attraction and the dating market Flashcards
social exchange theory
seek the most fulfilling partners that will have us - those that will maximize rewards while minimizing coasts
proximity
closeness/nearness
- Basic, powerful factor that drives liking
More likely to meet, get to know, and form a relationship with someone you see regularly where you live, work, etc
westgate housing study
- More likely to be friends with people next door to you than people 2 doors down, 3 doors down, 4 doors down, etc
Researchers also found that people living next to stairwells made more friends with people upstairs - also - people living next to high traffic areas and or people who had windows facing the courtyard made more friends
moreland and beach, 1992
- Confederate attended class 0,5,10, or 15 times
The more often the confederate attended the class, the more positively she was rate (by students seeing her photo)
what are the mechanisms behind the westgate housing study
· We have an increased opportunity to interact with people who live close to us
We tend to like things more after we have been repeatedly exposed to them and they become more familiar
perceptual fluency explanation
easier to process info about familiar stimuli - pleasant feelings associated with more fluent processing
classical conditioning explanation
Encounters with novel stimuli put us on our guard, but once we realize the stimuli is nonthreatening we feel safe around it, rendering it more pleasant
predictors of attraction
· Proximity/familiarity
· Physical attractiveness/other personal characteristics
· Similarity
· Reciprocity
We are attracted to people whose presence is rewarding
why is proximity such an important factor in attraction
more likely to meet, get to know and form a relationship with people we see more often
“friends aren’t necessarily the people you like best, they are merely the people who get there first”
functional distance
likelihood of coming into contact with other people due to location or features of architectural design - more opportunity to interact with people close to us
mere exposure
we tend to like things after we have been repeatedly exposed to them and they become familiar (doesn’t work for things you initially dislike)
physical appearance preference differences
- People have idiosyncratic preferences
Certain beauty standards differ across time
physical appearance preference consensus
- Evident across cultural groups
- Newborns agree
= degree of innateness
- Newborns agree
Women: cross cultural pref for:
- Baby face
- Large eyes
- Small nose
- Small chin
- Full lips
- Some signs of maturity:
- High prominent cheekbones
- Thick hair
Less cultural for men:
- Wide smile
- Broad jaw and forehead
“softer” features nice too
averageness effect
Faces that are “average” are seen as more attractive - don’t like features that are too extreme
facial symmetry
bilateral (two sided) symmetry contributes to attractiveness - also true of other species
perceptual fluency vs evolutionary explanation for facial symmetry
perceptual fluency explanation: average and more symmetrical faces are easier to process
Evolutionary explanation: indicators of reproductive fitness
- Produced asymmetry could be indicative of issues during prenatal development
Monkey studies shows that declines in health is associated with declines in facial symmetry
minimal parent investment
least amount of time, and resources that a parents must expend to produce offspring
asymmetry in parental investment
Males: minimal investment of time and resources
Females: greater investment of time and resources
(eggs are biologically more costly) pregnancy sucks
Male adaptive strategy: like females possessing indicators of fertility (cuz reproductive success is primarily limited by availability of fertile mates)
Female adaptive strategy: have to invest more, so more selective- choose mates based on ability to privde
structureal powerlessness and gender role socialization
Critique of female/male adaptive strategies: based on social factors rather than innate factors
- Women find high status men attractive because they have less access to status and resources
In cultures where there is greater gender equality, women place less importance on a man’s status and resources
necessity of luxury study (2002)
When men and women’s choices are constrained they prioritize different characteristics in mates:
Women: income, intelligence, social status, kindness
Men: physical attractiveness, intelligence, kindness
stated vs actual preference study (1989)
Sprecher
-despite what people said in a study the actual largest predictor for both men and women’s attraction ratings was physical attractiveness
eastiwick et al, 2014
Meta analysis of 97 studies involving romantic evaluations of a partner - found that evaluations were generally more positive for more attractive people and people with a higher earning potential - didn’t change for men or women
short term vs long term mating strategies
People change their mating strategies depending on the conditions
In short term relationships, both genders tend to prioritize attractiveness - sex differences in terms of prioritization become more evident in long term relationships
hormones and mate pref
Hypothesis that women show a preference for more masculine traits during the high fertility ovulatory phase of their menstrual cycle and a preference for more feminine faces at other stages in the cycle
- This is most pronounced for women assessing men’s attractiveness for hypothetical, short term relationships
- However, these studies are highly critiqued - tend to be small, use self report for menstrual cycle data, mixed findings
However, there is evidence that ovulatory phase increases women’s sexual motivation more broadly
what is beautiful is good bias
Tend to assume that physically attractive people possess other desirable qualities - comes from cultural stereotypes
motivated cognition: what is beautiful is good
- Targets attractiveness
- Desire to bond w target bc beauty is rewarding
Perceived positive interpersonal attributes
- Desire to bond w target bc beauty is rewarding
snyder tanke and berscheid, 1977
When ps beleived that the person they were talking on the phone w was attractive, they formed more positive impressions of them, behaved more positively towards them, and elicited more positive behaviour from them
little et al, 2006
- Found that traits like warmness, easygoing, responsible, were more highly desired on average than others
Also individuality variability in desired traits - but some traits varied more than others (ex. Warmth didn’t vary very much, but competitiveness did)
similarity and attraction
- Predicts attraction for people we don’t know
- Link between similarity and attraction seems to be stronger for attitudes/values and some demographic characteristics than for personality
○ Similarity between personalities only accounts for a small variation in satisfaction
Desirable personality traits are more important than matching - bad to similar on unappealing traits
- Link between similarity and attraction seems to be stronger for attitudes/values and some demographic characteristics than for personality
perceptions of similarity
may be more important for liking than objective similarity
- Discovering dissimilarities takes time
- Pursue partners that represent our ideal selves
Dissimilarity may decrease over time
complementarity
- Little support for the idea that people are attracted to people who possess the qualities they lack
○ Ex. Introverts aren’t more attracted to extroverts
○ Members of eagalitarian couples tend to be happier than traditional couples - higher satisfaction in gay and lesbian couples
individual construals
We have different ideas of what a trait means
- Ex. No gender dif in pref for a partner with a sense of humour, but men don’t rate funny women more highly
Bressler, martin, balshine, 2006 - men like women who laugh at their jokes; women like men who make them laugh
reciprocity
We like people more if we know they like us
Aronson and Linder, 1965
Ps who overheard a positive evaluation from a confederate reported more liking for the confederate
rewards of belonging - hsu et al 2014
evolutionary perspective
Could explain reciprocity
Hsu et al, 2014:
Participants told that a desirable potential partner likes them showed increased activation of a system of receptors that mediate rewarding effects of opioid drugs like heroin - stronger the activation, the more desire to interact
selectivity in hsu et al
In Hsu’s study ps had the highest liking when a confederates evaluation went from negative to positive - although confederates were rated more positive in consistent positive condition
We want to feel like we are liked specificallypredi
