chap 11

Interpersonal Attraction

• Standards of physical attractiveness vary across cultures.

• Gender difference: Across cultures, physical attractiveness is more important for women than men.

• There are universal features + culture-specific features that influence interpersonal attraction. 

• Universal characteristics found attractive around the world — faces (CCAMBS)

• Clear Complexion 

  • Evolutionary reasoning: signals health, absence of parasites/disease.

  • Cosmetics industries worldwide target skin clarity.

• Bilateral Symmetry

  • indicates developmental stability.

  • Evidence strongest in hunter-gatherer groups like the Hadza (higher infant mortality → stronger preference).

  • Seen across species (e.g., symmetrical scorpion flies get more mates).

  • Genetic mutations, pathogens, or stressors in the womb can lead to asymmetrical features

• Averageness

  • Attractive faces tend to have average features (size, configuration).

  • Why:

    • Indicates genetic normality (fewer abnormalities).

    • Processing fluency: easier for the brain to process prototype-like (avg) faces → positive affect.

• Cross-cultural: People rate average faces as attractive even when the faces are from unfamiliar cultures.

  • One study used composite photos of Europeans, East Asians and people of mixed heritage

    • Composites were created from images across racial groups 

    • Participants rated these faces for how attractive they perceived them and composite faces were rated as more attractive 

    • Composite faces across racial groups were rated as the most attractive

• Biracial/Mixed faces often rated as most attractive (e.g., averaged Eurasian faces) due to:

  • Genetic diversity → healthier genes

  • Broader average of features one has been exposed to

• Universal characteristics found attractive around the world — bodies

• Bodies do not follow the “average is best” pattern.

• Western Ideals: Thin female bodies

• Historically: larger bodies idealized, Many non-Western cultures prefer heavier bodies

• Western thinness ideals spread globally as indicators of high socioeconomic status.

• Why, historically and globally, has more body weight been rated less attractive and skinniness rated more attractive? 

• Introduction of the diet industry and the fitness industry 

• Profit motive: companies promoting an ideal that is extremely difficult, if not impossible to achieve, and in doing so making women more insecure and motivated to consume the diet regimes or diet pills, or workout classes or appearing-altering cosmetic procedures 

• Food scarcity as an explanation:

  • Across cultures, food scarcity is associated with men preferring women with greater body weight. More body weight =  higher rates of survival and reproduction 

  • This could also explain why body ideals have become thinner in wealthy societies, as food becomes more abundant 

  • Thinness also shows restrain from indulging in the abundance of food that is available to us in the West

  • So is food availability a determining factor in the valuing of thinness 

  • Cultures with less food security have a bigger preference for female voluptuousness 

 The Propinquity Effect (Proximity) + its Mechanism

• People are more likely to become friends with those with whom they frequently interact 

• Mechanism of Propinquity effect: Mere Exposure Effect 

  • The more we’re exposed to someone or something, the more we like it, because it becomes familiar. 

  • More exposure → more liking (familiarity = safety).

  • Pleasant Association through classical conditioning 

  • Seen in Americans, Japanese, even chickens → cultural universal.

• Study: Maryland State Police Academy study:

• Recruits seated/living alphabetically → 45% of friendships formed with someone whose last name was adjacent alphabetically.

• Proximity > personality or background.

• 

The Similarity-Attraction Effect

• People are attracted to others who are similar in attitudes, personality, religion, background, SES, etc.

• Similarity-attraction is not universal (unlike propinquity) → stronger in independent, Western cultures.

The Similarity-Attraction Effect: Cultural Differences:

• Cultural Differences: Stronger in North America Vs. East Asian Cultures 

  • Setup: 

    • Japanese and Canadian participants briefly met a stranger.

    • Then shown a “profile” of the stranger that was:

      • Highly similar to them, or

      • Very dissimilar

    • Participants rated how much they liked the stranger.

  • Results: 

  • Canadians: liked high-similar people much more.

  • Japanese: liking barely changed with similarity.

  • 

Close Relationships

• Humans are ultra-social: Most life events occur in the context of relationships.

• Conversation content: gossip about others is most common.

• Happiest moments = usually when people are with others.

• Most emotionally painful events = breakups and deaths of loved ones.

• Universals: humans do not live as isolated individuals in any culture.

• But: how people relate to each other varies by culture in predictable ways.

delete

• Communal sharing:

• Authority ranking:

• Equality matching:

• Market pricing

Basic Relational Models:

• all relationships in all cultures are built from four basic models

• Universality claim: all cultures use all four, but frequency and context differ by culture.

• Universally recognizable cross-culturally 

• Violations of these schemas can be appraised by reacting with offensive to interpreting it as humorous 

• A single relationship can use all four at different moments, e.g. at family dinner:

  • Communal sharing: everyone eats until satisfied.

  • Authority ranking: father at head of table, parents’ decisions override.

  • Equality matching: each person gets a same-sized dessert.

  • Market pricing: child gets $1 per dishwasher load.

Communal Sharing:

•  Emphasis on common identity rather than individual differences.

  • Resources are pooled and shared for the greater good.

  • Everyone is treated equally (same rights/privileges).

  • “To each according to their needs, from each according to their ability” → like scared values 

  • Eg. Family: Don’t track exact contributions, no one earns affection or food

    • Cross-cultural pattern: Stronger in Non-western Cultures 

    • In the West, strongest within families and lower SES groups.

Authority Ranking:

• People are arranged in a hierarchy.

  • Higher rank = more privileges, power, prestige. 

  • Lower rank = obedience, but also protection/care from above.

  • Asymmetry is key: roles and entitlements are not equal..

  • More dominant in class-based, hierarchical societies.

  • Eg: 

    • Appears even within families (e.g., parents overrule kids)

    • Military (ranks, pay, duties, salutes).

Equality Matching

•  People keep track of exchanges and try to pay back equivalently.

  • Based on balance and reciprocity.

  • Examples in Western contexts: Car pools, reciprocal dinner invitations, Christmas cards.

  • Non-Western example: rotating credit associations

    • Everyone contributes equal money; each family gets the whole pot in turn.

    • Emphasis on taking turns and equal shares.

  • Common in many traditional subsistence societies.

    • E.g., Trobriand Islanders: dangerous ocean voyages to exchange equally valued shell necklaces that have no practical use; strong obligation to reciprocate.

  • East Asians: strong motivation for equality matching → Reluctant to accept gifts because receiving implies obligation to reciprocate.

Market Pricing

• Different resources reduced to a common metric (usually money).

  • Based on proportionality, ratios, and value.

  • People expect equivalent value, but exchange doesn’t have to be identical goods.

    • e.g., pay $500 for roof repair = agreed equivalent of labor.

  • Status is irrelevant: CEO and janitor pay the same price for milk.

  • Exchange possible between strangers (e.g., buying on eBay).

  • Very common in modern Western societies; economic theories treat most interactions as market pricing.

Relational Mobility:

How much freedom and opportunity people have to form, leave, and change close relationships.

High Relational Mobility	Low Relational Mobility
Ties are flexible; many opportunities for new connections. In open competitive markets for relationships	Few opportunities to form new relationships; existing ones are stable, long-term. Closed markets for relationships.
Relationships are voluntary and conditional: Default between two people = no relationship. Relationships exist only if both sides actively choose to form and maintain it. Because other options must: Work to stay attractive and keep the relationship strong.	Relationships are shaped by circumstance, not choice: Born into a family and kin network. Neighbors, classmates, coworkers become your main circle. Relationships viewed as default state → they exist regardless of liking.
People can leave unsatisfying relationships and look for better ones.	Less focus on evaluating or “trading up” partners, because: There are few alternatives. Relationships continue even if they are not very satisfying.
Typical in: North America, Western Europe, Latin America. Herding communities (less tied to land/neighbors). Environments with fewer ecological threats.	Typical in: East and Southeast Asia, North and West Africa, Middle East. Farming communities (tied to land and shared resources like irrigation). Environments with disasters/disease → close-knit, suspicious of outsiders.
Prototypical case: North American college students Many have moved away from home. Tons of social contexts (classes, dorms, clubs, parties). Big focus of research = forming and breaking romantic and friendship ties.	Migrants: when people move to new cultures, they partly adopt local views of relational mobility.
Outcomes:  Relationships more porous → easy entrance/exit  Generalised trust  High Self-esteem  Self-disclosure  Homophily → Similarity b/w marriage partners  Intimacy in romantic relationships	Outcomes:  Fixed relationships  Low generalised trust but high ingroup trust High Self-esteem not a priority  Low priority placed on self-disclosure  Low homophily: Partners selected on social norms and obligations  Commitment in romantic relationships

Relational Mobility and Attractiveness: 

• In high-relational-mobility societies:

  • People are in an “open relationship market.”

  • Being attractive to potential partners (friends, romantic, work) is more important.

  • Traits that draw others in (e.g., similarity, uniqueness, physical attractiveness) are highly valued.

• In low-relational-mobility societies:

  • Attractiveness matters less, because you cannot easily change your social network.

  • Relationships persist regardless of evaluations

• Evidence: Schug et al. (2009):

  • Americans felt they had many opportunities for new relationships and showed a strong similarity-attraction effect.

  • Japanese felt fewer opportunities and showed a weaker similarity effect. → Relational mobility explains cultural differences in similarity-attraction.

Factors influencing cultural variation and Relational mobility

• Subsistence patterns 

  • Cultures with more herding and fewer threats → more mobile 

  • Cultures with more threats and rice farming → less mobility 

  • More herding = more moving around = more mobility  

• External Threats

  • Fewer threats = greater relational mobility

The Tyranny of the Beautiful

• In high-relational-mobility Western contexts, being physically attractive yields many unfair advantages→ better rates, votes, rated smartness, better earning 

• Halo effect: Because attractiveness is the first cue we see, it’s cognitively easy to assume attractive people also have other positive traits.

• Evidence: Cross-cultural twist: Ghana vs USA (Anderson, Adams & Plaut, 2008)

  • USA (high relational mobility): More-attractive Americans → higher life and friendship satisfaction.

  • Ghana (low relational mobility): More-attractive Ghanaians → lower satisfaction with life and friendships.

• Interpretation: In Ghana’s low-mobility context, attractiveness may not translate into better outcomes and may even create jealousy or suspicion.

• Urban vs rural USA (Plaut, Adams & Anderson, 2009):

  • Urban (higher mobility): more-attractive women → higher well-being.

  • Rural (lower mobility): attractiveness not linked to well-being.

Residential Mobility:

• how often people change where they live.

• Strongly tied to relational mobility (moving → new relationships).

• Individual level effects: People who move a lot show: 

  • Show conditional loyalty: Identify with their college only if it’s described positively.

  • Have more Facebook friends and keep expanding their network.

  • See personality traits (visible quickly) as more central than group memberships (take longer to know).

  • Prefer large national chains (Starbucks, Walmart) over local stores: Chains = familiar and reliable no matter where you go.

• Community Level Effects: 

  • States/areas with high residential mobility:

    • Higher crime rates and less community involvement

• Over generations, willingness to move → better job opportunities and higher income; families who never move tend to stay poorer.

• Takeaway: American psychological patterns may partly come from a highly mobile lifestyle.

Study on Residential mobility and identity:

• Americans who have never moved viewed group membership to be as important as personality traits for their identity 

Those who have moved 1+ value personality traits more, and group memberships less

Residential mobility and social preferences:

• The universalist: Helped stranger and friend equally  

• The loyal friend: Only helped friend 

• Results:

  • Among people whose family never moved residences, 90% prefer the loyal friend. 

  • Among people who moved residences while they were a child more than once, preference for the loyal friend goes down to 62%.

Friends and Enemies

• In West African cultures, it’s common to be wary of friends, despite collectivism.

• Study findings:

  •  Only ~26% of Americans say they have enemies. Enemies are more often outsiders

  •  About 71% of Ghanaians say they have enemies. Enemies are often in-group members (neighbors, friends, relatives).

• Relational Mobility and Friendships/Enemies: 

High Mobility - E.g. USA	Low Mobility - Ghana
Avoid people who might become enemies	Cannot easily escape negative relationships
Choose to engage only with useful or positive partners	Can be stuck with interacting with people you dislike for years
Less likely to form actual enemy relations.	People with low-mobility cultures show more desire to understand enemies, and low-mobility people avoid them.

Varieties of Friendship:

• Number of Friends: Americans have a higher social network → relatively casual and numerous relationships 

• Collectivistic cultures: 

  • Important aspect: giving advice, often unsolicited.

  • Russians especially:

    • Offer advice even when not requested.

    • Friendship involves telling others how they should live their lives.

  • Americans: advice more often tied to whether it is requested.

Ghanaian vs American vs east asia view of “having many friends”

• Ghanaians: person with many friends = possibly foolish

  • Because friendships involve strong obligations and practical support (financial, social, etc.).

  • Many friends = many obligations → burdensome.

• Americans: more likely to see many friends as positive (social, fun, status).

• East Asia:

  • Those high in relational mobility → friendship attitudes similar to Americans.

  • Those low in relational mobility → more cautious about friends, like Ghanaians.

Simpatico:

• valued relational style characterized by Warmth, hospitality, harmony, ease in social situations.

• Self-concept includes traits like: Easygoing, respectful, courteous, agreeable.

• Social expectations: Interactions should be pleasant, positive, and harmonious, with minimal negativity.

• Work context:

  • Latin Americans prefer group settings with a warm, friendly atmosphere.

  • European Americans (esp. Protestants) often focus more on tasks than relational climate.

Interaction studies —> latin americans, European americans, african americans thoughts on interactions w/ eachtoher

• Latin Americans:

  • Talk more, show more eye contact, and have a more positive affect in interaction.

• When European Americans or African Americans interact with Latin Americans:

  • They rate the interaction as more smooth, natural, involving,

  • And express more interest in future interaction.

Overall: Latin Americans tend to be more sociable and spend more time socializing than European Americans, and bring simpático energy into group settings.

Romantic Love: Why it exists:

• Parental Love:  human infants are highly dependent for a long period; neglect would decrease child survival.

• Romantic love evolved to keep 2 parents together long enough to raise a vulnerable child (Fisher, 2004; Frank, 1988; Chapais, 2010).

• Parents who stayed together produced more surviving offspring → love selected for.

• Is romantic Love universal:

• Reviewed 166 cultures; found evidence of romantic love in 89%.

• Remaining 11% likely due to ethnographic oversight, not lack of love.

• Conclusion: Romantic love is a human universal (functional universal).

• But expression and role of love varies culturally.

Elements of Love Relationships: Sternberg’s triangular theory of love:

• Cultures differ in how strongly each emphasized 

• Intimacy: Closeness, connection, deep knowledge 

  • Self-disclosure may not be as central to intimacy outside the west 

    • May rely more on kindness, responsibility, and support 

  • High mobility (USA): need to invest in relationships → more self-disclosure.

  • Low mobility: relationships are stable → less need to disclose.

• Passion: Physical attraction, sexual desire 

  • Westerners: 

    • Report higher passion

    • Satisfaction is more tied to passion. 

  • East Asians:

    • Lower reported passion, less central to satisfaction 

  • Relational Mobility:

    • Americans have higher relational mobility → more chances to leave a partner.

    • Passion acts as “glue” preventing partner switching.

    • Cultures with fewer relationship options (Japan) need less passionate glue.

• Commitment: Decision to stay long-term  

  • Asia – Lower relational mobility 

    • Higher commitment on avg. 

    • Relationships are more stable due obligations and social constraints 

    • Divorce rates correlate with: 

      • Individualism → Higher indiv. = higher divorce rates 

      • Relational mobility 

Cultural Variations in Marriage

• Western Cultures: 

  • Greater self-disclosure → high intimacy in romantic partnerships 

  • Spouse often top priority relationship

  • Passion is more central for satisfaction

• East Asian and Mexican Contexts: 

  • Commitment strong predictor of satisfaction

  • Lower romantic self-disclosure 

  • People with interdependent selves get intimacy from broader networks (friends, parents).

  • Studies: Ghanaians and Taiwanese often prioritize mothers over spouses.

  • Acculturation increases intimacy → East Asians/Mexicans who are more acculturated disclose more.

Arranged marriages and love marriages 

• Arranged marriages are common in many current and traditional cultures, with little or
  no focus on romantic love in the early stages.

  • In contrast, the norm in many other cultures is love marriage, in which couples choose each other based on mutual love.

• Cultures that have extended family systems are more likely to have arranged marriages than cultures with nuclear family systems.

Idealisation of Partner:

• Idealisation of partner ⇒ Higher love, longer relationship survival 

• Protects from thinking about partner’s flaws → reduces dissonance → increases satisfaction

• Cultural difference: 

  • Canadians idealise partners more than Japanese 

  • Idealisation = more common in western individualistic contexts. 

USA Historical Model: marriage

• Institutional Marriage: Life’s necessities and survival 

  • Marriage meets basic needs: food, safety, childcare, shelter 

  • Partners = economic team 

• Companionate Marriage: Belonging and Survival 

  • Rising urbanisation → gender role division 

  • Focus shifts to love, belonging, companionship, affection. 

• Self-expressive Marriage: Self-expression and authenticity 

  • Women entering the workforce; contraception empowers choice. 

  • Marriage becomes about personal growth, self-esteem, identity. 

  • Higher expectations → lower satisfaction for many 

  • People rely on more spouses: 

    • Fewer close friends over time 

    • More time spent only with spouse. 

• Climbing Mount Maslow and Marriage: 

  • Marriage used to focus on meeting lower-level needs

  • But in modern western cultures → marriage has climbed the mountain → people expect a spouse to help them meet higher-level needs 

    • Identity, authenticity, personal growth, self-expression, and autonomy. 

• The importance of marital quality has increased, %age of people happy in marriage has declined → Why?  

• Most people don’t have the time, skills, or emotional resources to maintain a relationship that must meet self-actualization needs.

• The standards have become too high.

• Many marriages collapse under this pressure.

• Average marriage quality went DOWN because the bar was raised.

• But the best marriages today are BETTER than before —> consequences of this shift

Even though most marriages suffer, the top tier of marriages are now the best in human history.

• higher divorce rates

• Successful marriages require more resources & skills

  • People with higher social class / education have higher marriage success

  • Low SES → long work hours, financial strain, fewer support systems. 

History of Arranged Vs Love Marriages:

• Global patterns 

  • Historically, most marriages were arranged 

  • Declining today in China, India, Japan, and Turkey. 

  • Most societies required parents’ input or approval. 

  • Rising in the importance of love in USA 

• Would you marry someone with all desired qualities except love?

  • India/Pakistan: ~50% said yes (another 25% unsure)

  • USA, UK, AUS, Latin America: >80% said no

  • Conclusion: love is required for marriage in some cultures but not others.

• Preference for arranged marriages: 

  • In extended families → love = disruptive 

  • Strong feelings may conflict with family responsibilities.

  • Families are better positioned to evaluate long-term compatibility.

• Western Assumptions above Love: 

1. Only self-selected partners can be loved → arranged couples often develop love over time (puppy analogy) 

2. Love is an individualistic choice → arranged-marriage cultures view marriage as a two-family alliance, and families are experts in compatibility.

3. Love-based marriages are more successful: India: 74% believe arranged marriages are more likely to succeed. Cultures focusing heavily on love have higher divorce rates.

Satisfaction in Arranged vs Love Marriages (cross cultural studies)

Cross-cultural studies

• Turkey & Israel: arranged couples ≈ love couples in satisfaction.

• USA (Moonies): arranged mass marriages had similar satisfaction & dissolution after 3 years (Galanter, 1986).

• Japan & China:

  • Men in arranged marriages → equal or higher satisfaction

  • Women → less satisfied than women in love marriages

  • Suggests arranged marriage costs fall more on women in these societies.

Gupta & Singh (1982) – Indian Couples

• Love marriages start with more love but decline over time.

• Arranged marriages start low but increase steadily.

• After ~10 years, arranged couples report more love than love-marriage couples.

• Interpretation:
  Different comparison standards → arranged couples compare “some love” to initial zero, while love-marriage couples compare “reduced love” to initial high passion.