Attraction and Close Relationships

Key question

given all that we know about social psychology (i.e. schematic processing, motivated reasoning, belief perseverance, etc.) why do relationships that are initially very satisfying, become so unsatisfying

Relationship

characterized by interdependence

Interdependence

when one person’s behaviors affect another person and vice versa

Interdependence can vary along several dimensions

• frequency of contact

• duration of contact

• diversity of interactions

• strength of influence

Close relationship

one of strong frequent and diverse interdependence that lasts over a considerable period of time

Hatfield 1966

finding that people paired for a "Computer Match Dance" tended to prefer dates with similar levels of physical attractiveness, which was the strongest predictor of liking and desire to see them again, more so than intelligence or personality, though highly attractive people were generally desired by all

The biggest predictor

physical attractiveness

Matching phenomenon

• if we believe people like us, we choose the most attractive

• if we do not know if they like us, we choose someone closer to our own attractiveness

• which one mirrors life?

Halo effect

observers frequently assume attractive people possess other desirable traits

• defendants and attorneys - Downs and Lyons 1991, Mazzela and Feingold 1994

• teachers evaluations of students - Clifford and Walster 1973

• attractive versus plain lecturer - Chaiken et al. 1978

Downs & Lyons 1991

found that attractive defendants received more lenient bail and fine amounts than unattractive defendants, but this effect was only observed in misdemeanor cases

Mazzela & Feingold 1994

meta-analysis examining how defendant and victim characteristics like physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status (SES), and gender affected mock juror judgments

Clifford & Walster 1973

studied how a child's physical attractiveness affects teachers' expectations, finding that teachers rated more attractive children as more intelligent, more popular, and predicted greater future academic success, demonstrating the halo effect where positive first impressions (attractiveness) bias overall judgments, regardless of actual ability

Are attractive people actually “better?”

evidence suggests that attractive people are more socially skilled (but that’s about it) - why might this be true?

Snyder, Tanke, Berscheid 1977

demonstrated the self-fulfilling prophecy of social stereotypes, showing that a perceiver's belief about someone's attractiveness (manipulated via a photo) alters their own behavior, which in turn causes the target person to act in ways that confirm that initial stereotype

• men led to believe they were talking to an attractive woman acted warmer, prompting the women (who couldn't see the photo) to become friendlier, more animated, and sociable, behaving as if they were actually attractive

Why do we see the halo effect?

• evolutionary perspective

• attractiveness evolved as desirable because it signaled reproductive potential in ancestral environments - health in men and women, fertility in women

What is attractive in men and women?

• symmetry

• clear skin

What is attractive in women?

• larger eyes

• larger lips

• 0.7 waist to hip ratio

What is attractive in men?

• strong jaw

• defined brow

• waist to chest ratio

Men and the importance of attractiveness

• men report that physical attractiveness is more important (Li & Kenrich, 2002, 2006)

• physical attractiveness seems to matter more to men in marriage (McNulty & Karney 2008, Meltzer, McNulty, Jackson & Karney 2014)

• no sex differences observed in short-term relationships

Similarity between men and women in attractiveness

people tend to like others with positive personality traits - this is not the whole story

Pratfall effect - Aronson et al, 1996

a psychological phenomenon where a highly competent person who makes a small, clumsy mistake (a "pratfall") becomes more likable and relatable, while a mediocre person who makes the same mistake seems less likable because the blunder humanizes the superior individual, breaking the perception of superhuman perfection

Similarity

• turns out we like others who are similar to us

• random pairs like each other more is they are similar

• friends and relationship partners are more similar than random pairs

• seems to occur due to perceived similarity

What about complementarity?

• no strong evidence for this

• couple may serve complementary roles within a relationship, but they tend to be similar to each other when observed outside of the relationship

• effects of similarity in actual relationships appear to be driven by perceived similarity

Familiarity

mere exposure effect (Zajonc 1968) - we are more attracted to neutral stimuli that we have repeatedly seen than unfamiliar neutral stimuli

• Chinese ideograms

• our own mirror image vs pictures

Festinger 1950 - the dorm study

proximity - highlighted how proximity (physical closeness) drives friendship formation due to increased interaction, leading to familiarity and liking

Reciprocity

• we like people who like us

• but that is not the whole story

• Aronson and Linder 1965

Aronson and Linder 1965

introduced the Gain-Loss Theory of Attraction, finding that people like someone more if that person's opinion of them changes from negative to positive (gain) than if it's consistently positive; conversely, they dislike someone more if their opinion shifts from positive to negative (loss)

Summary of attraction

rewards vs. punishments - we like people who…

• can offer us rewards (physical attractiveness, similarity)

• can give us those rewards (proximity, mere exposure)

• seem willing to give us those rewards (reciprocity)

If the factors that bring people together are not the same factors that…

split people apart, we would expect initially satisfying relationships to flourish forever

• but they don’t, so other factors must be involved

• but what? - we need to look elsewhere to find out

Attachment theory

infants learn about relationships through their relationships with their primary caregivers

• three styles - securely attached, anxious/ambivalent, avoidant

• attachment style affects how they approach future relationships

Pros of attachment theory

the theory explains how partners’ histories affect the relationship

Cons of attachment theory

the theory does not explain how happy couples become unhappy

Behavioral theory

people learn about their relationships through their interactions with their partners

• positive interactions lead to positive evaluations

• negative interactions lead to negative evaluations

• what is bad? - negative content? negative affect?

Pros of behavioral theory

gives us a mechanism of change - explains that bad behavior leads to bad evaluations of the relationships

Cons of behavioral theory

does not tell us where the bad behavior comes from - how/why do people go from good to bad?

Social exchange theory

people make relationship decisions by considering

• the rewards of the relationship

• the costs of the relationship

• outcome = rewards - costs

Comparison level

what we think we should get from a relationship

• satisfaction is having outcomes that outweigh your comparison level (standards)

• satisfaction = outcome - CL

Comparison level for alternatives

what do I think I could get outside of my relationship?

• dependence = outcome - CLalt

• so people will leave their relationships if they think they can get better outcomes in other relationships

Pros of social exchange theory

explains differences between satisfaction and stability

Cons of social exchange theory

does not explain how people become unhappy - how rewards, costs, comparison levels change over time

Crisis theory

relationship partners must respond to the stressful events of their lives

• some partners are better able to deal with stress than others - personality differences, social differences (additional stresses)

• when they can not, the relationship suffers

Pros of crisis theory

answers the question of when - relationships turn sour when stress is high

Cons of crisis theory

does not tell us where the ability to cope comes from

Vulnerability-stress-adaptation model (Karney and Bradbury 1995)

• enduring traits - stable qualities each partner brings to the relationship

• interpersonal processes - how partners behave and react to each others’ behavior

• external circumstances - outside influences on the couple