Wk 8 - Attraction and Relationships

Interpersonal attraction

the force acting between 2 people that tends to draw them together and resist their separation

Determinants of attraction

 proximity/propinquity (who is available), familiarity, similarity, reciprocity and physical attractiveness (the last 4 is who is appealing to us)

The propinquity effect

The finding that the more we see and interact with people, the more likely they are to become our friend or intimate partner (Miller et al, 2006)

Proximity predicted friendship patterns (Festinger et al, 1950) - procedure

• Looked at friendship patterns among 2000 students in apartment buildings. Most of the ppt were all strangers initially

Proximity predicted friendship patterns (Festinger et al, 1950) - results

• 65% of friends mentioned were from the same building

• 41% of next-door neighbours indicated they were close friends

• 22% of neighbours two-doors apart indicated they were close friends

• 10% of those who lived at opposite ends of the halls indicated they were close friends

• Residents near stairwells formed twice as many friendships because they had to interact with more people

Proximity predicted friendship patterns (Festinger et al, 1950) - conclusion

• Its functional distance in terms of how often the peoples paths cross rather than geographical distance

why does proximity lead to attraction?

• Ease of availability (lower cost)

• Anticipation of interaction increases liking

• Cognitive dissonance

How does cognitive dissonance link to proximity leading to attraction?

if you see people frequently it reduces dissonance if you like that person

Familiarity (the mere exposure effect)

the finding that the more exposure we have to a stimulus, the more likely we are to like it

Montoya et al, 2017 - Familiarity

In the absence of negative qualities, familiarity tends to breed attraction and liking

Familiarity: Zajonc (1968) procedurę

• the more people saw a face, the more they liked it

  • Repeated this with different stimuli: american ppt were shown different chinese characters.

Familiarity: Zajonc (1968) findings

The more exposure to these chinese characters the more positive attitudes towards it

Moreland & Beach (1992) - procedure

• Four female confederates sat in a classroom for varied length of time throughout the semester

Moreland & Beach (1992) - IV

the number of times each confederate sat in the classroom (5, 10 or 15)

Moreland & Beach (1992) - DV

ratings of attractiveness faces from a series of pictures of faces (including the confederates)

Moreland & Beach (1992) - Findings

he attractiveness ratings of the confederates who attended more lectures was higher

Moreland & Beach (1992) - Limitations

differences in what people see as attractive

Why does familiarity promote liking? (4)

• Familiar is predictable

• Evolutionarily adaptive

• Improved recognition

• Familiar is assumed to be similar

Limits to mere exposure

• Effective if initially viewed as positive or neutral

• Pre-existing conflicts will be intensified with exposure

• Too much exposure can lead to boredom - there is an optimal level of exposure you can have to someone

Similarity

• The more similar we are to someone in terms of interests, attitudes, values, background or personality the more we like them

Similarity: Newcomb (1961)

• assigned roommates to be either similar or dissimilar

  • Men became friends with those who were demographically similar and who had similar attitudes and values

Similarity: Hill & Peplau, 1998

People tend to match partners on a variety of attributes

Similarity: Mayer and Puller, 2008

individuals are more likely to become friends and romantically involved with those who share similar political views

Similarity: Gonzaga et al, 2007

 similar personality characteristics are important

Similarity: Bartova et al, 2017

The more that partners matched each other on a trait measure of masculinity-feminity, the more cohesive, expressive and satisfied those couples tended to be

Similarity in attractiveness: Murstein, 1972

Pictures of real couples were consistently rated as more alike in levels of physical attractiveness

Similarity in attractiveness: Bruch and Newman, 2018

We are drawn to others who are in "our own league"

Matching hypothesis

the tendency for people to like others who are similar on socially desirable traits

Why do people prefer similar others?

more rewarding, less cognitive dissonance, more successful with similar others

Less cognitive dissonance relating to similarity

 they are less likely to disagree with you so unlikely to challenge your beliefs

Similarity: why would we be more successful with similar others?

if you are with someone better than you may lead to jealousy

Similarity in committed relationships

• Choose a similar partner

• Relationships based on differences can be difficult to maintain

Similarity in committed relationships - From et al. (2025)

• Perceived similarity more important than actual similarity

Similarity in low level of commitment relationships (fling)

 choose dissimilar partners sometimes

Similarity: Gonzafa et al. (2007)

personality predicted relationship satisfaction and quality in dating couples and newly married couples. found that relationship success was mediated by emotional similarity

Reciprocity - Curtis & Miller (1986) - procedure

They looked at the reciprocity of liking for strangers. 60 same sex pairs of students who did not know each other and they had a quick get to know eachother conversation

Reciprocity - Curtis & Miller (1986) - Conditions

In one condition, They told person A person B likes them, and in the other condition they told person B that person A does not like them. They had a second conversation after this

Reciprocity - Curtis & Miller (1986) - Results

If they were told person B does not like them their liking for person B decreased but this also resulted in Person B disliking person A based off the way they acted in the second conversation

Reciprocal liking

people who like each other get to know, and become familiar with one another

Reciprocity: Eastwick et al, 2007

• Speed dating - Ppt flirted more with, showed more romantic desire for and eventually wanted to date those who reciprocated interest

• But only if they did not reciprocate to lots of other people

Reciprocity: Koranyi & Rothermund, 2012

Imagining your crush reciprocating reduces tendency to look longer at other good-looking faces

Why does reciprocity influence attraction?

• Being with someone who likes us means we are less likely to be rejected

• Believing someone likes you can lead to greater self-disclosure. This is because they feel they should reciprocate this disclosure and that they have trust in you

Physical attractiveness - Ha et al. (2012)

Physically attractive people are rated as more desirable potential mates by both heterosexual and homosexual individuals

Thorndike (1920s) coined the term 'The halo effect'

the tendency for an individuals positive impression in one area to positively influence their perception in other related areas

Attractive people have a social advantage - Research shows they are more likely

to be higher for jobs and receive help faster. Gives them a chance to develop better social qualities

Why does physical attractiveness influence attraction?

• Aesthetic appeal is desirable and leads to positive affect

• Looking at beautiful faces is rewarding behaviours

• Heuristic cue of good genes and mating potential

What we think beautiful things relate to depends on

culture

Korean, American and Canadian cultures share these stereotypes for beautiful people:

sociable, extroverted, happy, popular, well-adjusted, mature, poised, sexually warm, responsive, friendly

Additional American and Canadian cultures share these stereotypes for beautiful people:

strong, assertive, dominant

Additional Korean culture traits for beautiful people

sensitive, empathetic, generous, honest, trustworthy

What do people find physically attractive?

Women (Singh et al., 2009)

Small waist to hip ratio (.7) is universally rates as attractive in women

What do people find physically attractive?

Women (Cunningham ,1986)

• Large eyes, dilated pupils, large smile

• Small noses, small chins

• Neonatal features

• Lustrous hair and skin

• Symmetry - is an indication of good genes, evolutionary

What do people find physically attractive?

Men (Singh et al., 2009)

Smaller waist to hip ratio (.85 -.9) is universally rated as attractive in men

What do people find physically attractive?

Men (Cunningham et al, 1990)

strong jaw, small eyes, rigid eyebrows

What do people find physically attractive?

Men (Sell et al., 2017)

Physical strength determined 70% of mens attractiveness

Physical attractiveness - Langlois & Roggman, 1990

Composite photos of faces are rated as more attractive than individual faces

Mating preferences

• Buss et al (1990) - procedure

asked thousands of adults in 37 cultures how desirable certain characteristics were in a marriage partner

Mating preferences

• Buss et al (1990) - women valued

ambition, industriousness, and earning capacity (resourcefulness more important than physically attractiveness even though this is still valued)

Mating preferences

• Buss et al (1990) - men valued

physical attractiveness (Indicators of youth and fertility)

Evolution of our mating preferences

• Sexual strategies theory (Buss & Schmitt, 1993)

explains human mating behaviours through an evolutionary lens, emphasising short-term and long-term strategies, shaped by biological sex differences and context

Dating advertisement (Weiderman, 1993). Men and women seek

Men seek physically attractive partners and women seek partners who are financial successful and honesty in a mate

Dating advertisement (Weiderman, 1993). men and women describe themselves

men described themselves in terms of financial success and honesty. Women described their physical attributes

Online dating - modern era

People are more accessible now - this influences determinants of attraction

Propinquity for online dating

may not be as important given we can meet people and maintain relationships virtually

Similarity for online dating

people seek others with similar "popularity" in online dating sites (Taylor et al, 2011)

Familiarity for online dating (Norton et al., 2007) pre/post date survey

• Knowledge about partner increased

• Liking decreased after meeting

• Initial impression (based on dating profile) not that accurate

Benefits of online dating

• Aggregates a large number of profiles - so large number of people to potentially meet

• Computer-mediated communication

• Matching users based on analyses of compatibility

Online dating - Finked et al., 2012

success rates for online dating not higher than other "old-fashioned" methods

Limitations for online dating

• We aren't always accurate at predicting the mate characteristics that will lead to satisfying relationships

• Communication style and sexual compatibility cant be assessed online

• Potential deception (catfishing; Ellison et al, 2012)

online dating - enhancing attractiveness online

present idealised self, this has big implications for successful relationships

online dating - Toma et al (2008)

• 81% provide inaccurate information in their profile for at least one characteristic:

  • Weight, age, height, deceptive misleading photos (filters)

  • No gender differences

online dating - Zhang et al (2025)

Ppt used idealised photos that exaggerated their positive personality traits, sometimes traits that they do not possess but perceive others to desire, and sometimes even traits they wish they had possessed

Making connections in a digital world (Przublyski & Winstein, 2013) procedure

Pairs of strangers had a 10 minute conversation about a personally meaningful topic

Making connections in a digital world (Przublyski & Winstein, 2013) IV

presence of phone or tablet

Making connections in a digital world (Przublyski & Winstein, 2013) Findings

mere presence of the device decreased ppt feeling of trust, closeness, and empathy with their conversation partner

Percieved partner phubbing refers to

the perception that a partner's phone use interferes with the face-to-face communication quality due to reduced partner attention (Roberts and David, 2016)

Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas (2018) procedure

 asked ppt to image a hypothetical communication partner either phubbing them extensively, partially or not at all

Chotpitayasunondh & Douglas (2018) results

• Increased phubbing significantly and negatively affected percieved communication quality and relationship satisfaction

• Hypothetical phubbing reduced feelings of belongingness

Carnelly et al (20125) conducted a daily diary study

• On days when ppt percieved their partner as phubbing them more, ppt higher in attachment anxiety reported higher depressed mood and lower self-esteem

• However, their relationship satisfaction was not impacted

Personal relationships:

Three basic characteristics

1. Frequent interaction over a long period of time

2. Many different kinds of activities

3. Strong mutual influence

Defining love: Rubin (1970)

love is not the same as liking

Liking

 a favourable evaluation of another person, having respect for another person and sharing similarities

Love

an affiliative and dependent need component, with an exclusivness and absorption component and a predisposition to help the other person

Hatfield & Rapson (1993)

We generally distinguish between companionate love and passionate love

Passionate love (Fisher, 2004)

involves an intense longing for another person, characterised by the experience of physiological arousal - the feeling of shortness of breath and a thumping heart in someone's presence

Companionate love

feelings of intimacy and affection we have for someone that are not accompanied by passion or physiological arousal.

People can experience companionate love in

 nonsexual close friendships or in romantic relationships in which they experience great feelings of intimacy but not as much of the heat and passion as they once felt

Sternberg's (1986) Triangular Theory

3 components of love: passion, intimacy, commitment

Passion

deep physical attraction, sexual desire

Intimacy

emotional closeness

commitment

 degree of connection, decision to love the other and maintain that love

If love has all 3 components then it is

Consuminate love

Jankowiak, 1955: love and culture

• American couples tend to value passionate love more than Chinese couples do

• Chinese couples tend to value companionate love more than American couples do

Social exchange theory (Homans, 1961)

the idea that people's feelings about a relationship depends on their perception of its rewards and costs, the kind of relationship they deserve, and their chances for having a better relationship with someone else

Rewards - costs =

outcome

Kelley and Thibaut (1978)

Comparison level

peoples expectations about the level of rewards and costs they are likely to perceive in a particular relationship

Kelley and Thibaut (1978)

Comparison Level for Alternatives

 peoples expectations about the level of rewards and costs they would receive in an alternative relationship

Strength of social exchange theory - Cook et al (2013)

Friends and romantic couples cross-culturally often do pay attention to the costs and rewards in their relationships and these perceptions predict how positively people feel about the status of the relationship

Limitation of social exchange theory - Carter et al, 2013

many people do not leave their partners even when they are dissatisfied and other alternatives are appealing. Level of investment is an important determinant of relationship outcomes

Kelley & Thibaut (1978) - investment

• An investment is something an individual puts into a relationship that they cannot recover if the relationship were to end