Download document

Psychology 301
Social Psychology
Lecture 19, Nov 6, 2008
Attraction and
Relationships
Instructor: Cherisse Seaton
Overview
 Concluding Group processes
 Cooperation and competition
 Communication and threat
 The need for affiliation
 I. Attraction
 Propinquity
 Reciprocal liking
 Similarity
 Physical attractiveness
 Physiological arousal
Current applications: Broader level
 Zimbardo interview
 “It’s not bad apples, it’s the barrel”
 Is the situation always that powerful?
 http://video.on.nytimes.com/index.jsp?fr_story=d3cee
846a166e3b7bad1e51843da3375feecde91
Roots of Conflict
 Conflict questions:
 Who has won (competition)?
 Who gets what (resource distribution)?
 Who is in charge (power struggles)?
 Who decides (decisional conflict)?
 Who do I like (personal conflict)?
Who gets what (resource distribution)?
 Evolutionary Basis?
 Are we biologically predispose to monitor the payoffs
we receive relative to others?
 E.g., Others are benefiting more from the same activity
Monkeys reject unequal pay
 Brosnan and de Waal (2003) – Nature, 425
Using Threat to Resolve Conflicts
 When caught in a conflict many of us are tempted to
use threats to get the other party to comply.
 E.g., Threaten children with punishment
 Research (Deutsch & Kraus, 1960, 1962) suggest that
threats are not an effective means of reducing conflict.
 Deutsch & Krauss Trucking Game
Effects of Communication
 Research suggests that communication:
 Can resolve conflict, if it fosters trust.
 Cannot resolve conflict, if it conveys threats.
 Negotiation is a form of communication between opposing sides
in a conflict in which:
 Offers and counteroffers are made.
 A solution occurs only when both parties agree.
 An integrative solution is a solution to a conflict whereby:
 The parties make trade-offs on issues according to their different
interests.
 Each side concedes the most on issues that are unimportant to it
but important to the other side.
Summary:
 Social dilemmas:
 Public good
 Mixed motive situations
 Factors that might increase cooperation:
 Change payoffs
 Group identity
 Communicate cooperative norms
Attraction and relationships
Readings for this section
 Aronson et al. Chapter 9
History in Psychology
 Psychological study of attraction & relationships
 Relatively new – last 30 years
 Primary interest in studying individual
 Many thought it non-scholarly work or impossible to
study scientifically
 Most work to date on initial attraction, not long term
relationships
What are the benefits of social bonds?
 Emotional benefits
 Being around others makes us happy
 Married people are happier
 Health benefits
 People who have many relationships live longer

Relationships have a stronger impact on mortality than
smoking
 Social Support
 Spiegel et al. (1989)

Breast cancer patients in support groups lived 18 months
longer than women in control groups
Strength of need for affiliation
 Top of list of things that lead to
happiness
 Lack of meaningful relationships
leads to feelings of:
 Loneliness
 Depression
 Worthlessness
 Alienation
 $6,500+ for hyper-realistic dolls
I. Attraction
First impressions?
 Several characteristics have been found
to play a role in “attraction”
 Some factors that influence whether
friendships or romantic relationships
will form are:
 1.) The propinquity (proximity) effect
 2.) Reciprocal liking
 3.) Similarity
 4.) Physical attractiveness
 5.) Physiological arousal
1.) The propinquity effect
 Definition:
 “The finding that the more we see and interact with
people, the more likely they are to become our friends”
 Physical distance
 Repeated exposure
 “For every person, there is a perfectly matched mate
somewhere in the world”?
1.) The propinquity effect
 Alphabetical seating arrangement
 Adjacent or nearly adjacent names
 Segal (1974)
 60 police recruits (strangers)
 6-week training
 Roommate & class seating
assigned alphabetically
 More than 50% named ‘best
friends’ with adjacent last names
1.) The propinquity effect
 Festinger, Schachter
& Back (1950)
 Couples in apartment
complexes
 65% same building
 Within building:
 41% next door
 22% two doors apart
 10% opposite ends
of hall
Why this effect?
 Functional distance
 Certain aspects of architectural design that make it
likely some people will come into contact with each
other more often than others
 E.g. location of rest room, stairs, elevator, or mailboxes.
 More likely to ‘run into each other’
 Familiarity
 The Mere Exposure Effect or the Frequency of Exposure
effect (Zajonc, 1970)
 “The finding that the more exposure we have to a
stimulus, the more apt we are to like it”
Frequency of Exposure
 Faces previously
viewed rated higher
 More attractive
 More trustworthy
 Etc
 Infants smiled more
at repeatedly exposed
faces (Brooks-Gunn &
Lewis, 1981)
 Exceptions:
 Neg. initial reaction
 Simple stimulus
Proximity in the computer age
 Online dating
 New field of study
 Overall, online dating seems
to be very similar to traditional
dating
 Positives:

People feel more comfortable
disclosing information & selfdisclosure promotes closeness
The problem with online dating
 Frost et al. (2008)
 Goal: establish exactly how people
use currently well-established online
dating systems
 Surveyed of 132 internet daters
 Users of a profile-based online dating site
spent seven times as long screening other
people's profiles and sending emails than
they did actually interacting face-to-face on
real dates.
 As a result participants reported finding
online dating unsatisfying and aversive.
Internet use & Affiliation
(outside of virtual dating)
 The Internet connects us with people we might otherwise never
meet, but….
 Kraut et al. (2008)
 Longitudinal study:
 As use of the Internet increased:
 Feelings of social support decreased
 Number of social activities decreased
 Feelings of depression and loneliness increased
 National survey data:
 Only 22 percent of people made a new friend on the Internet,
and those friendships tend to be of low quality.
 Isolation increases with Internet use
2.) Reciprocal-Liking
 Definition:
 “When you like someone and that person also likes you”
 Discovery of another’s attraction
 We like those who like us
 Limitation:
 Must be sincere
3.) Similarity
 Definition:
 “Attraction to people who are like us”
 Match between:
 Interests/Activities
 Background
 Values
 Attitudes
 Physical attractiveness
 Personality
 Life style (smoking, morning / evening person)
 Age, race, education, religion,
 IQ, skills
 Most research indicates that similarity, not complimentarity, that
draws people together
Attitude similarity and attraction
Attraction toward other person (range = 2-14)
Byrne and Nelson (1965)
13.00
The greater the
proportion of attitudes
subjects shared with the
stranger, the more
subjects liked him.
12.00
11.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
.00 .20 .40
.60
.80 1.00
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 behaviour (e.g., likes/dislikes, interests)
 D) They will like us also (reciprocal)
Matching of admirable
characteristics
 Most desirable personality traits in a romantic partner listed by
both men and women:
 Confidence, integrity, warmth, kindness, intelligence,
dependability, emotional stability, good sense of humor, loyalty,
and being affectionate
 However….
 Although people insist again and again these types of traits are the
most important to them, their actions don’t always indicate this is
the truth.
 Instead, physical attractiveness appears to be the single most
important predictor of ‘likeability’
4.) Physical attractiveness
 Walster (Hatfield) et al. (1966)
 Randomly matched 752 incoming students for blind
dates to a dance
 Students’ rated partner’s physical attractiveness and
desire to see their date again
 Only physical attractiveness predicted the desire to date
again (not intelligence, sincerity, sensitivity, etc.)
4.) Physical attractiveness
 Internet dating:
 Profiles & ‘click what you are looking for’
 e harmony – matched according to ‘personality’
 Yet creator of Plenty of Fish Markus Frind says “actions
speak louder than words”

“For example, Susie says she wants a solid, stable man who
earns $100,000-plus but keeps clicking on profiles of musclebound bad boys.”
What is attractive?

Widespread consensus



Media influence
Evolutionary?
i. The “Mature” Baby Face
 ii. The Average Face
 iii. Your Style
 iv. Age
i. The “Mature” Baby Face
 Cunnigham (1986)
 Women
 Large eyes
 Prominent cheekbones
cheekbones
 Small chin
 Big smile
 Small nose
 Narrow cheeks
 High eyebrows
Men
Large eyes
Prominent
Large chin
Big smile
ii. The ‘Average’ Face
 Computer-digitized photos – technology ‘morphs’ photographs of
faces
 Why are averaged faces attractive?
 Symmetrical – extreme features
 Evolutionary theory (Etcoff, 99):


“Survival of the Prettiest”
Symmetry = health (parasite resistance)
 Averaged face looks typical, or familiar
The Face of Tomorrow
iii. Your style
 Year book studies
 Cultural and ‘Style’ differences over
time
 Preference for faces that resemble
our own
 Morphed own face preferred
iv. Age




Baize and Schroeder (1995): Personal Ads research
Coded ads (age, education, income)
Correlated with # of responses
Female Ads:
 Age
 Men:
 Age
 Education
 Height
 Income
Physical Attractiveness
 “What’s beautiful is good” Stereotype
 Advantages:
 Greater overall liking (best predictor of desire to date)
 More desirable character traits (e.g., sensitive, warm,
intelligent)
 Higher income
 Higher evaluation of work performance
 More lenient treatment in the legal system
 Better mental health
5. Arousal & Attraction
 Aronson et al (2007) suggest:
 Take date to scary movie, or
 Over a high bridge
 Misattribution of arousal
 Definition:

“The process whereby people make
mistaken inferences about what is
causing them to feel the way they do”
Arousal & Romantic Attraction
 Dutton & Aron (1974)
 Conditions:
 Capilano suspension bridge

“Experimental bridge”
 Low bridge

“Control bridge”
 Researcher approached single
men
Arousal & Romantic Attraction
 As they crossed:
 Questionnaire
 Gave phone number
 Male or female
researcher
Arousal & Romantic Attraction
Arousal & Romantic Attraction
% of Subjects Calling
Experimenter
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Low Bridge
Capilano Bridge
Where Done
Arousal & Romantic Attraction
 Meston &Frohlich (2003)
 Conceptual replication
 Roller coaster vs. non-threatening ride
 Same results
Problem?
 Can we really conclude from this study that arousal
lead to increased attraction?
 Correlation research
 Not likely that attraction lead to increased arousal, but…
 Could be some third variable contributing to the
relationship
 What are some possible third variables?
Evidence for Misattribution
of arousal
 Schachter and Singer (1962) - two factor theory of emotion
 Provoked physiological arousal with a shot of adrenaline.
 Some were told that there would be a physical reaction and
others told nothing.
 While they were waiting they had to fill out a questionnaire
that asks increasingly insulting questions.
 Confederate in the room acts angry or euphoric
 Participants who did not know what to expect mistakenly
assigned arousal to being angry or euphoric and they too
became angry or euphoric.
But does physiological arousal
increase attraction?
 Need for Affiliation
 Fear arouses temporary ‘attraction’ to others
 Schachter (1959)
 Manipulated anxiety level:
 Strong, painful shock
 Weak, innocuous shock
 Participants could chose to wait with another, or wait
alone
Results of Schachter’s “Dr. Zilstein study”
20
20
18
18
# of Subjects
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
Choose to wait
alone
Nonanxious
subjects
Anxious subjects
The results indicated that
anxious subjects chose to
wait with others more
than non-anxious subjects.
Choose to wait
with others
Also, a follow-up study
found that anxious people
preferred to wait with
other anxious people
rather than those who were
not anxious
Next class…
 **NO CLASS Tuesday Nov 11 (Remembrance Day)**
 First impression exercise
 II. Relationships




Similarity
Self-disclosure
Satisfaction
Breaking up
 e harmony or Plenty of Fish??