Lecture 13- Attraction Flashcards
What is attraction? Is it the same as “physical attractiveness”?
Attraction is a simple sense is just a positive attitude towards a person. As an attitude this includes thoughts, feelings and behaviours. This isn’t necessarily just in a sexual sense (could include as family, friends etc.) and therefore is not the same as physical attractiveness.
What nature/ nurture conflict occurs in terms of attraction?
- Biological basis= we are hardwired to find certain features attractive (universal)
- Learning theories= we learn was is attractive based on media/ our environment
NOTE: likely a combination
What is the difference between ultimate and proximate mechanisms?
- Ultimate= looking a the why from an evolutionary perspective. Why are certain features considered attractive?
- Proximate= The immediate mechanism that drives the phenomenon.
What is Sexual Strategies Theory by Buss and Schmitt 1993, 2019?
Attraction is a mechanism to identify appropriate mates in order to successfully pass down our genetics:
- Women and men differ in mating strategies where they have recurrently faced different adaptive problems.
- Long-term problems for men include reproductive value and paternity
- Long-term problems for women include parental investment and physical protection
What are some examples of what men and women typically find attractive as related to the sexual strategies theory?
- Women care more about emotional fidelity + have higher standards for sex (trying to ensure a valid father figure for potential child)
- Men tend to like women younger than them (greater sexually viability), women tend like men older then them (more mature, provide better protection etc.)
What was found in Buss (1993) when men and women were asked how long they would have to know someone to have sex with them?
- Men= had lower standards, were likely to agree to much shorter lengths of time
- Women= had higher standards, were unlikely to agree to sex after only knowing someone for a short period of time
What did Langlois and Roggman (1990) propose about attractiveness and how is this reflected is Disney characters?
- Overall the more distinctive features you have the less attractive you are
- Found because the more faces added to a composite the more attractive the person gets: averaging faces means distinctive features are washed out
- In Disney, distinctive faces used to signal immorality (e.g. scar: the lion king)
What is found in studies looking at which object people find the most attractive?
- Tendency to like things in the middle of a distribution (the average)
- These pictures align most with our schemas.
Why do we like averageness rather than distinctive features?
- Cue for genetic quality? Averageness in itself could signal reproductive fitness also sign that nothing bad/ damaging has happened to the person thus far (no marks of childhood trauma).
- Perceptual fluency? Easier to process because match to schemas faster e.g. faster to call a sparrow a bird then penguin
- Familiarity?
- Functionality? Things are designed a particular way, for a purpose, therefore objects that have features that align with this function are attractive. Same can be said for faces?
What are some studies that show proximity/ exposure being a predictor of attraction?
- The contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) as demonstrated in Deutch and Collins (1951): People who had more opportunities to see each other found their Neighbours more attractive/likeable.
- Functional exposure by Festinger et al., 1950 found a similar effect: they randomly assigned participants to live in certain buildings. Then asked them to name 3 closest friends after living their for a while. They were most commonly Neighbours/ those super close to them.
- Moreland and Beach, 1992: built on the mere exposure effect (Zajonc). Female confederates sat in a lecture for different amounts of time without interacting with anyone. They weren’t rated as more familiar but they were rated as more attractive with the more times they went by those attending the classes.
What is the similarity (matching hypothesis)? What are the two proposed mechanisms for this?
- Partners are often similar in look and in attraction level
- Kin selection: Altruism is when you sacrifice yourself for another person. It makes sense to do this if you share genetics with them as your genetic line will continue despite being dead. The way you know if people are related to you is by how similar they look (hunter gatherer times) therefore, select a mate who very similar to you because then you are more likely to be related and they can continue on your genetic line if you die?????
- Implicit egotism: We like things in the world that are similar to us. Was study on the likelihood of marriage success based on having the same birth month or number (was a correlation found).
What is the dissonance/ balance theory by Heider?
If they are similar to us then there is a motivation to like them as otherwise will feel dissonance because we like ourselves (attitudes inconsistent with behaviour of not liking them)
What is assortative mating?
- Students rated a stranger as more attractive when they shared a higher proportion of similar attitudes
- Stressful background factors such as feeling hot or stress reduced the attractiveness of the stranger
What is the arousal theory of attraction? What studies propose this?
- Dutton and Aaron (1974): the narrow bridge and likelihood of asking interviewer on a date study
- Hatfield & Walster (1981): Love = concept of love + arousal + target
Physical attraction is simply misattribution of arousal (we mislabel it)
What is the social exchange theory?
Relationship satisfaction depends on balance of rewards and costs
