Transcript Interpersonal Attraction - Arts & Sciences | Washington

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, these findings do generalize
cross culturally.
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 highinvesting 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
Rusbult’s Investment Model of
Commitment
Rewards
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
?
?