Psychology of Social Interaction - 11: Attraction & Intimacy

PSYC 3330

humans being social animals

needing to belong and having connections is hardwired into our survival

• otherwise we wouldn’t take care of our young

• being lonely increases premature mortality by 32%

• losing close connections causes physical pain

• attachment creates self-esteem and group survival

predictors of friendship and attraction

from greatest to least effect (though all are the most important predictors)

• geography

  • physical distance

  • functional distance

• similarity

  • why is it NOT opposites attract?

• physical attractiveness

  • matching phenomenon

  • facial symmetry

• reciprocity

• provision of rewards

geography (predictors of friendship and attraction)

closer the better. if you never meet them at all, none of the other factors matter in the least

in this sense, soulmates may exist, at least based on the person you select out of who is available

physical distance (geography)

farther the distance, the less likely you can make a connection at all

• ex: opposite sides of the world

functional distance (geography)

the more frequently you cross paths, the better

• ex: you may be equally distanced from 2 people, but the person who you encounter more often has a larger chance of forging a connection with you

similarity (predictors of friendship and attraction)

specifically similar attitudes on topics that you view as important, the more similar the better

not boring, but comfortable to not have to change/do work to become MORE alike

why is it NOT opposites attract? (similarity)

we do not like people who we disagree with on important matters, rather, we think something is wrong with them

opposites attract may be true for trivial things, but when it comes to important life domains that shape satisfaction like money, kids, politics, religion, etc, agreement is hugely essential

physical attractiveness (predictors of friendship and attraction)

not the most important factor but an important factor

most important at initial meeting, becomes less important over time

the more you like a person’s personality or get to know them favorably, the more physically attractive you perceive them as

• matters more to men than women, even in straight or gay relationships

matching phenomenon (physical attractiveness)

you end up with somebody who is about in your same league of attractiveness

not uglier or hotter, but about same objective physical attractiveness

• not likely to be attracted to someone you perceive as less attractive, and not likely to make a move on someone you perceive as out of your league

facial symmetry (physical attractiveness)

more symmetrical, the more implicitly attractive someone becomes

why? the more symmetrical someone’s face is, the healthier they seem evolutionarily speaking (less genetic defects or disease)

• ex: a person’s face was photo manipulated to become either slightly more or less symmetrical, and when participants were told to choose on instinct who was more attractive, they pick the more symmetrical one despite not consciously seeing much of a difference

reciprocity (predictors of friendship and attraction)

learning someone likes you makes you like them more, regardless of how you may feel about them initially

it is not an extremely strong increase, but it is a significant one

provision of rewards (predictors of friendship and attraction)

we weigh the rewards and costs of our relationships

nobody wants to put in more than they are receiving or feel that a relationship is more work than it is worth

rewards can be financial, emotional, social, etc

why does physical attractiveness even predict friendship and attraction?

“what is beautiful is good” stereotype/The Disney Effect

we tend to perceive more attractive people as having more goodness

• ex: rating pictures of various people in terms of how “good” they are → physical attractiveness positively correlates with goodness ratings

relationship theories

how to predict which relationships are satisfying/worth committing to/happy?

all models are equally important

• reward theory

• equity theory

• social exchange theory (SET)

• investment model

• john gottman’s interaction dynamics

reward theory (relationship theories)

cost-benefit analysis

always looking for more outcomes than input

• ex: 60/30 → good, 30/60 → bad

equity theory (relationship theories)

your ratio of inputs/outcomes should match your partner’s so you are equally benefitting

however, we usually overestimate the input we ourselves put in and underestimate our partner’s input since you can’t always see what they do, so it’s important to have a conversation and not just assume

• ex: 60/30 = 40/20 → good

• ex: 40/80 > 30/30 → bad

  • usually more feasible for the under-benefiting partner to put less in or for the over-benefiting partner to put more in, since you can’t control outcomes

    • 30/30 → under-benefiter puts less in → 15/30 = 40/80

    • 40/80 → over-benefiter puts more in → 80/80 = 30/30

social exchange theory (SET) (relationship theories)

determines who stays and who goes

• satisfaction threshold: predicts commitment levels through 3 variables

  • current satisfaction

  • comparison level: the minimum satisfaction level you see as acceptable

  • comparison level of alternatives: the possible satisfaction other partners could provide

• calculation of satisfaction threshold: how it should be

  • comparison level < current satisfaction →

    • comparison level of alternatives < current satisfaction

• toxic partners often realize that you KNOW that your current satisfaction < comparison level, so to prevent you from seeing alternatives, they socially isolate you

investment model (relationship theories)

combines the SET with one more variable to explain why some people stay in relationships that are not satisfying

• investment: what you lose, possibly or actually, from exiting a relationship. investments tend to increase with time spent in a relationship, so even if someone is unsatisfied or has better alternatives, they are wary of losing these

  • ex: time, money, children, pets, safety

john gottman’s interaction dynamics (relationship theories)

gottman had couples talk to each other about several topics in their relationship (likes, dislikes, routines, etc), and then by analyzing what is said/unsaid and physicality, he is able to code a model that predicts 93% of the time if they will be together 7 years in the future → negative/positive factors

• negatives: do not do these, 4 horsemen of the apocalypse

  • criticism of the partner: giving into the desire to hurt them non-physically

  • defensiveness: not accepting blame/acknowledging your role in any issues

  • stonewalling: refusal to interact through silence, withdrawal, leaving, ghosting

  • contempt: the WORST factor. showing your dislike of your partner through mockery/disrespect/sarcasm/condescension

• positives: do these at least 4x the amount of negatives you do

  • interest in partner and what they say: paying attention! people can tell when you are NOT paying attention to what they say

  • enthusiasm: matching your partner’s energy, being able to encourage/comfort them. you don’t have to be crazy about the same things, but showing that you are happy when they are happy

  • humor: particularly important during conflict, being able to TACTFULLY see the humor or light in a situation to protect their feelings

  • affection: in general, but especially when you are upset at each other. punctuate words with non-verbal action