* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Interpersonal Attraction Slides
Survey
Document related concepts
Sexual selection wikipedia , lookup
Father absence wikipedia , lookup
Rochdale child sex abuse ring wikipedia , lookup
Hookup culture wikipedia , lookup
Human male sexuality wikipedia , lookup
Body odour and sexual attraction wikipedia , lookup
Incest taboo wikipedia , lookup
Romance (love) wikipedia , lookup
Slut-shaming wikipedia , lookup
Female promiscuity wikipedia , lookup
Sexual racism wikipedia , lookup
Human mating strategies wikipedia , lookup
Age disparity in sexual relationships wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Quotes "Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each other but in looking outward together in the same direction." --Antoine de Saint-Exupery It is with true love as it is with ghosts; everyone talks about it, but few have seen it. --- La Rochefoucauld "When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part.“ -- George Bernard Shaw Early Attraction Factors * • Proximity and attraction (Propinquity Effect; from Latin propinquitas, meaning "nearness”) (The more you see and interact with people, the more likely you’ll become friends with them) Role of physical distance and functional distance (e.g., common paths, web) Related to the “Mere Exposure Effect” (the more you are exposed to a stimulus, the more you will like it) Sit together in school = more likely to be friends a year later (Back et al., 2008) Attitude similarity and attraction (“General Law of Attraction”) * Attraction toward other person (range = 2-14) Byrne and Nelson (1965) asked to rate how much they liked a stranger after learning he agreed with varying proportions of their attitudes expressed on a questionnaire. (Higher numbers indication greater liking.) 13.00 12.00 11.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 .00 .20 .40 .60 .80 1.00 As the graph shows, the greater the proportion of attitudes subjects shared with the stranger, the more subjects liked him Proportion of similar attitudes held by other person Why such a powerful effect of similarity? A) Cognitive Consistency (We like ourselves, therefore we like those who are like us) B) Social Comparison (validation of one's beliefs) C) Anticipate/Predict other's behavior (e.g., likes/dislikes, interests) D) They will like us also (reciprocal) – Told to imagine that someone you had a crush on likes you = Can partly offset the tendency to focus on attractive faces (e.g., Koranyi & Rothermund, 2012) • In long-term relationships, perceived similarity predicted liking and attraction more than actual similarity (e.g., Montoya et al, 2008) • For low-commitment relationships (flings) low similarity may be desired (e.g., Amodio et al., 2005) Similarity, Appearance, & Affiliation People sit next to those who are physically similar to them (3 separate studies) 1) Both wearing glasses 2) Have same hair color 3) Similar facial features (e.g., Mackinnion et al., 2011) Similarity & Physical Attractiveness (Matching Hypothesis) Length of relationship Short Long Often different in physical attraction Couple is equal in physical attraction Similarity & Physical Attraction: Morphed participants faces with opposite-sex photo = Rated opposite-sex “clone” pic highest (e.g., Little & Perrett, 2002) Technology & Similarity Web contact and popularity (e.g., Taylor, et al., 2011) • Popular web users contacted other popular web users more often than chance • Low popularity web users contacted other low popular users --- Matching process may be operating from very early on in relationship development Application of Similarity Theory Key Dimensions Used by eHarmony [http://www.eharmony.com/singles/servlet/about/dimensions] Stated goal: “eHarmony … creates compatible matches based on 29 dimensions scientifically proven to predict happier, healthier relationships” Core Traits --Social Style (Character, Kindness, Dominance, Sociability, Autonomy, Adaptability): How do you relate to other people? Do you crave company, or prefer to be alone? Are you more comfortable leading, or do you prefer to go along with the group? Cognitive Mode (Intellect, Curiosity, Humor, Artistic Passion) How do you think about the world around you? Are you motivated by an insatiable curiosity about the world and events around you? Are you constantly looking for intellectual challenges? Do you find humor to be your favorite coping strategy when dealing with the world? Physicality (Energy – Physical, Passion – Sexual, Vitality & Security, Industry, Appearance). How do you relate physically with the world? How do you relate physically with yourself? Are you energetic, athletic and constantly in motion? Or are you more comfortable and happy walking than running? Application of Similarity Theory (cont.) From eHarmony Relationship Skills (Communication Style, Emotion Management – Anger, Emotion Management – Mood, Conflict Resolution) The amount of effort and skill that you devote to making a relationship work are key elements of who you are, and what type of person you are most likely to succeed with in a relationship Values and Beliefs (Spirituality, Family Goals, Traditionalism, Ambition, Altruism). Values and Beliefs are at the center of most of our life experiences. How we feel about spirituality, religion, family and even politics for a enormous part of how we think about the world, and who we are going to be most comfortable sharing our lives with. Key Experiences (Family Background, Family Status, Education) All of your life experiences combine to affect who you are and how you relate to the world. Although many of the effects of these experiences are represented by the other Core Traits and Learned Attributes, the following components of the 29 Dimensions are considered separately as part of your Key Experiences in your compatibility profile Role of the Internet in Dating Role of the Internet in Dating On-Line Dating – Accuracy of Narrative Information No gender differences in accuracy (compared profile narrative with actual data) and people were aware of the inaccuracies using self-ratings of profile accuracy – they realized they had “stretched the truth” (Toma et al., 2008) On-Line Dating – Accuracy of Photographs * Asked judges to rate the accuracy of current photo versus one posted on dating profile site (Hancock & Toma, 2009) Most common judged inaccuracies were related to age, appearing thinner, skin quality (e.g., wrinkles, acne, smoothness) looking younger, hair style (color, texture) and use of retouching. Seemingly unconscious process here Repulsion Hypothesis Basic premise: Differences are disliked; perceived as threatening “Lab” studies Avg. attraction score • Similar attitudes 5.5 • No information regarding attitudes 5.2 • Dissimilar attitudes 2.1 (less attraction) No difference Iowa Caucus Study (Democratic) Democrat Description of person No party affiliation Republican No difference Disliked D S S D S DS S D D DDD S S D Reject those who are dissimilar DDSDDD S D D S D S S S End result is that we are left with similar people to interact with S S S S S The motivational value of dissimilarity is various other theories in social psychology: • Balance Theory Imbalance is motivating • Congruity Theory Incongruity is motivating • Dissonance Theory Dissonance is motivating • Equity Theory Inequity is motivating Naturally discovering similarity/dissimilarity (rather than being given other’s attitudes is quite different) Active search process Physical Attractiveness [Reflects the “What is beautiful is good” stereotype] • Greater overall liking and best predictor of desire to date (Walster et al., 1966) • More desirable personality traits - sociable, popular, happy (e.g., Eagly, 1991) -- Halo Effect • Higher income (10-15% more; e.g., Hurst & Simon, 2009) • Higher performance evaluations (e.g., Rinolo et al., 2006) • Health (e.g., neonatal care by nurses – attractive babies gained more weight, shorter hospital stay) “What is Beautiful is Good” and the Role of Culture Traits Common to U.S., Korean, and Canadian Stereotype Sociable Extraverted Likable Happy Popular Well--adjusted Friendly Mature Poised Sexually warm, reponsive Other Traits Shared in the U.S., & Canada Stereotype Strong Assertive Dominant Other Traits Within the Korean Stereotype Sensitive Empathetic Honest Trustworthy Generous From: Eagly et al., 1981; Feingold, 1992, Wheeler & Kim, 1997 The “Bridge” Study Misattribution of Emotional Arousal • Tilted, swayed (6 ft.), wobbled • Low handrails (3 feet) • 230 foot drop to rocks and rapids Misattribution of Emotional Arousal versus Misattribution of Emotional Arousal (cont.) Measures: 1) TAT (men wrote stories) scored for sexual content 2) % of men who called female back Higher TAT sexual content scores scores and greater percent called back when on the dangerous bridge Why??? --- Arousal (anxiety) misattributed as partly due to sexual attraction Gender Differences in Mate Preferences * % Money spent 40 High Budget % Money spent 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 Physical attractiveness Social status Men Women Low Budget Physical attractiveness Social status Sex Differences in Mate Preferences (cont.) Do such sex difference findings in mate preferences reflect attitudes rather than behavior? How much are such sex differences in mate preference due to evolutionary factors (e.g., ovulation/peak fertility and more preference for males with signs of good reproductive health (muscles, masculine face, strong jawline) versus social/situational ones (e.g., social roles, economic/social status, media influences)? For both heterosexual and homosexual men and women, physical attractiveness is rated the highest factor that leads to sexual desire Findings to Consider Regarding Mate Selection Females with more money and economic value = more likely to rate male physical attractiveness highly (e.g., Rosenblatt, 1974) On-line dating, speed dating, or face-to-face: Females are more selective as to who to date (e.g., Hitsch, Horacsu, & Ariely, 2010; Schutzwohl, et al., 2009 WHY? Speed Dating Study (Finkel & Eastwick, 2009) 12 females visited by 12 men; desire to see person again = females more selective (lower romantic desire, few possible dating partners) ….. BUT, Switched roles:12 males visited by 12 females Women no longer pickier than men! Indeed, females reported MORE chemistry with partners and chose more possible dating partners Misattributions of Friendly Behavior Routine Conversation Female Male Viewed female as promiscuous; were attracted to the female; saw themselves as flirtatious and seductive Female Observers Male Sexual Interaction lens Viewed males as behaving in a sexual manner; females as promiscuous Social Exchange Theory * [We “buy” the best relationship we can get, one that gives us the best value for our emotional dollar] • Perceived Rewards • Perceived Costs Companionship, sexual fulfillment, status, greater income, friendships, etc. Loss of freedom, $, time, effort, annoying habits, etc. Outcome (Rewards minus Costs) • Comparison Level What we expect the outcomes of a relationship to be in terms of costs and rewards (what we deserve) • Comparison Level for Alternatives Expectations about the level of rewards (benefits) and punishments (costs) they would receive in an alternative relationship When outcomes (rewards – costs) match one’s comparison level, satisfaction and commitment are higher – Alternatives are viewed as less desirable ~ Exchange Theory ~ Investment Model -- Relationship Satisfaction and Commitment From: Rusbult, 1983 ~ Exchange Theory ~ The Role of Investments From: Rusbult, 1983 Equity Theory * [Role of the perception of fairness] We evaluate the amount of rewards and costs that exist in a relationship and determine the perceived fairness of the situation • Comparison process results in relationships being viewed as either over benefitted (“getting more than you deserve”) or under benefitted (“getting less than you deserve”) • Best relationships are those that are perceived as equitable or fair (where levels of rewards and costs are roughly equal) Assumes people keep track of such factors. Less likely to do so in so-called “communal relationships” (e.g., longer-term); cost-benefit assessment less direct, more focused on helping each other Marital Satisfaction over Time Ratings of marital quality In a longitudinal study that spanned ten years, married couples rated the quality of their marriages. On average, these ratings were high, but they declined among both husbands and wives. As you can see, there were two steep drops, occurring during the first and eighth years of marriage. (Kurdek, 1999.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years of marriage Wife Husband 8 9 10 Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love Intimacy Liking Companionate Romantic (Intimacy & Passion) Passion Infatuate (Intimacy & Commitment) Consummate Fatuous (Passion & Commitment) Commitment Empty Sample Question Based on Sternberg’s Triangular Love Theory ˜ Intimacy Component ˜ I am actively supportive of _____'s wellbeing.____ I have a warm relationship with _____. I am able to count on _____ in times of need. ˜ Passion Component ˜ Just seeing ________ excites me. I find myself thinking about _____ frequently during the day.____ My relationship with ___________ is very romantic. ˜ Commitment Component ˜ I know that I care about _____. I am committed to maintaining my relationship with _____. Because of my commitment to ________, I would not let other people come between us. Sternberg’s 8 Components of Love Non-Love Liking Intimacy Passion Commitment x x x x x x x x x Infatuated Empty Romantic Companionate Fatuous Consummate x x x Ending Intimate Relationships The current American divorce rate is nearly 50% of the current marriage rate and has been for the past two decades Countless romantic relationships between unmarried individuals end every day. So, social psychologists are now beginning to explore the end of the story Changes in Life Satisfaction Before and After Divorce Life Satisfaction Ratings In this study, 817 men and women who were divorced at some point rated how satisfied they were with life on a scale of 0 to 10 every year for eighteen years. Overall, divorcees were less satisfied than their married counterparts-a common result. On the question of whether time heals the wound, you can see that satisfaction levels dipped before divorce, rebounded afterward, but did not return to original levels. It appears that people adapt but do not fully recover from this experience. (Lucas, 2005.) 0.00 -0.50 Divorce -1.00 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 Years Before and After Divorce 4 6 Ending of Relationships Typically, goes through several phases (Duck, 1982) •Intrapersonal (e.g., assess partner’s behavior, withdrawal costs) •Dyadic (e.g., discuss relationship, attempt repair) •Social (e.g., talk with friends, create own account of issues) •Intrapersonal (ending activities, retrospection) Role of destructive and constructive behaviors --- (e.g., Rusbult, 1987, Rusbult et al., 1996) • Destructive/Active (e.g., abuse, infidelity) • Destructive/Passive (e.g., allowing problems to continue) • Constructive/Active (e.g., discussing issues, counseling) • Constructive/Passive (e.g., support, optimism) No gender differences in who initiates breakups more Key is how conflict is handled The Breaking-Up Experience * One’s Perceived Role in the Decision Breakers (lot of responsibility for the decision) Less negative effects Breakees (little responsibility for decision) Most negative effects Mutuals (equal responsibility) Who wants to remain friends after breakups? Heterosexual men breakers and breakees = less interest Heterosexual females = more interest in being friends Greater investment = greater interest in remaining friends