Studied by 17 people
Triangle of love
Evolutionary origins-biological factors of attraction
Symmetry- correlation between symmetry and genetic health
Facial Shape- correlation between hormones and facial shape
Hip-Waist Ratio- correlation between hip-waist ratio and estrogen
Voice pitch- correlation between hormones/fertility and voice pitch
Scent (MHC)- correlation between scent and genetic variation
Biological origins of attraction focus on motivation for sexual behavior and attachment
The “neurochemical cocktail of love”
biological attraction reasons
Dopamine is a feel-good neurotransmitter. This is responsible for motivation. Every time you think about that special someone, dopamine is released.
Testosterone increases sexual desire towards your new partner and increases feelings of aggression, which may motivate you to more actively pursue your partner.
Noradrenaline helps control emotions and stress – the extra dose in your system increases your alertness and attentiveness to your new partner. It also provides that rush of excitement. Noradrenaline stimulates the production of adrenaline, which makes our heart race, and the palms sweat.
Serotonin levels drop when we fall in love. The low levels in those who are newly in love can cause the obsessive thinking and heightened mood extremes often experienced in a new relationship.
All of these chemical changes increase the motivation to pursue a partner
Biological Stages of love
Biological study for attraction
Ditzen
Aim: investigate possible role of oxytocin in how couples communicate
Method: 47 hetero couples, ½ received oxytocin intranasally, ½ received placebo, videotaped as they had a potential conflict discussion
Dependent variable: Level of stress hormones secreted during the discussion
Results: men and women oxytocin improved communication and lowered cortisol, compared to the placebo.
Conclusion: oxytocin facilitates pair bonding behavior
Halo Effect -cognitive
The Halo Effect is a cognitive bias where we tend to overgeneralize attractiveness as being representative of all qualities of a good mate/ partner
Remember: we are cognitively lazy and our past experience of seeing wealthy celebrities in media may lead us to think it applies
Self-Esteem- cognitive
Self-esteem is where we value ourselves on characteristics in relation to other people
For example, if I believe that maybe I’m a 2, in looks, but I am definitely a 9 when it comes to my earning potential, my impression of myself can be summarized like this
“There may be 80% of other people out there who are better looking than me, but I can more than 90% of the people offer in wealth”
Self-esteem is not a singular value, but rather a cumulative assessment of our value as a mate.
We may seek to form relationships with people we see we are worthy of and are worthy of us
Similarity- cognitive
Shared Interests, Values, Beliefs, equals Shared behaviors and compatible activities. Partners who have happy and meaningful relationships tend to at least share some of the most important similarities with each other.
Enhances self-esteem: People who loved those similar to themselves displayed a higher self satisfactions than those who had more differences. Psychologist attribute this to a validation need, or our internal recognition that people who are like us are deserving of love and so we are therefore more motivated to pursue them. People who feel good about who they are, are more likely to initiate relationships and search for similarities they can build on
Cognitive Origins of Attraction Evidence
Markey and Markey (2007)
aim: investigated the extent to which similarity is a factor in the way people choose a partner
method: questionnaires/survey
The researchers asked a large self-selected sample of undergraduate students to describe the psychological characteristics, values, and attitudes of their ideal romantic partner, without thinking of anyone in particular. Afterward, they were asked to express themselves. The results showed that the way the participants described themselves was similar to what they were seeking in their ideal partner.
Strengths and limitations:
The study was based on self-report questionnaires which means that the responses may have been influenced by demand characteristics.
However, the results are based on a relatively large sample, and this enhances the reliability of the study.
The sample consisted of young American students, so it is not possible to generalize to other populations unless similar research was to be conducted with couples in different kinds of relationships, or from other cultures to confirm the results.
Finally, the study used correlational analysis and it is difficult to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between personality and preference in a romantic partner.
Mere-Exposure- social cultural
Based on familiarity, the more we see anything the more comfortable we are with it and the more enjoyable it becomes
When the mating pool was limited (50-150) people, and everyone died a lot, you couldn’t be too picky. You had to form an attraction to those around you
Familiarity and exposure usually means the person is available for social interaction which we find rewarding
Ye et al
method: carried out a content analysis of online dating ads for Chinese and Americans.
aim: to investigate if culture had a significant impact on online dating ads
More Chinese profiles provided information on their physical appearances, health conditions, financial status, education, and morality, whereas American profiles focused on personality and hobbies.
A similar pattern was found in their statements about mate preferences: statements about physical characteristics, financial status, and morality more frequently appeared in Chinese personal ads, whereas statements about personality and hobbies more frequently occurred in American personal ads.
Conclusion: Culture matters, it does have an impact. Culture dictates the priority of attraction
strength: high reliability (content analysis)
limitation: bias since they only use significant studies (double selection bias)
Fear of Rejection (technology and relationships)
Males and females are simply more bold in online interactions
Fear of rejection is minimized when messaging \n strangers
Behavior is typical so judgment from others is less severe and less personal
Many people, males especially, employ a “shotgun strategy” for dating
Proximity (technology and relationships)
Social media algorithms (tinder, hitch, even snap and Instagram) suggest or provide users with people in their area
Users are more likely to “swipe right”, dm, or follow, people who are in an accessible location
Users also provide this information in profiles
Cultural Norms (technology and relationships)
Technology has had a homogenizing effect of norms of attraction
Globalization of social media platforms like Tik Tok have minimized cultural beauty platitudes in favor of western definitions of beauty
However, Eastern beauty standards have \n migrated to western ideals as well
Similarity (technology and relationships)
Dating sites utilize compatibility tests for users to complete, but these haven’t shown to be any more effective than blind dates
Technology platforms have found a more successful approach by “huddling” like minded individuals
Self-Esteem (technology and relationships)
There is a direct correlation to the number of followers, swipes, likes, (other positive feedback) and an individuals’ willingness to reach out to others
The more the social media presence is enhanced, the more likely they are to engage in flirtatious behavior
People may use elite status markers (cars, houses, jobs- even if deceptive) to boost their own self-esteem and increase motivation to pursue others
Communication (technology and relationships)
Communication is a mixed research result. Communication is more frequent and makes relationships more connected, however
Online communication also presents negative effects on relationship intimacy
1- communication is more frequent
2- communication is more shallow
3- communication is more prepared
4- communication is misinterpreted
While this has positive and negative effects, it must be balanced with in-person communication for the positives to outweigh them
Fidelity (technology and relationships)
Definitions of “cheating” have changed during the online social media era
Satisfaction with relationships may lead to more opportunities for cheating but there are no clear findings that people who are users of media are more likely to cheat
If anything, the temptation increases, but as known, cheating usually occurs when there is dissatisfaction with one element of the relationship
Termination of Relationships (technology and relationships)
Breaking up can be less personal
More people break up, 1/3rd, of all relationships end due to a conflict on social media
Breakups are more public
Online behavior toward exes can leave relationship doors open or close them
Conflict in any relationship will occur due to:
Competing interests and wants
A desire for personal time/space
Financial Equity
Equity in responsibilities
Conflicting morals, judgment
Research shows that all couples will encounter conflict, but the way couples communicate dictates the health of the relationship
Social Penetration Theory
provides a framework for understanding HOW a relationship is built
The underlying principle is that communication patterns in a relationship in its formative stage move from the superficial to the intimate in a slow but deliberate fashion
The orientation stage
This stage is about “breaking the ice”.
Will this individual entertain my small talk? We divulge what is otherwise public knowledge and look for a return. Without a return, the relationship will not progress.
Example: If you meet someone online and tell them that you go to Johnson and are an IB Student, they can respond in two ways.
1. “Oh, I go to Mill Creek and play baseball” (Signals continue)
2. “Cool” (Signals unwillingness to continue) This stage can maintain acquaintances, but nothing intimate
The Exploratory Stage
The Purpose of the exploratory stage is to seek similarities and differences beyond a superficial level
This could be questions like “What do you like to do for fun?” “How do you feel about this political issue?” “What are your goals?”
Example: How do you feel about that teacher? Do you think you want to still be living here in 5 years? Do you want children?
The Affective Stage
The Purpose of the Affective stage is to develop trust. We give people confidential information about ourselves to see if they judge us or use it against us.
We want these DISCLOSURES to be exclusive and privileged.
Example: “When I was younger and my parents divorced, I had a really hard time with it and I did some things I’m not proud of.” “I felt that in the last relationship I got lost in the person I was with and forgot what it was like to be me”
The Stable Stage
The purpose of this stage is to maintain the relationships key elements: Honesty, Trust, and Understanding
The lives are shared and demonstrate a serious \n commitment
A partner not only knows what the flaws and faults are, but accepts them and loves the exclusivity of knowing
Depenetration
The purpose of this stage is for one person to pull back on communication for one of the following reasons
Lack of trust
ear of judgment
Loss of Interest
Lack of equity
Colin and Miller (communication)
carried out a meta-analysis of studies of disclosure and found three trends:
(a) People who engage in intimate disclosures tend to be liked more than people who disclose at lower levels,
(b) people disclose more to those whom they initially like
(c) people like others as a result of having disclosed to them.
strength: can be generalized (high generalizability) high external validity
limitation: double selection bias because the researchers chose the studies that correlate to their studies
Social exchange theory
SET assumes that relationships are maintained through a constant cost-benefit analysis
SET establishes an idea of how relationships are maintained, not necessarily ended
However, the economic balance established, can explain and predict how relationships end
Investment
SET assumes that an individual makes an investment in a relationship in the same way one was to invest in a bank account (you put money in to expect a return on investment)
So what do we invest?
Time, material, (money included), exclusivity, disclosure, intimacy, compliments, emotions, risk
What return do we expect?
Companionship, emotional support, unconditional love, physical intimacy, understanding
Walster’s Equity
Elaine Walster proposed a predictive theory of relationship dissolution using social exchange
She proposed that the perception of equity in the exchange could predict a relationship’s health
Despite real investment and returns, if one partner felt OVER benefitted in a relationship, they would invest MORE to maintain it and are less likely to violate rules
Ex: A woman whose husband’s job allows her to stay home may spend a lot of her day making the house nice and cooking elaborate dishes OR a man whose wife’s job lets him stay at home may spend most of his time at the gym making sure he looks good \n If one person feels UNDER benefitted, they will pull back on investment or seek other options
Individual Comparative level
Walster contends that equitable perception is often based on past relationship experience and the schema of others, self, and the world
COMPARATIVE LEVEL is what you bring into a relationship
For example, a girl who has been cheated on, may see that having a male who wont do that as the biggest benefit to who he is
Or if a male has had past relationships where sex and physical intimacy were a central part, he may be feel under-benefitted by a female who chooses to wait for the progression of the relationship and end it
Alternative comparative level
If an individual has many other offers and interest, they may weigh the cost/benefits of ending of a relationship with starting a new one
If you are getting many offers, you become aware of your alternatives which may magnify the cost of staying in the current relationship
Research: Ma-Kellams & Wang (economic models of relationships)
Aim: Investigate how attractiveness can affect relationship longevity in equity perception
Procedure
The study involved 130 participants, around half of whom were in a romantic relationship
The participants were shown a picture of an attractive person of the opposite sex and asked to rank (on a scale of 1-7) how attracted they were to that person
Meanwhile, the two researchers secretly rated the attractiveness of each of the participants
Results
Participants who were below average in looks tended to give low attractiveness ratings to the person in the photo, suggesting they were not interested in relationship alternatives
however, participants who were above average in looks tended to give significantly higher attractiveness ratings to the person in the photo, suggesting that they were more open to pursuing relationship alternatives
Conclusion
People who are very good-looking seem more interested in pursuing attractive members of the opposite sex, even if they are already in a relationship
Normative models of breakup
Behavioral norms for \n relationships can lead to a break up when
Behaviors, Norms, or Expectations \n Change \n Or
Behaviors, Norms, or expectations \n Fail to change
Cultural Norms
Individualistic \n Relationships tend to prioritize love
The health of a relationship is \n measured by the degree of happiness
The purpose of the relationship tends to be what the two people decide is
Divorce is more common
Collectivist
Relationships tend to prioritize tradition
The health of a relationship is measured by the success of a family
The purpose of a relationship tends to be growing the family name in number and prestige
Divorce is less common
Normative Rule Breaking
Each culture has its own unique rules related to relationships
Ex: Us culture may dictate, no cheating, \n no lying, and no hiding things, whereas eastern European culture, is more accepting of a man hiding his financial affairs, and other non-domestic topics
Couples internalize cultural norms of where they live, their lifestyle, and social class
Some behavior that will cause a breakup in the US, like having a mistress, may be tolerated (not celebrated) in other cultures
Normative Explanations
Normative explanations account for a wide variety of behaviors but can be categorized into 4
Did not agree on normative expectations (they wanted kids, I wanted to work, they wouldn’t commit)
Mistreatment (I expected to be treated as an equal, and they treated me like an employee)
Changed normative expectations (I thought we would live near our family, but she wanted to move to New York)
Unanticipated reaction to change (they became a different person when they had kids, moved, kids moved out)
Fatal Attraction Definition
Diane Felmlee proposed the Fatal Attraction theory to explain break-ups
Her assumption was based on a simple premise: What attracts us, doesn’t necessarily sustain us
Felmlee believed that often (not always) there may be an attractive behavior or quality that we eventually grow tired of or was expecting the other individual to change
Fatal Attraction Theory
1. FUN TO FOOLISH: A carefree, humorous, fun-loving person was found to be initially desirable, but overtime when the relationship was taking a serious turn, the trait was found unstable
2. STRONG TO DOMINEERING: A person could be perceived initially as appealing because they “know what they want”, yet as equity is established, they could be found to be too controlling of the other
3. SPONTANEOUS TO UNPREDICTABLE: A person could be attracted to someone who is initially spontaneous, but then as the relationship matures, they may seem haphazard and a risky commitment
Bradbury and Finchem
method: meta-analysis of couples communication observed in healthy and unhealthy
happy couples maintained it through enhancing patterns-don’t blame partner they assign blame to situational factors
Deteriorating relationships engaged in Distress maintaining patterning. They blame their partner’s characteristics and ignore situational factors
Attribution Theory: Situational vs. Dispositional factors
Note
Flashcard