Chapter 9 Attraction And Close Relationships

Front 1

Social Relations Topics

Back 1

1. Attraction

2. Close Relationships

3. Helping Behavior

4. Aggression

Front 2

What do we find attractive?

Back 2

Familiarity

- People are attracted to others who are familiar

Front 3

propinquity effect

Back 3

the tendency to be more attracted to people whom you seen and interact with regular

Front 4

Dorm Study (Festinger,1950)

Back 4

negative correlation between distance and social interaction.

participants listed 3 closest friends:

- 65% lived in same building

- 41% next door neighbors

- 22% two doors down

- 10% 3 doors down

- Rooms closest to stairs knew people upstairs

Front 5

mere exposure effect

Back 5

the more exposure people have to a stimulus, the more positively it is evaluated (if the stimulus is not already negative)

*this works best if you are unaware of the stimulus)

Front 6

Moreland & Beach (1992)

Mere Exposure and Attraction

Back 6

*female confederates (unaware they were in an experiment) entered classroom

*pretest on attractiveness

1. 0 times -> 3.6 (attractiveness rating)

2. 5 times -> 3.9

3. 10 times-> 4.2

4. 15 times-> 4.4

Front 7

Generally Attractive

(nature component)

Back 7

some consensus beauty

1. people agree on attractiveness of faces

2. physical features universally attractive

- in women: large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose, wide smile

- in men: broad jaw, broad shoulders

3. symmetry is attractive, even to babies

Front 8

Generally Attractive

(nurture component)

Back 8

-1950s Marilyn Monroe (curves)

-1960s Twiggy (thin)

Front 9

what-is-beauty-is-good sterotype

Back 9

the belief that physically attractive individuals also possess other desirable personality traits

Front 10

Blind Date Study (Snyder et al., 1977)

Self-fulfilling prophesy

Back 10

randomly paired men and women to talk on the phone

IV: men shown attractive or non-attractive picture and told it is their phone partner

- men rated the attractive woman as more sociable

- judges rated both as more sociable with attractive picture

Front 11

Major Carrington & Carnivale (1984)

Draw Backs of Attractiveness

Back 11

Cover study: participants write an essay judged by an unknown member of the opposite sex. All essays evaluated positively.

*half believed member of the opposite sex can see them through a one way mirror.

*felt as though their level of attractiveness dictated their essay score.

Front 12

After initial attraction, what keeps people interested?

Back 12

-similarity: we like those who are similar to us

Front 13

matching hypothesis

Back 13

people tend to form relationships with people who are similar to them

Front 14

Why do we like those who are similar?

Back 14

1. Similar people make us feel like we are correct (false consensus)

2. More to talk about -> more exposure

3. Disagreement is unattractive

Front 15

reciprocity

Back 15

a mutual exchange between what we give and receive

ex. Liking those who like us

Front 16

Gender differences

Back 16

Women like: older, more resources, stable and established

Men like: young, physically attractive.

Front 17

Gender differences

(NATURE)

Evolutionary perspective

Back 17

Differences in how men and women approach relationships and select mates based on evolution.

Women are limited in number of children they can have.

Pick a man who will stay around and provide. Threatened by emotional infidelity.

Men can father unlimited number of children. They pick partner who is healthy and able to have children. Threatened by sexual infidelity.

Front 18

Gender differences

(NURTURE)

Sociocultural perspective

Back 18

Gender differences due to sociocultural factors.

Youth, beauty and financial stability are never the top of peoples list.

Kind, dependable and funny are the highest in the list for both men and women.

Sex differences are due to social circumstances that women face. If prevented by society, women have to obtain resources and power through men.

Front 19

Social exchange theory

Back 19

a perspective that views people as motivated to maximize benefits and minimize cost in their relationships with others

Economic model to predict staying together or not

Satisfaction= reward - cost - comparison level

Front 20

exchange relationship

Back 20

a relationship in which the participant expect and desire strict reciprocity in their interactions.

- governed by equity concern, quick reciprocity

- more common among acquaintances and business associates

- no empathy (not experience feelings that the other person is feeling)

Front 21

communal relationship

Back 21

a relationship in which the participants expect and desire mutual responsiveness to other's needs.

- governed by motivation to respond to the needs of the other person

- common among close friends and partners

- empathy (experience feelings the other person is feeling)

Front 22

attachment style

Back 22

the way a person typically interacts with significant others.

- secure: not overly threatened by others trying to get too close, not overly worried and being dependent or abandoned.

- avoidant: threatened by others who get too close or who are dependent on them, fear of being psychologically intimate

- anxious: wants more affection from the partner than the partner is willing to give, worried about being abandoned.

Front 23

Comparison level

Back 23

expectancy of what rewards and cost of a relationship should be.

Commitment= satisfaction - CLalt + investments

Front 24

Comparison Level of Alternatives (CLalt)

Back 24

expectation of satisfaction with available alternatives

Front 25

Simpson (1992)

Back 25

Couples come to study together. Tell women experiment arouses anxiety/distress

Left alone with their partner (under observation)

Secure (W): turned to bf for help

Secure (M): was caring in response

Avoidant (W): pulled away from boyfriend

Avoidant (M): less caring when gf is anxious

Front 26

equity theory

Back 26

the theory that people are most satisfied with a relationship when the ratio between benefits and contributions is similar for both parties

Front 27

triangle theory of love

Back 27

a theory proposing that love has three basic components: 1. intimacy 2. passion 3. commitment --that can be combined to produce eight subtypes

Front 28

intimacy

Back 28

the emotional component. which involves liking and feelings of closeness

ex. I have a comfortable relationship with___

Front 29

passion

Back 29

the motivational component, which contains drives that trigger attraction

ex. just seeing ____ is exciting for me.

Front 30

commitment

Back 30

the cognitive component, which reflects the decision to make a long term commitment to a loved partner

ex. I will always feel a strong responsibility for ___.

Front 31

passionate love

Back 31

romantic love characterized by high arousal, intense attraction, and fear of rejection.

Front 32

compassionate love

Back 32

a secure, trusting, stable partnership

Front 33

need for affilation

Back 33

the desire to establish and maintain many rewarding interpersonal relationship

Front 34

loneliness

Back 34

a feeling of deprivation about existing social relations

Front 35

hard-to-get effect

Back 35

the tendency to prefer people who are highly selective in their social choices over those who are more readily available

Front 36

intimate relationship

Back 36

a close relationship between two adults involving emotional attachment, fulfillment of psychological needs, or interdependence

Front 37

excitation transfer

Back 37

the process whereby arousal caused by one stimulus is added to arousal from a second stimulus and the combined arousal is attributed to the second stimulus

Front 38

self- disclosure

Back 38

revelations about the self that a person makes to others

Front 39

sexual orientation

Back 39

a person's preference for members of the same sex (homosexuality), opposite sex (heterosexuality), or both sexes (bisexuality).