Social Psychology 204 — Attraction: Comprehensive Lecture Notes
Course context and announcements
Panopto lectures are recommended as revision tools, not the primary way to learn the content; in-person attendance is strongly encouraged in this Social Psychology course.
Schedule: class runs Mondays 5–6 PM and Thursdays 4–6 PM; announcements were made about engagement and attendance.
The instructor addressed mic feedback and adjusted setup to improve audio quality during the session.
Social psychology vs. clinical psychology: intersections and differences
Social psychology vs. clinical psychology:
Social psychology focuses on the general population and social processes; clinical psychology focuses on clinical populations and interventions.
General properties of human psychology inform clinical treatment (e.g., emotions and relationships informing clinical approaches to disorders like major depressive disorder).
Example study: daily emotions and daily relationship quality in the general population can inform understanding and treatment of mental health challenges.
Clinical disorders intersect with social processes: depression can affect intimate relationships and vice versa (depressed mood, low self-esteem, and depressive symptoms influence relationship functioning).
Mentioned researchers: Nicole Overall (in later in the semester) contributed work on depression and relationships.
Lay theories, everyday explanations, and hindsight bias
Lay theories (common-sense explanations) vs. scientific evidence:
Lay theories are the everyday ideas people hold about attraction, relationships, stereotypes, etc.
Distinguishing lay theories from scientific findings is crucial because data may contradict common-sense expectations.
Examples of lay theories in attraction and groups:
Opposites attract vs. birds of a feather flock together; mixed evidence exists for both views.
“One true soulmate” or perfectly rational choice to select the best partner; reality is more complex with multiple contributing factors.
“Too many cooks spoil the broth” vs. “Two heads are better than one” in group contexts.
Hindsight bias: once outcomes are known, people see them as obvious; the challenge is predicting outcomes before they occur (e.g., whether opposites attract or similarities attract).
Research approach emphasized: always consider multiple possible predictions before looking at data; some predictions may be obvious only in hindsight.
Takeaway: social psychology covers a diverse set of everyday topics, and there is a scientific way to test lay theories about attraction, groups, and stereotypes.
Initial factors contributing to attraction: student-posed discussion and lay ideas
Top three factors mentioned by students for attraction:
Proximity and closeness (nearness increases likelihood of bonding).
Shared history and values (similarity and meaningful background matter).
Appearance (initial physical attractiveness) and pheromones (biological cues).
Additional points raised:
Societal standards and pressures shape partner selection.
Companionship and shared values can be as important as physical traits.
Conclusion from discussion: attraction arises from a mix of situational, personal, and biological factors, as the course content later formalizes with empirical evidence.
Proximity and exposure as a driver of attraction
Proximity as a key situational factor:
Proximity increases exposure to potential partners; increased exposure fosters liking through familiarity and anticipated interaction.
Classic demonstration: proximity strongly predicts friendship formation among housing assignments at MIT. The strongest predictor was how close you lived to someone rather than personality or background.
Replication: random seating in a class (Back et al., 2008) showed proximity influences liking even when seating is assigned randomly; access alone does not explain the effect.
Mechanisms linking proximity to attraction:
Repeated exposure leads to familiarity, which boosts liking (mere exposure).
Anticipatory liking: knowing you will interact with someone increases liking for that person vs. someone you will not meet.
Convenience and social interaction opportunities facilitate conversation and connection.
Proximity effect is partly due to cognitive laziness: easier to engage with those nearby; this can bias initial attraction.
Anticipatory liking (experimental illustration):
When participants expected to meet one of two people, they tended to like the person they expected to meet more, even when descriptions were ambiguous.
This anticipatory mechanism also generalizes to dating apps and online dating, where expectations about meeting someone can boost liking.
Related cognitive processes:
Cognitive dissonance and political contexts can increase perceived positivity toward a candidate you must interact with after a loss; adaptation favors maintaining positive relationships where possible.
Mere exposure effect (Zajonc):
Repeated, non-conscious exposure to novel stimuli increases liking for those stimuli.
Demonstrated with various stimuli: nonsense words, faces, and even auditory exposure to melodies perceived later as more pleasant even if not consciously noticed.
The effect typically increases liking with exposure but plateaus over time; beyond a certain point, additional exposure yields diminishing returns rather than renewed disliking (habituation is possible but not a universal opposite like fading to dislike).
Meta-analytic and broader findings:
Montoya et al. (2017) meta-analysis across 81 studies on mirror exposure found that more exposure generally increases liking, but there is a saturation point beyond which liking does not continue to rise.
Negative side: potential for automatic in-group bias and prejudice if exposure is limited to similar others; fear of the unknown can contribute to biases.
Relational explanation for mere exposure (Harry Reis and colleagues):
Increased exposure to others in a structured interaction (e.g., two vs. six questions) enhances similarity, closeness, responsiveness, and liking by facilitating genuine understanding and communication.
Proximity, exposure, and interaction provide the substrate for getting to know people and forming meaningful connections.
Physiological arousal and misattribution of attraction
Physiological arousal: autonomic nervous system activation (heart rate, respiration, skin conductance, etc.) that accompanies arousal states
Examples: butterflies in the stomach, fast heartbeat, rapid breathing, especially in exciting or stressful situations.
Misattribution of arousal: the process by which arousal from one source is wrongly attributed to another source (e.g., an attractive person) and interpreted as romantic or sexual attraction.
Classic demonstration: Dutton and Aron’s Capilano Suspension Bridge study (Canada): participants crossing a scary bridge (high arousal) met an attractive female confederate who asked them to complete a task and later asked them out.
Result: men approached after crossing the scary bridge rated the confederate as more attractive and were more likely to call for a date than those who crossed a safe bridge.
Big effect size observed; the arousal from the bridge was misattributed to the attraction to the confederate.
Implications and interpretations:
Physiological arousal can amplify romantic or sexual interest when there is a believable attribution that the arousal is related to the potential partner.
Real-world implications for dating and media portrayals: intense initial arousal can spur strong early attraction, but later stages of a relationship (e.g., daily life tasks) may reveal more stable bases for compatibility.
Cautions: misattribution can lead to misreading one’s actual feelings and may contribute to unstable early relationships like those observed in some reality dating shows (e.g., The Bachelor).
Connections to emotion science:
The physiological experience of arousal interacts with cognitive appraisal and emotion generation; arousal states inform emotional intensity and labeling.
Averageness, prototypical faces, and attractiveness
Faces and attractiveness: why average faces tend to be judged as more attractive
Stimulus manipulation: average composite of two faces (Face A), four faces (Face B), and sixteen faces (Face C) were rated for attractiveness by participants.
Across participants, Face C (the most averaged) was consistently rated as most attractive compared to A and B.
Replication and notable findings:
In Germany’s Miss Germany study, researchers created an average composite of finalists (virtual Miss Germany) and compared its attractiveness to the average of real finalists.
Across multiple trials, the averaged face was rated more attractive than any individual finalist’s face.
Explanations for the averageness effect:
Processing fluency: prototypical, average faces are easier for the brain to process; predictive coding thrives on familiar, easily categorized stimuli, making them more pleasant to view.
Prototypical appearance reduces cognitive effort and is easier to classify as “human-like,” contributing to perceived attractiveness.
Evolutionary perspective (contentious): some argue that average faces signal health, genetic regularity, or youth, which may align with mate selection; this view is debated and not universally accepted.
Additional factors and alternative explanations:
Mirror exposure: exposure to familiar face types can reinforce liking, potentially contributing to the averageness effect.
Broader meaning and coherence: average features may align with a sense of order, predictability, and meaning, which can enhance perceived attractiveness.
Practical implications:
Attractiveness can influence dating decisions and initial interest in potential partners; this is observed in speed dating and online dating contexts where attractiveness often predicts initial dating decisions.
Attractiveness and behavior: how aesthetics influence dating decisions
Early attraction and dating choices:
The 1966 Minnesota matching dance study found that initial attraction at a dance correlated strongly with physical attractiveness; other traits (test scores, personality, self-esteem, anxiety) were less predictive.
More recent research in online dating and speed dating contexts shows physical attractiveness is a strong predictor of initial dating interest.
Gender differences in valuing attractiveness:
Common belief: men value physical attractiveness more than women.
Data from speed dating and related studies show that both men and women value physical attractiveness, with men sometimes claiming to value it more in self-reports due to socialization.
In actual decision-making (speed dating), physical attractiveness influences decision-making for both genders, suggesting the effect is real and not merely a socialized expectation.
Contextual considerations and caveats:
Surveys often reveal women prioritizing traits like honesty, kindness, and dependability more than men, but behaviorally, attractiveness remains important for both sexes in dating contexts.
In online dating and dating apps, attractiveness continues to be an important predictor of initial interest, though other traits also matter for long-term compatibility.
Summary of practical implications:
Initial attraction is heavily influenced by physical attractiveness, but sustained relationship formation also depends on non-physical traits and compatibility.
Lay beliefs about gender differences in valuing attractiveness may reflect socialization, but empirical data show substantial common ground across genders in how attractiveness matters in dating decisions.
Synthesis, caveats, and real-world relevance
Summary of key mechanisms in attraction discussed in this lecture:
Proximity and exposure increase attraction via increased opportunities for interaction, familiarity, and anticipatory liking.
Mere exposure generally increases liking for novel stimuli, with potential saturation and individual differences.
Misattribution of arousal can inflate attraction in high-arousal contexts (e.g., scary bridges) but may misrepresent long-term feelings.
Averageness (face prototypicality) tends to produce higher perceived attractiveness due to processing fluency and broader perceptual norms.
Initial dating decisions are influenced by attractiveness, but long-term relationship quality depends on deeper traits and compatibility.
Ethical and societal implications:
The mere exposure effect can contribute to social biases and in-group preferences, potentially reinforcing prejudice if exposure is limited to similar others.
Recognizing the difference between lay theories and scientific findings helps avoid overgeneralizations and supports more nuanced social understanding.
Practical implications for students and real-world contexts:
Encouraging genuine interaction and conversation (e.g., through structured questions) can foster closeness and understanding beyond initial appearances.
Awareness of misattribution can improve self-understanding in romantic contexts and reduce impulsive judgments based on arousal alone.
Closing note: the course intends to expose you to a range of evidence-based findings, critique them where applicable, and connect them to real-world social behavior and relationships.
Quick recap and prep prompts for exam preparation
Distinguish between social psychology and clinical psychology, and describe how they intersect.
Define lay theories and explain why they matter in social psychology; explain hindsight bias and how to guard against it.
Explain why proximity and exposure influence attraction; differentiate between anticipatory liking and mere exposure.
Describe misattribution of arousal and the Capilano Bridge study; discuss limitations and generalizability.
Explain why averaging (averageness) leads to perceived attractiveness; discuss processing fluency and alternative explanations.
Compare men’s and women’s stated vs. actual valuation of attractiveness in dating contexts; discuss implications for understanding dating behavior.
If you want, I can reorganize these notes into a condensed study sheet or expand any section with more detail or example prompts for practice questions.