1. Chapter 8
Interpersonal Attraction
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

2. Social Needs
Around the world and across age-groups, most people spend about 3/4s of their time with other people.
People want not merely the presence of others but close ties to people who care about them.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

3. Infant Attachment
Attachment means that an infant responds positively to specific others, feels better when they are close, and seeks them out when frightened.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

4. Infant Attachment Attachment provides a sense of security
Attachment provides information about the environment via social referencing
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

5. Infant Attachment
Mary Ainsworth (1978) identified three major attachment styles
Secure
Avoidant
Anxious/ambivalent
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

6. Infant Attachment Attachment is adaptive
Attachment suggests that the tendency to form relationships is at least partly biologically based.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

7. Benefits of Social Relations
Attachment (comfort & security)
Social integration (shared interests & attitudes)
Reassurance of Worth
Sense of Reliable Alliance (help in times of need)
Guidance
Opportunity for Nurturance
Weiss (1974)
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

8. Benefits of Social Relations
No single relationship can fulfill all our social needs
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

9. Loneliness
The subjective discomfort we feel when our social relations lack some important feature
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

10. Loneliness
Different from aloneness, or the objective state of being apart from others
People are somewhat more likely to feel lonely when they are alone
Especially if social norms dictate that one “should” be with others (e.g., Saturday night)
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

11. Loneliness
About 1 in 4 Americans reports feeling very lonely in the past 2 weeks
Situational loneliness occurs due to life changes
Chronic loneliness occurs for about 10% of Americans regardless of the situation
Possible biological basis
Associated with depression, substance abuse, and illness
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

12. Loneliness No segment of society is immune
Children of divorced parents, shy people, people with lower self-esteem, poor people, and single people are more at risk
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

13. Loneliness
Contrary to stereotype, teenagers and young adults are more at risk than the elderly
Not clear if this is a “generation gap” in willingness to report feelings, a function of greater life transitions among the young, or greater social skills and more realistic expectations among the elderly
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

14. Basic principles of attraction
In general…
We like people who like us.
We like people who satisfy our needs.
We like people when the rewards they provide outweigh the costs (Social Exchange Theory)
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

15. Basic principles of attraction
Specific Determinants of Liking…
Proximity
Familiarity
Similarity
Personal Qualities of the Other
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

16. Proximity
The best single predictor of whether two people will be friends is how far apart they live
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

17. Proximity Festinger, Schachter, & Back’s (1950) Westgate West study
Residents were randomly assigned to apartments within the building.
The closer people lived, the more friendly they became with each other.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

18. Proximity Why does proximity have an effect? Ease of availability
Lower cost in terms of time, money, forethought
Cognitive dissonance pressures to like those with whom we must associate
The mere anticipation of interaction increases liking
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

19. Familiarity
The mere exposure effect : simply being exposed to a person (or other stimulus) tends to increase liking for it
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

20. Familiarity
Participants were shown photos of different faces. The number of times each face was seen was varied. The more people saw a face, the more they liked it (Zajonc, 1968).
Liking 1 2 5 10 25
Frequency
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

21. Familiarity Why does familiarity promote liking?
Evolutionarily adaptive
Improved recognition is a 1st step to liking
Familiar is more predictable
Familiar is assumed to be similar to self
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

22. Familiarity Limits to Mere Exposure
Most effective if stimulus is initially viewed as positive or neutral
Pre-existing conflicts between people will get intensified, not decrease, with exposure
There is an optimal level of exposure: too much can lead to boredom and satiation
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

23. Similarity
We like others who are similar to us in attitudes, interests, values, background & personality
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

24. Similarity
Newcomb (1961) assigned roommates to be either very similar or very dissimilar and measured liking at the end of the semester. Those who were similar liked each other while those who were dissimilar disliked each other
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

25. Similarity
Much research on similarity uses the phantom-other technique, where the so-called other person is really a carefully scripted set of answers to a questionnaire.
Many studies using this technique show the high relationship between similarity & liking
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

26. Similarity
In romantic relationships, the tendency to choose similar others is called the matching principle.
People tend to match their partners on a wide variety of attributes
age, intelligence, education, religion, attractiveness, height
But friendship and love can transcend differences in background
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

27. Similarity Why do people prefer similar others?
Similar others are more rewarding.
Interacting with similar others minimizes the possibility of cognitive dissonance
We expect to be more successful with similar others.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

28. Similarity What mechanisms foster similarity in close relationships?
Selective attraction
Social influence
Shared environmental factors
As people interact with similar others, they tend to become even more similar
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

29. Similarity Limits to Similarity Differences can be rewarding
Differences allow people to pool-shared knowledge and skills to mutual benefit
Similarity can be threatening when someone similar to us experiences an unfortunate fate
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

30. Desirable Personal Attributes
There are large individual and cross-cultural differences in the characteristics that are preferred.
Within the U.S., the most-liked characteristics are those related to trustworthiness.
Two other much-liked attributes are personal warmth and competence.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

31. Desirable Personal Attributes
Warmth
People appear warm when they have a positive attitude and express liking, praise, and approval
Nonverbal behaviors such as smiling, attentiveness, and expressing emotions also contribute to perceptions of warmth
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

32. Desirable Personal Attributes
Competence
We like people who are socially skilled, intelligent, and competent.
The type of competence that matters most depends on the nature of the relationship.
E.g., social skills for friends, knowledge for profs
However, being “too perfect” can be off-putting
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

33. Desirable Personal Attributes
The personal qualities that initially attract us to someone can sometimes turn out to be fatal flaws to a relationship
E.g., the “fun-loving” boyfriend who is later dismissed as “immature”
About 30% of breakups fit this description.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

34. Physical Attractiveness
Other things being equal, we tend to like attractive people more.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

35. Physical Attractiveness
One reason we like more attractive people is that they are believed to possess other good qualities.
In fact, more attractive people may be more socially skilled.
They are also believed to be more intelligent, dominant, & mentally healthy.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

36. Physical Attractiveness
In a classic study on the importance of physical attractiveness, college students were randomly assigned to each other as dates for an evening. People who were more attractive were better liked by their date (Walster et al., 1966).
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

37. Physical Attractiveness
Other Effects of Attractiveness
Physically attractive people are more likely to receive help, job recommendations, and more lenient punishments
People who are disabled are stereotyped as unattractive.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

38. Physical Attractiveness
People who are obese are stigmatized and face discrimination in the workplace.
The negative view occurs because people are seen as responsible for their weight.
Anti-fat prejudice is strongest in individualistic cultures (Crandall et al., 2001).
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

39. Physical Attractiveness
Who is Attractive?
Culture plays a large role in standards of attractiveness.
However, people do tend to agree on some features that are seen as more attractive:
Statistically “average” faces
Symmetrical or balanced faces
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

40. Physical Attractiveness
Why does attractiveness matter?
People believe attractiveness is correlated with other positive characteristics
Being associated with an attractive other leads a person to be seen as more attractive him or herself
According to evolutionary theory, attractiveness may provide a clue to health and reproductive fitness
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

41. Sex Differences in Mate Selection
For both sexes, characteristics such as dependability, maturity, and pleasantness are most important.
Men rank physical attractiveness higher.
Women rank financial resources higher.
Men prefer younger partners, while women prefer older partners.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

42. Love
Most people in the United States today believe that love is essential for a successful marriage.
In the U.S., love is seen as more important today than it was in the 1960s.
Romantic love is seen as more important in individualistic cultures than it is in collectivist cultures.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

43. Love
The experience of romantic love differs from person to person, culture to culture, and over historical time.
Most of the studies have been done on young white middle-class adults in the U.S., so we need to be cautious about generalizing.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

44. Love: Feelings % reporting Strong feeling of well-being 79
Difficulty concentrating 37
“Floating on a cloud” 29
“Wanted to run, jump, & scream” 22
“Nervous before dates”
“Giddy & carefree” 20
Strong physical sensations (e.g., butterflies in the stomach)
Insomnia 12
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

45. Love: Thoughts Three basic themes: Attachment Caring
Trust & Self-Disclosure
Rubin (1970, 1973)
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

46. Love: Behaviors Verbal expressions, e.g., “I love you.”
Physical expression, e.g., hug & kiss
Verbal self-disclosure
Nonverbal display of happiness near other
Material signs, e.g., presents, helping
Nonmaterial signs, e.g., encouragement, interest, respect
Making sacrifices to maintain the relationship
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

47. Love Passionate Love Strikes suddenly, fades quickly Companionate Love
Wildly emotional
Uncontrollable
Physiological arousal
Preoccupation with other
Idealization of other
Strikes suddenly, fades quickly
Companionate Love
Affection we feel for those w/whom our lives are intertwined
Trust
Caring
Tolerance
Develops slowly, basis for enduring relationship
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

48. Love Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love INTIMACY Companionate Love
Liking
Consummate Love
Fatuous Love
Companionate Love
Romantic Love
Infatuation
Empty Love
PASSION
COMMITMENT
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

49. Jealousy
a reaction to perceived threat to the continuity or quality of a relationship
More likely to be jealous are people who are
Highly dependent
Have few alternative relationships
More insecure
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

50. Jealousy Sex Differences Men get more jealous of sexual infidelity
“paternity certainty” threatened
Women get more jealous of emotional infidelity
Fear of loss of resource support for rearing offspring
Much but not all work supports an evolutionary interpretation
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

51. Adult Romantic Attraction
Secure, Avoidant, Anxious/Ambivalent
The proportion of adults classified these ways is similar to the proportion of infants
However, unlike with children, adult attachments are reciprocal, between peers, and sexual.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

52. Adult Romantic Attraction
Many theorists believe that infant attachment to caregivers provides a “working model” for adult relationships.
There is some evidence for continuity.
However, attachment style may change if a person has a significant attachment-related event (e.g., divorce, abuse, etc.)
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall

53. Adult Romantic Attraction
In general, people with a secure attachment style have more satisfying, committed, close, and well-adjusted relationships than avoidant people.
Secure people are more responsive to their partner’s needs than avoidant or anxious people.
Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall