Sept 10 & 12 Flashcards
1
Q
power of proximity
A
basic, powerful factor that drives liking
more likely to meet, get to know & form a relationship with someone you see regularly
where you live, work etc
2
Q
westgate housing study setup
A
married MIT students randomly assigned to one of 17 buildings in a housing complex
natural experiment
virtually no one knows anyone in the complex beforehand
simple question: who ends up liking whom?
3
Q
westgate housing study percentage results
A
40% of friends were NEXT DOOR
22.5% were 2 DOORS DOWN
17.5% were 3 DOORS DOWN
10% were 4 DOORS DOWN
4
Q
westgate housing study results cont’d
A
not just about physical distance
- those living NEXT TO STAIRWELLS made more friends with people upstairs
- those living next to HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS (ie. laundry room, mailboxes) and/or those who had WINDOWS FACING COMMON COURTYARD made more friends
5
Q
functional distance
A
explored in westgate housing study
likelihood of coming into contact with other people due to LOCATION or FEATURES OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
6
Q
power of proximity: how does it work?
A
- we have an increased opportunity to interact with people who live close to us
- mere exposure effect
7
Q
mere exposure effect
A
we tend to like people and things more after we’ve been repeatedly exposed to them and they become more FAMILIAR to us
8
Q
classroom example of mere exposure effect
A
college-age female confederates attended class 0, 5, 10 or 15 times during a semester
at end of semester, students asked to EVALUATE PHOTOS of each confederate
the MORE OFTEN confederate attended class, the MORE POSITIVELY she was rated
even without direct interaction/engagement
9
Q
2 underlying explanations of the mere exposure effect
A
- perceptual fluency explanation
- classical conditioning
10
Q
perceptual fluency explanation of mere exposure effect
A
easier to process info about familiar stimuli (greater fluency)
pleasant feelings associated with more fluent processing MISTAKEN FOR LIKING
11
Q
classical conditioning explanation of mere exposure effect
A
encounters with novel stimuli PUT US ON OUR GUARD
repeated exposures to stimulus WITHOUT ANY NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES signals that the stimulus is safe & non-threatening
COMFORTABLE FEELING OF SAFETY associated with the stimulus after multiple exposures renders it more pleasant
12
Q
mere exposure effect’s 2 possible explanations involve confusing…
A
pleasant feelings that come from other sources with the stimulus itself
ie. safety related to classical conditioning
ie. fluidity of info processing related to perceptual fluency
13
Q
mere exposure effect caveat
A
won’t occur for stimuli that are initially disliked
if something/someone irritates you right off the bat, you aren’t gonna like them more and more with increased exposure
14
Q
physical appearance
A
one of the most salient things about a person
has received large amount of research attention
15
Q
3 big questions about physical appearance
A
- do we agree on what makes someone physically attractive?
- how much does physical attractiveness matter?
- does physical attractiveness matter to a different extent for men and women?
16
Q
is beauty in the eye of the beholder?
A
- some disagreement on whether a given photo is attractive
so IDIOSYNCRATIC preferences do come into play when judging individuals
- certain STANDARDS of beauty differ across CULTURES & TIME
ie. body weight, eyebrow preferences
17
Q
so, do we agree on who’s attractive?
A
- some standards of beauty shift and we may not always agree on a specific individual’s attractiveness
- but there’s BROAD CONSENSUS about GENERAL FEATURES that are considered attractive
- evident across diff cultural groups
- newborn infants share adults’ preferences
18
Q
2 factors which suggest a degree of innateness in attractiveness judgments
A
- evidence of same features rated as attractive across cultural groups
- newborn infants share adults’ preferences
19
Q
facial symmetry
A
bilateral symmetry contributes to attractiveness
true of other species as well - monkeys also prefer to look at monkey faces that are more symmetrical
20
Q
2 explanations for why facial symmetry is attractive
A
- perceptual fluency
- evolutionary explanation
21
Q
perceptual fluency explanation of why facial symmetry is attractive
A
average (prototypical) and more symmetrical faces are EASIER TO PROCESS
and ease of processing is associated with feelings of pleasantness
22
Q
evolutionary explanation of why facial symmetry is attractive
A
facial symmetry is an indicator of REPRODUCTIVE FITNESS (capacity to pass on one’s genes to next gen)
- pronounced asymmetry may be indicative of issues during prenatal development (injuries in utero, infectious diseases experienced by the mother)
- declining health in macaques is associated with declines in facial symmetry
- some evidence that facial symmetry is linked to better health in humans too
23
Q
ease of processing is associated with…
A
feelings of pleasantness
this comes with perceptual fluency
24
Q
symmetry and attractiveness: caveats
A
subtle asymmetries don’t detract from attractiveness
perfect symmetry may be less attractive
balance or “averageness” of features may be more important
25
why might perfect symmetry be less attractive?
may exaggerate imbalances/imperfections in the face
26
the "averageness" effect
old observation by this random guy
he was trying to ascertain if those more likely to be criminals, vegetarians, unhealthy etc could be singled out based on their faces
so he created composites of faces - and lots of people told him they were attractive
faces that are AVERAGE are seen as MORE ATTRACTIVE
tend to perceive COMPOSITE IMAGE of many face "averaged" together as more attractive than the individual faces of which the composite is comprised
27
2nd caveat to the averageness effect
our liking for symmetry/averageness may not trump our liking for FAMILIARITY
study: New Zealand and Netherlands sample
celeb faces from NZ and Netherlands presented as MORPHS of their og faces
participants showed typical preference for averageness ONLY FOR MORPHED FACES OF CELEBRITIES FROM THE FOREIGN COUNTRY
they preferred the natural faces of familiar celebs
28
sex-specific preferences: females
cross cultural preference for "baby faced" features
- large eyes, small nose, small chin, full lips
combined with signs of maturity
- high, prominent cheekbones, thick hair
29
sex-specific features: males
less cross cultural consensus for male features
more malleability in attractive features for men
- preference for wide smile & broad jaw and forehead
- but softer features are attractive too
30
attractiveness: women's bodies
waist to hip ratio: 0.70
sign of fertility, better physical health
seems more innate than conditioned
31
attractiveness: men's bodies
waist to hip ratio: 0.90
linked to better physical health
shoulder to hip ratio
height
signals of strength and status
32
women vs men WHR
women WHR = 0.70
men WHR = 0.90
33
men SHR
(shoulder to hip ratio)
1.2
34
what is good is beautiful bias
basically the halo effect
another way in which physical attractiveness is powerful
tend to assume that physically attractive people possess other desirable qualities
ie. kinder, more sensitive, more trustworthy, more likely to be succesful
35
where does the "what is good is beautiful" bias come from?
ubiquitous cultural stereotypes
disney princesses are beautiful
disney villains are ugly
36
alternative perspective: what is beautiful is good because what is beautiful is desired?
1. beauty is an INTRINSIC REWARD
- feel more positively when interacting (or expecting to interact) with attractive targets
- overlap in BRAIN REGIONS reactive to physically attractive faces & rewards like food & money
2. we generally want to APPROACH rewarding stimuli
- ie. more likely to initiate convos with attractive individuals
3. through PROJECTION, perceive attractive targets as possessing attributes compatible with our approach goals
- "we see what we want to see" - we project positive attributes/characteristics onto hot people so that they're more aligned with our desires to approach them
37
halo effect: 2 possible accounts of what comes first
1. CULTURAL account (og view - bias due to cultural associations)
FIRST: target's physical attractiveness
SECOND: perceived positive interpersonal attributes
THIRD: desire to bond with target
2. COGNITIVE account (motivated cognition view)
FIRST: target's physical attractiveness
SECOND: desire to bond with target
THIRD: perceived positive interpersonal attributes
38
halo effect: what seems to come first?
desire to bond OR perceptions of positive interpersonal qualities?
data BETTER FITS MOTIVATED COGNITION VIEW
looks like people are faster to decide if they want to approach someone than they are to ascribe positive traits to someone
39
behavioural confirmation
we not only see what we want to see - but also ACT IN WAYS THAT MAKE OUR EXPECTATIONS COME TRUE
40
behavioural confirmation study setup: phone call
male "perceivers" interacted by phone with female "targets"
experimental manipulation: perceivers led to believe target either was or was not physically attractive
tape recording of interaction rated by outside observers
41
behavioural confirmation study results: phone call
men (perceivers):
- before interaction: formed more positive impressions of the target when they believed her to be attractive (just after reviewing the profile)
- during interaction: behaved more positively towards "attractive" targets
women (targets):
- rated by observers as more sociable, poised, warm, outgoing etc when interacting with a man who thought she was attractive
42
yearbook study setup: physical attractiveness and liking
participants rated yearbook photos of people they knew
and strangers rated the same photos (their ratings were used as an objective measure of phys attractiveness)
examined HOW MUCH VARIANCE in participants' ratings of physical attractiveness could be explained by OBJECTIVE MEASURES of physical attractiveness (stranger's rating), LIKING, FAMILIARITY, and RESPECT
43
yearbook study results: physical attractiveness and liking
people find those they LIKE more physically attractive than those they don't like
liking mediates perceptions of physical attractiveness
44
face preferences reflect desired ________
personality
45
faces reflecting desire personality study setup
STEP 1:
- ask Ps which PERSONALITY traits they find attractive in a partner, AND which FACES they find attractive
STEP 2:
- create COMPOSITE faces of the 15 faces most attractive to those expressing HIGHEST DESIRE for a trait and 15 faces attractive to those expressing LOWEST desire for the trait
STEP 3:
- ask new set of participants to make PERSONALITY JUDGMENTS based on faces
ie. "which face looks more assertive?"
ie. "which face looks more easy-going?"
the trait ratings match the faces found most attractive by those who want that trait
46
minimal parental investment
the least amount of time, energy, and resources that a parent must expend to produce offspring
47
male versus female minimal parental investment
MALES: minimal time investment & biological cost to produce offspring
FEMALES: much greater investment of time & biological cost
- eggs = more costly than sperm
- pregnancy, producing a placenta, lactation, extended period of infertility following childbirth
48
there is a large _________ in minimal parental investment...
asymmetry
of male & female members of the species
they have different adaptive problems & strategies
49
male adaptive strategy
reproductive success primarily limited by AVAILABILITY OF FERTILE MATES
solution: may have evolved preference for females POSSESSING INDICATORS OF FERTILITY
50
female adaptive strategy
also care about genetic quality, but they INVEST MORE, so they are...
1. MORE SELECTIVE than males
2. prefer males that can BEST ENSURE SURVIVAL OF OFFSPRING
solution: women may view characteristics like SOCIAL STATUS, WEALTH, INTELLIGENCE, ABILITY and AMBITION as attractive
51
because females prefer males that can best ensure survival of offspring...
they may select mates based on their ability to provide resources to potential offspring
may need to make trade-offs
52
early self reports: asking men and women which attributes they find appealing in a potential partner
1. most attributes rated similarly by men and women
2. men valued physical appearance more highly
3. women valued characteristics related to resource acquisition
difference replicated across diff cultures
52
female adaptive strategy: women may view what characteristics as more attractive?
social status, wealth, intelligence, ability, ambition
because their reproductive fitness is higher when the male can help provide for the offspring
53
critique of evolutionary perspective on sex adaptive strategy
structural powerlessness and gender role socialization
54
structural powerlessness and gender role socialization
critique of evolutionary perspective
evidence that diff preferences for potential mates between male and females may be due to SOCIAL (rather than innate, evolved) factors
ie. across cultures women may find STATUS and RESOURCES attractive in men because women have LESS ACCESS TO status and resources
traditional SOCIALIZATION PRACTICES maintain & support these differences
55
are the adaptive strategy and structural powerless theories incompatible?
no
they aren't fundamentally incompatible
no reason we shouldn't expect differential socialization of the young according to evolutionary view
56
structural powerlessness & gender role socialization: in cultures where there's greater gender equality...
women place less importance on a man's status and resources
57
does gender equality affect importance placed on female attractiveness?
no
whereas, gender equality lessens importance of male status & resources
58
paper attractiveness preferences may not...
translate into real-life contexts
meta analysis found that both attractive partners and those with better earning potential were rated more positively
no gender effects
59
meta analysis of 97 studies involving romantic evaluations of a partner - initial attraction speed dating or established relationships
evaluations generally more positive for more attractive partners, and partners with better earning potential
no difference by sex
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS:
men r=0.43 and women r=0.40
EARNING PROSPECTS:
men r=0.09 and women r=0.12
60
attractiveness and earning potential: meta analysis of found no difference...
no difference by sex
evaluations were more positive for more attractive partners and for those with better earning potential
61
minimal parental investment means that males are more likely to pursue...
short term mating strategies
but both males & females shift between short term and long term mating strategies when conditions are suitable (benefits outweigh costs)
62
is there evidence that both men and women are likely to prioritize attractiveness in short-term relationships?
yes ofc
63
dual mating strategy hypothesis
corollary idea: women may combine mating strategies, and mating strategy may SHIFT with their ovulatory cycle
women will show preference for PUTATIVE CUES OF MALE FITNESS (ie. masculinized faces) during the HIGH FERTILITY OVULATORY PHASE of their menstrual cycle (high estradiol, low progesterone)
and preference for CUES OF PRO-SOCIALITY (ie. feminized faces) at OTHER POINTs in their menstrual cycle
64
when females are in ovulatory phase (highly fertile), they prefer what cues?
putative cues of male fitness (masculinized faces)
this is when they have high estradiol and low progesterone
65
menstrual cycle and female preferences
early studies found support for hypothesis that women show stronger preference for masculinized faces during HIGH FERTILITY PHASE
most pronounced for partnered women assessing men's attractiveness for HYPOTHETICAL, SHORT TERM RELATIONSHIPS
since replicated, similar findings obtained for other fitness cues (body & vocal masculinity, body odours)
66
is there evidence that male partners pick up on signs of female fertility?
yes
ie. increased mate guarding
ie. increased positive attention when partner is ovulating
67
menstrual cycle associated with diff preferences: debate & controversies
1. lots of these studies are small and underpowered
2. widespread use of self-report for menstrual cycle data (potentially unreliable)
3. mixed findings for studies correlating estradiol/progesterone levels with masculinity preferences
4. theoretical challenge: rates of extra-pair paternity are generally very low
5. but there is evidence that ovulatory phases increases women's sexual motivation more broadly
68
extra-pair paternity
when kids fathers aren't the partners of their mothers
presents a theoretical challenge to menstrual cycle being associated with diff preferences (masculine vs pro-sociality/feminine)
69
social exchange theory
postulates that we act like shoppers in an interpersonal marketplace
want to max rewards and minimize costs
seek partners with the HIGHEST MATE VALUE possible
70
mate value
more than physical attractiveness or resources
seek partner traits conducive to high relationship quality: WARMTH, UNDERSTANDING, KINDNESS
sought for regardless of sex
part of social exchange theory
71
some traits are more...
universally DESIRED - some traits are more attractive than others
and some traits have MORE VARIABILITY than others
ie. warmth isn't very variable in how much it's desired, but assertiveness is
72
reciprocity
we like people more if they know they like us
73
reciprocity study
Ps paired with confederate to work on a task
"accidentally" overheard either a positive or negative evaluation of themselves
report MORE LIKING for confederate after positive evaluation
74
rewards of belonging
belonging = historically essential to our survival
are there BIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS that POSITIVELY REINFORCE belonging?
75
rewards of belonging study
PET study (detect changes in neurochemical activity)
Ps being 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
the stronger the activation, the more desire to interact with that person
76
but selectivity matters too...
highest liking when confederate's evaluations went from NEGATIVE TO POSITIVE
although rated confederate more positively (ie. as kinder) in consistently positive condition
if uniformly positive, could be that THEY LIKE EVERYBODY
we want to feel the other LIKES US SPECIFICALLY (selectivity)
77
selectivity speed dating study
when participant UNIQUELY DESIRED a particular partner, partner tended to RECIPROCATE DESIRE & FEEL MORE CHEMISTRY with the participant
when participant tended to DESIRE MANY PARTNERS, partners experienced LESS DESIRE & CHEMISTRY with participant
78
selectivity speed dating study was mediated by...
perceived un-selectivity
suggests that selectivity is something people can pick up on mid conversation
people can tell how selective others are very fast
79
managing risk in partner selection
generally, don't simply pursue the most attractive option
matching phenomenon
80
matching phenomenon
some evidence that couples tend to be similar on attractiveness (broadly construed)
balance assessment of reward & risks (rejection)
may use ambiguity to manage risk ie. movie study
81
managing risk: movie study setup
Ps participate in "movie rating" exercise
setting:
- 2 tables, each with 2 chairs and a screen
- one chair at one of the tables in occupied by a very attractive confederate
2 conditions:
- low ambiguity: same movie on both screens
- high ambiguity: different movie
82
managing risk: movie study results
much more likely to sit next to confederate in DIFFERENT MOVIE CONDITION
in this case, if they sit next to attractive confederate, can justify their behaviour by saying they'd just rather see the movie on that screen than on the other one
"it wasn't about the hot confederate, it was about the movie"
couching their behaviour in ambiguity
83
if we generally seem to strive to max rewards and minimize costs, how can we explain ______ ____?
unrequited love (love that isn't reciprocated is costly, not rewarding)
84
what percentage of college participants have experienced unrequited love?
80%
85
3 factors predict the intensity of unrequited love
1. perceived POTENTIAL VALUE of relationship with the person
2. perceived PROBABILITY of striking up a relationship
3. perceived BENEFITS TO SELF of loving the person, even if it's not reciprocated
"better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all"
86
cultural scripts of unrequited love
cultural depictions where would-be lover persists and wins int he end abound
fewer depictions from the target's perspective - sense of "scriptlessness" here
target may struggle to figure out how to act
87
unrequited love: both rejectors and pursuers...
have sense of emotional interdependence & feel like victims
they struggle to understand each other
88
unrequited love: pursuer's perspective
1. situation is a high stake gamble
2. look back on experience with mix of positive and negative emotion
3. feel they've been led on/communication has been unclear
89
unrequited love: rejector's perspective
1. no-win situation (more negative for them, really - no outcome ends well, they just feel bad)
2. uniformly negative in their accounts
3. see themselves as morally innocent but still feel guilty
4. reluctance to cause pain may be construed as "mixed signals"
90
so, should you play hard to get?
some truth to idea that we like to "win someone over", but ultimately, we want to be liked
want to communicate that you're SELECTIVELY hard to get
don't be mean to prospective partners
realize that prospective partners may be wary of rejection & incurring high costs
within a relationship, want to be reliable & steady to foster sense of security in your partner
ambiguity is bad for your partner and bad for your relationship
