Lecture: Interpersonal Attraction Flashcards
What determines interpersonal attraction?
Propinquity (proximity)
Similarity
Physical attractiveness
Zajonc 1968
Familiarity (mere exposure) = liking
Words that are positive are used more
Asked people to rank countries and cities and compare them to the words the people use more often
Familiarity breeds likeness
Correlation not sure which variable is causing which one
Similarity
Perceived similarity matters
Reciprocal liking
Gold et al 1984
Aim: Dissimilarity doesn’t matter if there’s eye contact
Procedure: Male subjects were attracted to females based on their eye contact and body language
They had to take an amplitude test and were told the other person was similar to them but in actuality, the person had 70% dissimilarity
Control they briefly see the Confederate.
Findings: Didn’t matter if they were different based on the survey since the women liked them.
Gable et al 2006
Aim: When things go right for your partner, how do we reciprocate?
You can see based on their response to the positive events of their partner, you can predict the longevity of the relationship
As long they are constructive, it is okay
Self-evaluation maintenance theory
Easier to root for someone who’s not in your domain of achievement
Walster et al 1966
People were paired upon a survey, but before the dance, the judges then rated their attractiveness, and they were similar
What predicted how much you liked your date was their rated attractiveness, regardless of your own attractiveness
The matching hypothesis
Not confirmed
You like the date if it equals the attractiveness of themselves
The ugly won’t like their date if they are too attractive
How can you combat the biasing effects of physical attractiveness?
By relying on mathematical formulas, rather than subjective judgment
Mediator
Carries the effect from the independent variable to the result
EX. process variable
Moderator
Makes the effect stronger or weaker
Moderated mediation
Process variable is stronger under some levels of moderating variable
Social exchange theory
costs vs benefits
Depends on own comparison level (expectation)
And comparison level for alternative (could you do better/other options)
Newer research: investment matters, too
Equity theory
equity - proportionate contributions
Depends on your own contribution
Also can depend on expectations
Diekmann et al (1977)
If someone else chosen made the decision and it was an unfair division, you don’t believe it is not completely unfair if it favors your side
If they pick the other side then you feel it is unfair
Most opt for 50/50 but can rationalize unfairness in their favor
Attachment theory
Using attachment language for adult relationships
Secure
Avoidant
Doesn’t want to get too intimate with the other person
Anxious-ambivalent
Clingy people
Wilson 1975 Sociobiology
Polygyny: many wives
Polyandry: many husbands
Polygyny should be present in humans in this theory (mildly polygynous)
Males 10% larger
Polygyny correlated with sexual dimorphism (size difference between male and female)
Parental Investment theory
Robert Trivers
Heavier investing mate is choosier
In humans, women are more invested due to 9 months of pregnancy
David Buss
Ask people how many partners over a lifetime would you like to have.
Women: 5
Men:18
but these are means
f you look at the model then the mode was 1 for both men and women
Are women choosier? Study
The opposite sex confederate asks the person on a date, apartment, and sex?
75% men said yes to sex while 0% women said yes to sex
Buss 1989
Males > females: good looks
Trying to get your genes to have offspring
Females > males: good earning capacity
Trying to get men for resources and to provide for the kids
BUT
Females = males: kind, intelligent (both wanted these qualities)
Says that they obviously want all these characteristics but if you are limited then looks is more important
Ward - Who Likes Evolution
Procedures: Evolution opponents are older, more religious, less educated, and more conservative
Participants were made up of people who didn’t believe in biological evolution and people who did believe in evolution
Both parties were shown ideas about evolutionary psychology without them knowing what it was
And asks them if they endorse evolutionary psychology
Findings: People who don’t believe in evolution endorsed support for evolutionary psychology, while people who believed in evolution didn’t endorse support for evolutionary psychology
Then they were told that it was evolutionary psychology, and the endorsement went down, but they still endorsed it more than people who believe in evolution
Ward Study 1 Attractiveness and Evolutionary Psychology
Procedures: Asked them to rate various questions
People rated the attractiveness of people in the study and those more attractive endorsed evolutionary psychology
Findings: Those rated as more attractive were more likely to endorse evolutionary psychology
Ward Study 2
Aim: How would someone else rate yourself
Procedures: Another group was asked to rate themselves and then told about evolutionary psychology
Findings: Those manipulated to rate themselves as more attractive were more likely to endorse evolutionary psychology
Important reminders of evolution
Evolution doesn’t work directly on behavior
Evolution doesn’t need to optimize
Evolution is (typically) slow
Some theories are untestable
May tell us more about what we’re not
