Docstoc

Interpersonal Attraction Slides - University of West Florida

Document Sample
Interpersonal Attraction Slides - University of West Florida Powered By Docstoc
					                    Thought Frequency As Pie Charts
                                                                           The
    The           Women                                  Men           relationship
relationship
                                       Sports                                Sex




                                     Sex
   Men                            Pets
                                                                            Going
thrashing                       Food                                        bald
  Aging               Things we                 Career
               Having shouldn’t                          Strange ear     Aging
               to pee have eaten                         & nose hair
                                                            growth
                                Quotes
"Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each
other but in looking outward together in the same direction."
--- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

It is with true love as it is with ghosts; everyone talks about it, but
few have seen it.
--- La Rochefoucauld

"When two people are under the influence of the most violent,
most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they
are required to swear that they will remain in that excited,
abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do
them part.“
--- George Bernard Shaw
ALVY'S VOICE OVER: I THOUGHT OF THAT OLD JOKE,
YOU KNOW, THIS GUY GOES TO A PSYCHIATRIST AND
SAYS, "DOC, MY BROTHER'S CRAZY. HE THINKS HE'S
A CHICKEN." AND, THE DOCTOR SAYS, "WHY DON'T
YOU TURN HIM IN?" AND THE GUY SAYS, "I WOULD,
BUT I NEED THE EGGS." WELL, I GUESS THAT'S
PRETTY MUCH HOW I FEEL ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE TOTALLY IRRATIONAL AND
CRAZY AND ABSURD AND...BUT, I GUESS WE KEEP
GOING THROUGH IT BECAUSE, UH, MOST OF US NEED
THE EGGS.

                 ---ANNIE HALL
   CECILIA: I JUST MET A WONDERFUL NEW MAN. SURE,
   HE'S FICTIONAL BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING.
                 ---THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO

  IKE: WELL, I'M OLD-FASHIONED. I DON'T BELIEVE IN
  EXTRAMARITAL RELATIONSHIPS. I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD
  MATE FOR LIFE, LIKE PIGEONS OR CATHOLICS.
                    ---MANHATTAN


CLIFF: WENDY AND I FINALLY DECIDED TO CALL IT QUITS, YOU
KNOW, AND EVEN THOUGH THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAVE
BEEN TERRIBLE, THIS KIND OF THING MAKES ME FEEL SAD, YOU
KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY.
BABS: BUT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU TOLD ME? YOU TOLD ME IT'S
BEEN PLATONIC FOR A YEAR. AND I SAY, ONCE THE SEX GOES, IT
ALL GOES.
                 ---CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
ARTHUR: I HAD DROPPED OUT OF LAW SCHOOL WHEN I
MET EVE. SHE WAS VERY BEAUTIFUL. VERY PALE AND
COOL IN HER BLACK DRESS...WITH NEVER ANYTHING
MORE THAN A SINGLE STRAND OF PEARLS. AND DISTANT.
ALWAYS POISED AND DISTENT.

BY THE TIME THE GIRLS WERE BORN...IT WAS ALL SO
PERFECT, SO ORDERED. LOOKING BACK, OF COURSE, IT
WAS RIGID. THE TRUTH IS...SHE'D CREATED A WORLD
AROUND US THAT WE EXISTED IN WHERE EVERYTHING
HAD ITS PLACE, WHERE THERE WAS ALWAYS A KIND OF
HARMONY. OH, GREAT DIGNITY. I WILL SAY...IT WAS LIKE
AN ICE PALACE.

THEN SUDDENLY, ONE DAY, OUT OF NOWHERE...AN
ENORMOUS ABYSS OPENED UP BENEATH OUR FEET. AND I
WAS STARING INTO A FACE I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE.

                          ---INTERIORS
             Early Attraction Factors


• Proximity (physical distance, repeated exposure)


• Anxiety              Affiliation Link (Dr. Zilstein study)


• General Emotional Arousal             Attraction Link
                             Results of Schachter’s “Dr. Zilstein study”
                       Nonanxious          Anxious subjects   Schachter (1959) manipulated
                       subjects                               the anxiety levels of female
                                                              subjects by having them
                20                    20                      anticipate either painful or
                                                              innocuous shock. The
                18                    18                      dependent variable was
                16                    16                      subjects’ choice to wait with
                                                              others or to wait alone.
# of Subjects




                14                    14
                                                              The results indicated that
                12                    12
                                                              anxious subjects chose to
                10                    10                      wait with others more
                                                              than non-anxious subjects.
                8                     8
                                                          Also, a follow-up study
                6                     6
                                                          found that anxious people
                4                     4                   preferred to wait with
                                                          other anxious people
                2                     2
                                                          rather than those who
                     Choose to wait        Choose to wait were not anxious
                        alone               with others
                                                          Attitude similarity and attraction
Attraction toward other person (range = 2-14)




                                                                                            Byrne and Nelson (1965) asked
                                                                                            to rate how much they liked a
                                                13.00
                                                                                            stranger after learning he agreed
                                                12.00                                       with varying proportions of their
                                                                                            attitudes expressed on a
                                                11.00                                       questionnaire. (Higher numbers
                                                                                            indication greater liking.)
                                                10.00
                                                9.00
                                                                                              As the graph shows, the
                                                8.00
                                                                                              greater the proportion of
                                                7.00                                          attitudes subjects shared
                                                6.00                                          with the stranger, the
                                                        .00 .20 .40       .60   .80 1.00      more subjects liked him.
                                                        Proportion of similar attitudes held by
                                                                    other person
       WHY SUCH A POWERFUL EFFECT OF
                SIMILARITY?

A) COGNITIVE CONSISTENCY
 (WE LIKE OURSELVES, THEREFORE WE LIKE THOSE WHO ARE LIKE US)


B) SOCIAL COMPARISON (VALIDATION OF ONE'S BELIEFS)


C) ANTICIPATE/PREDICT OTHER'S BEHAVIOR (e.g., LIKES/DISLIKES,
INTERESTS)


D) THEY WILL LIKE US ALSO (RECIPROCAL)
                REPULSION HYPOTHESIS

  Basic premise: Differences are disliked; perceived as threatening

“Lab” studies                                     Avg. attraction score
• Similar attitudes                              5.5            No
• No information regarding attitudes             5.2        difference

• Dissimilar attitudes                           2.1 (less attraction)

Iowa Caucus Study (Democratic)
                                            Democrat
                                                                          No
                                                                      difference
Description of person                      No party affiliation
                                           Republican             Disliked
D S S D S
DS    S D D
                                   Reject those who are
DDD S      S D                          dissimilar
DDSDDD
S D D S D



                                     S       S       S       S
                                         S       S       S
      End result is that we are
     left with similar people to                     S
            interact with
     The motivational value of dissimilarity is various other
                 theories in social psychology:

•   Balance Theory                Imbalance is motivating

•   Congruity Theory              Incongruity is motivating

•   Dissonance Theory             Dissonance is motivating

•   Equity Theory                  Inequity is motivating


     Naturally discovering similarity/dissimilarity (rather
      than being given other’s attitudes is quite different



                        Active search process
                    Misattribution of Emotional Arousal
  Bridge characteristics:
  • Tilted, swayed (6 ft.), wobbled
  • Low handrails (3 feet)
  • 230 foot drop to rocks and rapids




                                   versus




 Higher scores and               TAT (men wrote stories) scored for sexual content
   greater percent
                                 % of men who called female back
called back when on
     this bridge
                   • Arousal (anxiety) misattributed as partly due to sexual attraction
           EATING LIGHTLY AND SELF-PRESENTATION

Basic Premise: People are motivated to behave in ways to enhance their image

• Females have greater number of eating disorders and dieting than males
(emphasis on thin as attractive)

     “Undesirable”
        Male


Equal intake of candy by
  males and females

      “Desirable”
        Male


     • Females ate less food when interacting with a desirable male
           Conversation Style and Relationship Type

       Intimate Friend (versus Casual Friend)

Voice Quality                     Trait Ratings
Feminine                           Submissive
Babylike                           Scatterbrained
High pitch                         Approachable
Relaxed                            Sincere
Pleasant

Much better than chance identification of who was being spoken to, a
casual versus intimate friend.
No difference in what was said (transcript analysis). Focus on how
things were said, paralinguistic cues.
                    Physical Attractiveness
Advantages:
• Greater overall liking (best predictor of desire to date)
• More desirable character traits (e.g., sensitive, warm, intelligent)
• Higher income
• Higher evaluation of work performance
• More lenient treatment in the legal system               Often different in
                                                               physical
• Better mental health
                                                               attraction
• Matching         Length of           Short
                  relationship                                  Couple is
                                       Long                      equal in
                                                                 physical
                                                                attraction
               Misattributions of friendly behavior
  Routine
Conversation
                             Female
                                             Viewed female as
                             Male     promiscuous; were attracted to
                                      the female; saw themselves as
                                         flirtatious and seductive
                            Female
   Observers                          Viewed males as behaving
                             Male        in a sexual manner;
                                       females as promiscuous
               Sexual   Interaction
 The life cycle                                  Communication/                    Relationship
                                                  consolidation                     continues
 of a
 relationship
                                    Buildup                         Deterioration
                                                                     and decline



               Attraction                                                           Ending


 Important    Triggering factors:     Social-exchange and equity:        Social-exchange and
 variables        Proximity,             Communication, Self-         equity/inequity: Relative
influencing    Similarity, Erotic       disclosure, Communal               attractiveness of
 attraction       love etc…           concern, External supports       alternatives, Barriers to
                                                                              dissolution
                                               Low:                         High: Upset of
                 High: Heady                Relationship                    deterioration and
Emotion
                   feeling of                in stable                      trauma of
                 romantic love                  state                       disruption
              Social Exchange Theory

• Costs (Inputs)          Loss of freedom, $, time, etc.



• Benefits (Outputs)      Companionship, sexual
                          fulfillment, etc.

• Comparison Level        Other person in a relationship,
(e.g., a standard)        yourself in the past, an ideal

• Comparison Level for    Evaluation of the value of
Alternatives              other partners
         Gender and the Personal Columns



          Males                     Females


 Offer        Seek          Offer                   Seek


Money        Young          Physical               Money
                         attractiveness       Job information
Status      Physically
            attractive                        Personality traits
Career
                                               (e.g., sincerity)
                Relationship Breakups

About 50% “survival” rate; on average overall relationship
satisfaction goes down across time

• Who identifies more problems?
• Who initiates most breakups?
• When are the partners most likely to remain friends, when
the male of female initiates the breakup?
 Relationship-Enhancing and Distress-Maintaining Attributions

                   Relationship-Enhancing    Distress-Maintaining
                         Attribution              Attribution
  Positive Event
My partner takes me      My partner is         My partner took
out to an expensive       sweet and           me out to write the
       dinner             thoughtful           cost off on taxes
                        Internal, stable,     External, unstable,
                             global                specific

 Negative Event
                          Something             My partner is
My partner forgot my
     birthday           unexpected must       always uncaring
                         have come up            and selfish
                       External, unstable,     Internal, stable,
                            specific                global
                 Sample Liking Scale Items

When I am with _____, we are almost always in the same mood.
I think that _____ is unusually well-adjusted.
I would highly recommend _____ for a responsible job.
In my opinion, _____ is an exceptionally mature person.
I have great confidence in _____’s good judgment.
I think that _____ is someone one of those people who quickly
win your respect.
_____ is one of the most likeable people I know.
_____ is the sort of person whom I myself would like to be.
I would vote for _____ in a class or group election.
                   Sample Love Scale Items

I would do anything for _____.
I feel responsible for _____’s well being.
I feel very possessive toward _____.
If I could never be with _____, I would feel miserable.
If I were lonely, my first thought would be to seek _____ out.
I would forgive _____ for practically anything.
In would greatly enjoy being confided in by _____.
When I am with _____, I spend a good deal of my time just
looking at him/her.
I would be hard for me to get along without _____.
  Liking & Loving for Dating Partners and Same-Sex Friends


Index                Women             Men


Love for Partner      89.5             89.3


Liking for Partner    88.7             84.6


Love for Friend       65.3             55.1


Liking for Friend     80.5             79.1
   Interpersonal Relationship --- Newer Approaches



                • Individual subjective reactions to cues in
                               an interaction

Relationships   • Active search/detection process for cues

                • Timing and sequencing of cues (e.g.,
                       baking a cake example)
    Interpersonal Relationship --- Newer Approaches
                         (cont.)



                                                     • Future
Thoughts about            Evaluation of
                                                     possibilities
 interpersonal         interaction as good,
  interactions            average, poor              • Strategies



                     • Who is told? When they are told?
Narratives/stories    What is said? Why they are told?
      about
  relationships      • Differences in perceptions;
                           memory for facts

				
DOCUMENT INFO