Cognitive Theories of Attraction - Human Relationships Flashcards
Cognitive Theories of Attraction
Cognitive researchers argue that the extent to which people perceive another person as similar to themselves may be one explanation for attraction. Contrary to the adage that “opposites attract,” it appears that those whom we perceive to be similar to ourselves are more attractive to us. The Similarity-Attraction Model argues that people like and are attracted to others who are similar, rather than dissimilar to themselves.
how can couples be similar?
Couples tend to be similar in age, religion, social class, cultural background, personality, education, intelligence, physical attractiveness, and attitudes. Support for one’s own views and attitudes is rewarding because it validates one’s opinions and boosts self-esteem.
Similarity-Attraction Model
suggests that people are attracted to others who are similar to themselves. Contrary to the notion that “opposites attract,” cognitive researchers argue that similarities in attitudes, values, and characteristics are more likely to foster attraction.
Key similarities that promote attraction include age, religion, social class, education, intelligence, physical attractiveness, and personality.
Cognitive Bias
People perceive validation of their own views when they encounter someone similar to themselves, which boosts self-esteem and fosters liking.
Environmental Influence
People tend to live and socialize in environments with others similar to themselves, further reinforcing the likelihood of attraction to similar individuals.
Markey and Markey (2007)
Aim:
To investigate the extent to which similarity is a factor in partner selection and relationship harmony.
Study 1: Ideal Partner Characteristics
Sample: Large self-selected group of undergraduate students.
Method:
Participants described the psychological characteristics, values, and attitudes of their ideal romantic partner.
Then described themselves.
Results: Participants described their ideal partner in ways that were similar to their own personality and characteristics.
Study 2: Actual Couples
Sample: 106 heterosexual couples (212 participants) in relationships for at least one year.
Method:
Participants described their own and their partner’s personality traits using questionnaires.
Results:
Findings aligned with the first study: people often choose partners similar to themselves.
Couples in the most harmonious relationships shared some characteristics but also complemented each other in others (e.g., one partner dominant, the other submissive).
evaluation points for markey and markey (2007)
Strengths:
Large sample size in the first study enhances reliability.
Real-life application: Explains the role of similarity in both romantic relationships and friendships.
The second study’s use of couples who had been together for a year adds ecological validity, as it focuses on established relationships.
Limitations:
Self-report questionnaires may introduce demand characteristics or social desirability bias.
Both studies are correlational, so a cause-and-effect relationship between similarity and relationship satisfaction cannot be established.
Limited generalizability as the sample consisted of young American students.
internal working model
The motivation to form attachments is biologically based but the process of forming attachments is based on experience.
If a child experiences love and affection, she will come to see herself as worthy of love and attention. The working model will determine her relationship with other people and the way she sees herself in the future. Bowlby believed that humans tend to reproduce the internal working model in later relationships.
3 elements for the internal working model
ideas about attachment figures and what can be expected from them;
ideas about the self;
ideas about how self and others relate.
Hazan & Shaver (1987)
Aim:
To investigate the relationship between early attachment styles and adult romantic relationship patterns.
Method:
Love Quiz: Published in a local newspaper, included three statements describing attachment styles:
A (Avoidant): Difficulty with closeness and trust.
B (Secure): Comfortable with closeness and trust.
C (Anxious-Ambivalent): Fear of abandonment and excessive need for closeness.
Sample:
620 respondents (aged 14–82; mean age 36; 205 males, 415 females).
A second study with 108 college students.
Participants also rated their parents’ parenting style using a simple adjective checklist.
Findings:
Attachment Styles in Adults:
56% Secure: Comfortable with closeness and trust.
25% Avoidant: Difficulty with closeness, trust, and reliance on others.
19% Anxious-Ambivalent: Worries about abandonment and excessive need for closeness.
Parenting and Attachment:
Secure Attachment: Parents were described as available, attentive, and responsive.
Avoidant Attachment: Parents were unresponsive, rejecting, and inattentive.
Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment: Parents were anxious, inconsistently responsive, and out of sync with their child’s needs.
Theoretical Insights:
Romantic love mirrors early attachment relationships.
Adult attachment styles influence beliefs about the self and others in relationships.
Caution against determinism: Insecure childhood attachment does not guarantee insecure adult relationships.
evaluation points for hazan and shaver (1987)
Strengths:
The study supports Bowlby’s internal working model theory, providing a link between childhood attachment and adult romantic relationships.
A large and varied sample (ages 14–82) increases the generalizability of findings.
Limitations:
Sampling bias (more women than men) may affect the results, and self-reported data may not be entirely reliable due to demand characteristics.
The study is correlational, so causality cannot be determined.
Cultural biases may limit generalizability as the study was conducted in a Western setting.
Dual Processing Model with attraction
System 1 thinking: whether we like someone or not. NOT highly rational thinking when falling in love – it’s actually NOT possible
Halo Effect
Tendency for an impression created in one are to influence opinion in another area. In terms of relationships; person’s physical beauty indlueces further judgemnt with regard to their other qualities → beautiful people must be good people
Evaluation of cognitive theories of attraction
Personal difference in attractions, unlike biological theories
Many studies are high in ecological validity – making use of actual dating sites
Some constructs are different to measure → NOT possible to identify “internal working model”
Factors influencing relationships formation are impossible to isolate under natural conditions
May be considered overly simplistic when not used in combination with other approaches (in human relationships)
