the two other variables. All
three variables were good predictors of how committed people were and whether or not they broke up. (Adapted from Rusbult, 1983)

Will People Stay in Love?
• To predict whether people will stay in an intimate

relationship, we need to know:
1. Their level of satisfaction in the relationship
2. What they think of the alternatives
3. The degree of their investment in the relationship

Theories of Relationship Satisfaction
• Equity Theory
– Equitable relationships are the happiest and

most stable
– Rewards and costs are roughly equal

Equity Theory
• In inequitable relationships, one person feels:

– Over-benefited
 Lots of rewards, few costs
 Devote little time or energy to the relationship
– Under-benefited
 Few rewards, high costs
 Devote a lot of time and energy to the relationship
 Inequity is more important to person who is under-benefitted

Equity in Long-Term Relationships
• Does equity operate the same way in long-term

versus new relationships?
– Not exactly
• The more we get to know someone

– More reluctant to believe that we are simply
exchanging favors
– Less inclined to expect immediate compensation for

a favor

Exchange and Communal Relationships
• Exchange Relationships
– Relationships governed by the need for equity (i.e., for

an equal ratio of rewards and costs)
• Communal Relationships
– Relationships in which people’s primary concern is

being responsive to the other person’s needs

Communal Family Relationships
Close relationships can have either exchange or communal
properties. Family relationships are typically communal.
Source: Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

Figure 10.3
Exchange versus Communal Relationships

Communal Relationships and Equity
• Communal relationships unconcerned with equity?

– Not necessarily
 Distress when intimate relationships inequitable
• Equity takes different form in communal

relationships
– Partner more relaxed with what concerns equity at any
given time
• Feel imbalanced, then relationship may end

Ending Intimate Relationships
10.4 What does research demonstrate about romantic
breakups?

Endings Are Common
• American divorce rate is nearly 50% of the current

marriage rate.
• Romantic relationships between unmarried

individuals end every day.

The Process of Breaking Up (1 of 3)
• Is the breakup moral?
• If you find yourself in a romantic relationship and

your partner seems inclined to break it off, try to
end it mutually.
• Your experience will be less traumatic because

you will share some control over the process
(even if you don’t want it to happen).

• Relationship dissolution not a single event, but

process with many steps
• Four stages (Duck, 1982)
– Intrapersonal: thinks about dissatisfaction
– Dyadic: discusses breakup with partner
– Social: breakup announced to others
– Intrapersonal: recover by thinking about why and how

it happened
• Fatal Attraction
– 30% of breakups
 Qualities that attract are the qualities that are disliked the most
at break up.
– This phenomenon demonstrates importance of

similarity.

Figure 10.4
Steps in Dissolving Close Relationships
(Adapted from Duck, 1982)

Behavior in Troubled Relationships,
Rusbult (1 of 4)
• Destructive Behaviors
1. Actively harming the relationship
 Abusing the partner
 Threatening to break up
 Actually leaving

Rusbult (2 of 4)
• Destructive Behaviors
2. Passively allowing relationship to deteriorate
 Refusing to deal with problems
 Ignoring the partner or spending less time together
 Putting no energy into the relationship

Rusbult (3 of 4)
• Constructive behaviors
3. Actively trying to improve the relationship
 Discussing problems, trying to change
 Going to a therapist

Rusbult (4 of 4)
• Constructive behaviors
4. Passively remaining loyal to the relationship
 Waiting and hoping that the situation will improve
 Being supportive rather than fighting
 Remaining optimistic

The Experience of Breaking Up (1 of 3)
• Can we predict the different ways people will feel

when their relationship ends?
• Responsibility for breakup important factor
– “Breakers”: high level of responsibility
 Least painful, upsetting, stressful
– “Breakees”: low level of responsibility
 Miserable—lonely, depressed, angry
– “Mutuals”: same level of responsibility
 Not as upset as “breakees” but more stressed than “breakers”

• Other factors that affect experience of breakup:
– Gender
 Women report more negative reactions than men

• Do people stay friends after break up?
– Heterosexual men not interested in friendship,

regardless of role in breakup
– Women more interested in remaining friends,

especially if “breakee”
– More interested in remaining friends if satisfaction and

investment in the relationship were high

Cartoon: The Love Trap
“Somehow I remember this one differently.”
Steve Duenes/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com.

Discussion Question Follow-up
• How might the varied research findings reviewed

in this chapter help make dating websites and
apps more effective?

Summary and Review
• Causes of Attraction
• Technology and Attraction
• Different Types of Love
• Attachment Theory

Summary and Review
• Theories of Relationship Satisfaction
– Social Exchange
– Investment Model
– Equity Theory
• Breaking Up

Week 9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week 9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 9

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

• Have you ever become romantically

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

– Sometimes also called propinquity

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

– The finding that the more we see and interact with

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

• 22% of those who lived two doors apart

• Only 10% of those who lived on opposite ends of

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

• Functional distance refers to certain aspects of

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Mere Exposure Effect

The finding that the more exposure we have to a stimulus,

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

• “Birds of a feather flock together” (similarity)

• What about “opposites attract” (complementarity)?

• Research overwhelmingly supports

– Not complementarity (Bersheid & Reis, 1998; Byrne,

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

• Greater similarity leads to more liking

• Newcomb (1961): College men became friends

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

• Situations you choose to be in expose you to

• Then, when you discover and create new

• Close friendships are often made in college, in

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Source: Sam Gross/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

• Seek physical proximity to those similar in

• Seek others with similar degree of physical

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

 Relationships based on differences can be difficult to maintain

– Perceived similarity more important than actual

• Low level of commitment (fling)

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

• We like people who like us

• For initial attraction, reciprocal liking can

– Attentional biases to attractive faces

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Source: Radius Images/Getty Images

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

– Plays an important role in liking

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

– Differences are larger when attitudes are measured

 Men more likely than women to report attraction is important

– Gender similarities in behavior

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

• The finding that we like people who like us

• Recent research suggests that the strategy tends

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

 Size, shape, and location of the features on one side match

– “Averaged” composite faces preferred

 Lost atypical or asymmetrical variation

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Source: Dr. Judith Langlois

Copyright © 2018 Pearson Education, Ltd. All Rights Reserved