Study Guides (238,524)
Canada (115,195)
Sociology (918)


14 Pages
Unlock Document

Western University
Sociology 2233
Brendan Murphy

LESKO Article 19: Why I Hate Beauty -Exposure to people in the past limited to small village -At most, travel few hundred miles -Perceptions of beauty part innate, partly learned -Young infants spend more time gazing at attractive faces than less attractive -Youth attractive women = health and fertility -Exposure to mass media images of beauty impacts our choices of mates and also our satisfaction with our current mates Contrast effect: differences of two things are exaggerated depending on the order in which those things are presented -Context counts -Woman of average attractiveness will seem a lot less attractive if a viewer has first seen a highly attractive woman -Also works in reverse Study: -Asked male dormitory students to rate photo of potential blind date -Rated less desirable if shown episode of charlie’s angels than if males were watching a different show -Women surrounded by other attractive women rate themselves as less satisfied w/ their attractiveness and less desirable as a marriage partner -Viewing pics of attractive women weakens commitment to mates -Men rate themselves as being less in love w/ partner after looking at playboy -Doesn’t change perception of our partner but DISTORTS our idea of the pool of possibilities -Prods us to believe we could always do better, keeping us continually unsatisfied Evolutionary perspective: -Ancestors likely designed to make some estimation of the possible pool of alternatives and some estimation of their own worth relative to the possibilities -Most lived in little village of ~30, didn’t see as many ppl as we do -Few were attractive -Our minds have not evolved to catch up (media images, photoshop, don’t register as artificial) -We are built to selectively rmb the really beautiful -Causes us to overestimate the frequency of really beautiful women out there -Expectation of beauty that’s unsually high, makes everyone around them look lackluster even if they are quite good looking Vogue factor- a measure of the influence of beauty -People become dissatisfied w/ their sexual partners Evolution and Human Bhvr: -Being a male teacher/professor increase likelihood of being currently divorced or separated (constant exposure to young women, suddenly find middle-aged wives unappealing) LESKO Article 20: What Is Beautiful Is Good Study: Whether physically attractive stimulus persons, both male and female, are (a) assumed to possess more socially desirable personality traits than physically unattractive stimulus persons and (b) expected to lead better lives (e.g., be more competent husbands and wives, more successful occupationally) -Our self concept develops from observing what others think of us -Thus if a physically attractive person is consistently treated as a virtuous person, he may become one -30 female, 30 male students -Told: study of accuracy of person perception -Given 3 envelopes, one photo in each -Attractive, average attractiveness, unattractive (1) Record ratings in booklet frankly: -27 different personality traits (made on 6 point scales) -Open one envelope at a time to rate (2) Booklet 2: -Additional 5 personality traits -Indicate which stimulus person possessed the most and least of a given trait -3 = most, 1 = least -Summed (3) Social desirability of the personality traits assigned to stimulus persons (4) To assess if attractive are happier/more successful: -Ss asked to estimate which person would be most likely and which least likely to have a number of diff life experiences -Marital happiness (which most likely to be divorced) -Parental happiness (which most likely to be good parent) -Social and professional happiness (which most likely to exp deep personal fulfillment) -Total happiness (sum of a, b, c) (5) Occupational success: -Which of the three stimulus persons would be most likely to engage in 30 different occupations -Low status (score of 1), avg status (2), high status (3) (10 of each) RESULTS 1.12, 2.02, 2.87 – statistically significant As predicted attractive persons… -More socially desirable than unattractive -Despite sex of rater -More likely to secure more prestigious jobs, exp happier marriages BUT NOT better parents -Lowest of the 3 stimulus persons for parental competence -More total happiness -Marry earlier, find an acceptable partner, less likely to remain single -Results unaffected by jealousy effects -Support for what is beautiful is good thesis -Beautiful women often not convicted LESKO Article 21 – Ability to Judge Romantic Interest of Others -Videos of speed dating -More accurate predicting male interest levels than female -Predicted successfully using stimuli as short as 10s -Performed best watching clips of the middle or end of speed date -Variability: very easy to read – masking true intentions -Ability to read nonverbal bhvr quickly not only present for individuals in interaction but also for third party observers -Accurately appraising interest minimizes wasted time and resources, allows for greater chance of success in a competitive mating market -Efficient allocation of mating effort = good Hypothesis: -Individuals will be able to accurately predict others’ interest in themselves and in third parties -Should only require a limited amt of info, perf should not be hindered by shortened stimuli- presentation -Women will behave more cautiously, covertly, and ambiguously during initial interactions, making their intentions more difficult to read than those of men because they face greater risks during mate choice due to their inevitably higher minimal parental investment in potentially resulting offspring RESULTS -Effect of relationship status; individuals in relationships outperformed single individuals -Length of video clip no effect on accuracy but location did (middle/end) -B/c decisions are not fully determined until later in the encounter -Significant effect -Suggests speed dating bad for long term partners; ppl only using physical attractiveness to make dating decisions b/c they do not have time to assess much else -Being accurate at predicting the dating interest of one sex does not help in predicting interest level of the other (zero correlation) DISCUSSION -Two main hypotheses supported -Observers able to assess dating interest of others at above-chance levels, length of time required to do so brief -Lowest overall accuracy: over perception of female daters’ interest -Accounts for over 80% of the prediction errors for the five hardest to read women LESKO Article 22 – Great Expectations -Not about finding the right person but learning to love who you’re with -Fall victim to our own great unrealistic expectations, we want it all -50% divorce rate for last two decades -If experiences after marriage do not conform to expectations it will lead person to think he/she has made a mistake -“Always someone better around the corner” mentality -Stable ambiguity: dodge decision to commit or commit without fully letting go of the right to keep looking In reality: -Committed partners are better off than singles on average -More financially stable, live longer (esp. men), live better (pooled resources = better standard of living), pool expertise (ex. In cooking, financial management) -Women improve men’s health; exercise and eat veggies -Ppl who aren’t comparing their partners to someone else in bed have less trouble performing, more emotionally satisfied w/ sex -Statistics hold true for both mediocre and passionate marriages -Surveys: 50-60 years ago most wanted to marry to have children/own a home, now for love -Increased emphasis on emotional fulfillment not consistent w/ reality of marriages -Due to early phase of relationship being marked by excitement and idealization, many romantic, passionate couples expect it to last forever -When it goes away, ppl look elsewhere Cultural pressure: ppl think staying in marriage that doesn’t make you blissfully happy = cowardly -Dissatisfaction and disappointment is normal but b/c standards are set so high they seem intolerable -Suggested that couples stick it out, especially if they have kids -Psychologists and martial advocates suggest no such thing as true compatibility -Marriage is a “disagreement machine” -Long-term, happily married couples disagree about things just as much as divorced -Mythology of the “wrong person” -All marriages incompatible, w/ ppl from diff backgrounds, key is to develop binocular vision, see life thru partner’s eyes as well as your own -Realizing our expectations are not going to be fulfilled by our partner = necessary step in building a mature relationship Book: How can I get thru to you, closing intimacy gap btwn men and women -“Paradox of intimacy is that our ability to stay close rests on our ability to tolerate solitude inside a relationship” -Central aspect of grown up love is grief -Culture shift to individual satisfaction spurred divorce law reforms of 1960s and 70s -Good: freed ppl from abusive, intolerable marriages -Bad: unintended side effect; encouraging ppl to abandon relationships that may be worth salvaging -Too much of whats learned has to do with self, ego rather than giving over the self to things like a relationship LESKO -Competitive world, rewarded for individual achievements not how we help others -Value independence over cooperation, sacrifices for values: loyalty and continuity seem foolish -Get divorce rate we deserve as a culture -Think partner should reflect “beauty and perfection” of inner me, or compensate for the mess that is the inner me -Ppl think it reflects badly on them -What makes you tell your wife “lose some weight, you’re making me look bad” instead of “lose some weight, you’re at risk for diabetes” -Again talks about how media exposed us to thinking we have an infinite pool of better possibilities, makes us unsatisfied with our partner -Other studies; after couple yrs of marriage, ppl just about as happy or unhappy as they were before settling down -How partners handle “collisions” determines quality of their relationship -If we can accept these “humble” terms/realities, quest for soul mate can be a noble pursuit Article 23 – Playing Hard to Get Folk wisdom: woman who is hard to get is a more desirable catch -All five experiments conducted to demonstrate individuals value hard-to-get dates more than easy-to-get ones FAILED Proposed: Two components contribute to woman’s desirability: (1) How hard woman is for subject to get (2) How hard she is for other men to get Prediction: The selectively hard-to-get woman will be preferred over uniformly hard to get, uniformly easy to get, and woman which subject has no info -Supported -Explanation: Men ascribe selectively hard to get woman to all of the assets of uniformly hard to get and easy to get but none of their liabilities Hard to get woman: elusive therefore valuable, can afford to be choosy only if she’s popular (popular for a reason), especially pretty, good personality etc -Men gain prestige if seen w/ her Easy to get woman: desperate for a date, too many demands, “diseased” Theoretical Rationale for playing hard to get = increased desirability phenomenon 1. Dissonance Theory: great energy to attain goal = more appreciative, justify effort 2. Learning Theory: elusive person advantaged : (1) frustration increases drive, waiting until drive is heightened to finally reward can maximize impact of the sexual reward woman provides, (2) Elusiveness and value associated LESKO 3. Schachterian theory: Two components necessary b4 passionate love: (1) physiologically aroused, (2) setting must make it appropriate for him to conclude his aroused feelings are due to love -Hard to get person expected to generate unusual passion, frustration should increase suitor’s physiological arousal and association of elusiveness with value should increase possibility suitor will label his reaction to person as “love” -Experiments failed to demonstrate: elusive woman is a desirable woman, and both outside observers and suitor perceive hard-to-get individual as especially valuable Walster, Walster, Berscheid (1971) study -The more romantic interest the stimulus person expressed in an acquaintance, the more socially desirable HS juniors and seniors judged him to be -Restraint does not buy respect, all the world does love a lover Lyons, Walster, Walster (1971) study -Computer matching service -Woman told to pause 3 seconds before accepting date (hard to get) -Half the time, accept date immediately (easy to get) Results: elusiveness had no impact on man’s liking for his comp date Lyons et al. Hypothesis: knowledge that a woman is elusive gives indirect evidence she is socially desirable -Biggest impact when there’s no way to acquire direct info or man has low confidence in ability to assess value -Whereas when direct knowledge avail and man has extreme confidence in ability to make correct judgments, info abt woman’s elusiveness should have little impact on man’s reaction to her Thus: When men lacked direct evidence as to a woman’s desirability, his self-esteem and woman’s elusiveness should interact in determining his respect and liking for her -Ss told comp assigned them a date, asked to telephone her to invite her out, then report impression of her -Half the time woman played hard to get (busy), half the time easy to get (eagerly accept) Results: elusiveness had no impact on liking, regardless of self-esteem Experiment 5: -Hypothesis tested in sexual setting -Prostitute who states she is selective in her choice of customers will be held in higher regard -Easy to get, hard to get condition Client’s liking for prostitute determined in two ways 1. Prostitutes estimate 2. Experimenter recorded # of times within next 30 days client revisited her Results: Clients in hard to get condition were less likely to call back LESKO Actual Study: Advantages and disadvantages of: Hard to get woman: -Might stand you up or humiliate you in front of your friends since she is not particularly interested in you -Unfriendly, cold, possess inflexible standards Easy to get woman: -Easy to get but hard to get rid of -Might get serious -So over affectionate in public she may embarrass you -Buddies snicker when they saw you tgt (b/c they would know why you were dating her) Therefore previous exp likely failed due to the fact that the above assets and liabilities balanced out -When slight difference in liking appeared, favoured easy to get woman Two determinants of how much a man likes a woman: (1) How hard/easy she is for him to get (2) how hard/easy she is for others to get -If woman has a reputation for being hard to get, but easy for subject to get, she should be maximally appealing -Insures prestige, dating situation relaxed, rewarding experiment -Subjects given five potential dates to choose from -5 folders containing info abt fake women -Diff enough to be believable yet sim. Enough to minimize variance -Includes woman’s date selection forms (their impressions of the men) -Used to manipulate elusiveness of women 3 scales: -Liking for various dates, assets and liabilities ascribed to various dates, liabilities attributed to easy to get women -Ratings for each woman -Selection decision after Ss completed questionnaires Results -Most preferred to date selective woman -Most liking for s
More Less

Related notes for Sociology 2233

Log In


Don't have an account?

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.