Interpersonal Attraction

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 it’s only familiarity, but this is probably not correct (too simple)

Interesting demonstration of the power of familiarity on liking:

Mita, Dermer, & Knight (1977) + +

self

People you know

+ + original

reversed

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 here—people like “baby-like” features in the opposite sex (e.g. large eyes) – But this is especially pronounced in terms of female

beauty

 Surprisingly,

culturally.

these findings do generalize cross

Interesting twist: the apparent appeal of typicality 

Researchers have tested the degree to which people rate individuals vs. “composites”—images 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

Attractive woman Unattractive woman

woman

Attractive man

(same) woman

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 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, 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, what’s 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 aren’t the only one doing the “selecting”—females are selecting as well – 6.

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



Alpha females

But behavior doesn’t take place in vacuum—everything 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 females—stay 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 “not seen”

attribution

Attribution of positive evaluation to writing

not seen discounting

augmentation seen

seen

not seen

Unattractive

Attractive

When mistakes make people like us more Bay

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

No mistake

high performer

30.2

20.8

low performer

-2.5

17.8

Longer term relationships Contrast with the research considered thus far….

Three general models  Social

exchange theory  Equity theory  Rusbult’s 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. 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, or long term) Investment is key “Unhappy marriages”; Battered woman syndrome

Rewards

Rusbult’s Investment Model of Commitment

Costs Comparison level

Satisfaction with relationship Level of investment Quality of alternatives

Commitment to relationship Stability of relationship

satisfaction

Test of investment model

alternatives investment

.85

.84 .50

Commitment

.62

.32

.28

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 chapter—ignore 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

Avoidant

Anxious

Satisfaction

Length

?

?