Attraction

Question 1

factors leading to attraction

Answer 1

• proximity: how close you are in a physical space
• similarity: how much you have in common
• reciprocal liking: “I’ll like you if I think you like me”
• physical attractiveness

Question 2

proximity

Answer 2

• One of the best predictors of liking
• Key: functional distance (how likely are you to bump into them on a daily basis based on the spaces you inhabit)
• increases opportunities for contact and the “mere exposure effect” -> increases liking

Question 3

Zajonc: Chinese characters mere exposure study

Answer 3

The more often you see the characters, the more likely you’ll have a slightly higher chance of thinking it means something good vs. something bad

Question 4

Moreland and Beach: classroom mere exposure study

Answer 4

• 4 female confederates attend class 0, 5, 10, or 15 times, sitting quietly in the front row
• End of term, students in class rated personality of girls -> greater attendance = viewed more positively

Question 5

Similarity

Answer 5

• Major predictor of attraction
• Know only that someone shares attitudes -> increased liking (even something trivial, like having the same birthday, is enough)
• Importance of similarity increases with time
• Over time, more likely to become friends with others who share:
• • Demographic background
• • Attitudes and values
• • Activity preferences
• This even applies to dogs -> people choose purebred dogs who look like themselves -> superficial characteristics influence attraction
• Mimicry does this too

Question 6

Similarity and online dating

Answer 6

• Similarity initially assumed, but when you actually meet them, your knowledge calls similarity into question
• Norton et al: measured knowledge, liking, similarity pre- and post-date
• • Knowledge increases, but similarity decreases -> making liking decrease too
• • More knowledge -> less perceived similarity -> less liking

Question 7

Why does similarity matter?

Answer 7

• Makes interactions go smoothly
• Similar people validate our worldviews
• We assume similar people will like us

Question 8

Reciprocal liking

Answer 8

So powerful that it can even override dissimilarity

Question 9

physical attractiveness

Answer 9

• People tend to end up with partners whose attractiveness is similar to their own
• 2 competing hypotheses for this fact: matching hypothesis and attractiveness maximization
• People with faces that are closest to the prototypical human face are considered more attractive

Question 10

matching hypothesis

Answer 10

• we seek out others who are the same as us in physical attractiveness
• Surprisingly, very little evidence for this!

Question 11

attractiveness maximization

Answer 11

• we’re all trying to pair up with the highest point value we can (like the number on the forehead demo)
• This is seen in online dating -> everyone is aiming for the more attractive partners

Question 12

physical attractiveness: men vs. women

Answer 12

• Men say physical attractiveness matters more, women say earning prospects matters more
• Speed-dating study (Finkel & Eastwick):
• • Attractiveness mattered for both men and women – and equally so!
• • Stated preferences didn’t predict actual speed dating choices

Question 13

Hunt, Eastwick, and Finkel attraction study: what did they do?

Answer 13

• asked couples how long they’d known each other and how long they’d been together
• independent judges then rated physical attractiveness of each person

Question 14

Hunt, Eastwick, and Finkel attraction study: what did they find?

Answer 14

the tendency to get together based on attractiveness would be stronger for couples that have only known each other for a short period of time before dating and who weren’t friends before

Question 15

Hunt, Eastwick, and Finkel attraction study: why did they find what they did?

Answer 15

• In real life, as length of acquaintance increased, consensus is lower and uniqueness is higher
• The longer you know someone, the more chances you have to figure out if their behaviour reflects romantically desirable qualities

Question 16

Hunt, Eastwick, and Finkel attraction study: consensus and uniqueness

Answer 16

• romantic judgments include degree of consensus (agreement about given target across raters) and uniqueness (idiosyncratically high/low ratings for given target by given rater)
• In our class Matching Game -> all consensus, no uniqueness (everyone had same ratings for each target -> a 1 was a 1 for everyone) -> creates highly competitive market forces and highly matched pairs
• Modification to Matching Game to introduce uniqueness – cards with numbers and suits (suits introduces uniqueness because you can pick fave suit) -> competitive market forces diminish and more mismatched pairs occur (reduced assortative mating)

Question 17

assortative mating

Answer 17

the tendency for individuals to be paired with mates who have similar physical, behavioral, and psychological characteristics

Question 18

Error management theory study: what is EMT?

Answer 18

theory that psychological mechanisms are designed to be biased based on the costs of false-positive and false-negative errors over evolutionary history

Question 19

Error management theory study: what did they find?

Answer 19

• EMT can be used to explain men’s overperception of women’s sexual intent (more costly to miss out on mating opportunity by assuming they don’t like you) and women’s underestimation of men’s commitment (more costly to think he’s committed and then he isn’t)
• men’s sexual overperception didn’t occur if target was their sister