Class Notes (836,580)
Canada (509,856)
Psychology (7,783)
PSYB10H3 (544)
Lecture 8

PSYB10 Lecture 8 Initial Attraction and Close Relationships

13 Pages
Unlock Document

Elizabeth Page- Gould

PSYB10 Lecture 8 – Initial Attraction and Close Relationships Why Do We Like Other People? - Proximity - Familiarity - Similarity - Reciprocity - Attractiveness - Misattribution of Arousal - Scarcity Proximity - Can be referred to Propinuity - Propinquity Effect The more we see and interact with other people, the more likely we are to become our friends MIT Westgate West Apartments - Festinger, Shachter, & Back (1950) -  Friendships among MIT married couples’ dormmates - Results (% close friends by neighbor type): - Next-door Neighbors: 41% - 2 doors apart: 22% - Opposite hallways: 10% - Apartments 1 and 5 had more friends from 2nd floor Why does proximity promote attraction? - Availability/accessibility - Because it suggests similarity! - Mere exposure Familiarity - Mere-Exposure - The more exposure you get to a neutral object, the more you will like it. - If there are negative qualities of the object already in the mind, you will not like it more. Research on Mere-Exposure - Moreland & Beach (1992) - Method: - Confederate sits in front row of class for 0 - 15 classes - At end of semester, students rate liking of Confederate - Results: -  Liking by exposure Mere-Exposure to Faces - Mere-Exposure to Your Own Face - We tend to prefer our mirror image over photograph image - Friends prefer photograph image Similarity or Complementarity? - Complementarity - “Opposites attract” - Baby seems we never ever agree / You like the movies / And I like T.V. / I take things serious / And you take 'em light / I go to bed early / And you party all night (Abdul, 1988) - Similarity - “Birds of a feather flock together” - Research supports the idea that similarity promotes liking Newcomb (1961) - Method: - Randomly assigned 1st-year college roommates - Measured all sorts of personality traits, attitudes, etc. - Look at friendship formation after first year - Results: - Similarity predicted friendship formation - Demographics, attitudes, values, personality traits, and communication styles Reciprocal Liking - We like people better who like us. - Pick up subtle liking cues such as: eye contact, leaning in, mimicry, attentive listening - Less true for people with low self esteem/negative self-concept. Curtis & Miller (1986) - Method: - Randomly pair participants - Tell one participant (P1) that their partner (P2) either does or does not like them - P1 and P2 interact, and post-interaction liking is measured - Results: Liking of Partner Physical Attractiveness Walster et al., (1966) - Method: - 752 freshmen met up at a blind-date dance - Assigned to random pairs - Who wanted to go on a date again? - Results: Desire for second date driven by: - Partner’s Attractiveness - Independent of rater’s attractiveness - NO personality effects What is attractive? - Research looking at yearbooks, pageants, etc: - Men: - Large eyes, strong cheekbones, large chin, big smile - Women: - Large eyes, small nose, prominent cheekbones and narrow cheeks, high eyebrows, large pupils, big smile - “Baby Facedness” - Features: - Large eyes, rounder face and nose - Baby-faced people: - Are more persuasive - Perceived to be more trustworthy - Evoke liking and caregiving behaviours Which face is most attractive? - Langlois & Roggman (1990) - Composite faces rated more attractive than individuals - Composite faces: faces made by morphing 2 or more faces together. - Why? - Composite faces will be more familiar and more prototypical - Composite faces are also more symmetrical Attractiveness - This seems somewhat hard-wired - Babies stare at ‘attractive’ faces longer - There is a fair amount of cross-cultural consistency in attractiveness judgements Why Does Beauty Promote Attraction? - Beautiful-is-Good Schema - Beauty creates a “halo effect” - Occurs most for social competence - More sociable, extraverted, popular - More sexual, happy, friendly - There is a kernel of truth here “Beautifulness-is-Good” Stereotype - Tendency to associate attractiveness with “goodness” - Stereotypes across cultures Matching Hypothesis - We seek partners that are of similar attractiveness to us, and are more satisfied with these partners - Evidence for Matching Hypothesis - Couples of similar attractiveness were more likely to continue dating after a blind date UCLA Dating Study - Recruited dating partners & took a picture of each - Other students rated each partner’s attractiveness - 6 months later, researchers contacted dating partners to ask about their relationship - Results: Similarity in attractiveness predicted: - Satisfaction in relationship - Relationship longevity - Lower break-up rate at 6-month follow-up Scarcity - If potential mates are not plentiful, we may shift our standards of attractiveness  “Closing time” studies (Gladue & Delaney, 1990) - Approached people in bars - People asked to judge attractiveness of same-sex and opposite-sex targets (both photos and other people in the bar) - Time until closing time used as an independent variable - Attractiveness ratings of opposite-sex targets increased as the evening progresses (9:00 PM < 10:30 PM < 12:00 AM) - Holds even when statistically controlling for alcohol intake Moving from Attraction to Close Relationships - Evolutionary Perspectives on Mating - Need to Belong Biological Basis of Close Relationships - Reproductive Investment - Polygamy and Monogamy - Human Mating Evolutionary Fitness Potential to pass on your genes/successfully procreate - Ability to survive to mating years - Ability to maximize the number of offspring that survive to their mating years Reproductive Investment of Each Sex - The “investment” of time, resources, and risk involved in having each child  Typically varies between the sexes - The sex which bears the most reproductive costs is “choosier” Sexual “Choosiness” - Choosy Sex - Bears the most reproductive costs/investment - Usually the female, but not always - Sex with least reproductive costs: - Should want more partners - Will be in competition for mates more often - Displays greater physical variation - Polygamy - Several members of one sex mating with one individual of the other sex - Polygyny - Several females mate with one male - 90% of mammals - Polyandry - Several males mate with one female Sexual Dimorphism - Pronounced difference in the size or bodily structures of the two sexes - Seen in polygamous animals Monogamy - Reproductive partnership based on a more or less permanent tie between partners - Sexes are close to indistinguishable based on physical characteristics Biological Basis of Monogamy - Co-occurrence of Oxytocin and Dopamine in Nucleus Accumbens  Dopamine - Reward neurotransmitter  Oxytocin - “Attachment Hormone” that is also a neuropeptide - Monogamous animals - Oxytocin and Dopamine receptors share nucleus accumbens - Activation of one activates the other - All 5% of monogamous animals share this anatomical feature - Polygamous animals - No oxytocin receptors in nucleus accumbens Homosexuality - Reproductive partnerships between members of the same sex - Wide displayed across the animal kingdom - Usually associated with disproportionate number of male and female mating adults Are we Polygamous or Monogamous? Polygamous Humans? - Polygamy evidence: - Sexual dimorphism - Great physical variation - 85% of traditional cultures allow some kind of polygamy Monogamous Humans? - Monogamy evidence: - Co-occurence of Oxytocin & Dopamine in human brain - Great physical variation among both sexes - 98.9% of men and 99.2% of women report hoping to settle with 1 life partner in the end Need to Belong - Motivation of Belonging - Harlow’s Monkeys Motivation of Belonging - Belonging is a basic human motivation - Sociometer theory - Human “survival tactics” require several people - E.g., building shelters, hunting game, agriculture - Human children are helpless for several years Need to Belong: - Compared to those who are isolated from others, people with strong social networks are: - Happier - Healthier - Greater life satisfaction Social Isolation - Long-term isolation is a form of official torture/punishment in every society - Social ostracism/rejection is an unofficial way to enforce social rules in every society - Effects observed in other primates as well What if a Monkey Is Socially Isolated? -
More Less

Related notes for PSYB10H3

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.