Psychology 301Social Psychology

Lecture 19, Nov 6, 2008

Attraction and Attraction and RelationshipsRelationships

Instructor: Cherisse SeatonInstructor: Cherisse Seaton

OverviewConcluding Group processes

Cooperation and competitionCommunication and threat

The need for affiliationI. Attraction

PropinquityReciprocal likingSimilarityPhysical attractivenessPhysiological arousal

Current applications: Broader level

Zimbardo interview“It’s not bad apples, it’s the barrel”Is the situation always that powerful?

http://video.on.nytimes.com/index.jsp?fr_story=d3cee846a166e3b7bad1e51843da3375feecde91

Roots of ConflictConflict questions:

Who has won (competition)? Who gets what (resource distribution)?Who is in charge (power struggles)? Who decides (decisional conflict)? Who do I like (personal conflict)?

Who gets what (resource distribution)?

Evolutionary Basis?Are we biologically predispose to monitor the

payoffs we receive relative to others?E.g., Others are benefiting more from the same

activity

Monkeys reject unequal payBrosnan and de Waal (2003) – Nature, 425

Using Threat to Resolve Conflicts

When caught in a conflict many of us are tempted to use threats to get the other party to comply.E.g., Threaten children with punishment

Research (Deutsch & Kraus, 1960, 1962) suggest that threats are not an effective means of reducing conflict.

Deutsch & Krauss Trucking Game

Effects of CommunicationResearch suggests that communication:

Can resolve conflict, if it fosters trust.Cannot resolve conflict, if it conveys threats.

Negotiation is a form of communication between opposing sides in a conflict in which:Offers and counteroffers are made.A solution occurs only when both parties agree.

An integrative solution is a solution to a conflict whereby:The parties make trade-offs on issues according to their

different interests. Each side concedes the most on issues that are

unimportant to it but important to the other side.

Summary:Social dilemmas:

Public goodMixed motive situations

Factors that might increase cooperation:Change payoffsGroup identityCommunicate cooperative norms

Attraction and relationships

Readings for this sectionAronson et al. Chapter 9

History in PsychologyPsychological study of attraction &

relationshipsRelatively new – last 30 yearsPrimary interest in studying individualMany thought it non-scholarly work or

impossible to study scientificallyMost work to date on initial attraction, not long

term relationships

What are the benefits of social bonds?Emotional benefits

Being around others makes us happyMarried people are happier

Health benefitsPeople who have many relationships live longer

Relationships have a stronger impact on mortality than smoking

Social SupportSpiegel et al. (1989)

Breast cancer patients in support groups lived 18 months longer than women in control groups

Strength of need for affiliationTop of list of things that lead

to happinessLack of meaningful

relationships leads to feelings of:Loneliness DepressionWorthlessnessAlienation

$6,500+ for hyper-realistic dolls

I. Attraction

First impressions?Several characteristics have been

found to play a role in “attraction”Some factors that influence

whether friendships or romantic relationships will form are:1.) The propinquity (proximity)

effect2.) Reciprocal liking3.) Similarity4.) Physical attractiveness5.) Physiological arousal

1.) The propinquity effectDefinition:

“The finding that the more we see and interact with people, the more likely they are to become our friends”

Physical distanceRepeated exposure“For every person, there is a perfectly

matched mate somewhere in the world”?

1.) The propinquity effectAlphabetical seating

arrangementAdjacent or nearly adjacent

namesSegal (1974)

60 police recruits (strangers)6-week trainingRoommate & class seating

assigned alphabeticallyMore than 50% named ‘best

friends’ with adjacent last names

1.) The propinquity effectFestinger,

Schachter & Back (1950)

Couples in apartment complexes65% same building

Within building: 41% next door 22% two doors

apart10% opposite ends

of hall

Why this effect?Functional distance

Certain aspects of architectural design that make it likely some people will come into contact with each other more often than others

E.g. location of rest room, stairs, elevator, or mailboxes.

More likely to ‘run into each other’Familiarity The Mere Exposure Effect or the Frequency

of Exposure effect (Zajonc, 1970)“The finding that the more exposure we have

to a stimulus, the more apt we are to like it”

Frequency of ExposureFaces previously

viewed rated higherMore attractive More trustworthy Etc

Infants smiled more at repeatedly exposed faces (Brooks-Gunn & Lewis, 1981)

Exceptions: Neg. initial reaction Simple stimulus

Proximity in the computer ageOnline dating

New field of studyOverall, online dating

seems to be very similar to traditional dating

Positives: People feel more

comfortable disclosing information & self-disclosure promotes closeness

The problem with online datingFrost et al. (2008) Goal: establish exactly how

people use currently well-established online dating systems

Surveyed of 132 internet daters Users of a profile-based online dating

site spent seven times as long screening other people's profiles and sending emails than they did actually interacting face-to-face on real dates.

As a result participants reported finding online dating unsatisfying and aversive.

Internet use & Affiliation (outside of virtual dating)

The Internet connects us with people we might otherwise never meet, but….

Kraut et al. (2008)Longitudinal study:

As use of the Internet increased: Feelings of social support decreased Number of social activities decreased Feelings of depression and loneliness increased

National survey data: Only 22 percent of people made a new friend on the

Internet, and those friendships tend to be of low quality.

Isolation increases with Internet use

2.) Reciprocal-LikingDefinition:

“When you like someone and that person also likes you”

Discovery of another’s attractionWe like those who like usLimitation:

Must be sincere

3.) SimilarityDefinition:

“Attraction to people who are like us”

Match between:Interests/ActivitiesBackgroundValuesAttitudesPhysical attractivenessPersonalityLife style (smoking, morning / evening person)Age, race, education, religion, IQ, skills

Most research indicates that similarity, not complimentarity, that draws people together

Attitude similarity and attraction

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

.00 .20 .40 .60 .80 1.00

Attraction

toward

other p

erson (ran

ge = 2-

14)

Proportion of similar attitudes held by other person

Byrne and Nelson (1965)The greater the proportion of attitudes subjects shared with the stranger, the more subjects liked him.

WHY SUCH A POWERFUL EFFECT OF SIMILARITY?

A) Cognitive Consistency We like ourselves, therefore we like those who are like

us

B) Social ComparisonValidation of one’s beliefs

C) Anticipate/predict Other’s behaviour (e.g., likes/dislikes, interests)

D) They will like us also (reciprocal)

Matching of admirable characteristics

Most desirable personality traits in a romantic partner listed by both men and women:Confidence, integrity, warmth, kindness, intelligence,

dependability, emotional stability, good sense of humor, loyalty, and being affectionate

However….Although people insist again and again these types of

traits are the most important to them, their actions don’t always indicate this is the truth.

Instead, physical attractiveness appears to be the single most important predictor of ‘likeability’

4.) Physical attractivenessWalster (Hatfield) et al. (1966)

Randomly matched 752 incoming students for blind dates to a dance

Students’ rated partner’s physical attractiveness and desire to see their date again

Only physical attractiveness predicted the desire to date again (not intelligence, sincerity, sensitivity, etc.)

4.) Physical attractivenessInternet dating:

Profiles & ‘click what you are looking for’e harmony – matched according to ‘personality’Yet creator of Plenty of Fish Markus Frind says

“actions speak louder than words” “For example, Susie says she wants a solid, stable

man who earns $100,000-plus but keeps clicking on profiles of muscle-bound bad boys.”

What is attractive? Widespread consensus

Media influence Evolutionary?

i. The “Mature” Baby Face ii. The Average Face iii. Your Style iv. Age

i. The “Mature” Baby Face

Cunnigham (1986)Women Men

Large eyes Large eyesProminent cheekbones Prominent

cheekbonesSmall chin Large chinBig smile Big smileSmall noseNarrow cheeksHigh eyebrows

ii. The ‘Average’ FaceComputer-digitized photos – technology ‘morphs’

photographs of facesWhy are averaged faces attractive?

Symmetrical – extreme featuresEvolutionary theory (Etcoff, 99):

“Survival of the Prettiest” Symmetry = health (parasite resistance)

Averaged face looks typical, or familiar

The Face of Tomorrow

iii. Your styleYear book studies Cultural and ‘Style’

differences over timePreference for faces that

resemble our ownMorphed own face preferred

iv. AgeBaize and Schroeder (1995): Personal Ads

researchCoded ads (age, education, income)Correlated with # of responsesFemale Ads:

AgeMen:

AgeEducationHeightIncome

Physical Attractiveness“What’s beautiful is good” StereotypeAdvantages:Greater overall liking (best predictor of desire

to date)More desirable character traits (e.g., sensitive,

warm, intelligent)Higher incomeHigher evaluation of work performanceMore lenient treatment in the legal systemBetter mental health

5. Arousal & AttractionAronson et al (2007) suggest:

Take date to scary movie, orOver a high bridge

Misattribution of arousalDefinition:

“The process whereby people make mistaken inferences about what is causing them to feel the way they do”

Arousal & Romantic Attraction

Dutton & Aron (1974) Conditions:

Capilano suspension bridge “Experimental bridge”

Low bridge “Control bridge”

Researcher approached single men

Arousal & Romantic AttractionAs they crossed:

QuestionnaireGave phone number

Male or female researcher

Arousal & Romantic Attraction

Arousal & Romantic Attraction

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Low Bridge Capilano Bridge

Where Done

% o

f S

ub

jects

Ca

llin

g

Ex

pe

rim

en

ter

Arousal & Romantic AttractionMeston &Frohlich (2003)

Conceptual replicationRoller coaster vs. non-threatening rideSame results

Problem?Can we really conclude from this study that

arousal lead to increased attraction?Correlation research

Not likely that attraction lead to increased arousal, but…

Could be some third variable contributing to the relationship

What are some possible third variables?

Evidence for Misattribution of arousal

Schachter and Singer (1962) - two factor theory of emotion

Provoked physiological arousal with a shot of adrenaline. Some were told that there would be a physical reaction

and others told nothing. While they were waiting they had to fill out a

questionnaire that asks increasingly insulting questions. Confederate in the room acts angry or euphoricParticipants who did not know what to expect mistakenly

assigned arousal to being angry or euphoric and they too became angry or euphoric.

But does physiological arousal increase attraction?

Need for AffiliationFear arouses temporary ‘attraction’ to othersSchachter (1959)Manipulated anxiety level:

Strong, painful shockWeak, innocuous shock

Participants could chose to wait with another, or wait alone

Results of Schachter’s “Dr. Zilstein study”

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

Nonanxious subjects

Anxious subjects

# of S

ub

jects

Choose to wait alone

Choose to wait with others

The results indicated that anxious subjects chose to wait with others more than non-anxious subjects.

Also, a follow-up study found that anxious people preferred to wait with other anxious people rather than those who were not anxious

Next class…**NO CLASS Tuesday Nov 11 (Remembrance

Day)**First impression exerciseII. Relationships

Similarity Self-disclosure Satisfaction Breaking up

e harmony or Plenty of Fish??