lecture 11- relationships and attraction

need to belong

like physical needs (food, air, water), humans have a fundamental need to connect w/ others

• 2 parts

  1. need frequent positive interactions w/ others

  2. need to form social bonds (relationships)

social capital (Bordieu, 1986)

access to resources via social connections

• relationships (romantic + friends, family, etc) contribute to our networks

loneliness

the distressing experience of perceiving one’s social relationships to be less in quantity, and especially in quality, than desired

• associated w/ poor health and well-being, morality

• not determined by size of social network

social surrogates

non-human connections that can stand in for human ones

• ex: fictional characters

exchange relationships

relationships in which people involved want to make sure that some sort of equity is achieved and that rewards and costs to each of the partners is fairly distributed

• independent societies

communal relationships

relationships in which neither partner is keeping score, feeling that over the long haul some semblance of equity will take place

• as relationships become closer and more intimate, they become more communal

  • interdependent societies

social exchange theory

how people feel a/b a relationship depends on their assessments of its costs and rewards

• ex: friend A for partying, friend B for deep convos

comparison level

expectations a/b what we think we deserve/should get out of a relationship

comparison level for alternatives

expectations a/b what we think we can get out of alternative relationships

Investment Model

builds on social exchange theory, says that commitment is related to satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and prior investment

• satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, investment size → commitment level → relationship stability

equity theory

people are motivated to pursue fairness, or equity, in their relationships

• relationships considered equitable when benefits are proportionate to the effort both people put into it

Vulnerability Stress Adaptation Model

framework that explains how a variety of stressors and strengths combine to predict the quality of a relationship

• vulnerabilities → enduring personal characteristics (personality traits, mental health conditions, past experience) and can predispose individuals to experience stress/have difficulty adapting to it

• stress → stressful events/circumstances that a couple experiences

• adaptive processes → couple’s interactions and actions (communication, problem-solving, emotional support)

4 things that attract us to others

1. proximity

2. similarity

3. reciprocal liking

4. physical attractiveness

proximity

physical closeness

functional distance (proximity)

how often people’s paths cross

• apartment study (Festinger at al., 1950)

  • 65% = closest friend was in same building, 41% = closest friend lived next door, 22% = closest friend lived two doors away, 10% = closest friend at other end of hall

mere exposure effect

the tendency for novel stimuli to be liked more or rated more positively after repeated exposure

• Mita et al. (1977) - photographs vs mirror images

  • women themselves → mirror image

  • close friends → true image

similarity

birds of a feather flock together

• Newcomb (1961) - Housing study

  • moved in house together, men who were most similar formed groups together

• important b/c of less conflict and more validation

complementarity

individuals seek out and are attracted to partners who possess traits that complement their own

• ppl drawn to those who possess qualities they lack, leading to sense of balance and completeness in relationship

matching hypothesis

tendency to choose partners that are a match in attractiveness

• Huston (1973) → preference… or fear of rejection

reciprocal liking

we like people who like us

• Curtis & Miller (1968) → can lead to self-fulfilling prophecy

flattery

effective when randomly generated, but undermined if the motive is suspect

• increases in praise over time > consistent flattering

  • Aronson & Linder (1965) - eavesdropping study

    • participants liked confederate most when speaking negatively of them, but eventually positively

physical attractiveness

higher salaries, more likely to win political races, given benefit of the doubt by teachers

beautiful-is-good effect

the belief that physically attractive people also have a wide range of other positive traits

• reality = often another self-fulfilling prophecy

reproductive fitness

can i pass my genes on w/ this person?

• may be an overgeneralization

prototypes

people favor those who represent “average” or typical member of a group

• ex: morphed faces to create an “average” face rated as more attractive

• bilateral symmetry: two sides of the face mirror each other

contrast effect

attractiveness is relative