Week 2 - research methods and attraction

what are the different type of measures?

• self report measures

• observational measures

• physiological measures

• archival measures

pros and cons of self report

pros

• allows us to “get inside people’s heads’/understand personal points of view

• inexpensive and easy to obtain

Cons

• difficulties in recall and awareness

• social desirability bias (esp for sensitive topics e.g. cheating)

purpose of observational methods

• gather data about relationship events without having to ask people who are experiencing those events directly

• can be home-based, in-lab, or any other location

purpose of physiological methods

• can give an insight into the body involuntary reactions and ultimately, how people feel and react in romantic relationships

• includes measuring heart rate, muscle tension, brain activity, hormone levels

what are archival methods?

• publicly available documents such as marriage licenses

sample types

• convenience sample (anyone who is readily available)

• representative sample (a group of people who resemble the entire population of interest)

volunteer bias in research

• people who agree to participate in research may differ from those that refuse

• one study found that volunteers tended to be better educated, employed in higher-status jobs, more likely to have lived together, and consisted of more committed couples participating together (Park et al., 2020)

trusting results (Clark and Hatfield, 1989)

• men were significantly more likely to agree to go on a date, go over to an apartment, or sleep with an attractive female confederate than women with an attractive male confederate

• these results were replicated in other studies involving more than 20,000 people from every major region of the world

what are the main design types used by relationship researchers?

• correlational (includes cross-sectional, daily experience, longitudinal)

• experimental

describe Aron et al. (2001) - experimental cross-sectional study example

• couples randomly assigned to novel-arousing task or mundane task (control)

• after task, relationship satisfaction measured

• couples in the novel-arousing condition were more satisfied

describe Carson et al. (2004) - experimental longitudinal study example

• mindfulness intervention study - couples assigned to intervention or wait-list (control)

• 8 weekly sessions + 1 full-day retreat

• couples in mindfulness group had greater increases in relationship satisfaction at 3-month follow up

pros and cons of experiments

pros

• showing cause and effect

• able to isolate variables of interest

Cons

• lack of external (ecological) validity

• limited in the types of processes that can be studied

what is attraction?

• evaluating another person positively (not necessarily romantic)

• we are often attracted to those whose presence is rewarding (Clore & Byrne, 1974)

what are the forces that cause attraction?

• reciprocity

• similarity

• familiarity/proximity

evidence for reciprocity

• we like people who like us

• we like others more after knowing they like us (Backman & Secord, 1959; Birnbuam et al., 2018)

• they like us specifically (not just everyone)

evidence for similarity

• we like people who are like us, esp people with similar backgrounds (e.g. age, race), interests, attitudes and values (Hampton et al., 2019)

• we trust others when they are more similar (Singh et al., 2017)

• feel assured others will like us and enjoy spending time with similar others (Hampton et al. 2019)

evidenced against similarity

• personality vs similarity

• actual traits matter (e.g. agreeableness, emotional stability) more than than similarity on traits (Weidman et al., 2017)

• these traits generally make it more enjoyable to interact with people (Watson et al., 2014)

similarity vs perceived similarity

• perceived similarity makes people like each other more than actual similarity (Tidwell et al., 2013)

• perceived similarity increases the more relationships progress (Goel et al., 2010)

• outside observers may see actual dissimilarities and wrongly conclude that opposites attract when in reality couples just aren’t perceiving these dissimilarities

what is familiarity/proximity?

• the people who, by chance, you see and interact with the most (more familiar) are more likely to become friends or romantic partners

evidence for familiarity - MIT housing study (Festinger et al., 1950)

• students at MIT were randomly assigned to 1 of 17 housing buildings on campus knowing almost no one else beforehand

• researchers asked participants to list their three closest friends

• 65% of residents had at least one friend who lived in their own building despite those living in the same building only representing 5% of all residents

• of those with a friend in their housing complex, most said that their friend lived next door

how does familiarity work?

• we have an increased opportunity to meet people who live close to us

• we tend to like things more after we have been repeatedly exposed to them and they become more familiar to us (mere exposure effect)

• but there are limits - initial disliking may breed contempt after further exposure

physical attraction - symmetry

• symmetry is attractive (Fink et al., 2006)

• symmetrical people have higher levels of estradiol (greater fertility; Jasienska et al., 2006)

• symmetrical people get sick less often (Thornhill & Gangestad, 2006)

• better physical and mental health (Perilloux et al., 2010)

  • but correlational data only (e.g. better mental health may occur if people are nicer to you due to attractiveness)

evolutionary explanation of symmetry preferences

• symmetry is an indicator of physical health (poor nutrition, disease, injury often led to asymmetry)

• tendency to associate with symmetrical people would have led to better survival and reproductive outcomes

‘average’ faces

• average faces (not average-looking; the average of faces across people) are more attractive (Rubenstein et la., 2002)

• possibly because they feel more familiar

full body attractiveness

• for women, a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 is preferable (signal fertility)

• for men, waist-to-hip ratio of 0.9 is preferable and a shoulder-to-hip ratio of 1.2 (signal strength and status)

differences in the importance of (physical) attractiveness (Li et al., 2002)

• attractiveness is most important to men in an ideal partner

• yearly income is most important to women in an ideal partner (closely followed by intelligence)

gender differences in the importance of attractiveness across cultures (Buss et al., 1990)

• mate preferences looked at across 37 different cultures

• men prefer slightly younger partners and prioritise physical attractiveness

• women prefer slightly older partners and prioritise resources

evolutionary explanations in differences in importance of attractiveness (women)

• securing resources was more difficult, and so was more important

• women (and their children) were more likely to survive if they prioritised partners with resources

evolutionary explanations in differences in importance of attractiveness (men)

• partners’ resources were less important

• partners’ fertility was more important

• men who prioritised fertility cues had greater reproductive success

evolutionary explanations in differences in importance of attractiveness (both)

• both prioritise attractiveness in short-term relationships

• partners’ resources are unimportant if they won’t be seen again

social-role explanations of differences in the importance of attractiveness (Eagly & Wood, 1999)

• in most societies, women have less resources/power and so rely more on partner support

• and so they should prioritise partner resources

• sex differences are reduced in societies where women have equal power/resources

Capilano bridge study (Dutton & Aron, 1974)

• 85 men visited one of two bridges in Vancouver - safe vs scary bridge

• female experimenter asks him to fill out survey and then gave phone number to call later for debriefing

• more men called experimenter after interacting on the scary bridge vs the safe bridge