Chapter 3: Attraction (HIGH MIDTERM PRIORITY) Flashcards
What decade did relationship science start looking at interpersonal attraction?
1960s
Though what means did they study interpersonal attraction?
Reinforcement principles (Behaviorism)
What are the underlying assumptions of interpersonal attraction?
1) They are rewarding (more rewards=more liking)
- Influenced by behaviorism
2) They can help us achieve out needs, goals and desires (Instrumentality)
Instrumentality
“Fundamental basis of attraction”
“The extent to which someone is able to help us get what we currently want”
Who we find rewarding will change over time
Zero-acquaintance paradigm
Strangers in lab - to help isolate the variables being manipulated
As a relationship progresses…
attraction factors become more complex
What type of dyad to evolutionary theorists tent to focus on?
Heterosexual
Proximity ( Festinger, Schacter, & back (1950)
Examined friendship formation among students in campus dorm (field study)
Residents were randomly assigned to rooms and roommates
3 months later, asked to name closest friends
Chances of being friends were related to distance between their rooms
Proximity (Back et al., 2008)
Examined the proximity effect in the context of classroom seating
First day randomly assigned to a seat. Asked everyone to make introductions to the person next to them. Then give notice to switch. Each person had an introduction to each person. Give a rating afterward.
Independent variable (proximity)
1. Neighboring seats
2. Same row
3. Different row
Dependent variable
- Didn’t control for where they
sat each time
- One year later asked about the
intensity of their friendship in
response to each student
E.g.,
1) I like this person
2) This person likes me
3) I know this person well
4) I am friends with this person
Results
- Being randomly assigned to sit
in a neighboring seat or being
in the same row (vs being
randomly seated further away)
led to increased friendship
intensity
Why might proximity increase attraction?
- More opportunities to interact
- More familiar (Mere exposure effect)
Mere exposure effect
Being exposed to something (relatively neutral) can make it intrinsically reinforcing. Enough interactions can lead to you tending to like them more
Proposed reasons for the mere exposure effect
1) The person is harmless (evolutionary explanation)
a) You become familiar with
them and they didn’t hurt
you = no stranger danger >
you feel safe around them.
2) Familiar stimuli are processed
more fluently and fluency tend to be experienced in a positive manner.
a) Fluency is a reward. In our
world, there is a lot of
information to take in.
Helps when we know
things really well, than you
can focus attention on
other things.
3) Classical Conditioning
a) Most social experiences
are mildly positive and so
the more frequent you
interact with someone, the
greater the chance positive
affect is paired with the
person.
b) Most social experiences
you have in life tend to be
positive. The more you see
them, even if you don’t
mean to, you get positive
feelings towards them
Reis et al. (2011)
Examined the ‘familiarity-attraction link” in two studies involving a live interaction paradigm
Reis et al. (2011) Study 1
Independent variable (Amount of familiarity - engage in some kind of disclosure)
a) 2 discussion cards
b) 6 discussion cards
Dependent variables
- Attraction measure
a) perceived similarity
b) liking for the partner
c) desire to have the partner as
a friend
d) closeness
Results
- In the 2 card condition, the
mean level of attraction was
significantly lower than in the
6-card condition (i.e.,
additional interaction led to
increased attraction.
Reis et al. (2011) Study 2
Randomly assigned strangers (110 dyads) to interact online for varying number of instances
Independent variable
- 1, 2 4, 6, 8 chat conditons
Dependent variable
- attraction (same as study 1)
Results
- The greater number of chats,
the greater the attraction
Shin et al. (2018)
Does cluse distance increase the liking for a social object? (less about interaction more about the image)
Researchers included attritional controls to assess causal evidence in support of the propinquity effect (i.e., proximity increases liking)
Conducted 4 studies (3 experimental)
Propinquity effect
Proximity increases liking
Shin et al. (2018) Study 1
Sociogram
- Participants asked to draw
circles representing
themselves and three friends
- Also asked to provide intimacy
ratings for each friend (marker
of interpersonal liking)
Results
- less distance between the
participant and a friend in the
sociogram was associated with
increased intimacy.
Shin et al. (2018) Study 2
- Experiment to assess role of
distance on liking for an
unknown person - There was a script that they
went though. Everyone was a
male and all of them interacted
with the same confederate who
was a women. Some people
were seated closer to the
female confederate.
-A lot of control was done to the
confederate
Independent variable
a) sitting at a close distance
b) sitting at a further distance
Dependent variable
a) liking
Results
a) Men’s liking for an identical
female was significantly
higher int he close condition
Shin et al., Studies 3 and 4
Independent variable (Using a stereoscopic visual apparatus)
a) face appears closer
b) face appears further
Dependent variable
a) liking of the image
Results
a) proximity influences liking
for social stimuli
Shin et al., 2018 (Summary)
Across four studies, employing diverse methods and measures, the researchers found that proximity increasing liking for an opposite-sex target.
The findings were especially prominent for the heterosexual men who were not in a relationship
Similarity
People being alike one another
Which one is it?
a) Birds of a feather flock
together
b) Opposites attract
Similarity History (Bryne, 1961)
Independent variable : attitudinal similarity
a) similar to stranger
b) dissimilar to the stranger
c) Measures on attitudes about
topics, 2 weeks later were
told that it was interpersonal
prediction, told them that
students in another class
had filled it out and would
be given to them and rate
them. Either given an
attitudinal survey that was
almost identical or opposite
Dependent variable
a) Self-reports on
interpersonal attraction
Results
a) people given bogus
information that the
stranger was similar (vs
dissimilar) gave higher
ratings of interpersonal
attraction
Zorn, Mata, & Alves, 2022
Do all types of similar attitudes contribute to liking in the same way?
Researchers interested in whether similar positive attitude elicit more liking than similar negative attitudes
Zorn et al. (2022) Study 1
Asked participants to name two things they like and two things they dislike form 8 attitude domains ( movies, musicians, leisure activities, food, books/magazines, drinks, celebrities, and countries)
For each of their likes and dislikes, participants were asked to rate how likable they would find someone who shares that attitude.
Results
a) Overall, participants found
someone to be more likable
if they shared their likes (i.e.,
both had similar likes) rather
than their dislikes (i.e., both
had similar dislikes
Zorn et al., (2022) Study 2
Replicated Study 1
Extended it by asking participants about ratings of likability for someone that dislikes their likes vs likes their dislikes
Results
a) Replicated Study 1
b) Also found that “ targets
who disliked participants’
likes were perceived as less
likable than targets who
liked participants’ dislikes.”
c) Level of positivity of attitude
plays more of a role
