Chapter 9 - Lecture slides

If a word is bolded, that means there is a flashcard where the term is the bolded word or phrase

Attraction can be attributed to...

Attraction can be attributed to...

1. Target factors

   1. Bulk of the research focuses on aspects about the target that make someone attractive.

   2. It's like, what about people is generally considered attractive versus not attractive.

2. Perceiver factors

   1. Research on what about us?

   2. What is something about the perceiver that makes you attracted to certain people versus others.

3. Situational & contextual factors

   1. So why might you be attracted to a particular person in one context, but not another context

Attraction Part I: Target Factors

So this is what makes certain people considered attractive versus other people.

• Of course, this is very broad generalizations.

• There's never someone who everyone thinks they're attractive, or everyone thinks they're they aren't attractive,

• But these are things/factors that tend to be seen as more attractive

What makes attractive people attractive?

(Attraction Part I: Target Factors)

If there is objective attractiveness, there's various aspects of a person that can contribute to their attractiveness:

• Faces

• Bodies

• Personality

What makes an attractive face?

(Attraction Part I: Target Factors)

• Symmetry

  • No face is perfectly symmetrical, but more symmetrical faces are more attractive

    • Uncanny value: when someone makes a CGI computer generated person and people find it creepy

      • We find it creepy because the face is perfectly symmetrical and our brains can’t comprehend it, cause its not normal

  • Sign of healthier genes AND developmental stability

    • Having a stable environment as you’re maturing can affect how you look to some degree

• Averageness

  • May not characterize the most attractive people; but, in general, are more attractive than distinctive faces

  • Familiarity facilitates ease processing

    • When we can process something easily, we tend to like it

What personalities are attractive?

(Attraction Part I: Target Factors)

• Across the world, individuals want mates who are

  • Warm

  • Kind and understanding

  • Pleasing disposition

  • Dependable

  • Intelligent

  • Emotionally stable

  • Mature

Effects of Personality on Attractiveness (Lewandowski et al., 2007)

(Attraction Part I: Target Factors)

If you know someone has a personality trait that is considered attractive, it will influence how attractive you find them

• Participants presented with series of photos which they rated for attractiveness

• Then saw each photo again, paired with a desirable or undesirable personality trait

• DVs:

  • How much would you like this person as a friend?

  • As a romantic partner?

  • How physically attractive is this person?

• Photos paired with desirable traits rated as more attractive than the first time (and photos paired with undesirable traits were seen as less attractive)

  • Regardless of initial attractiveness rating

  • For both women and men

    • For women rating undesirable traits was slightly stronger

• Conclusion: A good personality can make someone appear more physically attractive

What’s most important?

(Attraction Part I: Target Factors)

• Most commonly identified ideal partner traits

  • Warmth, loyalty

  • Attractiveness, vitality

  • Status, resources

• Warmth and Loyalty are generally priority number one

  • What individuals prioritize next depends on perceiver & situational factors

Similarity / Matching

(Attraction Part II: Perceiver Factors)

• We like people who are like us

  • “Birds of a feather flock together”

• People tend to pair up with others who are:

  • 1. Equally physically attractive

  • 2. And who have similar personalities, attitudes

  • 3. “Assortative mating”

• True for both romantic partners & friends

• Even disproportionately likely to marry someone with a similar name

  • Or even similar sounding names

  • Or even having the same first letter of name

• People who date people from other cultural groups?

  • Still similar in age, education, attractiveness, interests

  • Tend to have had closer contact with other ethnicities

    • So it might be that they are more likely to see someone from another group as more similar to them

• Perceived similarity more important than actual similarity for long-term relationships

  • Perceived similarity is correlated with relation of satisfaction more than actual similarity, as rated by other people.

Attraction Part III: Situational & Contextual Factors

• Why would you find someone attractive in one context and not in another?

• So what is going on in the situation has nothing to do with your individual difference factors

• Has nothing to do with how they are, look or act

• It has more to do with like the situation you're in

Misattribution of Arousal

(Attraction Part III: Situational & Contextual Factors)

If you have elevated heart rate, or smth like that, you think that whatever is in your surroundings is causing that

• Capilano suspension bridge study

• Male Ps crossed either the suspension bridge or a more stable bridge

  • Greeted at the end by the same attractive research assistant

  • The research assistant gave the Ps her number and said they could call if they had more questions about the study

• Those who had crossed the suspension bridge were more likely to call the female researcher

White et al. (1981): Arousal & Attraction

(Attraction Part III: Situational & Contextual Factors)

• Male Ps

• IV #1: Ran on the spot for 15s or 2min (low/high arousal conditions)

• IV #2: Watched video of more/less attractive young woman

• DV: Desirability of target

• More attractive target always more desirable, but higher arousal accentuated this effect

  • Works with both positive & negative arousal

    • negative would be like horror movie

    • positive would be like REALLY funny comedy movie

The Cheerleader Effect, Walker & Vul (2014)

(Attraction Part III: Situational & Contextual Factors)

• Asked Ps to rate the attractiveness of female faces (Experiment 1) and male faces (Experiment 2)

• Stimuli: 100 group photographs (of 3 targets, same gender)

  • Used each to create 300 portrait photos of same targets

• Ps rated both men’s and women’s faces as more attractive when seen in a group vs. in isolation

• Increasing group size doesn’t matter (Experiment 4), suggesting it is merely the presence of other faces that drives the effect

Why the attraction for Movie Stars?

• Symmetrical faces (and other signs of genetic, reproductive fitness)

• Paired with exciting action scenes

• Paired with elevated heart rate

Sternberg (1987, 2007): Triangular Theory of Love

(Close Relationships)

• 1. Passion (Romantic Attraction)

  • Physical arousal, desire, excitement, and need

  • Often takes the form of sexual longing, but can be any strong emotional need

  • Motive/drive component

• 2. Intimacy

  • Feelings of warmth, understanding, trust, support, and sharing

  • Emotional component

• 3. Commitment

  • Feelings of permanence, stability, and the decision to devote oneself to a relationship and to work to maintain it

  • Cognitive component

Triangular Theory of Love - Terms

(Close Relationships)

1. Passion & Intimacy (No commitment) = Romantic Love

2. Intimacy & Commitment (No Passion) = Companionate Love

   1. So your companions

   2. You're not necessarily like so romantic or physically attracted to each other

   3. Don’t have that kind of drive or need to be together

3. Commitment & Passion (No Inyimacy) = Fatuous Love

   1. Least Likely

   2. Someone who has a fling, and maybe get married before they’ve developed feelings of true intimacy

4. Passion & Intimacy & Commitment (All Three) = Consummate Love

   1. Is the “Ideal”

   2. That people always want to have all 3

Signaling Intimacy (Nonverbals)

(Close Relationships)

• Facial expressions (smiling)

• Gaze (i.e., increased eye contact)

• Body movements, gestures

  • Synchronized gestures

  • Orienting, leaning towards the other person

• Touch

  • Welcome touch on face, neck, torso (i.e., vulnerable body parts)

  • Very important in early stages of relationships; may be less vital later on

• Interpersonal distance (reduced)

  • Important for signaling support during disagreements, conflict

    • Reducing the distance between helps to maintain and connect during conflicts

• Paralanguage

  • Matching volume, speed, amount of talking

  • Vocal warmth, relaxed speech and laughter

  • Men: lower pitch; women: higher pitch

Intimacy & Self-Disclosure, Aaron et al. (1997)

(Close Relationships)

• Undergraduate pairs (F-F, F-M)

• 3 sets of questions

  • Set 1, Q1: Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?

  • Set 2, Q8: What is your most terrible memory?

  • Set 3, Q35: Of all the people in your family, whose death would you find most disturbing? Why?

• Controls: small-talk only

• DV: How close felt to partner

• Pairs in the experimental condition reported greater closeness than controls

  • Regardless of gender composition

Self-Disclosure

When we share things about ourselves with another person

Importance of Self-Disclosure

(Close Relationships)

• We tend to like people who disclose personal information to us

• AND we also like people more after we have disclosed

• When we’re getting to know someone, we tend to disclose the same amount and depth of information as the other person

  • “Disclosure Reciprocity”

• Later, pattern of exchange of information is less rigid

Disclosure Reciprocity

When we’re getting to know someone, we tend to disclose the same amount and depth of information as the other person

Sternberg (1987, 2007): Triangular Theory of Love

(Close Relationships)

• 1. Passion (Romantic Attraction)

  • Physical arousal, desire, excitement, and need

  • Often takes the form of sexual longing, but can be any strong emotional need

  • Motive/drive component

• 2. Intimacy

  • Feelings of warmth, understanding, trust, support, and sharing

  • Emotional component

• 3. Commitment

  • Feelings of permanence, stability, and the decision to devote oneself to a relationship and to work to maintain it

  • Cognitive component

Commitment

(Close Relationships)

The desire for the relationship to continue and the inclination to work to maintain it

Investment Model of Commitment Rusbult et al. (1998)

(Close Relationships)

• Commitment has 3 components:

  • 1. Satisfaction: are you happy?

  • 2. Investment: how many resources (time, effort, etc.) have you put into the relationship?

    • If you've put a lot of resources, so time, effort, etc., into the relationship that contributes you feeling more committed or wanting to stay in that relationship

  • 3. Quality of Alternatives: how appealing are your other options?

    • If you think you could easily find someone else or easily find someone better, you’ll be less committed and vice versa

Triangular Theory of Love - Terms

(Close Relationships)

1. Passion & Intimacy (No commitment) = Romantic Love

2. Intimacy & Commitment (No Passion) = Companionate Love

   1. So your companions

   2. You're not necessarily like so romantic or physically attracted to each other

   3. Don’t have that kind of drive or need to be together

3. Commitment & Passion (No Inyimacy) = Fatuous Love

   1. Least Likely

   2. Someone who has a fling, and maybe get married before they’ve developed feelings of true intimacy

4. Passion & Intimacy & Commitment (All Three) = Consummate Love

   1. Is the “Ideal”

   2. That people always want to have all 3

Other Types of Commitment

(Close Relationships)

• Personal commitment = want to continue

  • Attracted to partners, relationship is satisfying

• Constraint commitment = have to continue

  • Would be too costly (either financially or socially) to leave

• Moral commitment = ought to continue

  • Would be improper to end relationship; often feel solemn social or religious responsibility to stay

Cohabitation & Commitment Rhoades et al. (2009)

(Close Relationships)

• M & F participants (N = 1050)

  • Married within last 10 years

  • Aged 18-34

  • Mostly white and in 1st marriage

• Classified people as having begun cohabiting

  • Before getting engaged

  • After getting engaged

  • Not until they got married

• People who cohabitated before getting engaged (vs. after getting engaged or married) reported:

  • Lower relationship satisfaction

  • Lower relationship confidence

  • Higher rates of negative communication

• Cohabiting before engagement associated with:

  • Lower relationship satisfaction and confidence

  • More negative communication

  • Greater potential for divorce

Cohabitation & Commitment

(Close Relationships)

• Common reasons for cohabitation:

  • Cost and/or convenience

  • To test the relationship

• Failure to take into account how cohabiting increases certain aspects of commitment

  • Investments (e.g., pets, finances)

  • Constraint commitment (e.g., lease)

• Increased commitment can result in getting married – but possibly for the “wrong” reasons

  • “Sliding into marriage”