Interpersonal attraction

1
Interpersonal attraction
2
Propinquity (mere exposure)
Similarity
Interpersonal attraction
Physical appearance
Inferences of personality
Other factors (e.g., arousal, emotion)
3
propinquity
4

• Festinger, Schacter, Back (1950)

Next door
Two doors down
Opposite ends of hall
5
Conceptual replications

• Priest and Sawyer (1967)
• Segal (1974)

6
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 its only familiarity, but this
  is probably not correct (too simple)

7
Interesting demonstration of the power of
familiarity on liking Mita, Dermer, Knight
(1977)

self

People you know
original reversed
8
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

9
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

10
On the importance of physical attractiveness
11
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)

12
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.

13
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 herepeople 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.

14
Interesting twist the apparent appeal of
typicality

• Researchers have tested the degree to which
  people rate individuals vs. compositesimages
  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

15
On 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
16
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?

17
Battle about the sexes (and about sex)

• genetic (innate) differences between men and
  women?
• dating/mating strategies
• what qualities they find attractive ?

18
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

19
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?

20
Sociobiological hypothesis General idea

• Behavior in humansor any other speciescan 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.

21
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.

22

• 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.
•  
•  

23
So, whats 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
  poison-arrow frog, certain species of waterbugs,
  and the mormon cricket.

24
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

25
Number of sexual partners desired.
26
Probability of consenting to sexual intercourse
27
Preferred age difference
28
Importance of financial status of mate
29
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 arent the only one doing the
  selectingfemales are selecting as well
• Alpha females
• Some Darwinian theories tend regard organisms as
  solitary creatures, acting unilaterally and
  toward their own selfish interests
• But behavior doesnt take place in
  vacuumeverything is in context.
• Likely to involve a complex set of interactions
  between males and females
• Foundation for the principles of Game Theory

30
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
  femalesstay 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

31
summary
32
Two counterintuitive findings in attraction

• Social costs of physical attraction
• When mistakes lead to greater liking

Positive attributes
Negative attributes


Greater liking
33
Social costs

• Major, Carrington, Carnevale (1984)

seen
Attractive vs. non-attractive participants
write essay
Positive feedback
attribution
not seen
34
Attribution of positive evaluation to writing
not seen
discounting
augmentation
seen
seen
not seen
Attractive
Unattractive
35
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
36
Longer term relationships
Contrast with the research considered thus far.
37
Three general models

• Social exchange theory
• Equity theory
• Rusbults investment model

38
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

39
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
  personsomething not considered by social
  exchange theory

40
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.

41
III. Rusbults investment model

• The previous two models dont 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

42
Rusbults Investment Model of Commitment
Rewards
Satisfaction with relationship
Costs
Commitment to relationship
Comparison level
Level of investment
Stability of relationship
Quality of alternatives
43
Test of investment model
satisfaction
alternatives
investment
.85
.84
.62
.50
.32
.28
Commitment
Decision to break up
44

• Will relationship last?
• Satisfaction Investment Alternatives
• Stay
• Leave

45

• Note bottom of p. 347 to middle of p. 349 is
  very confusing and contradictory of previous
  portion of chapterignore it.

46
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.

47
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

48
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.

49
Attachment style influences relationships
throughout our lives
Relationship Frequency Satisfaction
Length Secure ? Avoidant
? Anxious