Social Psych Midterm Flashcards
Social psychology
The study of how people feel, think, behave, and interact within a social context.
Selective perception
We perceive information that we want while ignoring information that opposes our beliefs –> gets in the way of rational/truth.
Affective polarization
How warmly people view the group they belong to (in group) vs. the group you oppose (out group) –> as humans we inherently categorize people into in groups and out groups, but this can be tempered by social norms.
The partisan pandemic
Political divide has influenced other areas of our life, like social life –> affective polarization has increased the most in those who are likely to get their information from mainstream news, not social media or internet.
Social consequences:
- Families and friends that voted differently spent 20 to 30 fewer minutes with each other.
- The election shortened Thanksgiving nationwide by 62 million hours.
Art of persuasion
- Credibility
- Attractiveness
- Rapid speech
- Repetition
- Length (longer vs. shorter)
- Fear
- 2 sides
- Deception
Credibility
Method within the art of persuasion –> knowledge; expertise.
- Social media platforms are popular.
- BUT companies can get it wrong –> Kim Kardashian/Mastercard.
Attractiveness
Method within the art of persuasion –> attractive people are good at convincing; we like attractive people and are more likely to endorse their beliefs.
- What makes a person attractive? Is beauty in the eye of the beholder or is it universal?
Repetition
Method within the art of persuasion –> repeating the message makes it more memorable/familiar.
- We like things that are more familiar to us.
Length (longer vs. shorter)
Method within the art of persuasion –> longer is more convincing.
Fear
Method within the art of persuasion –> to prevent people from engaging in harmful behaviors.
2-sides
Method within the art of persuasion –> 2 points of view; showing why the opposing argument doesn’t work (counterargument).
Deception
Method within the art of persuasion –> lying.
- A fact of everyday life (we lie on average 1x per day; we get lied to 10 - 200x per day).
- Most serious lies are to the people we are closest to in order to get something we want.
- Capacity to lie develops early on; takes time to be effective at it because before age 4 kids don’t have theory of mind.
- The way in which we lie is uniquely human –> other species don’t intentionally deceive each other; rather functional deception.
- Humans are the most dishonest species.
- We aren’t much better than chance at detecting lies.
- Machiavellian view
Machiavellian view
Deception is how we succeed in life.
Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis
Being able to manipulate others and to avoid being manipulated increases human intelligence.
Social intelligence hypothesis
Human intelligence evolved to deal with our complex social lives; the increase in size of humans’ neocortex relative to the rest of the brain correlates with increased group size living –> more friends = bigger brain? (correlational).
- Humans are unique because we form long term, non-reproductive relationships with people (aka friendships).
- We live in many different social groups with their own norms and responsibilities.
- Social complexity is a hallmark of human life –> extremely rare to find a person choosing to live in complete isolation
Proximate causation
How? What are the more immediate inputs and mechanisms –> immediate cause.
Ultimate causation
Why? How come? What for? –> Distal cause (aka the ‘real reason’).
Natural selection
The outcome of differences in the survival and reproduction of individuals that vary in one or more traits; individuals produce more offspring than can survive –> individuals in a population vary in form, function, and behavior (some of that variation is heritable) –> some forms of these heritable traits improve an individual’s chances of survival and reproduction.
Cumulative knowledge
A process by which knowledge, information, skills, and expertise are expanded on over time (i.e. the progress of the telephone).
Collective intelligence
Humans’ collective brain power is what makes us an intelligent species; when it comes to dealing with things in the physical world, humans aren’t outliers… but when it comes to social things (i.e. social learning, communication, and theory of mind), humans are superior.
Cultural intelligence hypothesis
Humans exceed other apes in social intelligence –> humans’ success isn’t due to brain power but rather driven by culture; culture can affect our biology and genes, but cannot affect our DNA.
Dual inheritance system
Culture can change our genes, and genes can change our culture (i.e. lactase persistence –> gene - culture coevolution).
Cross-cultural research
Embrace cultural/environmental variations to test evolutionary hypotheses.
- Traits could have evolved because of some sort of function.
- Humans could have evolved flexibility for different environments (plastic).
- Hypothesized that world religions are a product of evolution.
The WEIRD problem
- Our society is weird.
- Nearly all research in psychology is conducted on WEIRD participants; research on other populations is super important to understand behavior; most psychology studies are conducted in the U.S. or western countries.
- When you take psychology classes, you are largely learning American psychology –> not an accurate representation of the entire discipline of human psychology.
- Lots of factors matter in psychology studies that are underreported.
- By only studying U.S. populations in psychology, we may overestimate literacy and its effects.
The Hadza
One of the last remaining hunter-gatherer populations.
- Population: ~300 - 400
- Group size: ~30
- Sexual division of labor
- Egalitarian
- Food widely shared
- Majority practice serial monogamy; best hunters tend to get more wives, but this is more short-term
Why study them?
- Not WEIRD
- Lifestyle is evolutionarily relevant
- Relatively isolated
- Useful for tests of Darwinian fitness
WEIRD
Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic.
Research methods
1) Observational research
2) Survey/correlational research
3) Experimental research
Observational research
Pros:
- Useful for generating hypotheses.
- Provides information in a natural setting vs. artificial setting (i.e. in a lab where they know they’re being watched).
Cons:
- Sometimes yields biased results.
- Some behaviors happen rarely.
- Difficult to be unobtrusive.
- Cannot establish cause and effect.
–> Environment is not controlled, so you can’t know that results are certain.
–> Sometimes a researcher’s presence alone can alter behavior.
–> Should follow up with other types of research to find certainty.
Survey/correlational research
Pros:
- Examine large numbers of variables.
- Provide information about the degree of the relationship.
- Generally inexpensive and easy to do.
- Allows you to uncover correlations between variables (whereas experiments isolate the effects of one variable from another).
–> Social relationships are messy, so you’ll be seeing small relationships.
Cons:
- Can generate biased results (order in which you ask the questions matters).
- Cannot establish cause and effect (correlation does not equal causation).
- Self selection
Self-selection
A problem that arises when the participant, rather than the researcher, selects his/her level on each variable; occurs when the decision to participate in a study is left entirely up to the individual –> gives rise to bias because those who volunteer to take part in research studies are usually different from those who don’t; we can’t assume causation from correlational research because no random assignment of experimental conditions.
Experimental research
The only method for establishing causality.
Pros:
- Establish causality.
- Experiments can be replicated.
Cons:
- Artificial –> can have low external validity (when a situation is very artificial, it is hard to generalize to the outside world).
- Demand characteristics –> good participants (conforming to what you think the researcher wants) vs. ‘screw you’ participants (some people just want to be ** and mess with the results).
How to avoid demand characteristic
- Use deception.
- Post-experimental questionnaire.
- Employ unobtrusive measures.
- Make the experiment double-blind.
- Minimize contact between experimenter and subject.
- Use between subject design vs. within subject design
Between subject design
Each participant is only in 1 condition.
Within-subject design
Each participant participates in all conditions.
The file drawer problem
The idea that what you find in research influences if it gets published; if you find nothing, a lot goes unpublished –> we don’t know about the null results.
P-hacking
P-value hacking –> indicating significance (p<0.05).
- Null (no relationship) vs. alternative (yes relationship).
–> P<0.05 is a threshold that a lot of scientists adhere to; increases the likelihood of a false positive.
How do people p-hack?
1) Analyze the same data using different techniques.
2) Stop collecting data when you get a significant result.
3) Throw out certain outliers or include controls that you wouldn’t otherwise use.
4) Cherry pick your results.
Solutions to p-hacking
1) Training reviewers, editors, and investigators.
2) Greater acceptance and appreciation of null results.
3) Preregistration of studies.
Loss of self
Because we are easily influenced by a lot of people, we can easily lose ourselves.
Self-awareness
The explicit understanding that one exists.
- Develops around age of 18 - 24 months
–> Engage in self descriptive talk (i.e. describing the actions that they are doing, adding in possessive of objects).
–> Pass mirror test.
Construals
Our own interpretations of stimuli/situations we encounter in our social world.
The self
A product of construals; we also come to know ourselves through our social relationships –> in large part, we are defined by others.
Working self-concept
We use a subset of our self-knowledge and that knowledge is relevant to different situations (i.e. library self vs. life of the party self); we are a single entity, but we have different working self-concepts.
Individual self
Personal traits, abilities, preferences, tastes, talents, etc.
Relational self
Sense of oneself in specific relationships (i.e. hard working student).
Collective self
Beliefs about our identities as members of social groups (i.e. sorority, sports team, etc.).
Reflect self appraisals/looking glass self
These are beliefs about what others think of us.
Social comparison theory
People compare themselves to other people in order to obtain accurate assessments of themselves.
- Life revolves around social comparisons.
- Slight downward comparisons are common because there is no point in comparing yourself to people at the extremes (i.e., Einstein); THUS it makes sense to compare yourself to similar people as you and even more common to compare yourself to people who are inferior in order to boost self-confidence.
Spotlight effect
We think other people are attending to our appearance/behavior a lot; we think we are constantly in the spotlight and constantly noticed by others.
Transparency effect
We perceive ourselves as much more transparent than we actually are; we think we can be read like an open book.
External Validity
the extent to which you can generalize the findings of a study to other situations, people, settings, and measures.
The better than average effect
Systematically and dramatically overestimating their abilities to be better than average –> most people think they are better than average at most things.
Procreative Bias
The air of thinking that sexual behavior is only used by animals for reproduction
Why does the better than average effect exist?
1) Positive feedback leads to inflated ego.
2) Different criteria for goodness –> you selectively choose the criteria that makes you look good; we are generally motivated to feel good about ourselves.
Independent self construals
Viewing yourself as a unique individual (traits); common in western cultures.
Interdependent self construals
Viewing yourself as to how you’re connected with people (roles); common in eastern cultures.
Self consistency
How we think and behave across all different situations.
- Internal consistency: individualistic societies
- External consistency: aka social consistency; collectivistic societies
Self esteem
The positive or negative overall evaluation that each person has of himself/herself.
- Westerners invented this because they are more concerned with the individual.
- Western cultures are constantly trying to boost this whereas collectivist cultures are focused on self improvement.
Sociometer hypothesis
Our self worth comes from how included we are in groups.
- Makes evolutionary sense –> we need other people.
- We don’t want to jeopardize our group membership, so we change our behavior.
- Social exclusion has positive correlation with lower self esteem.
Social cognition
The study of how people think about the social world and arrive at judgments that help them interpret the past, understand the present, and predict the future.
Decision making
1) Judgments are only as accurate as the quality of the information on which they are based.
2) The way information is presented affects our judgments.
3) We don’t just passively take in information, we seek it out and this can distort the conclusions that we reach.
4) 2 mental systems underlie social cognition, and their interplay determines the judgments we make.
Physical appearance
What we rely on when there is minimal information available; we make instantaneous/snap judgments based on this –> these snap judgments are made really quickly and can last a long time, and they can also predict long term outcomes.
2 dimensions faces are generally described on
1) Trustworthiness
2) Dominance
Trustworthiness
Facial configurations signal this:
- Shape of eyebrows
- Pronounced cheekbones
- Wide chin
Dominance
Facial configurations signal this:
- Facial masculinity predicts dominance ratings –> sexual dimorphism concentrated in the lower face; men have longer lower faces than women.
Neotenous features
Individuals who look trustworthy and non-dominant tend to have these features; considered attractive in women cross-culturally by men.
Baby face overgeneralization effect
Adults with baby faces tend to be treated with more patience, kindness, sensitivity, and love.
First-hand information
- Miss important details/misconstrue events.
- Experiences may not be representative.
- Pluralistic ignorance.
Pluralistic ignorance
When individual members of a group believe that others in their groups hold comparably more or less extreme attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors –> people misperceive group norms based on observation of other people acting at odds with what they believe; privately disagree, but publicly support it –> can lead to negative consequences.
- Example: hooking up –> everyone rated their peers more comfortable than themselves.
Second-hand information
- Ideological distortions
- Bad news bias
- Information presentation
Bad news bias
If it bleeds, it leads.
- Media overreports negative events.
- Little relationship between actual crime and media presentation of it –> reporting crime stays stable while actual rates of crime fluctuate.
- Angry faces are recognized faster than happy/sad faces in a sea of neutral faces.
Ideological distortions
- Many news networks have agendas and want to feed information in certain ways.
- Omission/commission (selection of stories, placement of stories, selection of sources, spinning of language).
How do you deal with media bias and misinformation?
- Fact check (check credentials, look for bias, check the sources, check the dates, judge hard)
- Compare multiple resources
- Try to look for biases
Racial identity
A socially constructed system of classifying individuals according to phenotype/physical characteristics that usually result from genetic ancestry.
Ethnic identity
People who identify with each other on the basis of common nationality or shared cultural traditions or history (place of birth, religion, linguistic); aspect of culture.
Culture
All the knowledge and values shared by a society (language, familial roles, practices, beliefs.
Stages of racial identity development
1) Pre-encounter
2) Encounter
3) Immersion
4) Internalization and commitment
Pre-encounter stage
You are not yet consciously aware of your race.
Encounter stage
You have an experience that causes you to reassess yourself along racial lines or characteristics; can be either positive or negative.
Immersion stage
You begin to directly explore your own racial background.
Internalization and commitment stage
You commit to a particular racial identification and adopt related traits, perspectives, and traits.
Racial identity development
A major developmental task because race is socially constructed; you have to learn through your own experience; implies a consciousness of self within a particular social group.
Biracial identity development
Often exposed to 2 racial groups in the home; research highlights their ability to identify with both ingroups flexibly.
Infants (childhood timeline of racial identity)
- Gradually becoming aware of self.
- Beginning to absorb a cultural identity through daily caregiving interactions, household smells, sounds, etc.
- Beginning to notice and respond to skin color.
Ones and twos (childhood timeline of racial identity)
- Learning to socially/verbally interact with others within the cultural rule system of their families; pay close attention to ‘their’ adults’ non-verbal messages.
- Curious about physical characteristics of self and others; may ‘match’ people based on their physical characteristics.
Threes and fours (childhood timeline of racial identity)
- Categorize people by ‘racial’ physical characteristics, but often confused about complexities of group categories.
- Not yet clear about racial identity constancy.
- Absorb societal stereotypes and may refuse to play with others because of skin color, language differences, and physical disabilities.
*** Prime time for racial bias intervention.
Racial identity constancy
The belief that race is a fixed quality about yourself.
Fives and sixes (childhood timeline of racial identity)
- Children whose experiences significantly differ from the dominant culture often face a ‘bi-cultural’ crisis in school –> includes racial/ethnic minorities, low SES white children, immigrant children, and non-native English speakers.
- Onset of complex thinking.
- Develop racial constancy and basic racial stereotypes.
- Race-based peers form, and selectivity within one’s race (ingroup policing; issues of colorism).
Sevens, Eights, and Nines (childhood timeline of racial identity)
- Children of color are aware of racism against their own group.
- Rise in name-calling.
- Minority children learn to codeswitch.
Other-race effect
A disproportionate impairment in other-face recognition as compared to own-face recognition; BUT these (most) findings represent mono-racial children with little racial exposure –> conflicting results show some ethnic minorities living in majority groups do not develop an own-race bias.
Decision science
The study of how people think about the social world and arrive at judgments that help them interpret the past, understand the present, and predict the future.
Information presentation
Presentation impacts our judgments and decisions; preferences can change based on information is presented.
Endowment effect
Selling prices are higher than buying; willingness to accept is higher than willingness to pay –> people ascribe more values to things merely because they own them.
Loss aversion
The tendency for a loss of a given value to have more psychological impact than an equivalent gain; part of a broader phenomenon that bad things hurt more than good things feel pleasurable.
Risk aversion
The reluctance to pursue an uncertain option with an average payoff that equals or exceeds the payoff attainable by another, more certain option.
Framing effects
The influence on judgment resulting from the way information is presented, such as the order of presentation or wording; can reverse preferences.
Loss frame
Information presented as a loss –> risk seeking behaviors.
Gain frame
Information presented as a gain –> risk aversion behaviors.
Positive frame
Information presented in terms of positive attributes.
Negative frame
Information presented in terms of negative attributes.
Temporal framing
The influence on behaviors and judgments resulting from how ‘distant’ information is presented (i.e. how far or close events seem).
Order effects
1) Primacy effects
2) Recency effects
Primacy effects
The disproportionate influence on judgment by information presented first in a body of evidence.
Recency effects
The disproportionate influence on judgment by information presented last in a body of evidence.
Confirmation bias
This is the tendency to test a proposition by searching for evidence that would support it; we seek out information that supports our beliefs.
System 1
Feelings and instincts; the go-getter and multi-tasker; takes care of a lot of our skill based behavior and automatic (associative) memory –> this is the system that is actually in control because things are happening so fast that we don’t even know it.
System 2
Rationality; lazy - it has more capability to be in control, but would rather not be; oftentimes we feel that we are this system because that is when we are in control, but in reality this is false –> it can only handle 1 task at a time; it is limited (because it is hard to do 2 complicated things at the same time).
Expert intuition
Reinforcing answers over and over again –> expert answers become intuition.
Heuristics
When people are in uncertain situations or are under time pressure, we make decisions via mental shortcuts (bypassing the calculations) –> can lead to many errors.
Representative heuristic
Making a judgment or probability of frequency based on similarity of representativeness.
Base rate neglect
People tend to ignore the base rate in favor of the individuating information (i.e. Is Steven a librarian or a farmer?).
Conjunction fallacy
An inference from an array of particulars, in violation of the laws of probability, that a conjoint set of 2 or more conclusions is likelier than any single member of the same set (i.e. The Linda example).
Gambler’s fallacy
People wrongly assume that the next independent event will go in the opposite way than the previous event.
Availability heuristic
The process whereby judgments of frequency or probability are based on how easily pertinent instances come to mind.
- Falls short in risk assessment.
- Overestimation of dramatic, negative effects; underestimate underreported (diabetes, lightning, etc.).
–> BUT this heuristic is not necessarily about the number of examples, but the ease at which information is brought to mind that is responsible.
Rational agents
An agent that wants to maximize the outcome of interactions.
Utility
Make the most money; can also mean experience the most pleasure.
Game theory
- Mathematical modeling of rational agents.
- Sets of well-defined games.
- Used to formulate the alternative strategy for decision making.
Games
1) Have to be well-defined.
- Players, information available, actions, and payoffs.
2) Involve risk
- Usually zero-sum for this reason –> for someone to win by x, others need to lose by x; encourages competition over cooperation.
3) Involve uncertainty
- Can’t be certain how others will act.
Disadvantages of game theory
- Low ecological validity.
- If low stakes, incentives may not be enough to motivate behavior.
Advantages of game theory
- Simple and easily modifiable.
- Shows how slight modifications change behavior.
- Highly controlled (i.e. easy to make comparisons)
- Behavior incentivized with money.
How do incentives affect research?
- Higher percentage of lower SES respondents.
- Positive impact on representation of target population.
2 concepts in game theory
1) Dominant strategy
2) Nash equilibrium
Dominant strategy
Best for a given player regardless of what the other player does.
Nash equilibrium
A stable state in that no player has anything to gain from changing their choice so long as the other players strategy stays the same.
Prisoner’s Dilemma
Challenges 2 completely rational agents to a dilemma: cooperate with their partner for mutual reward or betray their partner (defect) for individual reward.
- A situation where people won’t want to work together even when it’s beneficial to do so.
- Dominant strategy: betrayal.
- Cooperation and competition.
Iterated prisoner’s dilemma
Same rules as the normal prisoner’s dilemma, but the game is repeatedly played between the same prisoners who continually have the opportunity to penalize the other for previous decisions.
- Dominant strategy: None, but defecting on the last game is dominant, so defecting on all rounds before is dominant.
Dictator’s game
Rules:
1) 1 player is the dictator and is given money.
2) The dictator chooses an amount to offer to player 2.
- Not truly a game because it doesn’t allow for interaction.
- Average offer is 20% of endowment.
Pirate game
An n player version of the ultimatum game.
Rules:
1) Pirates (ranked by seniority) find a treasure chest.
2) Senior pirate proposes split of gold.
3) Other pirates vote; if they do not agree, death!
4) Game continues until plan is accepted or 1 pirate is left.
Ultimatum game
Rules:
1) Player 1 is given money.
2) Player 1 chooses amount to offer to Player 2.
3) Player 2 decides to accept or reject –> if reject, then no one gets money.
- Always in Player 2’s best interest to accept, BUT other norms are quickly relevant.
- Player 2 chooses punishment if split seems unfair.
Trust game
Rules:
1) Both player A and B have a $10 endowment.
2) Player A can send part of the $10 to player B.
3) The amount of money that A sent gets multiplied by 3.
4) Player B can send a certain amount of their money back to Player A.
–> All about trust!
Public goods game
Investigates the incentives of individuals who free-ride off individuals who are contributing to the common pool; subjects secretly choose how much money to put into a public pot, then the money in the pot is multiplied by a factor and this ‘public good’ payoff is evenly divided among players.
Rules:
1) N players have the same amount of money.
2) Each player can donate 0 - all money to public good.
3) Total amount in public good is multiplied (1 < n < number of players).
Strategies:
- Nash equilibrium: no one gives any money to the public good –> rarely seen.
- Giving 0 means either: (1) receiving 0 if all gave 0; (2) receiving > 0 otherwise; (3) free-riding possible due to anonymity.
Guess 2/3 of the average
Explores how a player’s strategic reasoning process takes into account the mental process of others in the game.
Rules:
1) All players guess a number.
2) Take the average.
3) Players that guessed the number closest to 2/3 of the average wins x (whoever is +/- 1 gets x/2 and whoever is +/- 2 gets x/3).
Guess the lowest number that no one else guessed
Similar objective to ‘guess 2/3 of the average’ game’.
Rules:
1) All players guess a number.
2) Players that guessed the smallest number that no one else guessed wins x (whoever is +/- 1 gets x/2 and whoever is +/- 2 gets x/3).
Expected value
The average expected financial outcome of a decision; every time you play a game of chance (i.e. lottery) the expected reward (if you win) will always be less than this.
(Expected outcome)*(Probability of it occurring)
St. Petersburg paradox
- A fair coin will be flipped until it comes up heads.
- The payoff is 2^n where n is the number of flips it takes for the coin to come up heads.
- EV = infinity.
Transitivity
A relation between elements such that: if I prefer A over B, and I prefer B over C, then I prefer A over C.
Independence
An individual’s preferences between 2 risky options should not be affected by the presence of a 3rd irrelevant option.
Expected utility theory
This theory recommends which option rational individuals should choose in decision making/a complex situation, based on their risk appetite and preference.
The Allais paradox
A choice problem designed to show an inconsistency of actual observed choices with the predictions of expected utility theory; people should always choose the option with the greatest reward, but don’t –> exposes human irrationality.
Longshot bias
An observed phenomenon where on average, bettors tend to overvalue ‘longshots’ and relatively undervalue favorites.
Prospect theory
Describes how people make decisions when presented with alternatives that involve risk, uncertainty, and loss.
3 points of this theory:
1) People value gains and losses differently, placing more weight on perceived gains than perceived losses.
2) People are more concerned with avoiding losses than they are with achieving gains.
3) People use mental shortcuts (heuristics) when making decisions.
4 key takeaways of this theory:
1) Certainty –> people have a strong preference for certainty and are willing to sacrifice income to achieve more certainty.
2) Loss aversion –> people tend to give losses more weight than gains.
3) Relative positioning –> people tend to be more interested in their relative gains and losses as opposed to final.
4) Small probabilities –> people tend to under-react to low probability events
Attribution theory
An umbrella term used to describe how people assign causes to the events around them.
Causal attribution
The process people use to explain their own and others’ behavior by linking the behavior to a cause.
Pareidolia
We overgeneralize anything that has biological motion because of our sensitivity to faces; hearing/seeing familiar patterns in random data.
Fundamental attribution error
Tendency to over value personality/dispositional type of explanation for behavior –> less likely to attribute behaviors to situations; more weight to person; not universal.
Alex Trebec effect
When questioner rates themself, they don’t rate themself that much differently from the contestants; BUT contestant and independent observer think the questioner is smarter than themself –> behavior based on the person, not the situation.
Extreme fundamental attribution error
When actors are confused for the roles they play (i.e. Spock).
Just world hypothesis
A cognitive bias and belief that our actions have fair and fitting consequences.
- What goes around comes around.
- Can lead to really bad outcomes –> victim blaming.
Self-serving attributional bias
The tendency to attribute failure and other bad events to external circumstances, but to attribute success and other good events to oneself.
Self-enhancement
We have powerful motivations to feel good about ourselves.
Facial attractiveness
- Composite (averaged) faces are judged as more attractive than individual component faces.
Apicella et al. (2007):
- Europeans preferred averaged European faces.
- Hadza preferred averaged Hadza faces; no preferences between averaged and not averaged faces for European faces.
- Visual experience is key!
- Hadza didn’t have much experience with European faces –> this lack of a ‘norm’ of European faces leads to their lack of preference for average.
- Hadza were more likely to choose faces they were more exposed to as attractive than novel faces (implies a recency effect).
The preference for averageness itself is biologically based, but it is experience that determines our internal prototypes and influence which faces we find most attractive in the opposite sex.
Vocal attractiveness (vocal pitch)
- Pitch of voice is controlled by rate of vibration of your vocal folds.
- Men have larger vocal folds than women (vocal dimorphism) –> men’s pitch is ~50% lower than women’s.
- Some of these sex differences are due to hormones (testosterone).
–> When women listen to men’s voices, lower pitched voices are more attractive.
–> Hadza women were more likely to choose the more masculine voice (lower pitch) as the better hunter.
–> Lower voice pitch is associated with higher reproductive success.
Polygyny threshold model
Assumes that polygynous mating is costly to females and proposes that females pay the cost of polygyny only when compensated by obtaining a superior territory or male.
Parental Investment Theory
According to this theory, the sex that is physiologically required to invest more in offspring evolves to be more choosy regarding mates because a mating error (mating with a low-quality or noninvesting partner) is more costly to that sex.
Waist to hip ratio (WHR)
- Higher is associated with increased risk for developing type II diabetes, reproductive cancers, hypertension, heart disease, and stroke.
- Lower is associated with higher levels of E2 and progesterone (higher levels of these hormones predict pregnancy).
- Men should favor women with lower over higher:
- Men’s preferences for this track the population mean.
- True in the west - preference remains relatively stable (usually 0.7).
- But the Hadza do not prefer lower because it makes you look sick; higher makes you look heavier and implies you have body fat stored in case of food shortages.
BUT when looking at profile pictures:
- Hadza preferred lower profile and Americans preferred lower frontal.
- When averaged, U.S. men are similar to Hadza men in their preferences.
