close rel wk 1-3 txt
Chap 2 - research methods
Apparent agreement caused people to like the stranger more than disagreement did
Developing a question
Questions can come from personal experience, previous research
2 broad types
Describe events as they occur
Establish causal connections between events
Obtaining participants
Convenience sample: whoever is readily available
Leave room for idiosyncratic results
Representative sample: resemble the entire population of people who are of interest
Volunteer bias
Those who may differ from those who don’t
Choosing a design
Correlational designs
Correlations: describe patterns in which change in one event is accompanied to some degree by change in another
Usually study naturally occuring behavior
Posiitve: up and down together
Negative: change in opposite direction
Correlation patterns
Correlations tell us that two events change together but don’t tell us why
3 possibilities when a correlation exists
One of these 2 may cause the other - perceived similarity might lead to greater liking (part of research)
The other of these 2 could cause the one - liking others lead us to assume we have lots in common with them (research)
Explain why similarity and liking are related
Experimental designs
Experiments provide inf about causes and their effects because experimentors create and control the conditions they study. They intentionally manipulate 1+ variables and randomly assign participanta to different conditions
"if we change one, what happens to the other"
2 types of research measures
Self reports - Peoples own reports about their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors
Written questionaires, verbal interviews, diaries etc
Careful observations of others behavior
Social desirability bias: distortion that results from peoples wishes to make good impressions on others (possibility of systematic bias)
Observations in Relationship Research
Scientific observations are structured, not casual → use trained observers or tools.
Direct observations: study ongoing behavior in real time.
Recordings: reviewed later for analysis.
Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA):
Short, real-time observation samples.
Random times, across days.
Example: EAR app (Matthias Mehl, 2017) records short sound snippets to capture natural interactions.
Smartphones can also track location, texts, social media (with consent).
Eye-tracking studies: reveal attention patterns and preferences.
Pros: avoids self-report biases, captures real-life interactions.
Cons: expensive, time-consuming, risk of reactivity (behavior changes if people know they’re observed).
Example: Facebook profile study tracked behaviors without participants knowing (ethical debate).
Self-Reports & Attachment Styles
Most attachment research uses questionnaires.
Kelly Brennan et al. (1998) 12-item scale → 2 dimensions:
Anxiety about Abandonment (fear of being unloved, needing reassurance).
Avoidance of Intimacy (discomfort with closeness, pulling back).
Scoring:
Some items require reverse scoring.
Average Anxiety score: ~22 (low <15, high >29).
Average Avoidance score: ~15 (low 9, high 21).
Secure attachment: low anxiety + low avoidance.
Despite limitations (bias, careless responses), questionnaires are effective in identifying meaningful differences.
Physiological Measures
Capture involuntary bodily reactions (no reactivity).
Examples: heart rate, muscle tension, arousal, brain activity, hormones.
Findings:
Satisfied spouses → higher oxytocin levels.
Oxytocin inhalation → warmer, more trusting, even in avoidant/introverted people.
fMRI: love and sexual desire involve different brain regions.
Pros: objective, deeper insight into biology of relationships.
Cons: costly, specialized equipment.
Archival Materials
Use existing data (nonreactive).
Sources: personal docs (diaries, photos), media, government records, social media.
Example: yearbook photos → predicted divorce risk.
Pros: unobtrusive, avoids altering behavior.
Cons: may lack desired details.
Ethics in Relationship Science
Sensitive topics (infidelity, abuse) pose ethical challenges.
Risks: raising doubts, triggering conflict, emotional discomfort.
Protections:
Informed consent (voluntary, can withdraw).
Debriefing after study.
Access to counseling/resources if needed.
Benefits:
Most participants report positive or neutral experiences.
Some gain insight or recover faster after reflection.
Survivors of trauma often find participation healing.
Core Argument: it’s ethical (and necessary) to study intimate relationships → knowledge can reduce suffering and improve well-being.
Key Takeaways
Multiple research methods: observation, self-report, physiological, archival.
Each method has strengths and weaknesses (accuracy vs. cost, depth vs. reactivity).
Ethics is central → balancing participant well-being with the value of scientific knowledge.
Relationship science has real-world impact (e.g., showing flaws in ineffective marriage programs, pointing to structural issues like income stress).
Statistical Significance
Relationship research relies on statistical analysis.
Significant result → unlikely due to chance.
Significance ≠ absolute truth → could still reflect odd samples or mistakes.
Results from college student samples often replicate in adults, but effects may be smaller.
Replication & Open Science
Replication: repeating a study to see if findings hold.
Similar results → confidence grows.
Failures → concern, but also proof of science’s self-correction.
Open science practices:
Sharing data/materials.
Larger, more diverse samples.
Detailed procedures.
Field is more reliable now than ever before.
Interpreting Results Carefully
Findings describe patterns in groups, not rules for individuals.
Don’t dismiss research just because you know an exception.
Be a critical consumer: thoughtful, not gullible.
Unique Data Challenges
Paired, interdependent data
Partners’ responses often influence each other.
Example: Wilma’s satisfaction tied to Fred’s.
Requires special statistical procedures.
Three sources of influence
Outcomes come from:
Partner A’s traits.
Partner B’s traits.
The unique combination of both (the relationship itself).
Complex → needs sophisticated analyses.
Meta-Analyses
Combine results from multiple studies.
Show overall patterns and identify discrepancies.
Increase confidence in conclusions.
Final Notes
Early relationship science relied on convenience samples(college students).
Now: more diverse samples, complex designs, and varied methods → stronger field.
Scientific caution = honesty and maturity, not weakness.
People prefer simple answers, but real science values complexity and nuance.
Fraudulent sources = claim certainty; real science = admits limitations.
Ethical Example (Chris & Jamie study)
Participation required for course credit → raises volunteer bias.
Questions about sexual history/preferences → potentially uncomfortable, may cause relational anxiety.
Ethical protections: informed consent, ability to quit, payment.
Debate: Was it ethical to provoke doubt in such a new relationship?
Experimental Designs
Experiments test causal connections by manipulating variables and randomly assigning participants.
Key question: “If we change X, what happens to Y?” vs. correlational “Do X and Y change together?”
Example: Byrne (1965) study on attitude similarity and attraction
Randomly assigned participants to meet similar/dissimilar strangers.
Higher liking observed → caused by attitude similarity.
Advantages: Clear cause-and-effect conclusions.
Limitations: Some real-world events cannot be controlled (e.g., romantic love).
Takeaway: Correlational vs. experimental designs each useful depending on research goals.
Types of Data
1. Self-Reports
Participants report thoughts, feelings, behaviors via questionnaires, interviews, or diaries.
Pros:
Access internal perspectives
Easy and inexpensive
Cons:
Misinterpretation of questions
Faulty recall or lack of awareness
Social desirability bias
Example Tools:
Relationship Flourishing Scale (12 items) – measures relationship closeness and satisfaction.
2. Observations
Directly measure behavior or use recordings for later analysis.
Ecological momentary assessment (EMA): Short, random observations in real life.
Tech tools:
Smartphone EAR (record interactions)
Eye-tracking for attention/preferences
Pros: Avoids self-report bias.
Cons: Expensive, time-consuming, reactivity possible (behavior changes when observed).
3. Physiological Measures
Track heart rate, muscle tension, hormones, brain activity to link physical state with social behavior.
Examples:
Oxytocin → warmth, trust, bonding
fMRI → love and desire activate different brain regions
Pros: Avoids conscious bias, reveals biological foundations
Cons: Expensive, complex
4. Archival Materials
Use existing public/private data (photos, diaries, records, social media).
Pros: Nonreactive, historical comparisons possible
Cons: Limited info
Ethical Considerations
Relationship research often involves sensitive topics.
Researchers ensure:
Informed consent
Voluntary participation
Confidentiality
Counseling/resources offered if needed
Research is ethically justified to increase human well-being and understand complex relationships.
Interpreting Results
Statistical significance: Low likelihood results are due to chance.
Results are group patterns, not guarantees for individuals.
Paired/interdependent data: Partner responses influence each other → requires special analysis.
Three sources of influence: Individual traits of each partner + unique combination effects.
Replication & meta-analysis:
Replication = confirming results with different samples
Meta-analysis = combining results from multiple studies for confidence
Key Takeaways
Relationship science uses diverse methods, each with strengths and weaknesses.
Correlations ≠ causation.
Experimental design = best for causality, but not always feasible.
Self-reports, observations, physiological measures, and archival data = complementary tools.
Ethical research = protect participants, improve human relationships.
Use critical thinking: trust replicated, methodologically sound studies, not anecdotal advice.
Key Terms to Remember
convenience sample, representative sample, volunteer bias, correlations, experiments, self-reports, social desirability bias, ecological momentary assessment, reactivity, archives, open science, meta-analyses
Chap 7
Friendship: Basics
Friendship = voluntary, personal relationship
Provides intimacy, support, companionship.
Both parties like each other and seek each other’s company (Fehr, 1996).
Friendship vs. Romantic Love:
Friendships: less passionate, less sexual, less exclusive, fewer obligations.
Romantic love: fascination, sexual desire, exclusivity, stricter social norms.
Core elements like trust, respect, support, and shared activities exist in both.
Attributes of Good Friendships
Respect: admiration, moral qualities, consideration, honesty, willingness to listen.
Trust: confidence in partner’s benevolence, reliability, and selflessness.
Capitalization: friends enhance enjoyment of good events through enthusiasm and celebration.
Social Support: friends help in four main ways:
Emotional (affection, reassurance)
Physical (comfort, hugs)
Advice (guidance, info)
Material (tangible aid, money, resources)
Importance of Social Support
Emotional support → physiological and mental benefits:
Lower blood pressure, cholesterol, stress hormones.
Faster recovery from stress, reduced pain response.
Higher social support → better sleep, higher self-esteem, lower mental illness risk.
Quality of support depends on:
Provider skills, motivation, attachment style.
Fit with recipient’s needs and preferences.
Key Insight:
Perceived support often matters more than actual support.
People feel supported when they perceive care and attention, not just when help is given.
Insecure attachment → less likely to perceive support as sufficient.
Responsiveness
Definition: attentive, supportive recognition of needs and interests.
Encompasses respect, trust, capitalization, and social support.
Boosts intimacy, self-disclosure, trust, interdependency, and overall satisfaction.
Supports health and well-being: better sleep, lower stress hormones, life feels more meaningful.
Responsiveness in Practice (Dale Carnegie, 1936)
Six ways to show responsiveness:
Be genuinely interested in others.
Smile.
Remember names (important to people).
Be a good listener; encourage others to talk.
Talk in terms of the other person’s interests.
Make others feel important sincerely.
Modern research confirms that warm, attentive interactions build liking and friendship.
Cultural example: Mexican Americans in Texas show more sociability and warmth, leading to better interactions.
Friends’ Influence
Affect romantic relationships: approval/disapproval impacts satisfaction and commitment.
Influence happiness, health, and behaviors:
Happy friends → +15% chance you’ll be happy.
Friends’ friends also affect happiness (+10%).
Weight, loneliness, and emotional states can be “contagious.”
Best support is tailored, sometimes invisible, and responsive to the recipient’s needs.
The Rules of Friendship
Friendships operate best when there are shared, often unspoken rules.
Key rules of friendship (Argyle & Henderson, 1984):
Don’t nag
Keep confidences
Show emotional support
Volunteer help in time of need
Trust and confide in your partner
Share news of success
Don’t be jealous
Stand up for your partner in their absence
Repay debts, favors, compliments
Strive to make them happy
General expectations of good friends:
Trustworthy, loyal, and have your best interests at heart
Confidants for secrets
Enjoyable companions with shared interests
Helpful, providing material support
Women often have higher friendship standards, expecting more loyalty, self-disclosure, and similarity.
Friendships that adhere to these rules tend to be closer, richer, and even enhance romantic relationships.
Friendship Across the Life Cycle
Childhood:
Friendships evolve as cognitive and social skills develop.
Early friendships focus on acceptance, later on intimacy, and adolescence introduces sexuality.
Secure childhood friendships predict healthier adult relationships; peer rejection can cause later challenges, but interventions help.
Adolescence:
Teens spend more time with peers and less with family.
Friends increasingly fulfill attachment needs (proximity, support, safe haven, secure base).
Attachment gradually shifts from parents to peers.
Young Adulthood:
Teen friendships shape adult romantic competence (empathy, care, frustration management).
College students often replace old friendships with new ones; intimacy increases even as friend quantity decreases.
Best Friends:
More intimate than other friendships.
Provide deep knowledge, trust, interdependence, and commitment.
Best friendships withstand time, conflict, and life changes.
Midlife:
Romantic partnerships reduce time with friends (dyadic withdrawal).
Friendships with the opposite sex and exclusive friendships decline.
Having mutual friends with a spouse improves marital satisfaction.
Old Age:
Social networks shrink; friendships become more selective.
Seniors focus on emotionally fulfilling relationships rather than quantity (socioemotional selectivity theory).
Strong friendships in old age contribute to longer, healthier, happier lives.
Gender Differences in Same-Sex Friendships
Women’s friendships: “Face-to-face,” emotional, involve self-disclosure, advice, and support. Closer and more intimate.
Men’s friendships: “Side-by-side,” activity-based (sports, hobbies, work), less emotionally intimate.
Men are capable of emotional closeness but often avoid it due to cultural norms and gender roles encouraging stoicism.
Expressive or androgynous men tend to have closer friendships; cultural context affects intimacy levels.
Cross-Sex Friendships
Can be close, especially in college.
Motivated by the same factors as same-sex friendships: trust, support, responsiveness.
Challenges:
Sexual tension is common; men often overestimate interest, women underestimate.
Friendships may evolve into “friends with benefits” (FWBs) or remain purely platonic.
FWBs rarely transition to romance; often end or remain noncommittal.
After marriage, cross-sex friendships often decline due to perceived threat to the spouse.
Individual Differences in Friendship
Sexual orientation: LGB individuals tend to have more diverse friendship networks than heterosexuals.
Self-concept: People with a relational self-construal (see themselves in terms of relationships) are more attentive, supportive, and desirable as friends.
Personality traits – Dark Triad:
Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy → often arrogant, manipulative, exploitative, and poor at maintaining friendships.
Traits lead to increased conflict, criticism, and reduced empathy.
Pets as Friends
Pets can provide emotional support, reduce stress, and improve health outcomes.
Some people rely on pets more than human friends for comfort.
Pets cannot fully replace human friendship but can serve as valuable companions.
Key Takeaways:
Friendship quality varies by gender, culture, sexual orientation, personality, and life stage.
Women’s friendships tend to be closer and more expressive; men’s are activity-focused.
Cross-sex friendships are possible but complicated by sexual tension and life transitions.
Dark personality traits make poor friends, while relational self-concepts enhance friendship.
Pets can be important social supports, though they don’t replace human connection.
Friendship Difficulties: Shyness and Loneliness
1. Shyness
Shyness involves social anxiety, self-consciousness, and inhibited behavior. Over 80% of people experience it at some point.
Chronically shy individuals:
Fear negative evaluation from others.
Doubt themselves and have low self-esteem.
Lack social skills, leading to poorer interactions.
Shyness is often self-perpetuating: timidity or withdrawal can make negative impressions, reinforcing anxiety.
Situational shyness exists: people feel more comfortable in familiar settings or when interacting anonymously (e.g., online).
Overcoming shyness: practice calmness, self-confidence, and focus on others rather than worrying about judgments; formal social skills programs can help but aren’t always necessary.
2. Loneliness
Loneliness is the distress from a gap between desired and actual social connections; it is not the same as being alone.
Two types:
Social loneliness: lacking a network of friends.
Emotional loneliness: lacking intimacy with at least one close person.
Loneliness is widespread: 27% of Americans are emotionally lonely; higher in young adults.
Contributing factors:
Genetics (heritability ~45%)
Personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness → lower loneliness; negative emotionality → higher)
Attachment style (insecure attachment → higher loneliness)
Low self-esteem
Men are generally lonelier than women, especially when not in a romantic relationship, due to reliance on expressive partners for intimacy.
Loneliness can create negative behaviors: mistrust, dull interactions, shallow conversations, and social friction—making it self-perpetuating.
Chronic loneliness negatively affects health: higher stress, poor sleep, immune issues, and increased mortality in older adults.
3. Social Media and Friendship
Online friends are mostly acquaintances, not close confidants.
Facebook can expand casual networks and reduce loneliness if interactions are meaningful.
Excessive social media use can:
Reduce face-to-face interactions
Increase feelings of loneliness and depression
Foster envy and low self-esteem
Optimal social media use: 30–60 minutes per day; real-life interactions are far more satisfying.
Bottom Line:
Shyness and loneliness can interfere with forming rewarding friendships.
Shyness often blocks interactions unnecessarily; calmness and focus on others improve social experiences.
Loneliness is harmful and self-reinforcing but temporary if meaningful social connections are formed.
Online connections cannot replace deep, offline friendships.
Overcoming Loneliness
Loneliness is common but not permanent. Situations change, so hopefulness is crucial.
Positive focus matters: thinking about past friendships and belongingness makes people more sociable and less lonely.
Explanations for loneliness influence recovery: attributing it to temporary circumstances (e.g., moving to a new city) helps; attributing it to permanent personal deficits worsens it.
Set realistic goals: seek friendships first rather than immediately looking for romance.
Attitude affects social success: a negative, cynical outlook can repel others; a positive, patient approach encourages rewarding interactions.
Practical Advice for Friendships
Celebrate friends’ successes and happy events.
Ask how you can help or support them.
Provide support proactively when friends are stressed.
Follow established rules of friendship (shared expectations and respect).
Make time for your friends; prioritize quality over quantity.
Avoid people who are manipulative, selfish, or callous.
Take risks socially—people care more about engagement than perfection.
Key Points from Chapter Summary
Friendship Essentials
Respect: Admire and hold friends in high esteem.
Trust: Expect benevolent treatment.
Capitalization: Share in friends’ joys to reinforce pleasure.
Social Support: Can be invisible or perceived, but must meet your needs.
Responsiveness: Attentive recognition of friends’ needs is highly rewarding.
Friendship Across Life Stages
Childhood: Friendships grow increasingly complex.
Adolescence: Friends satisfy attachment needs.
Young Adulthood: Fewer friends, but deeper bonds.
Midlife: Focus shifts to romantic partners (dyadic withdrawal).
Old Age: Prioritize quality over quantity (socioemotional selectivity).
Differences in Friendships
Gender: Women emphasize emotional sharing; men emphasize shared activities.
Individual Traits: High Dark Triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) are harmful; relational self-construals encourage valuing friendships.
Friendship Challenges
Shyness: Timid behavior and fear of disapproval often create the negative impressions shy people hope to avoid. Increased self-confidence is more effective than social-skills training.
Loneliness: Can be social (lack of network) or emotional (lack of intimate support). Causes include genetics, insecure attachment, low self-esteem, and low expressivity. Positive outlook and realistic expectations aid recovery.
Takeaway:
Friendship is a skill and a mindset. Be proactive, positive, and patient. Seek meaningful connections, celebrate others, and prioritize quality over quantity. Shyness and loneliness can be managed with self-confidence, realistic expectations, and friendly behavior.
Chap 3
Attraction – Point Form Notes
Fundamental Basis of Attraction
Attraction = desire to approach someone (first step toward relationships).
Root idea: we’re attracted to people whose presence is rewarding (Clore & Byrne, 1974).
Two types of rewards:
Direct rewards → obvious benefits (attention, affection, good looks, money, advice).
Indirect rewards → subtle, associated benefits (e.g., name similarity → Dennis liking Denise/Denver/dentistry).
Instrumentality perspective (Finkel & Eastwick, 2015): attraction = how well someone helps us achieve current goals.
Idiosyncratic → depends on personal needs/goals at the moment.
Dynamic → can change over time.
Strongest for those who consistently fulfill key desires (belonging, companionship, pleasure).
Proximity: Liking Those Near Us
Physical closeness → greater attraction.
Proximity determines who we meet in the first place.
Classroom studies:
Students more likely to be friends with those sitting nearby (Back et al., 2008; Shin et al., 2019).
Housing study (MIT, Festinger et al., 1950):
Closer neighbors = higher likelihood of friendship.
41% chance of being close friends if living next door, only 10% if 4 doors away.
Marriage licenses (Bossard, 1932):
48% of spouses lived within 1 mile before marriage.
1 in 8 lived in the same building.
Familiarity: Repeated Contact (Mere Exposure Effect)
Mere exposure = repeated contact increases liking.
Study: Women attended classes 15, 10, or 5 times → rated as more attractive the more often they appeared (Moreland & Beach, 1992).
Email study (Kossinets & Watts, 2006): classmates 140x more likely to message each other.
Seat proximity → higher likelihood of friendship (Segal, 1974).
Limits of familiarity:
If person is unpleasant → more exposure = dislike increases (Norton et al., 2013).
Study: enemies often lived close by due to annoyance (Ebbesen et al., 1976).
Complications of Proximity
Online dating:
More heterosexual couples now meet online than through friends/family (Rosenfeld et al., 2019).
LGBTQ+ people are twice as likely to meet partners online (Vogels, 2020).
Dating apps = wide access but challenges:
Ambiguous rejection (swipe but no match).
Low actual connection rates (Tinder → <2% of swipes lead to matches, <2% of those meet IRL).
Many inactive/fake profiles.
Too many options → lower commitment, more picky (Bruch & Newman, 2018; Pronk & Denissen, 2020).
Compatibility prediction weak (Joel et al., 2017).
Long-distance relationships:
Absence can make the heart grow fonder IF commitment is high (Le et al., 2011).
Partners idealize relationship during separation (Kelmer et al., 2013).
Reunions = stressful (loss of autonomy, rediscovering dislikes).
1/3 of reunited long-distance couples break up within 3 months (Stafford et al., 2006).
Key Takeaways
Attraction influenced by rewards (direct + indirect).
Proximity/familiarity = powerful predictors of attraction.
Mere exposure effect → familiarity breeds liking (unless person is annoying).
Technology changes proximity dynamics → more access, but also more challenges.
Attraction is goal-driven and situational, not just about looks or personality.
Convenience & Proximity
Kelmer et al., 2013 → Large-scale study showing committed couples often survive long-distance if commitment is high.
Sahlstein, 2006 → Qualitative research showing distance often leads to relationship struggles or breakups.
Reis et al., 2011 → Experimental evidence that chatting and repeated interaction increases liking.
Norton et al., 2013 → Limits: not everyone likes everyone with exposure (preference saturation).
Montoya et al., 2017 → Familiarity can backfire if exposure leads to boredom or annoyance.
Credibility: Multiple peer-reviewed studies across both experimental and qualitative designs, showing strong replicable evidence that proximity → attraction, while distance introduces significant cost.
Bias for Beauty: “What Is Beautiful Is Good”
Dion, Berscheid & Walster, 1972 → Classic foundational study proving people assume attractive = good traits (still cited today).
Agthe et al., 2016 → Attractiveness bias especially strong when shared ethnic background.
Segal-Caspi et al., 2012 → Attractive people judged to have positive personality traits.
Olson & Marshuetz, 2005 → Brain studies show automatic positive responses to attractive faces.
Wheeler & Kim, 1997 → Cross-cultural research shows bias exists worldwide.
Credibility: Over 50 years of research, replicated across cultures and even neuroscience — very highly credible.
Beauty & Real-World Outcomes
Hamermesh, 2013 → Economic research showing attractive people earn ~$230k more lifetime.
Wolbring & Riordan, 2016 → Attractive professors rated higher in teaching.
Olivola & Todorov, 2010 → Attractive politicians judged more competent.
Downs & Lyons, 1991 → Attractive criminals in Texas get lighter punishments.
Credibility: Very strong applied evidence across economics, education, politics, and law.
Consensus on Who’s Attractive
Marcus & Miller, 2003 → Experimental classroom study showing people largely agree on attractiveness.
Cunningham et al., 1995 → Large-scale cross-ethnic agreement on attractiveness.
Slater et al., 2000 → Infants gaze longer at attractive faces → inborn preference.
Credibility: Very strong, consistent findings — attractiveness is largely universal, not just cultural opinion.
Features of Beauty
Jones, 1995; Cunningham et al., 2002 → Women attractive when combining youthfulness + maturity.
Adam, 2021 → Long eyelashes enhance attractiveness.
Rhodes, 2006 → Masculine male faces rated more attractive.
DeBruine et al., 2019 → Women’s hormonal cycles affect attraction to masculine vs feminine men.
Little, 2015; Rhodes et al., 2002 → Composite “average” faces rated most attractive across many cultures.
Fink et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2016 → Symmetry universally attractive.
Credibility: Cross-cultural, evolutionary, and hormonal → extremely strong scientific credibility.
Body Attractiveness
Lassek & Gaulin, 2016 → Men prefer women with WHR 0.7 (hourglass).
Valentova et al., 2017 → Global confirmation of WHR preference.
Brody & Weiss, 2013 → Slimmer waists linked to sexual frequency and function.
Karremans et al., 2010 → Even blind men prefer WHR 0.7 by touch → biological bias.
Aung & Williams, 2019 → Disney princesses = lower WHR than villains.
Meltzer et al., 2011 → Marital satisfaction higher when wives thinner than husbands.
Swami et al., 2007 → Men prefer normal weight, not underweight.
Havlíček et al., 2017; Kościński, 2020 → Medium breasts preferred; proportion > size.
Voracek & Fisher, 2006; Dixson et al., 2011 → WHR more important than breast size.
Hughes & Gallup, 2003; Frederick et al., 2011 → Muscles + shoulders matter for male attractiveness.
Singh, 1995 → Male attractiveness depends on resources, not just body.
Credibility: Very strong evolutionary + cross-cultural backing.
Other Influences
Stulp et al., 2013; Yancey & Emerson, 2016 → Height matters, esp. for men.
Hitsch et al., 2010 → Online dating shows women prefer tall men unless income compensates.
Herz & Inzlicht, 2002; Zuniga et al., 2017 → Women prefer scents linked to healthy diets.
Thornhill et al., 2003; Martins et al., 2005 → Smell linked to attractiveness, symmetry, even orientation.
Karbowski et al., 2016; Prokosch et al., 2009; Rosenberg & Tunney, 2008 → Intelligence boosts attractiveness.
Credibility: Strong, diverse, interdisciplinary evidence.
Evolutionary Perspective
Gangestad & Buss, 1993 → Attractiveness matters more in parasite-rich regions.
Nedelec & Beaver, 2014; Perilloux et al., 2010 → Symmetry linked to health and intelligence.
Luxen & Buunk, 2006; Van Dongen & Gangestad, 2011 → Symmetry → better health, less illness.
Jasienska et al., 2004; Payne, 2006 → WHR linked to health.
Jokela, 2009 → Attractive people have more children.
Arslan et al., 2020; Jünger et al., 2018; Rule et al., 2011 → Women’s fertility cycle changes attraction.
Miller & Maner, 2010, 2011; Haselton & Gildersleeve, 2016 → Men detect fertility unconsciously via scent, voice, body.
Credibility: High, evolutionary psychology + biology.
Culture Counts
Nelson & Morrison, 2005; Swami et al., 2010 → Economic scarcity vs abundance changes beauty ideals (thin vs heavy).
Owen & Laurel-Seller, 2000 → Playboy Playmates showed increasingly thin trend.
Glasser et al., 2009; Singh & Luis, 1995 → Ethnic groups differ on weight ideals, but WHR 0.7 is consistent.
Credibility: Moderate to strong → shows flexibility of beauty standards with cultural context.
👉 In short:
Proximity & Beauty Bias = strongest replicated social psychology evidence.
Physical Features & Evolutionary Evidence = highly credible across cultures and biology.
Cultural Influence = credible but more context-dependent.
. Summary (Point Form)
Proximity effect: closer physical distance → more likely to form friendships/relationships.
Studies:
Students more likely to be friends with those seated nearby (Back et al., 2008).
MIT housing study: closer dorm rooms = higher chance of friendship (Festinger et al., 1950).
Familiarity (mere exposure effect): repeated contact increases liking (Moreland & Beach, 1992).
Limits:
Familiarity can also decrease liking if negative qualities are revealed.
Neighbors/enemies often live close due to frequent contact.
Online dating: expands access, but face-to-face meetings can cause disappointment.
Long-distance relationships: absence can increase idealization, but reunions can be stressful.
Overall: Proximity + familiarity encourage attraction, but context and quality of interactions matter.
2. Questions (Critical Thinking)
Q1: Does proximity still matter as much in the digital era?
Q2: How might cultural values change the role of physical closeness in attraction?
Q3: Can the mere exposure effect explain workplace friendships and conflicts?
3. Professional Applications (2)
Application 1: Use proximity principle → host in-person events/workshops to build trust with clients.
Application 2: Apply digital proximity → stay visible online (social media, newsletters) to create familiarity with audience.
Matching Is a Broad Process & Complementarity
1. Broad Matching:
People pair off with similar overall mate value, not necessarily similar traits.
Example: older wealthy man + young attractive woman = trade of money for looks.
Online dating study: “ugly” men needed ~$186k more income to attract attention equal to attractive men.
Matching involves multiple assets: looks, money, fame, health, talent.
Evolutionary perspective:
Men value youth and beauty (fertility, health).
Women value resources and status (offspring survival).
Cultural perspective: women’s preference for resources may also reflect social inequalities, not just evolution.
Bottom line: “opposites” may appear to attract, but they are usually trading different assets while maintaining similar social status/mate value.
2. Complementarity:
Partners sometimes have different skills/behaviors that complement each other.
Examples:
Sexual preferences (one enjoys giving, one enjoys receiving).
Division of labor (dreamer + planner).
Most complementarity is similar behaviors (warmth met with warmth).
Extreme opposites (cold vs. warm, passive vs. assertive) → usually frustrating.
Optimal partnerships: similar goals, shared rewards, compatible differences.
3. What Men and Women Want:
Three core qualities sought worldwide:
Warmth & loyalty (trustworthy, kind, supportive, understanding)
Attractiveness & vitality (good-looking, healthy, outgoing)
Status & resources (financial security, comfortable living)
Short-term vs. long-term preferences:
Short-term fling: both sexes prioritize attractiveness; less picky on warmth/resources.
Long-term:
Women prioritize warmth & loyalty + resources > attractiveness.
Men prioritize warmth & loyalty + attractiveness > resources.
Dealbreakers (for both sexes): untrustworthy, abusive, unclean, unhealthy.
Preferences stable but can shift with age, personal success, or current partner.
Gay/lesbian preferences mirror heterosexual patterns.
Global studies confirm top traits desired: intelligence, humor, kindness, dependability.
4. Key Takeaways:
Attraction = combination of looks, resources, warmth, and loyalty.
Opposites rarely attract; similarity is more rewarding.
Complementary traits matter if they enhance goals, not if they frustrate.
Men & women value warmth and kindness most; other traits are secondary but still important.
Trade-offs are normal: you rarely get all desired traits in one partner.
5. Suggestions for Satisfaction:
Proximity matters; distance usually reduces satisfaction.
Don’t trust promises of “perfect” partners online.
Beauty ≠ talent or long-term satisfaction.
Seek partners aligned on important values/goals.
Prioritize warmth, kindness, and loyalty over superficial traits.