Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
75 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What are the two ways that attraction is rewarding to us?
|
Direct: rewards received through interaction with the other person (affection, beauty, access to money, status)
Indirect: rewards associated with the presence of others (associated partner with the tone of a situation) |
|
|
What are the 3 levels that are involved in the process of attraction?
|
a) Perceived characteristics of the other person
b) Needs, preferences, desires of person who becomes attracted c) Rewarding experiences with another than can come about in a variety of ways |
|
|
Physical Attractiveness and the Halo effect
|
We like attractive people more than their less attractive peers
|
|
|
"Computer dance" study (Walster, 1966)
|
Extensive psychometric battery. Matched at random for a blind date. The only strong predictor of attraction was appearance. There was no difference between men and women. The intelligence and personality were not predictors either.
|
|
|
Assumptions about attractive people
|
More attractive people are perceived as more sociably competent (some theories think its because they get more social attention when they're younger, so they can develop their skills). Attractive people are also thought to be more extraverted, popular, sexual, and generally, happier.
|
|
|
Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977. Halo effect and talking on the phone.
|
a. IV: Attractive or unattractive women of picture men believed they were talking to on the phone
b. Results: i. Men who thought they were talking to an attractive woman were more warm than those that thought they were talking to an unattractive woman 1. They brought out her best qualities ii. Study was replicated with roles switched and had same results |
|
|
What causes the Halo Effect?
|
i. Evolutionary explanation – attractiveness may be an important clue to good health and reproductive fitness
ii. Radiating effect of beauty: being seen with an attractive person may enhance your image |
|
|
Facial beauty: Women
|
i. Baby facedness in women is considered attractive
1. Big eyes 2. Prominent cheek bones 3. Small chin and nose 4. Full lips 5. High eyebrows ii. But: Baby facedness alone is not good 1. Goal is not to look childish, but feminine ad youthful 2. “Beautiful” = baby faced features combined with signs of maturity a. Ex: Prominent cheekbones, narrow cheeks, broad smiles |
|
|
Facial beauty: Men
|
i. Strong dominant features in men are considered attractive (strong jaws, broad foreheads)
1. Evolutionary explanation: Only healthy men can afford high levels of testosterone since it compromises the immune system ii. But some studies find that feminized “baby-faced” males who look warm and friendly were rated as more attractive iii. Cyclical variations in what women consider attractive |
|
|
Attraction and Ovulation
|
Men find the scent of ovulating women more attractive. Women find men who are masculine, confident, and rugged sexier when they're ovulating.
|
|
|
Facial beauty: Both sexes
|
i. Good looking faces in both sexes have features that are average
1. Computer generated composite image of many faces is more attractive than any single face 2. Finding is true cross-culturally 3. Average faces a. Are unusually proportionate (arithmetic average of other features of other faces b. Seem familiar i. Underlies propinquity, similarity, and reciprocal liking c. Have even skin d. Are more symmetrical i. Though to signal health and parasite resistance ii. People symmetrical faces enjoy better mental and physical health |
|
|
Is physical attractiveness equally important to men and women?
|
More important to men. Gender difference is greater when attitude rather than behavior is being tested. It's very important for both in terms of one night stands, but it's more important for men in terms of potential marriage partners.
|
|
|
Cultural standards of beauty
|
Langlois and Roggman (1990): Humans came to find some aspects of faces attractive during the course of evolution. Attractive faces for both sexes are those whore features are the arithmetic mean for the species. Proved by creating an average or composite face out of 16 faces. Caused by similarity. Another study found out that the composite face of 60 photographs was "average", however the composite face of the top 15 was "highly attractive".
|
|
|
Marketplace Theory
|
a. Women more likely to value status in a mate, men more likely to value attractiveness
i. Gender differences in personal ads 1. Men want young partners 2. Women want someone stable 3. Attractive women are more likely to marry financially/professionally successful males |
|
|
Evolutionary Theory
|
All a function of ability to propagate genes
Men and women value certain characteristics in each other because they maximize chances of reproductive success i. Male’s reproductive success = frequent pairings 1. Reproduction has low costs ii. Female’s reproductive success = finding provider 1. Reproduction is more costly iii. Female’s youth a sign of fertility iv. Male’s status = ability as a provider for female and child v. (Buss 1988, 1989, 1990) 1. Men valued physical attractiveness more than women 2. Women valued ambition, industriousness, and good earning capacity more than men |
|
|
Support of Evolutionary Marketplace
|
Buss and Gangestad 1993
1. Physical attractiveness was valued even more in regions where disease was common because physical attractiveness signals health and possible resistant to disease 2. Preference for physical attractiveness was just as strong for women Men are more likely than women to prefer younger partners. Women are more likely to say they look for "ambition, hard-working". Women place greater emphasis on a partner's economic resources than do men. These sex differences are found across a wide range of cultures. |
|
|
Gender differences in jealousy
|
Male and female participants were asked to imagine a past committed relationship and select whether emotional or sexual betrayal would be more distressing.
i. Men more upset with sexual infidelity (60%) ii. Women rated emotional infidelity as more upsetting (80%) iii. Jealousy in males is a function of reproductive uncertainty iv. Jealousy in females a function of resource uncertainty |
|
|
Criticisms of Evolutionary explanations
|
i. Evolutionary theories are circular and untestable
ii. Social role iii. Economic role 1. Women are becoming more financially independent iv. Women value physical attractiveness as much as men do for one-night stands f. Gangestand 1993 i. Association between extent women have access to financial resources and the extent to which women reported physical attractiveness as an important variable in a mate 1. More economic power for women, the more they’re interest in attractiveness in men |
|
|
Basic Principles of Interpersonal Attraction
|
Proximity, Familiarity, Similarity, Reciprocal Liking
|
|
|
Proximity
|
Best predictor of whether 2 people will be friends is how far apart they live. one of the simplest determinants of interpersonal attraction
i. Westgate West study (Festinger, 1950) 1. People randomly assigned to building 2. Close friends a. Next door neighbors: 41% b. Two doors down: 22% c. Opposite ends of a hallway 10% 3. Why? People who are closer are more available to each other a. Cognitive dissonance theory: I see this person all the time so I must like him/her |
|
|
Proximity demonstrates the propinquity effect.
|
a. The more we see and interact with people, the more likely they are to become our friends
b. Works because of the mere exposure effect (familiarity): i. The more exposure we have to a stimulus the more apt we are to like it ii. Familiarity breeds liking and attraction in the absence of negative qualities |
|
|
Familiarity
|
Mere exposure effect: simply being exposed frequently to a person can increase our liking for that person (Zajonc, 1968)
|
|
|
Moreland & Beach Study (shows familiarity)
|
1.Four women and a classroom - 4 women attended class:
a.1 women 0 times b.1 woman 5 classes c.1 woman 10 classes d.1 woman 15 classes 2.Students rate women on traits at the end of semester 3.Results: the more the women came the more she was “liked” by the students 4.Why? a.Evolutionary: humans have an innate fear of the unfamiliarity b.Cognitive: familiar people are more similar to ourselves c.Limitations: familiarity does not apply to negative pictures; repetition can cause boredom and satiation |
|
|
Computers and long-distance propinquity (familiarity)
|
1.Experiment 1
a.IV: Whether participants met face to face or on the Internet b.DV: how attracted participants were c.Results: Participants generally more attracted to each other if they met on the 2.(McKenna, Green & Gleason, 2002) a.Attraction between people who meet on the Internet is determined by level and quality of their conversation b.Attraction between people who meet face to face depends on other variable, like physical attractiveness internet 3.Darius K.-S. Chan and Grand H,-L Cheng (2004) – Honk Kong Internet users a.Participants asked to rate two of their friendships on a series of dimensions i.Online friendship vs. real-life friendship ii.Had to be of similar duration b.Results: If friendship was less than a year quality of real-life friendships was higher. Comparing friendships of more than a year, online and real-life friendships were similar Demonstrates that it takes more time to develop good relationship online because online communications is more impoverished |
|
|
Similarity
|
We like people who are similar to us in attitudes, interests, values, background, and personality
|
|
|
Matching principle
|
the tendency to choose similar romantic partners
|
|
|
Similarity is rewarding. Why?
|
similar people bolster our confidence and agree with us.
Cognitive dissonance: we maximize cognitive consistency by liking those who support our views and disliking those who disagree with us. |
|
|
When would differences be rewarding?
|
if something bad happens to someone similar to us, differences can be rewarding. Similarity has limitations.
|
|
|
close-field situations
|
people are forced to interact
|
|
|
open-field situations
|
people are free to interact or not as they please
|
|
|
Opinions and personality in relation to similiarity
|
1.In controlled experiments if all you know about a person are his or her opinions. The more similar they are to yours, the more likely you will like the person (e.g., Byre & Nelson, 1965)
2.Newcomb (1961): Similarity predicted friendship for roommates at the University of Michigan-- Similarity in attitudes, values, demographics, and personalities Both opinions and personality helps. |
|
|
Interpersonal style and similarity
|
1.More attraction between people who share interpersonal styles and communication skills
2.Burleson & Samter, 1996 a.High skill people see social interactions as complex b.Low-skill people see social interactions as more straightforward c.Similar levels of communication skills between pairs of friends |
|
|
Interests and experience and similarity
|
1.We choose to enter into types of social situations where we find similar others
a.More similarities are created/discover that fuel friendships |
|
|
Why is similarity important?
|
We have a tendency in thinking that people who are like us will like us, which will make it easier to initiate friendships. People who are similar to us validate our characteristics and beliefs and make us feel like we're right. Similar people also make negative inferences about people who disagree with us.
|
|
|
Reciprocal liking
|
We tend to like people because they like us.
i.Gold, Ryckman, & Mosley (1984): When a young woman expressed interest through nonverbal cues in male participants, the men liked her more despite her disagreeing with them on important issues |
|
|
Why does reciprocal liking exist?
|
Can happen because of self-fulling prophecy.
1.College students participated in a study in pairs without previously knowing each other a.IV: Whether one member of the pair was told the other liked or disliked him b.Results i.Those who thought they were liked behaved in more likeable ways ii. Those who believed they were disliked were liked by the other student to a far lesser extent iii.If people have low self-esteem, if they know others like them, it will not feel warranted |
|
|
Other random findings
|
i.Asking someone to do a small favor for you increases their attraction to you (because of cognitive dissonance- they have to justify why they did you the favor)
ii.Being perfect but then messing up just a little makes someone like you even more iii.If you dislike someone right away, but then wind up liking them later, you will like them even more than if you had first liked them. iv.Amodio and Showers (2005) 1.For flings we prefer people who are dissimilar 2.For more committed relationships we prefer people who are similar |
|
|
Attachment styles
|
expectations people develop about relationships with others, based on the relationships they had with their primary caregivers when they were infants
|
|
|
Secure attachment...
|
characterized by trust, lack of concern with being abandoned, view that one is worthy and well-liked
|
|
|
Avoidant attachment...
|
characterized by the suppression of attachment needs. attempts to be intimate have been rebuffed, and difficult for people like this to develop intimate relationships
|
|
|
Anxious/ambivalent attachment...
|
characterized by a concern that others will not reciprocate one’s desire for intimacy
|
|
|
Attachment styles in infants
|
an infant responds positively to specific people, feels better when they are close, and seeks them out when frightened
a.Secure attachment: parent is generally available and responsive to child’s needs b.Avoidant attachment: parent is unresponsive or rejecting c.Anxious/ambivalent attachment: caretaker is anxious and does not respond to infant’s needs |
|
|
Attachment styles in adults: Secure
|
a.easy to get close to others, no worrying about abandonment
i.Happy, friendly, trusting relationships ii.Most enduring, long-term relationships iii.Highest levels of commitment iv.Highest level of satisfaction |
|
|
Attachment styles in adults: Avoidant
|
uncomfortable getting close, emotional highs and lows, jealousy, fear of intimacy
i.Relatively brief sexual encounters ii.Least likely to enter romantic relationships iii.Lowest levels of commitment |
|
|
Attachment styles in adults: Anxious
|
seek intimacy but worry that others won’t reciprocate or stay
i.Obsession jealousy, love at first sight ii.Most short lived romantic relationships 1.Enter into relationships quickly before they know their partners well iii.Most upset when love is not reciprocated |
|
|
Distribution of attachment styles in adults, and gender tendencies.
|
56% Secure, 25% Avoidant, 19% Anxious
Men are more likely to be avoidant, women are more likely to be anxious |
|
|
Who tends to pair up?
|
Avoidant and anxious most common.
They report low satisfaction and problematic communications patterns. Anxious women and avoidant men tend to be more stable than the other way around |
|
|
Interaction of attachment types and criticisms
|
j.Collins and Feeney, 2004b – heterosexual dating couples
i.Attachment styles measured with questionnaire, one partner randomly assigned to give speech IV: Supportive notes vs. Less supportive notes when giving the speech 1.One given while preparing the speech 2.One after the speech iii.Results 1.No difference in reactions from supportive notes 2.Less supportive note a.First note perceived most negatively by highly avoidant participant i.Avoidant people believe people cannot be relied on for support b.Second note perceived more negatively by highly anxious participants i.Anxious feel like they are prone to being rejected |
|
|
Can people change attachment styles? Do they have more than one?
|
People can change from one attachment style to another (Feeney & Noller, 1996)
People can develop more than on attachment style (Baldwin & Fehr). Attachment style displayed is the one that is called into play by their partner’s behavior and the type of relationship they’ve created |
|
|
Attributions and Relationship Functioning
|
Happy couples emphasize impact of positive events, and minimize impact of negative
Good event: internal stable Bad event: external, fleeting Unhappy couples have opposite pattern: emphasize impact of negative, minimize impact of positive Good event: external, fleeting Bad event: internal, stable |
|
|
Are there different types of love?
|
Passionate love and compassionate love
|
|
|
Passionate love
|
“a wildly emotional state: tender and sexual feelings”
1.Intense longing we feel for a person, accompanied by physiological arousal a.When it is reciprocated we feel great fulfillment and ecstasy b.When we feel sadness and despair Intense, short-lived relationships |
|
|
What are the effects of passionate love?
|
Hatfield & Rapson (1996)
a.Passionate love is good for your immune system when feelings are returned b.When unrequited passionate lovers may suffer from anxiety or despair and sometimes this can escalate into violence Participant’s MRI scans revealed that specific brain areas were active when they were looking at pictures of their romantic partners with whom they were passionately in love a.These are the same brain areas that are active when people ingest cocaine- they are linked to the “reward” center of the brain |
|
|
Cultural associations with companionate vs passionate love.
|
a.America couples value passionate love more than Chinese couples
b.Chinese couples value companionate love more than American couples (Geo, Jankowiak) a.Taita of Kenya value companionate and passionate love equally. Achieving balance is a primary goal in the society. (Bell) Passionate love exists in 147 out of 166 societies (Fisher and Jankowiak) |
|
|
Companionate love
|
“the affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply intertwined”
1.Intimacy and affection we feel when we care deeply for a person but do not experience passion or arousal in the person’s presence 2.Practical: trust, caring, tolerance of flaws 3.Moderate emotional tone 4.Develops slowly as people build a relationship |
|
|
Culture and love
|
Love has different meanings in different cultures.
For example, there is a "Sad love" in China. There is more sadness in the love songs that are Chinese than American ones. Same intensity though. |
|
|
Why do collectivistic cultures lend themselves to companionable love?
|
iv. Collectivistic cultures more likely to identify with companionable, friendship-based romantic love that would “not disrupt a complex network of existing family relationships” (Dion & Dion, 1993 p. 45)
West Africa – relationships with relatives more important than relationships with spouses Levin et al., 1995: Marrying for love more important in Western(ized) countries that less developed Eastern countries |
|
|
What conclusions can be made about love?
|
Romantic love is almost universal but culture alters how that emotional state is experienced, expressed and remembered (Levinger 1994)
|
|
|
Triangular Theory of Love (Sternberg)
|
Intimacy (closeness, bonding), Passion (physical attraction, sexuality), and Commitment (maintaining love).
|
|
|
Only intimate
|
Friendship, no sex, no commitment
|
|
|
Only passion
|
Infatuation
|
|
|
Only commitment
|
Empty love
|
|
|
Intimacy and passion
|
Romantic love
|
|
|
Intimacy and commitment
|
Companionate love
|
|
|
Passion and commitment
|
Fatuous love
|
|
|
Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment
|
Consummate love
There is, however, a progression from passion to intimacy to commitment. |
|
|
Interdependence Theory (Social Exchange Theory) Thibaut & Kelley
|
Interactions are thought of in terms of rewards and costs that partners are given (applies economic models to relationships)
rewards, costs, what kind of relationship we deserve (Comparison Level), that they could have a better relationship with someone else (Comparison Level for Alternatives). We try to maximize rewards and minimize costs |
|
|
Comparison Level
|
the quality of outcomes a person believes he or she deserves
1.Reflects past relationship experiences 2.Our personal belief about what constitutes an acceptable relationship |
|
|
Comparison Level for Alternatives
|
assessing how our relationship compares to others that are available
Below/Above CL vs. High/Low CL-ALT. 1.Rewards are always important to the outcome 2.Costs become increasingly important over time |
|
|
Investment Model (Rusbult, 1983)
|
Commitment determined by: i.Satisfaction: comparing rewards to costs and seeing if this exceeds your CL
ii.Investments: things invested in a relationship that you can’t take back if the relationship ended (eg. Time, finances, possessions) iii.Alternatives: other person in environment you could consider dating |
|
|
Equity Theory (Farkas & Anderson, 1979); (Homans. 1961; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978)
|
Relationship satisfaction determined by the ratio of benefits to contributions. Contributions can be positive or negative
your benefits / your contributions = partner's benefits / partner's contributions Both under-benefited and over-benefited feel distree- try to restore equity. Inequity perceived as a bigger problem by the under-benefitted. |
|
|
Exchange vs. Communal Relationships
|
Exchange relationships: people give benefits with the expectation of receiving comparable benefits. Occurs in new and less trusting relationships
Communal relationships: people feel a responsibility for the needs of others (no expectation of receiving benefits). Usually occur between family, friends, and romantic partners |
|
|
Dynamics of Exchange and Communal Relationships
|
1.People pay more attention to needs of a partner in a communal relationship than exchange relationship
2.People in a communal relationship talk about emotional topics; people in exchange relationships talk about unemotional topics |
|
|
Aron's Inclusion of other in self.
|
You have to allow the other overlap with the self.
|
|
|
How can you make relationships better?
|
Positive illusions: people in happy, committed relationships tend to idealize their partner and view their own relationship as superior to others
Memory bias Derogation of alternatives Relationship-enhancing attributions Behaviors in troubled relationships (active vs. passive; constructive vs. destructive) |
