Lecture Notes: Attraction and Intimacy in Social Psychology

Attraction

• Overview: Attraction is about the very start of relationships; intimacy is about later stages and can develop quickly but also in ongoing relationships.
• Scope for quiz: Through intimacy (self-expansion stuff not covered due to time).
• Averageness effect (averaged faces): more average faces tend to be perceived as more attractive across cultures.
  • Hadza study (hunter-gatherer culture in Tanzania) tested varying levels of face averageness with Hadza and Western faces.
  • Participants rated attractiveness; results showed the average faces were rated as more attractive, consistent across cultures, supporting a universal/partially universal averageness effect.
  • Hadza sample included both Hadza and Western faces; design tested cross-cultural similarity in attractiveness judgments.
• Similarity and attraction:
  • People tend to be attracted to others with similar attitudes, interests, values, and personality.
  • Similarity extends to negative traits: individuals high in neuroticism, anxiety, or depression tend to be attracted to others with similar levels.
• Implicit egoism (liking what is associated with the self):
  • Definition: People tend to prefer things that are linked to themselves, consciously or nonconsciously.
  • Demonstrations via initials/name effects and place-name correlations:
  • Favorite letters experiment (first/last initials) illustrates implicit egoism in choices.
  • Real-world examples include:
    • Philadelphia population and name effects: about 1{,}570{,}000 people live in Philadelphia; Philadelphia has 10.4 times as many people named Phil as expected (cohort/geographic effects), illustrating a self-associated preference.
    • Jacksonville, Florida: about 954{,}000 people; Jacksonville has 2.2 times as many men named Jack as expected.
    • Dennis and dentistry: Dennis and dentistry show a link; dentists are almost twice as likely to be named Dennis (illustrative of egoistic naming effects).
  • Alternative explanations to implicit egoism:
  • Geographic naming conventions; reverse causality (living in a place leads to liking the name, not vice versa).
  • Cohort effects (name popularity varies by generation).
  • Follow-up research and conclusion:
  • When accounting for geographic, reverse causality, and cohort effects, implicit egoism still exists but with much smaller effect sizes.
  • Authors generally conclude that implicit egoism is real but nuanced; multiple explanations can contribute to observed patterns.
• Dissimilarity and attraction in close relationships:
  • Political party proximity and moral convictions can hinder dating across party lines in real-world contexts.
  • Finkel et al. (2020) in the US: about half of Republicans would date someone from the opposite party, while a large portion of Democrats would not.
  • Over time, willingness to date someone from the opposite party has declined, reflecting increasing political polarization.
  • Complementarity vs similarity:
  • Overall, similarity tends to predict attraction better than complementary traits.
  • In long-term relationships, self-expansion (growth through the partner) can play a role, but initial attraction often hinges on similarity.
• Liking begets liking (reciprocity effect):
  • Classic studies show that being told you are liked by a confederate can boost your own liking for the confederate, especially when feeling singled out for being liked.
  • If the liking seems instrumental (ulterior motives), or if the target perceives that the other person has ulterior motives, the increase in liking is reduced or negated.
  • Attribution effects: People wonder why someone likes them (genuine care vs ulterior motives) and this attribution influences subsequent liking.
• Threats to attraction: attributional reasoning matters
  • When someone compliments you, you assess why they are doing it (genuine interest vs manipulation).
  • Perceptions of ulterior motives can dampen the liking boost.
• Summary takeaway on attraction:
  • Attraction is multifaceted, influenced by similarity, implicit egoism, and situational attributions.
  • Initial attraction often aligns with similarity; over time, growth through self-expansion can influence ongoing closeness.

Intimacy (emotional closeness) and the Interpersonal Process Model

• Clarification: Intimacy here refers to emotional closeness and connectedness, not sexual intimacy.
• Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy:
  • Intimacy develops as a transactional process between two people over time.
  • Two key determinants:
  • Self-disclosure: revealing personal information about oneself.
  • Perceived partner responsiveness (PPR): how the partner responds to the disclosure.
• Self-disclosure (SD): what counts as effective SD for intimacy
  • SD example: Will tells Taylor, "my last breakup was extremely painful."
  • SD criteria for promoting intimacy:
  • Emotional vs. factual content: emotional disclosures are more likely to promote intimacy.
  • Revealing core aspects of the self: disclosures that reveal a central part of the self (vulnerability) have stronger intimacy impact.
  • The example: emotional, core-disclosure is more likely to foster intimacy than a neutral or purely factual statement.
• Perceived partner responsiveness (PPR): what makes a response truly responsive?
  • Three components of PPR:
  • Understanding: does the partner accurately understand needs, feelings, and the situation?
  • Caring: does the partner show care and concern?
  • Validating: does the partner validate the experience, acceptance, and reality of the partner’s feelings?
  • Example of responsive vs non-responsive response to Will's disclosure:
  • Responsive: Taylor says, "I'm so sorry to hear that. Tell me more."
  • Non-responsive: "Who cares?" or a dismissive, uninterested reaction.
  • Perceived responsiveness is the crucial determinant of whether SD leads to intimacy.
• The intimacy process as a cycle:
  • SD leads to a perceived responsive reaction, which increases emotional closeness.
  • This can prompt further SD by both partners, building a positive feedback loop of increasing intimacy.
  • Over time, this accumulates into a generalized perception of the relationship as emotionally intimate.
• Generalization across relationship types:
  • Intimacy can develop in romantic relationships, friendships, and family relationships when SD and PPR are present.
  • The model emphasizes the importance of how a partner responds (not just that they respond).
• Why intimacy matters in relationships:
  • Intimacy is a key reward and predictor of relationship quality and persistence.
• Park et al. (2021) on intimacy and breakup risk:
  • Longitudinal study with about 1,000+ participants in relationships.
  • They examined intimacy and threats to relationships (rejection, negative evaluation).
  • Finding: lack of intimacy was the strongest predictor of breakup over time, more influential than conflicts.
  • Attachment avoidance moderated the effect in an unusual way (an exception in the pattern across individuals).
  • Practical implication: sustaining intimacy is crucial for relationship maintenance.
• The social-psychology of intimacy measurement and manipulation:
  • Aron and colleagues’ work on self-disclosure and closeness:
  • Small-talk vs. intimate-question condition in an experimental task to induce closeness.
  • Increases in self-disclosure can lead to higher perceived intimacy, though honesty can be variable.
  • Real-world implications: ongoing self-disclosure and responsive reactions facilitate long-term closeness.
• The fast friends task (learning outcome): not detailed in depth here, but related to structured questions that prompt rapid increases in closeness.

Self-disclosure, responsiveness, and the path to deeper intimacy

• Key takeaway: intimacy emerges from a sequence of SD followed by PPR across interactions and over time.
• The role of attribution in the SD-PPR cycle:
  • People assess motives for SD and response; benevolent attributions (genuine care) foster stronger subsequent closeness.
• Relationship maintenance implications:
  • Intimacy is a primary predictor of relationship stability and satisfaction over time.
  • Lack of intimacy, rather than the mere presence of conflict, predicts breakup in many long-term relationships.

Self-expansion and the growth of the self through others

• Core idea: relationships not only stabilize us but also expand our self-concept (self-expansion).
• Self expansion theory: the basic assumption that people have a fundamental drive to grow and to broaden their view of the world, often through close relationships.
• Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS): a measure of overlap between self and other in the self-concept.
  • Mechanism: meeting a new partner exposes you to their hobbies, interests, and views, which you begin to adopt or include in your own self.
  • The inclusion process leads to growth and greater diversity in self-descriptions over time.
• Example task illustrating self-concept expansion:
  • Prompt: "Who are you today?" Respond with one word or short phrase (e.g., sister, teacher).
  • A longitudinal study asked participants to repeat this task over several weeks as they potentially fell in love.
  • Coder-rated content of responses showed that those who fell in love produced a more diverse set of self-descriptions over time (increasing word variety), whereas those who did not fall in love produced less diversity.
  • Interpretation: love-related self-expansion broadens the self-concept by incorporating partner-related identities and perspectives.
• Evidence for self-expansion and overlapping self-concepts:
  • Other studies with both partners show similar patterns of shared self-views and increased overlap in self-concepts.
• Inclusion of Other in the Self and potential downsides:
  • While IOS can enhance closeness, it may threaten autonomy and personal identity if taken too far.
  • Potential cost: reduced autonomy can lead to lower relationship quality if personal control needs are unmet.
• Relevance to long-term relationships:
  • Self-expansion helps sustain long-term relationships by continuously adding new experiences and identities into the couple’s shared life.
  • Complementarity (differences that complement) may play a role, but self-expansion provides a robust mechanism for ongoing growth and interest.

Practical and exam-focused recap

• Key concepts to remember for the midterm:
  • Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy: Self-disclosure + Perceived Partner Responsiveness → Intimacy (over time)
  • Self-disclosure quality: emotional content and core-self revelation are more potent than purely factual statements.
  • Perceived partner responsiveness: understanding, caring, validating – crucial for intimacy
  • Liking begets liking: reciprocity and attributional considerations (motives matter)
  • Similarity versus complementarity: similarity generally predicts attraction; self-expansion can contribute to long-term growth
  • Implicit egoism: subtle bias to be drawn to things associated with the self; real but smaller effects after accounting for confounds
  • Self-expansion and IOS: growth through others; potential autonomy costs; long-term relationship maintenance benefits
  • Relationship maintenance predictors: lack of intimacy as a powerful predictor of breakup (Park et al., 2021); attachment avoidance as a potential moderator
  • Potential role of self-expansion in preventing relationship boredom by introducing new experiences and identities

Key formulas and numbers

• Interpersonal Process Model (conceptual):
  • Intimacy
    ightarrow f(SD, PPR) where intimacy grows as SD and PPR interplay over time.
  • A simple schematic: It = I{t-1} + f(SDt, PPRt)
• Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS):
  • IOS ∝ overlap(Self, Other); higher IOS = greater perceived closeness but potential autonomy costs.
• Population-level numbers cited in implicit egoism examples:
  • Philadelphia population: 1{,}570{,}000
  • Jacksonville population: 954{,}000
  • Phil incidence in Philly: 10.4 times higher than expected
  • Jack incidence in Jacksonville: 2.2 times higher than expected
• Naming and occupation correlations (illustrative):
  • Dennis → dentistry (dentists disproportionately named Dennis) (example of implicit egoism)

Connections to broader themes

• Mirrors core principles of social cognition: attractiveness judgments are both universal (averageness) and culturally moderated (media exposure nuances)
• Attraction as a gateway to relationship dynamics: initial attraction interacts with long-term processes of self-disclosure, responsiveness, and growth through self-expansion
• The balance between autonomy and connectedness: inclusion of other in the self fosters closeness but risks autonomy; healthy relationships navigate this balance
• Real-world relevance: political polarization, dating choices, and relationship maintenance in modern contexts emphasize the role of similarity, responsiveness, and growth opportunities in sustaining relationships

Quick takeaways for exam preparation

• Know the two main components of the Interpersonal Process Model of Intimacy and why perceived partner responsiveness matters more than the self-disclosure alone.
• Differentiate between emotional vs factual self-disclosure and why core self revelations matter for intimacy.
• Be able to explain how lack of intimacy predicts breakup more strongly than conflict, and what might moderate this effect (e.g., attachment avoidance).
• Understand self-expansion and IOS: how exposure to a partner’s world can broaden the self, and the potential trade-offs with autonomy.
• Recognize implicit egoism and its boundary conditions; know that alternative explanations (geography, reverse causality, cohort effects) can attenuate the observed effects, though a real effect remains.
• Distinguish whether similarity or complementary dynamics drive attraction in various stages of relationships (early vs long-term).
• Be able to describe how “liking begets liking” works and what factors can dampen this effect (perceptions of ulterior motives, attribution processes).