Paul Eastwick and Eli Finkel Northwestern University

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Numbers Treasure Hunt Following each question, click on the answer. If correct, the next page will load with a graphic first – these can be used to check.
Advertisements

1 A B C
AGVISE Laboratories %Zone or Grid Samples – Northwood laboratory
AP STUDY SESSION 2.
1
Feichter_DPG-SYKL03_Bild-01. Feichter_DPG-SYKL03_Bild-02.
& dding ubtracting ractions.
Copyright © 2003 Pearson Education, Inc. Slide 1 Computer Systems Organization & Architecture Chapters 8-12 John D. Carpinelli.
Copyright © 2011, Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 6 Author: Julia Richards and R. Scott Hawley.
Author: Julia Richards and R. Scott Hawley
1 Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Appendix 01.
Properties Use, share, or modify this drill on mathematic properties. There is too much material for a single class, so you’ll have to select for your.
Objectives: Generate and describe sequences. Vocabulary:
UNITED NATIONS Shipment Details Report – January 2006.
David Burdett May 11, 2004 Package Binding for WS CDL.
We need a common denominator to add these fractions.
1 RA I Sub-Regional Training Seminar on CLIMAT&CLIMAT TEMP Reporting Casablanca, Morocco, 20 – 22 December 2005 Status of observing programmes in RA I.
Properties of Real Numbers CommutativeAssociativeDistributive Identity + × Inverse + ×
Custom Statutory Programs Chapter 3. Customary Statutory Programs and Titles 3-2 Objectives Add Local Statutory Programs Create Customer Application For.
CALENDAR.
1 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt BlendsDigraphsShort.
1 Click here to End Presentation Software: Installation and Updates Internet Download CD release NACIS Updates.
Photo Slideshow Instructions (delete before presenting or this page will show when slideshow loops) 1.Set PowerPoint to work in Outline. View/Normal click.
REVIEW: Arthropod ID. 1. Name the subphylum. 2. Name the subphylum. 3. Name the order.
Break Time Remaining 10:00.
This module: Telling the time
The basics for simulations
Shopping Day Free Powerpoint Templates.
Table 12.1: Cash Flows to a Cash and Carry Trading Strategy.
PP Test Review Sections 6-1 to 6-6
1 The Blue Café by Chris Rea My world is miles of endless roads.
Bright Futures Guidelines Priorities and Screening Tables
EIS Bridge Tool and Staging Tables September 1, 2009 Instructor: Way Poteat Slide: 1.
Bellwork Do the following problem on a ½ sheet of paper and turn in.
2 |SharePoint Saturday New York City
Exarte Bezoek aan de Mediacampus Bachelor in de grafische en digitale media April 2014.
15. Oktober Oktober Oktober 2012.
Copyright © 2012, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved. 1 Chapter 7 Modeling Structure with Blocks.
1 RA III - Regional Training Seminar on CLIMAT&CLIMAT TEMP Reporting Buenos Aires, Argentina, 25 – 27 October 2006 Status of observing programmes in RA.
Factor P 16 8(8-5ab) 4(d² + 4) 3rs(2r – s) 15cd(1 + 2cd) 8(4a² + 3b²)
Basel-ICU-Journal Challenge18/20/ Basel-ICU-Journal Challenge8/20/2014.
1..
CONTROL VISION Set-up. Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 5 Step 4.
© 2012 National Heart Foundation of Australia. Slide 2.
Adding Up In Chunks.
MaK_Full ahead loaded 1 Alarm Page Directory (F11)
1 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt 10 pt 15 pt 20 pt 25 pt 5 pt Synthetic.
Model and Relationships 6 M 1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Subtraction: Adding UP
: 3 00.
5 minutes.
1 hi at no doifpi me be go we of at be do go hi if me no of pi we Inorder Traversal Inorder traversal. n Visit the left subtree. n Visit the node. n Visit.
© The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Chapter 10 Testing the Difference between Means and Variances.
Analyzing Genes and Genomes
©Brooks/Cole, 2001 Chapter 12 Derived Types-- Enumerated, Structure and Union.
Essential Cell Biology
Converting a Fraction to %
Clock will move after 1 minute
PSSA Preparation.
& dding ubtracting ractions.
Essential Cell Biology
Immunobiology: The Immune System in Health & Disease Sixth Edition
Physics for Scientists & Engineers, 3rd Edition
Energy Generation in Mitochondria and Chlorplasts
Select a time to count down from the clock above
Murach’s OS/390 and z/OS JCLChapter 16, Slide 1 © 2002, Mike Murach & Associates, Inc.
1.step PMIT start + initial project data input Concept Concept.
Presentation transcript:

Paul Eastwick and Eli Finkel Northwestern University Do Men and Women Show Evidence of Reciprocal Liking While Speed-dating? Paul Eastwick and Eli Finkel Northwestern University

Reciprocity and Attraction (non-romantic) Early studies: We tend to like people who like us (Backman & Secord, 1959) David Kenny: 2 ways to measure reciprocity of liking Dyadic – If I uniquely like you, do you uniquely like me? Generalized – Are “likers” also liked in turn? The answer to both is typically “yes”

Reciprocity and Attraction (non-romantic) From Kenny (1994) Study Generalized Dyadic First Encounters: One on one Burleson (1983) .27 .26 Chapdelaine, Kenny, & LaFontana (1994) .58 .42 Kenny & Bernstein (1982) xx .29 First Encounters: Groups Dabbs & Ruback (1987) .36 .13 Kashy (1988) .09 .28 Park & Flink (1989) -.10 .18 Long-term acquaintance .12 .49 Curry & Emerson (1970) -.26 .48 Malloy & Albright (1990) .75 Newcomb (1961) Wright, Ingraham, & Blackner (1985) .74 r =.43 r =.32 I’ll explain more about speed-dating later, but it’s basically the romantic equivalent of a blocked one-on-one design.

Reciprocity and Attraction (romantic) Participants’ recall of falling-in-love experiences typically involve reciprocity Ex: finding out the potential partner was interested in you (Aron, Dutton, Aron, & Iverson 1989) But it could still be as (or more) common that we are uninterested in the people who like us What about playing “hard to get”? (Walster et al., 1973) Aron really only gets at half the story – what about all the times you learned about someone’s liking and you didn’t like them back?

Romantic vs. Platonic Liking An individual who demonstrates platonic liking for many others is likable (Folkes & Sears, 1977) “Likers” are typically nice people, so they are liked in return But an individual who demonstrates romantic liking for many others? This may come across as unselective or even desperate

Hypotheses In a purely romantic context… Dyadic – Unique liking will be reciprocated (a positive correlation as in previous research) Generalized – Likers will be disliked (a negative correlation unlike previous research) Should correlate with measures of desperation In other words, dyadic vs. generalized no longer operate in the same direction

Method – Speed-dating 163 Northwestern undergraduates Completed a 30-minute background questionnaire online prior to the event Met 9-13 opposite sex individuals for 4 minutes each Completed a ~2 minute questionnaire after each date After returning home, participants “yes” or “no” the other participants online “Matches” can email one another through web portal

Method – Measures (after each date) Romantic Desire I really liked my interaction partner I was sexually attracted to my interaction partner I am likely to say “yes” to my interaction partner Chemistry – My interaction partner and I… …seemed to have a lot in common …seemed to have similar personalities …had a real connection Perceived Romantic Desire I think that my interaction partner really liked me I think that my interaction partner was sexually attracted to me Perceived Unselectivity To what percentage of the other people here today will this person say “yes”?

Method - Measures The Social Relations Model – actor, partner, and relationship effects Actor effect: Average amount Laura liked her dates Partner effect: Average amount Laura was liked by her dates Relationship effects: The amount Laura liked each particular date independently of her actor effect and her date’s partner effect

Results - Variance partitioning Sex Variable Actor Partner Relationship Men Desire .09 .27 .35 Chemistry .19 .11 .45 Perceived Desire .25 .10 .37 Perceived Unselectivity .53 – e Women .16 .31 .13 .21 .26 .07 .42 .34 .02 .64 – e

Results – Dyadic Effects Romantic Desire (BA) (relationship) Chemistry (BA) (relationship) Perceived Desire (BA) (relationship) Romantic Desire (AB) (relationship) - Men .14** .17** .17* Romantic Desire (AB) (relationship) - Women .14** .23*** .22**

Results – Generalized Effects Romantic Desire (Partner) Chemistry (Partner) Perceived Desire (Partner) Romantic Desire (Actor) - Men -.42† -.39 -.03 Romantic Desire (Actor) - Women Remind them of the platonic finding here -.42** -.30† -.12 Assumed reciprocity (Romantic desire actor with perceived desire actor) r = ~.33 Generalized reciprocity correlation still negative and significant controlling for coder-rated physical attractiveness

Mediation – Why don’t you like me? (Because I’ll say yes to anyone!) Unselectivity (Partner) β = .34*** β = -.16* #s are slightly different because I’m not correcting for attenuation here β = -.30*** Desire (Actor) Desire (Partner) β’ = -.25** Sobel z = 1.85, p = .065

Results – Personality correlates Measure ♂ Desire (actor) (partner) ♀ Desire “I sometimes feel as though I would date anyone who is interested in me” .23* -.20† .17 -.30*

Mediation – Why do I like you? (Because I’m desperate!) Desire (Actor) β = .19* β = -.26*** Self-report Desperation β = -.24* Desire (Partner) β’ = -.19* Sobel z = 1.99, p = .047

Results – Personality correlates Measure ♂ Desire (actor) (partner) ♀ Desire “I sometimes feel as though I would date anyone who is interested in me” .23* -.20† .17 -.30* Time since last romantic physical contact .20† -.45** -.22† -.27* # sex partners in past year -.07 .32** -.04 .19 # romantic physical contact partners in past year -.16 .48** .01 .12

Results – Personality correlates Measure ♂ Desire (actor) (partner) ♀ Desire “I expect that I will be interested in going on a date with _____% of the people I meet speed-dating” .25* -.24* .27* -.26* “I expect that _____% of the people I meet speed-dating will be interested in going on a date with me.” .15 -.03 -.10 .16 “Members of the opposite sex that I like tend to like me back” .05 .26* -.11 .38** Extraversion .33** -.09 .12 Conscientiousness .14 -.02 -.22†

A procedural bias? At least 3 separate teams of speed-dating researchers have reported a large sex difference (in the male direction) in “yessing” But men are always the ones rotating, even at professional speed-dating events Could there be something empowering about rotating that results in a higher yessing rate? At 4 of our events, men rotated, and at 3 of the events, women rotated

Rotation interactions

Discussion Found a positive dyadic reciprocity correlation (if I uniquely like you, you tend to uniquely like me back) Found a negative generalized reciprocity correlation for both men and women Appears to be related to desperation / unselectivity Romantic liking appears to come in one of two “flavors” The flavor can be determined in only 4 minutes!

Thank you Candida Abrahamson David Kenny Wendi Gardner Dan Ariely Daniel Mochon Jacob Matthews George Loewenstein The Northwestern Class Alliance The University Research Grants Committee Layla Bermeo Debra Blade Christine Brooks Bonnie Buik Madelaine Eulich Megan Graney Jeff Jablons Kristin Jones Julie Keller Jennifer Leyton Kaidi Liu Mallory Martino Ashley Mason Jesse Matthews Abby Mitchell Jennifer Rosner Seema Saigal Sarah Scarbeck David Sternberg Laura Thompson Ashley Treadway Stephanie Yang