Chapter 10

1. Chapter 10 Interpersonal Attraction: From First Impressions to Close Relationships © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

2. Chapter Outline I. Major Antecedents of Attraction © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

3. Major Antecedents of Attraction Human beings are the most social of social animals and the desire to be liked and accepted is very strong. According to Berscheid (1985) matters of interpersonal attraction are of life-and-death importance. Friendships and close relationships are at or near the top of the list of what people say makes them happy; people desire to be liked by even the most casual of acquaintances. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

4. Major Antecedents of Attraction The Person Next Door: The Propinquity Effect One of the simplest determinants of interpersonal attraction is proximity—sometimes called propinquity. The finding that the more we see and interact with people, the more likely they are to become our friends is known as the propinquity effect. And it works at the micro level (see Festinger et al, 1950 friendship formation study; Fig. 10.1). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

5. Major Antecedents of Attraction The Person Next Door: The Propinquity Effect Festinger et al (1950) found that attraction and propinquity rely not only on actual physical distance but also on functional distance. Functional distance is defined as certain aspects of architectural design that make it likely some people will come into contact with each other more often than others, e.g., people living near mailboxes. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

6. Major Antecedents of Attraction The Person Next Door: The Propinquity Effect The propinquity effect works because of familiarity, or mere exposure—the finding that the more exposure we have to a stimulus, the more apt we are to like it (see Moreland & Beach, 1992 classroom study; Fig. 10.2). Unless exposure creates an initial negative impression (e.g., the guy’s an obnoxious jerk), greater exposure leads to greater liking. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

7. Major Antecedents of Attraction The Person Next Door: The Propinquity Effect Computer-mediated communication offers a new twist on the propinquity effect. McKenna and Bargh (2000) found that two people liked each other more if their first encounter was via an internet chat room, rather than a face-to-face meeting. They also liked each other more on a second face-to-face meeting if their first meeting was on the internet. Whether or not this translates into a long-term relationship awaits further research. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

8. Major Antecedents of Attraction Similarity Are we attracted more to people who are similar to us (similarity), or are we more attracted to people who are opposite to us (complimentarity)? Answer: those who are similar. Dozens of studies have shown that if all you know about a person (whom you’ve never met) is his or her opinions on several issues, the more similar those opinions are to yours, the more you like him or her. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

9. Major Antecedents of Attraction Similarity Does similarity predict friendship formation when people meet for the first time? Yes (see Newcomb, 1961 dormitory study). Men became friends with those who were demographically similar (e.g., shared rural background), as well as with those who were similar in attitudes. For some people, similarity of activity preferences is a stronger predictor of attraction than is similarity of attitudes (Jamieson et al, 1987 U of Waterloo study). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

10. Major Antecedents of Attraction Why is similarity so important in attraction? There three possibilities: Similarity • We assume that people who are similar to us will like us. • People who are similar provide us with important social validation for our characteristics and beliefs, ie, they provide us with a feeling that we are right. • We assume that people who are similar to us on important characteristics are people that we would like to interact with. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

11. Major Antecedents of Attraction Reciprocal Liking One of the most potent determinants of our liking someone is if we believe that that person likes us—reciprocal liking. Reciprocal liking effects can only occur if we like ourselves. People with negative self-concepts tend to be skeptical that others actually do like them and therefore may not reciprocate liking. Reciprocal liking can come about because of a self-fulfilling prophecy. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

12. Major Antecedents of Attraction Reciprocal Liking In a study by Curtis and Miller (1968) participants who thought they were liked behaved in more likeable ways with their partner (e.g., disclosed more about themselves, warmer, more pleasant manner) than those who thought they were disliked. And their partners liked them more than did the partners of students who thought they were disliked (see Fig. 10.3)—a self-fulfilling prophecy. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

13. Major Antecedents of Attraction The Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Liking In addition to propinquity, similarity, and reciprocal liking, physical attractiveness is a major determinant of liking in studies of first impressions (see Walster and colleagues, 1966). This is true of homosexual as well as heterosexual couples (Sergios & Cody, 1985). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

14. Major Antecedents of Attraction The Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Liking There is a bit of a dilemma here. When people are asked about the qualities they desire in a dating partner or a mate, physical attractiveness is not at the top of the list. Yet, when it comes to their actual behaviour (e.g., choosing a date) appearance seems to be the only thing that matters. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

15. Major Antecedents of Attraction The Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Liking Are people unaware of the importance they place on looks, or are they unwilling to admit that they so highly value such a superficial characteristic? Findings from Hadjistavropoulos and Genest’s (1994) lie detector study suggests that we are indeed aware of the value we place on looks, but as long as we can get away with it we won’t admit it. Finally, although both sexes value attractiveness, men do so more than women. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

16. Major Antecedents of Attraction Physical Attractiveness: Cultural standards of Beauty Studies show that men give high attractiveness ratings to women’s faces with large eyes, a small nose, a small chin, prominent cheekbones and narrow cheeks high eyebrows, large pupils and a big smile. Women give high ratings to malefaces with large eyes, prominent cheekbones, a large chin and a big smile (Cunningham et al, 1995). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

17. Major Antecedents of Attraction Physical Attractiveness: Cultural standards of Beauty There is some overlap in men’s and women’s ratings. Both sexes admire large eyes in the opposite sex, considered a ‘babyface’ feature which elicits feelings of warmth and nurturance. Both sexes admire prominent cheekbones in the opposite sex, an adult feature that is found only in the faces of those who are sexually mature. Female faces that are considered beautiful have more babyface features (e.g., small nose, small chin) than the handsome male face. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

18. Major Antecedents of Attraction Physical Attractiveness: Cultural standards of Beauty Are people’s perceptions of what is beautiful or handsome similar across cultures? Yes. Cross-cultural studies suggest that there are universal dimensions of faces that are attractive to the species, perhaps due to evolutionary mechanisms. Attractive faces for both sexes are those whose features are the arithmetic mean for the species, © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

19. Major Antecedents of Attraction Physical Attractiveness: Cultural standards of Beauty -ie, research participants judge the composite photograph (arithmetic mean) as more attractive than the individual photographs that make up the composite. This was true for both male and female photographs. The face composites produce what the researchers call a typical or ‘familar’ face. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

20. Major Antecedents of Attraction Physical Attractiveness: Cultural standards of Beauty • Similar cultural perceptions of beauty (cont’d) • Perrett et al (1994) created two types of composites, • average attractive composite made up of 60 individual photos, and • ii) the high attractive composite made of 15 photos from the original 60 that had received the highest attractiveness ratings. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

21. Major Antecedents of Attraction Physical Attractiveness: Cultural standards of Beauty Perrett et al (1994) study (cont’d) Results of ratings from research participants in Great Britain and Japan showed that the high attractive composites were rated as being more attractive than the average attractive composites. Thus, both Japanese and British participants view the high and average attractive composites similarly, supporting the notion of universality of perception of attractiveness. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

22. Major Antecedents of Attraction Physical Attractiveness: Assumptions about Attractive People People assume that physical attractiveness is highly correlated with other desirable traits; this is known as the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype. This applies to young university students, and older people of both sexes, except when older men are making judgments of older and younger women, they ascribe more positive traits to younger women. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

23. Major Antecedents of Attraction Physical Attractiveness: Assumptions about Attractive People The what is beautiful is good phenomenon applies to rather narrow area—that of social competence. A meta analysis showed that physical attractiveness has the largest effect on both men’s and women’s judgments about social competence: the beautiful are thought to be more sociable, extraverted, and popular than the less attractive. They are also seen as more sexual, more happy, and more assertive. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

24. Major Antecedents of Attraction Physical Attractiveness: Assumptions about Attractive People Thus, the “what is beautiful is good” phenomenon does have some empirical support (see Roszell et al, 1989 study). The association between physical attractiveness and sociability seems likely due to a self-fulfilling prophecy The way we treat people affects how they behave and ultimately, how they perceive themselves. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

25. Major Antecedents of Attraction Physical Attractiveness: Assumptions about Attractive People Can a ‘regular’ person be made to act like a ‘beautiful’ one through the self-fulfilling prophecy? Yes at least with male participants (see Snyder et al, 1977 study). This study was later replicated using women participants, and the results were the same. -ie, women acted on their stereotype of beauty, and the men responded accordingly. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

26. Major Antecedents of Attraction Physical Attractiveness: Cultural Differences The “what is beautiful is good” phenomenon appears to operate across cultures (see Wheeler & Kim, 1977;Table 10.1). In this study, Korean male and female participants thought the more physically attractive people would also be more socially skilled, friendly, and well-adjusted__the same group of traits that North American participants thought went with physical attractiveness. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

27. Major Antecedents of Attraction Physical Attractiveness: Cultural Differences However, Korean and North American students did differ in some of the other traits they assigned to the beautiful; These differences highlight what is considered important and valuable in each culture. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

28. Major Antecedents of Attraction Physical Attractiveness: Cultural Differences -ie, the North American students, who live in individualist cultures that value independence, individuality, and self-reliance, the ‘beautiful’ stereotype included traits of personal strength. -ie, Korean students, who live in a collectivist culture that values harmonious group relations, the ‘beautiful’ stereotype included traits of integrity and concern for others (Table 10.1) © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

29. Chapter Outline II. Forming Close Relationships: Defining Love © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

30. FormingClose Relationships Until recently, there was little research in social psychology on enduring relationships, because they are more difficult to study scientifically: • random assignment is impossible • The complex feelings of love can be hard to measure One aspect of enduring relationships is love. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

31. FormingClose Relationships Defining Love: Two Kinds There seem to be multiple kinds of love; different scales to measure these have been developed in the past decade. Berscheid and Walster (1974) have suggested two kinds of love: • companionate • passionate © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

32. FormingClose Relationships Defining Love: Two Kinds Companionate love is the feelings of intimacy and affection we feel for another person when we care deeply for the person, but do not necessarily experience passion or arousal in his or her presence. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

33. FormingClose Relationships Defining Love: Two Kinds Passionate love is the feeling of intense longing, accompanied by physiological arousal, we feel for another person. When our love is reciprocated, we feel great fulfillment and ecstasy, but when it is not, we feel sadness and despair. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

34. Forming Close Relationships Defining Love: Sternberg’s Triangular Theory Sternberg developed the triangular theory of love. This is the idea that different kinds of love consist of varying degrees of three components: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Intimacy refers to feelings of being close to and bonded with a partner. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

35. Forming Close Relationships Defining Love: Sternberg’s Triangular Theory Passion refers to feelings of arousal and sexual attraction. Commitment consists of two decisions, i) the short-term one to love your partner, and ii) the long-term one to maintain that love and stay with your partner. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

36. Forming Close Relationships Defining Love: Sternberg’s Triangular Theory These three ingredients, intimacy, passion and commitment, can be combined in various degrees to form different kinds of love (see Fig. 10.4). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

37. Forming Close Relationships Defining Love: Ordinary People’s Definition Ordinary people’s definition of love mirrors that of Berscheid and Hatfield’s companionate/ passionate distinction: Companionate kinds of love: friendship love, familial love, maternal love. Passionate kinds of love: romantic love, passionate love, infatuation love. Companionate love was seen as capturing the meaning of love more so than passionate love (see Fehr, 1988; Table 10.2). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

38. Forming Close Relationships Love: Gender Research typically finds that men fall in love more quickly than women and are more likely to endorse romantic beliefs such as ‘True love lasts forever.’ In contrast, women hold a more practical, friendship-based orientation to love (essentially, a companionate view of love). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

39. Forming Close Relationships Love: Gender Recently, it has been found that women’s and men’s views of love are more similar than has been thought Although men rate romantic, passionate kinds of love higher than women, both sexes give these kinds of love the lowest ratings and companionate love the highest ratings. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

40. Forming Close Relationships Love: The Role of Culture Although love is a human emotion experienced everywhere on the planet, culture does play a role in how people label their experiences and in what they expect (and tolerate) in close relationships. (see, for example, Japanese, Chinese, Korean concepts of love, and how they compare with Western culture). © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

41. Forming Close Relationships Love: Individualistic & Collectivistic Societies People who live in individualistic societies are more likely to emphasize passionate love than are people who live in collectivist cultures, where companionate love is valued. Romantic love has less value in collectivist societies than in individualistic societies. Thus, Love varies in definition and behaviour in different societies. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

42. Chapter Outline III. Forming Close Relationships: Why do we Fall in Love? © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

43. Why do we Fall in Love? • Why are people so highly motivated to seek loving relationships? • Answers to this question comes under three general headings: • Evolutionary explanations of love; • Attachment styles and intimate relationships; and • Social exchange theories. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

44. Why do we Fall in Love? Evolutionary Explanations of Love The evolutionary approach is derived from evolutionary biology, which states that men and women are attracted to different characteristics in each other because these maximize reproductive success— men are attracted to women’s appearance; women are attracted by men’s resources. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

45. Why do we Fall in Love? Evolutionary Explanations of Love Buss and his colleagues (1985) suggest that the evolutionary approach explains the different strategies of men and women in romantic (love) relationships. Men look for a female who is capable of reproducing successfully—indicated by physical appearance, age, health. Women respond to the economic and career achievements of men since these indicate resources that they and their offspring will need. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

46. Why do we Fall in Love? Evolutionary Explanations of Love There is considerable empirical support for hypotheses derived from evolutionary theory. There are also criticism and controversy: Some researchers argue that the theory is untestable; because of its flexibility it can be used to explain anything. Others say it is an oversimplification of extremely complex behaviour. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

47. Why do we Fall in Love? Evolutionary Explanations of Love Still others note that the preference for different qualities in a male or a female can be explained without the use of evolutionary psychology. The fact that women generally have less power, status, wealth, and other resources than men do, and must rely on men to provide economic security means women must consider this in their selection of a mate. Men, on the other hand, because of their resources and status position can afford to choose mates using more frivolous criteria such as good looks. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

48. Why do we Fall in Love? Evolutionary Explanations of Love It should be noted that in surveys asking people how important and desirable various characteristics were in choosing a marriage partner, both men and women listed honesty, trustworthiness, and a pleasant personality as their top choices. Other studies of relationships in several countries, found that the more economic power women had in a given culture, the more women were interested in a physically attractive man. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

49. Why do we Fall in Love? Evolutionary Explanations of Love More research is needed before we will fully understand the extent to which human love follows a biological imperative. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

50. Why do we Fall in Love? Attachment Styles and Intimate Relationships Another theory of love, attachment theory, states that our behaviour in adult relationships is based on our experiences as an infant with our parents, or caregivers. Attachment styles are the expectations people develop about relationships with others, based on the relationships they had with their primary caregiver when they were infants. © 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.