Textbook Notes (368,432)
Canada (161,877)
Psychology (2,971)
PSY220H1 (200)
Chapter 10

Chapter 10- Relationship and Attraction.pdf

7 Pages
105 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSY220H1
Professor
Dan Dolderman
Semester
Fall

Description
CHAPTER 10 RELATIONSHIP AND ATTRACTION Show ʻModern Familyʼ ---> attraction can happen btwn all kinds of people, all kinds of relationships can work to meet needs of ind. involved. Characterizing Relationships • “Self-selection”: methodological problem of studying relationships. No true random assign.; part. “select” own condition. Are the observed differences due to diff. experiences in diff. conditions OR simply certain ppl gravitate to certain cond.? Never know. The Importance of Relationships • Roy Baumeinster & Mark Leary: we have need to be in healthy relationships • Arguments for Need to Belong: • Long-term bonds to ensure & facilitate reproducing and raising offspring; • Parent-Offspring bond ensure infants & children protection and survival until independent; • Friendship to help non-kin cooperate, avoid costs of competion & aggression. • Study of universal social beh. in hunter-gatherer groups: mom-child caregiving, sibling wrestling, younsters flirting/courting, romantic partner affection, male dominance displays • It is a NEED not just a desire: 6 close friends is enough to fulfill need; dissatisfaction in existing relationships --> look for it in others, i.e., prisoners cut off from family form kinship-like ties in prison • Evidence for Need to Belong: Harry Harlow baby monkey experiment. Aggression in young orphaned young elephants (killing rhinos!). Higher rates of mortality, psychological problems, crime for lonely people. • Good for cardiovascular, immune & endocrine systems Relationships and the Sense of Self • Relational self: beliefs, feelings, expectations derived from relationship • When someone reminds us of someone already in our lives, relational self from that existing relationship transfer over to content of new relationship • Hinkley & Andersen study: Participants described significant other and then themselves. 2 weeks later, participants presented with new description similar to description of significant other more likely to use same traits to describe themselves as before. Different Ways of Relating to Others • Communal Relationships: Relationships in which the individuals feel a special responsibility for one another and give and receive according to the principle of need; such relationships are often long term • i.e., close friends, family • come to resemble each other in emotional experience • Generally preferred by East Asian & Latin American cultures, and Catholics • Exchange relationships: Relationships in which individuals feel little resp. toward one another; giving and receiving are governed by concerns about equity and reciprocity. • often short-term; i.e., workers and supervisors • generally preferred by European & Commonweath countries, and Protestans • Reward and Social Exchange Theories of Interpersonal Relationships: Even communal relationships depend on exchange; i.e., we like people who make us feel good (“reward framework”) • Social exchange theory: All relationships have costs and rewards. How people feel about relationships depends on assessment of its costs and rewards and those of other relationships. • ideal: more rewards than costs or just little bit more costs BUT super low costs and very high rewards NOT ideal actually • equity theory: people are motivated to pursue fairness in relationships; “you get what you put in.” Rewards pretty much = costs • People “shop” around for most favourable interactions Attachment Styles • Attachment theory: early attachments with parents shape relationships for rest of life • First developed by John Bolby • Evolution ---> infants cute to promote parent-offspring attachment • Parent’s availability & responsiveness to child’s emotions --> secure base for attachment --> internal working models of self (beliefs about own lovability, competence) and how relationships should work (others’ warmth, availability, etc..) • Mary Ainsworth’s “strange situation” study: securely-attached/anxious-ambivalent/ avoidant-ambivalent • Classifying Attachment Styles: • 2 dimensions of variation in adult attachment: 1. anxiety (about reject./abandon.) 2. avoidance (level of comfort with intimacy) A. Secure attachment: security in relationships, comfortable with intimacy, desire to be close to others during threat/ uncertainty B. Anxious-preoccupied: “clinginess,” negative view of self, value & seek intimacy C. Dismissive-avoidant: self-reliance, seek less intimacy, deny imp. of close relat. D. Fearful-avoidant: ambivalence & discomfort toward closeness, desire closeness but feel unworthy, do not seek intimacy • Stability of Attachment Styles: attachment styles establish young and stable throughout life. • 40-year longitudinal study ---> women who self-identified as avoidant at 52 had reported greater home issues at age 21 • 4-year longitudinal study --> 70% maintained SAME style • Other 4-year long. study: no. of breakups correlated with avoid. & anx. attached • But early neg. exp. do NOT make you DOOMED :) • Diff kinds of relationships, diff attachment • Attachment styles can be momentarily primes/activated (avoidant person can be primed to attach securely in specific interaction) • Attachment style can change WITHIN a relationship • Cultural differences: these findings more Western, other cultures might socialize children to be interdependent with others (not necc. mean insecurely attached) *Cultural differences in infants sleeping in parents’ bed Attraction • Proximity • Propinquity: physical proximity • Studies of Proximity and Attraction: MIT study on housing study- units near stairwells were 2X more likely to befriend each other and units directly adjacent to each other were 4X more likely to befriend each other • Functional distance: tendency of architectural layout to encourage/ inhibit certain activities, including contact between people. • more decisive of friendships than physical distance • Manhattan housing project study- functional proximity had stronger affect with heterogeneous (racial, age, etc.) friendships than homogeneous friendships • Proximity, Availability, and Anticipating Interactions: • Anticipating study- simply knowing that we will meet someone makes us more likely to like that person • The Mere Exposure Effect: • (Zajonc) repeated exposure to stimulus --> greater liking of stimulus • exposure to Turkish/ Chinese pictograph/ college yearbook photo words -> part. more likely to rate it as a “good” word • we like our own mirror image over the image our friends see • albino rats raised with Mozart later “voted with their feet” for Mozart; those raised with Schoenberg voted accordingly • Why does mere exposure lead to liking? 1. processing of familiar stimuli more “fluent”* therefore more pleasurable 2. classically conditioned to feel safe because stimuli had no neg. side eff. • *perceptual fluency: more easily identified c ognitive fluency: easily interpreted, defined, integrated into existing semantic memory “Beauty lies in the processing experience of the beholder, an experience that is strongly determined by how objective stimulus properties influence perceptual and cognitive fluency.” • Similarity • Studies of Similarity and Attraction • Couples study... real couples more similar on 66/88 characteristics than assigned “couples”; strongest charc.= demographics, weakest charc.=personality • Interracial/ethnic couples more similar personality beh. than homogeneous couples (maybe compensating?) • Newcomb study of transfer students living rent free: more similar students --> like • “bogus stranger” study: more sim. stranger to part. --> more likely part. likes them • *Do couples look more alike over time? ... Yes bc similar lifestyles, experiences, etc.. Zajonc study found that couples looked more alike 25 years into marriage then as newlyweds and more than random couples. • But Don’t Opposites Attract? • complementarity: tend. ppl to seek others with diff. charac. that complement own. • More applicable and logical in traits like dependence-nurturance, not honesty • few studies, those few highly criticized • Why Does Similarity Promote Attraction? 1.Interactions with similar people are pleasant bc they go smoothly 2.Reinforces own beliefs, values, etc., not challenged 3.We see our values = right, unpleasant to be around someone “unreasonable” • Polygraph study: person w/ similar att. --> like; AND the more arousal while listening to similar person, more liked! more arousal listening to disimilar person, less like! • Physical Attractiveness a) Lots of variability in what ind. ppl find attractive b) We find those we like phys. attractive, just like we like those who look phys. attr. c) Happy couples see each other as phys. attr. even tho others don’t d) Phys. attractiveness is less stable throughout life than we think • Impact of Physical Attractivness • Mor
More Less

Related notes for PSY220H1

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


OR

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.


Submit