Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psyc 474 > Sept 10 & 12 > Flashcards

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

westgate housing study results cont’d

A

not just about physical distance

  1. those living NEXT TO STAIRWELLS made more friends with people upstairs
  2. those living next to HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS (ie. laundry room, mailboxes) and/or those who had WINDOWS FACING COMMON COURTYARD made more friends
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

power of proximity: how does it work?

A
  1. we have an increased opportunity to interact with people who live close to us
  2. mere exposure effect
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

2 underlying explanations of the mere exposure effect

A
  1. perceptual fluency explanation
  2. classical conditioning
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

physical appearance

A

one of the most salient things about a person

has received large amount of research attention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

3 big questions about physical appearance

A
  1. do we agree on what makes someone physically attractive?
  2. how much does physical attractiveness matter?
  3. does physical attractiveness matter to a different extent for men and women?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

is beauty in the eye of the beholder?

A
  1. some disagreement on whether a given photo is attractive

so IDIOSYNCRATIC preferences do come into play when judging individuals

  1. certain STANDARDS of beauty differ across CULTURES & TIME

ie. body weight, eyebrow preferences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

so, do we agree on who’s attractive?

A
  1. some standards of beauty shift and we may not always agree on a specific individual’s attractiveness
  2. but there’s BROAD CONSENSUS about GENERAL FEATURES that are considered attractive
    - evident across diff cultural groups
    - newborn infants share adults’ preferences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

2 factors which suggest a degree of innateness in attractiveness judgments

A
  1. evidence of same features rated as attractive across cultural groups
  2. newborn infants share adults’ preferences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

2 explanations for why facial symmetry is attractive

A
  1. perceptual fluency
  2. evolutionary explanation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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)

  1. pronounced asymmetry may be indicative of issues during prenatal development (injuries in utero, infectious diseases experienced by the mother)
  2. declining health in macaques is associated with declines in facial symmetry
  3. some evidence that facial symmetry is linked to better health in humans too
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

ease of processing is associated with…

A

feelings of pleasantness

this comes with perceptual fluency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

why might perfect symmetry be less attractive?

A

may exaggerate imbalances/imperfections in the face

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

the “averageness” effect

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

2nd caveat to the averageness effect

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

sex-specific preferences: females

A

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

sex-specific features: males

A

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

attractiveness: women’s bodies

A

waist to hip ratio: 0.70

sign of fertility, better physical health

seems more innate than conditioned

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

attractiveness: men’s bodies

A

waist to hip ratio: 0.90

linked to better physical health

shoulder to hip ratio

height

signals of strength and status

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

women vs men WHR

A

women WHR = 0.70

men WHR = 0.90

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

men SHR

A

(shoulder to hip ratio)

1.2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

what is good is beautiful bias

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

where does the “what is good is beautiful” bias come from?

A

ubiquitous cultural stereotypes

disney princesses are beautiful

disney villains are ugly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

alternative perspective: what is beautiful is good because what is beautiful is desired?

A
  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
  1. we generally want to APPROACH rewarding stimuli
  • ie. more likely to initiate convos with attractive individuals
  1. 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

halo effect: 2 possible accounts of what comes first

A
  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

  1. COGNITIVE account (motivated cognition view)

FIRST: target’s physical attractiveness
SECOND: desire to bond with target
THIRD: perceived positive interpersonal attributes

38
Q

halo effect: what seems to come first?

A

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
Q

behavioural confirmation

A

we not only see what we want to see - but also ACT IN WAYS THAT MAKE OUR EXPECTATIONS COME TRUE

40
Q

behavioural confirmation study setup: phone call

A

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
Q

behavioural confirmation study results: phone call

A

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
Q

yearbook study setup: physical attractiveness and liking

A

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
Q

yearbook study results: physical attractiveness and liking

A

people find those they LIKE more physically attractive than those they don’t like

liking mediates perceptions of physical attractiveness

44
Q

face preferences reflect desired ________

A

personality

45
Q

faces reflecting desire personality study setup

A

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
Q

minimal parental investment

A

the least amount of time, energy, and resources that a parent must expend to produce offspring

47
Q

male versus female minimal parental investment

A

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
Q

there is a large _________ in minimal parental investment…

A

asymmetry

of male & female members of the species

they have different adaptive problems & strategies

49
Q

male adaptive strategy

A

reproductive success primarily limited by AVAILABILITY OF FERTILE MATES

solution: may have evolved preference for females POSSESSING INDICATORS OF FERTILITY

50
Q

female adaptive strategy

A

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
Q

because females prefer males that can best ensure survival of offspring…

A

they may select mates based on their ability to provide resources to potential offspring

may need to make trade-offs

52
Q

early self reports: asking men and women which attributes they find appealing in a potential partner

A
  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
Q

female adaptive strategy: women may view what characteristics as more attractive?

A

social status, wealth, intelligence, ability, ambition

because their reproductive fitness is higher when the male can help provide for the offspring

53
Q

critique of evolutionary perspective on sex adaptive strategy

A

structural powerlessness and gender role socialization

54
Q

structural powerlessness and gender role socialization

A

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
Q

are the adaptive strategy and structural powerless theories incompatible?

A

no

they aren’t fundamentally incompatible

no reason we shouldn’t expect differential socialization of the young according to evolutionary view

56
Q

structural powerlessness & gender role socialization: in cultures where there’s greater gender equality…

A

women place less importance on a man’s status and resources

57
Q

does gender equality affect importance placed on female attractiveness?

A

no

whereas, gender equality lessens importance of male status & resources

58
Q

paper attractiveness preferences may not…

A

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
Q

meta analysis of 97 studies involving romantic evaluations of a partner - initial attraction speed dating or established relationships

A

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
Q

attractiveness and earning potential: meta analysis of found no difference…

A

no difference by sex

evaluations were more positive for more attractive partners and for those with better earning potential

61
Q

minimal parental investment means that males are more likely to pursue…

A

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
Q

is there evidence that both men and women are likely to prioritize attractiveness in short-term relationships?

A

yes ofc

63
Q

dual mating strategy hypothesis

A

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
Q

when females are in ovulatory phase (highly fertile), they prefer what cues?

A

putative cues of male fitness (masculinized faces)

this is when they have high estradiol and low progesterone

65
Q

menstrual cycle and female preferences

A

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
Q

is there evidence that male partners pick up on signs of female fertility?

A

yes

ie. increased mate guarding

ie. increased positive attention when partner is ovulating

67
Q

menstrual cycle associated with diff preferences: debate & controversies

A
  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
Q

extra-pair paternity

A

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
Q

social exchange theory

A

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
Q

mate value

A

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
Q

some traits are more…

A

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
Q

reciprocity

A

we like people more if they know they like us

73
Q

reciprocity study

A

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
Q

rewards of belonging

A

belonging = historically essential to our survival

are there BIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS that POSITIVELY REINFORCE belonging?

75
Q

rewards of belonging study

A

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
Q

but selectivity matters too…

A

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
Q

selectivity speed dating study

A

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
Q

selectivity speed dating study was mediated by…

A

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
Q

managing risk in partner selection

A

generally, don’t simply pursue the most attractive option

matching phenomenon

80
Q

matching phenomenon

A

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
Q

managing risk: movie study setup

A

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
Q

managing risk: movie study results

A

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
Q

if we generally seem to strive to max rewards and minimize costs, how can we explain ______ ____?

A

unrequited love (love that isn’t reciprocated is costly, not rewarding)

84
Q

what percentage of college participants have experienced unrequited love?

A

80%

85
Q

3 factors predict the intensity of unrequited love

A
  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
Q

cultural scripts of unrequited love

A

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
Q

unrequited love: both rejectors and pursuers…

A

have sense of emotional interdependence & feel like victims

they struggle to understand each other

88
Q

unrequited love: pursuer’s perspective

A
  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
Q

unrequited love: rejector’s perspective

A
  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
Q

so, should you play hard to get?

A

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

Psyc 474 (23 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions