Interpersonal attractionInterpersonal attraction

Interpersonal attractionPhysical appearance

Inferences of personality

Propinquity (mere exposure)

Other factors (e.g., arousal, emotion)

Similarity

propinquitypropinquity

Festinger, Schacter, & Back (1950)

Next door

Two doors down

Opposite ends of hall

Conceptual replicationsConceptual replicationsPriest and Sawyer (1967)Segal (1974)

Why propinquity mattersWhy 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 Interesting demonstration of the power of familiarity on liking: familiarity on liking:

Mita, Dermer, & Knight (1977)Mita, Dermer, & Knight (1977)

original reversed

self

People you know

+ +

+ +

Similarity and attractionSimilarity 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

WhyWhy does similarity matter? does similarity matter?

We expect that people who are similar to us will also like us– Increases the probability of initiating

contactSelf-validationDisagreement is aversive

On the importance of On the importance of physicalphysical attractiveness attractiveness

On the power of attractiveness: On the power of attractiveness: empirical demonstrationsempirical 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 differencesGender differences

Do men regard physical attractiveness as more important than do women?

ComplexSelf 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 What areare the cues for physical the cues for physical attractiveness?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, these findings do generalize

cross culturally.

Interesting twist: the apparent Interesting twist: the apparent appeal of typicalityappeal 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 attractiveOn the “market value” of being attractive

– Highly valued commodity– On the “rub-off” influence of

Friends Dating partners, spouses

man Attractive woman+ +

Unattractive woman(same) man - -

woman Attractive man

Unattractive man(same) woman

Beliefs vs. realityBeliefs 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 differencesReality?

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 confusedSome 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?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:Sociobiological hypothesis: General idea: 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 Parental investment hypothesis (Trivers, 1985)(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.

“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.

 

 

Quote from Trivers (1985).

So, what’s the evidence?So, what’s the evidence?pro and conpro and con

Pro:

Cross species patterns of sexual behaviorMales are almost always more promiscuous,

aggressive in courtshippattern is reversed among “oddball” species

in which males have greater investment – E.g., Pipefish, Phalaropes, Panamanian poison-

arrow frog, certain species of waterbugs, and the mormon cricket.

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

Number of sexual partners desiredProbability of consenting to sexual

intercoursePreferred age differenceImportance of spouse being a good

financial prospectImportance 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 analysis2. self-report3. some data equally supportive of socialization4. theory can be difficult to test5. Males aren’t the only one doing the “selecting”—females are selecting as well

– Alpha females6. Some Darwinian theories tend regard organisms as solitary creatures, acting

unilaterally and toward their own selfish interestsBut 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 General discussion of game theorytheory

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

summarysummary

Social costs of physical attractionWhen mistakes lead to greater liking

Positive attributes

+ Negative attributes

= Greater liking

Two counterintuitive findings in attraction

Social costsSocial costs

Major, Carrington, & Carnevale (1984)

Attractive* vs. non-attractive* participants write essay

“seen”

“not seen”

Positive feedback

attribution

not seenseen

not seen

seen

Unattractive Attractive

Attribution of positive evaluation to writing

augmentation discounting

When mistakes make people like us more

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

high performer

low performer

mistake No mistake

30.2 20.8

-2.5 17.8

Longer term relationshipsLonger term relationships

Contrast with the research considered thus far….

Three general modelsThree general models

Social exchange theoryEquity theoryRusbult’s investment model

I. An “Economic” Approach:I. An “Economic” Approach: Social Exchange Theory 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 theoryEvaluation of social exchange theory

Received a great deal of support, overallBut 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 TheoryII. 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 modelIII. 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

Rusbult’s Investment Model of Rusbult’s Investment Model of CommitmentCommitment

Rewards

Costs

Comparison level

Satisfaction with relationship

Level of investment

Quality of alternatives

Commitment to relationship

Stability of relationship

Test of investment modelTest of investment model

.85

.50

.84

.32.62

.28

Commitment Decision to break up

satisfaction

alternatives

investment

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.

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 Theory

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 Styles:

Attachment style influences relationships throughout our lives:

Relationship:

Frequency Satisfaction Length

Secure ?

Avoidant ?

Anxious