Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psyc 474 > Sept 17 > Flashcards

Sept 17 Flashcards

1
Q

why might similarity be attractive?

A
  1. VALIDATION for our interests, beliefs & opinions
  2. we can better PREDICT behaviour of similar others
  3. can participate in SHARED ACTIVITIES
  4. expect those who are more similar to us to be MORE LIKELY TO LIKE US
  5. interactions may RUN SMOOTHER
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

effect of similarity on initial attraction

A
  1. attitudinal similarity predicts attraction for people we don’t know (or whom we’re newly acquainted with)

^ “bogus stranger” paradigm: responses manipulated to be either similar to dissimilar to one’s own responses

  1. what about actual interactions?

surprisingly limited evidence of link between attraction & similarity in speed-dating context

to extent that similarity matters in this context, PERCEIVED rather than ACTUAL similarity may play a larger role

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

bogus stranger

A

paradigm that assesses similarity’s effect on initial attraction

stranger manipulated to be more/less like P

attitudinal similarity predicts attraction for people we don’t know

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

effect of similarity: speed dating context

A

surprisingly limited evidence of link between attraction & similarity in speed dating context

to extent that similarity matters in this context, PERCEIVED rather than actual similarity may play a larger role

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

similarity in relationships

A

lots of evidence that romantic couples are similar to each other

1000 married couples provided info about themselves on 88 characteristics

more similar on 66/88 traits compared to pairs paired at random

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

similarity in couples: directionality - selection or convergence?

A

similarity predicts friendship development among new acquaintances

similarity DOESN’T GROW over course of marriage

length of marriage doesn’t moderate spousal similarity

SO SEEMS LIKE SELECTION

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

similarity in attraction: what kinds of similarity?

A

different dimensions

  1. demographic similarity (age, race, education, religion etc)
  2. attitudes & values
  3. personality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

link between similarity & attraction seems stronger for

A

attitudes & values & some demographic characteristics

weaker for personality - as we saw, some personality traits are more uniformly desirable than others

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

similarity & satisfaction

A

similarity between partners’ personalities explains ONLY SMALL AMOUNT OF VARIATION in satisfaction

having partner with DESIRABLE PERSONALITY TRAITS (agreeableness, conscientiousness, low neuroticism) is MORE IMPORTANT THAN MATCHING

couples similar on unappealing traits are less successful than partners who are less alike on these traits

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what is more important? having a partner with desirable personality traits or having more matching traits?

A

having partner with desirable personality traits is more important

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

neural homophily

A

we befriend people who think like us

look at similarity in partner brain responses to certain stimuli

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Tuck school in Dartmouth - neural homophily study setup

A

small and isolated school, where people do everything together

ask students who they like to hang out with

create social network of nodes and lines mapping friends, friends of friends, friends of friends of friends…

then show people extremely varied video clips in fMRI

parcellate their brains and look at brain responses to diff clips and compare them between subjects

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Tuck school in Dartmouth - neural homophily study results

A

friends of friends of friends had relatively dissimilar brain activity

friends of friends were more similar

friends had quite similar neural responses

this is CROSS SECTIONAL DATA - so big Q is did these people think similarly from the start to did they become more similar with increased contact?

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

Tuck school in Dartmouth - study part 2

A

to answer the Q of if friends were similar from the start or if they became more similar with increased contact…

they repeated the study with new cohort before anyone had met

waited 6 months for social networks to form & stabilize

and then did the fMRI clip exercise afterwards

still worked - we can predict who becomes friends, and can REALLY predict who doesn’t become friends

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

Tuck school in Dartmouth study SUMMARY

A

measuring neural activity while individuals view naturalistic stimuli (ie. movie clips) thought to offer view into thought processes as they unfold

previous research: inter-subject correlations of neural response time series during viewing of complex dynamic stimuli associated with similarities in subjects’ interpretation of those stimuli

in this study, neural responses to movie clips more similar among friends than those further removed in a real-world social network

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

why do we think opposites attract? 6 reasons

A
  1. PERCEPTION vs reality: perceptions of similarity may be more important for liking than objective similarity
  2. discovering dissimilarities CAN TAKE TIME
  3. may pursue partner that rep our IDEAL SELVES
  4. dissimilarity may DECREASE OVER TIME
  5. some types of similarity are MORE IMPORTANT than others (ie. attitudes/demographics more than personality)
  6. matching is a BROAD PROCESS
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

complementarity

A

maybe we’re attracted to people who possess qualities we lack

ie. social + quiet

ie. planner + easy-going

little support for this idea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

little support for _________

A

complementarity

ie. introverts aren’t more attracted to extraverts

may be originally attracted to some traits we don’t have, but then become increasingly irritated by those traits

ie. spendthrifts and tightwads

members of egalitarian couples are happier than more “traditional” couples

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

members of ________ couples are happier than more _______ couples

A

egalitarian

traditional

may help explain results of some studies showing higher satisfaction in gay and lesbian couples

20
Q

egalitarian couples

A

adhere less strongly to traditional gender roles

tend to be happier than more traditional couples

traditional couples: macho men and housewives

21
Q

humour: a case for complementarity?

A

no gender diff in preference for a partner with a “sense of humour”

BUT men don’t rate funny women more highly

DIFF INTERPRETATIONS of what it means to “have a sense of humour”

men like women who laugh at their jokes, women like men who make then laugh

22
Q

do men rate funny women more highly?

A

no

23
Q

do our preferences predict attraction? what’s the widespread assumption?

A

widespread assumption that partner preferences predict actual partner choice

24
Q

speed dating study: do preference predict attraction?

A

before event:
rate importance of physical appearance, earning potential & attractive personality (ie. “friendly”, “trustworthy”) in ideal romantic partner

during event:
rate each interaction partner on above characteristics & indicate level of desire

IDEAL PREFERENCES FAILED TO PREDICT DESIRE AT THE EVENT

25
Q

promises of online dating

A

online dating platforms (ie. Match.com) claim to have sophisticated algorithms that can match you with a perfect partner based on large amount of data they collect

how believable are such claims?

is attraction predictable like a comet or unpredictable like an earthquake?

26
Q

predictive ability of online dating algorithms study setup

A

Ps completed over 100 self-report measures:
- personality
- attachment
- mating strategies
- values
- ideal partner preferences

desire for each partner assessed during speed dating event

27
Q

predictive ability of online dating algorithms study results

A

statistical model:

  • can account for INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PREDICTORS (ie. is extraversion related to attraction for individuals who say they value extraversion?)
  • PARSES VARIANCE in romantic desire into 3 COMPONENTS:
  1. ACTOR variance: overall tendency to desire others
  2. PARTNER variance: overall tendency to be desired by other people
  3. RELATIONSHIP variance: people’s desire for specific partners
28
Q

predictive ability of online dating algorithms study PARSED VARIANCE results

A

algorithm predicted…

4-8% of variance in ACTOR DESIRE
- consistent predictors: desired warmth/responsiveness, one’s own expected selectivity

7-27% of variance in PARTNER DESIRE
- consistent predictors: self-reports of one’s own mate value and physical attractiveness

COULDN’T PREDICT VARIANCE IN RELATIONSHIP DESIRE (people’s desire for specific partners)

29
Q

predictive ability of online dating algorithms study: what % of actor desire variance can be predicted?

A

4-8%

predictors: desired warmth/responsiveness, one’s own expected selectivity

30
Q

predictive ability of online dating algorithms study: what % of partner desire variance can be predicted

A

7-27%

predictors: self-reports of one’s own mate value and physical attractiveness

31
Q

predictive ability of online dating algorithms study: caveats

A
  1. GENERALIZABILITY: relatively homogeneous sample - undergraduate students
  2. desire measured after a SINGLE 4 minute interaction
  • results may look different for long-term romantic compatibility

ie. individual’s preference for warmth-trustworthiness interacts with partner’s actual traits to predict both initial attraction and satisfaction over first 4 years of marriage

  • maybe in more long term context we have a better sense of what we want
32
Q

do we have a “type”?

A

collected self-reports of personality from individuals’ CURRENT and FORMER partners

found evidence of unique (distinctive) similarity between current partner’s profile and ex-partner’s profile

  • controlling for NORMATIVE SIMILARITY (reflection of how people describe themselves in general - inflated)
    AND
  • SELF-PARTNER SIMILARITY (suggests key finding isn’t due to shared environments)
33
Q

do we have a “type” caveat

A

some evidence that MORE EXTRAVERTED and OPEN-MINDED Ps less likely to be in relationship with partner distinctively similar to ex-partner

bc they’re open to more varied experiences and people

34
Q

is there a genetic component to interpersonal chemistry?

A

major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes play significant role in immune system, help recognize and respond to pathogens

selection of MHC-dissimilar mates may CONFER BENEFITS to offspring

35
Q

what does MHC stand for? what does it play a large role in?

A

major histocompatibility complex

plays significant role in immune system

helps recognize and respond to pathogens

36
Q

MCH study

A

women asked to RATE ODOURS of t-shirts previously worn by group of men

odours of men with DISSIMILAR MHC antigens are MORE ATTRACTIVE

moderated by oral contraceptive use

subsequent replications, but not consistent

37
Q

context affects attraction

A

preferences feel like a stable part of our identity

but one reason why attraction may be somewhat unpredictable is due to the EFFECTS OF CONTEXT on attraction

ie. Capilano Suspension Bridge study

38
Q

Capilano Suspension Bridge study setup

A

explores how context affects attraction

placed an attractive woman on a high, narrow suspension bridge on a windy day

she asked men walking across if they’d participate in a study for her class

they looked at a photo and has to write a brief story behind it

then the woman gave the men her number

stopped 20 men on a stable bridge, and 20 on the scary suspension bridge

39
Q

Capilano Suspension Bridge results

A

many more men from the scary bridge ended up phoning her

and stories from the scary bridge had much more ROMANTIC & SEXUAL content

threat to internal validity: not randomly assigned, maybe the guys walking on suspension bridge are simply gutsier

40
Q

2 factor theory of romantic attraction

A
  1. PHYSIOLOGICAL AROUSAL (sweaty palms, racing heart)

^ caused by walking over high suspension bridge or by driving a bomb-rigged bus thru LA

  1. MISATTRIBUTION OF AROUSAL = attributing physiological arousal to the wrong source (a nearby attractive person)
41
Q

context affects attraction: shock study

A

study of effects of “electric shock on learning and pain”

complete task together with attractive confederate

2 conditions: expecting either WEAK shock or STRONG shock

measured attraction to confederate

those expecting STRONG SHOCK reported MORE ATTRACTION to confederate

42
Q

follow up questions to shock study about effect of context on attraction

A

is the effect contingent on…

  1. the TYPE of arousal?
  2. the ATTRACTIVENESS of the confederate?
43
Q

follow up experiment of shock study about effect of context on attraction setup

A

manipulated the TYPE of arousal

and ATTRACTIVENESS

type of arousal:

  1. NEGATIVE: description of mutilation/killing
  2. POSITIVE: comedy tape
  3. NEUTRAL/NO AROUSAL: description of circulatory system of frog

then watched video of woman made to look attractive or non-attractive

44
Q

follow up experiment of shock study about effect of context on attraction results

A

for HIGH ATTRACTIVENESS partner, high arousal (positive and negative) resulted in higher romantic attraction than no arousal did

but for LOW ATTRACTIVENESS partner, results are different
- negative and positive arousal resulted in LOWER romantic attraction than no arousal

takeaway: positive and negative arousal both mediate attraction (no diff)

45
Q

recap of two factor theory

A
  1. will experience passion if can assign physiological arousal to target
  2. nature of arousal (positive or negative) doesn’t matter

HOWEVER, this effect MAY NOT GENERALIZE to contexts where physiological arousal is FREQUENT and or/ANGER-PROVOKING

46
Q

two factor theory effect may not generalize to contexts where…

A

physiological arousal is FREQUENT or ANGER-PROVOKING

ie. greater physiological arousal during conflict discussions is related to LOWER RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION over time

ie. theories of aggression suggest that misattribution of arousal from negative context may CONTRIBUTE to INTERPERSONAL AGGRESSION

47
Q

concluding thoughts from lecture

A
  1. researchers have generally focused on SPECIFIC FACTORS that predict attraction on average
  2. methodological challenges: issues around SELF-REPORT, preferences may not necessarily predict real-world behaviour
  3. some factors that DRAW us to others may be INTRINSICALLY REWARDING (ie. physical attractiveness)
  4. but also engage in MOTIVATED COGNITION (see what we want to see)
  5. CONTEXTUAL FACTORS can also affect attraction
  6. may be UNAWARE OF SUBTLE FACTORS affecting attraction
  7. interpersonal chemistry is an emergent property of dyadic interactions
  8. attraction can be a powerful force that draws people together, but the forces that INITIALLY attract two people together aren’t necessarily the same ones that KEEP THEM TGT OVER TIME

Psyc 474 (23 decks)

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