Interpersonal AttractionLiking, Friendship, Love,

Commitment

Interpersonal AttractionTwo people meet. What predicts whether they will like each other?

The Social Psychology of First Impressions

• Propinquity effect– The more we see and interact with

people, the more likely they are to become our friends

– Familiarity leads to liking

Mere Exposure• Zajonc

• Mere exposure familiarity liking– Cross et al. (1967)

Mozart Schoenberg No music

Mere Exposure, Mita et al. (1977)

Which picture of Colin Farrell do you like the most?

Which picture of Natalie Portman do you like the most?

Similarity Leads to Liking• Basic Paradigm• Need for Uniqueness vs. Complementarity

Birds of a feather flock together… Opposites attract?OR

Attractiveness Matters

Physical Attractivenesshttp://www.beautycheck.de/english

Females: slightly bigger distance of eyes, narrower nose 

Males: upper half of the face broader in relation to the lower, prominent lower jaw, prominent chin 

“Sexy” “Unsexy”

Both sexes: Darker skin, narrower face, less fat, fuller lips, darker narrower eye brows, more and darker eye lashes, higher cheek bones

Babyfaceness

Baby face features: Large head, large curved forehead, eyes, nose, and mouth located relatively low on the face, large round eyes, small short nose, round cheeks, small chin 

Averaging attractiveness(Langlois & Roggmann, 1990)

+ =

Averaging attractiveness

4 faces 8 faces 16 faces 32 faces

Physical Attractiveness Leads to Liking• Beauty leads to Liking

Dion (1972) Attractiveness matters, especially with a severe act

Clifford & Walster (1973) Cute kids thought to have brighter future

Landy & Sigall (1974) Cute woman received a better grade for a bad essay

Liking leads to Perceived BeautyNisbett & Wilson (1977)

% Who Found Teacher Attractive

Unlikeable Likeable

Do We Like Those Who Reward Us?

• Social Exchange Theory• We like people who reward us the most• Explains why we like similar others• Comparison level• Comparison level for alternatives

• Problems• Can be circular• Aronson Gain-Loss Model of Liking

Aronson & Linder (1965)

Do We Prefer Equity in Friendships?

• Equity Theory– We like people the most when what we put into

a relationship equals what we get in return– No imbalance in rewards and costs

• Exchange vs. Communal Relationships• Exchange: Relationships governed by need for

equity• Communal: Relationships in which people’s

primary concern is being responsive to the other person’s need

Summary: How to Get Someone to Like You

• Propinquity (Familiarity)

• Similarity

• Physical Attractiveness

• Credible Rewards (insult first?)

Close Relationships and LoveWhat determines whether two people will fall

in love and stay together?

Evolutionary Psychology• Mate preferences are the result of

natural selection (Buss, 1989)• “Fitness”

– Measured by reproductive success/ability to pass on genes to the next generation

• Based on principle of natural selection

Key to reproductive success MEN

• Pursue frequent pairing with many women

• Father children with many different women

• Few costs for reproduction

• Attracted by women’s appearance

WOMEN

Pair infrequently with a carefully chosen male

Invest in one partner

Reproduction is costly (time, energy, effort)

Attracted by men’s resources

Evidence for Evolutionary View In some studies…

Men value physical attractiveness and youth more than women do

Women value economic success and social standing more than men do

Men are threatened if they can’t tell paternity

Women are threatened if they can’t ensure resources

Personal ads• Look for…

– Men advertising resources; Women seeking resources

– Women advertising attractiveness; Men seeking attractiveness

– People looking for similar partners

– What might we expect to see in same sex couples?

Testing the Evolutionary View

Double shot hypothesis (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996)

Emotion and sex aren’t mutually exclusive Women are interpreting the question differently

than men

The Controversy• Untestable

• Role of socialization

• Men and women rate the same attributes for a mate as most important– Honesty– Trustworthiness– Pleasant personality

Evidence Against Evolutionary View

Because a behavior is common does not mean that it is genetically determined 99% of people in Finland are Lutherans, is

there a “Lutheran gene”? Considerable variation in men and

women’s mate preference, not all studies support Buss

Evidence Against Evolutionary View

Social power explanation Because women have less power in many

societies, they value social success more In societies with more equal power, women are

more apt to value physical attractiveness

Close Relationships and Love• Attachment Theory (Bowlby, Ainsworth)

– Secure– Avoidant– Anxious/ambivalent

Which statement best describes how you typically feel in romantic relationships?

A. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.

B. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

C. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away.

Hazan & Shaver study• I find it relatively easy to get close to others and

am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.

Type H & Z

Secure 56% of adults

Hazan & Shaver study• I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to

others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

Type H & Z Avoidant 25% of adults

Hazan & Shaver study• I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I

would like. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away.

Type H & Z Anxious/Ambivalent 19% of adults

Fourth type of attachment• Disorganized/Disoriented

• Alternates between seeking proximity and avoiding caregiver

• Caregiver has unresolved, incoherent feelings about the relationship

Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991)

1. With how many different partners have you had sex (sexual intercourse) within the past year? _____

2. How many partners do you foresee yourself having sex with during the next 5 years? (Please give a specific, realistic estimate): _____

3. With how many partners have you had sex on one and only one occasion? ____

4. How often do you fantasize about having sex with someone other than your current dating partner? (circle one)

5. Sex without love is OK

6. I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying “casual” sex with different partners.

7. I would have to be closely attached to someone (both emotionally and psychologically) before I could feel comfortable and fully enjoy having sex with him or her

Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991)

Range Mean

Women in study 10-172 38.9

Women in this class

Women vs. Men (class): t ( )= , p =

Men in study 11-216 68.5

Men in this class

Does Attachment Classification Predict Sexual Behavior/Intention?

Attachment Category Sociosexual Orientation Score

Secure 71.77

Avoidant 87.86

Anxious/Ambivalent 63.50

Differences between attachment categories: p = .

Females Only

Attachment Category Sociosexual Orientation Score

Secure 49.75

Avoidant 77.00

Anxious/Ambivalent 55.00

Differences between attachment categories: p = .

Males Only

Attachment Category Sociosexual Orientation Score

Secure 107.00

Avoidant 102.33

Anxious/Ambivalent 70.00

Differences between attachment categories: p = .

Close Relationships:Friendship vs. family vs. love

• Friendship– Emphasis on confiding and self-disclosure – Includes egalitarian and cooperative norms

• Friendship across time (in North America)– Childhood friends: play, share, and don’t hit– College friends: hang out, help, don’t betray– Adult friends: fewer friends and more

relationships that are not as intimate or important

Close Relationships:Friendship vs. family vs. love

• Family– Clear authority relationships, communal

sharing

– Likely provide concrete assistance

• Romantic Love– Strong feelings, interdependent behavior,

committed intent

– Involve passion and exclusivity

Investment Model of Relationship Commitment

• Satisfaction with Relationship

• Level of Investment

• Quality of Alternatives

Why do People Stay in Abusive Relationships? (Rusbult & Martz, 1997)– Satisfaction?– Investment?– Alternatives?

Investment Model of Commitment

Stability of Relationship

Commitment to Relationship

Satisfaction with

Relationship

Level of Investment in Relationship

Quality of alternatives to Relationship

Rewards

Costs

Comparison

Level

Ending Intimate Relationships

The Process of Breaking Up• Destructive behaviors

– Actively harming relationship

– Passively allowing relationship to deteriorate

• Constructive behaviors– Actively trying to improve the relationship

– Passively remaining loyal to the relationship

Healthy Relationship Wheel

Healthy Relationship Wheel

Abusive Relationship Wheel

Abusive Relationship Wheel

Cycle of ViolenceTension Phase:

Stress builds, communication breaks down

“Minor” abuse, intensity increases

Friends/family denies, minimizes, blames external factors

Victim senses growing danger

Lasts weeks -months

Crisis Phase:

Anxiety extremely high

Major, uncontrolled violence, serious

injuries, death

Abuser blames victim

Victim accommodates for survival, may isolate,

collapse emotionally

Lasts 2-72 hours

Calm Phase:

Abuser remorseful, seeks forgiveness, may be display

loving behavior

Victim worn down, accepts promises, gifts, survives via

denial and negotiation

Calm Phase cont’d:

Friends/family want to believe abuse won’t occur again

Lasts days-weeks

Physicalpushing punching slapping kicking throwing objects choking using weapons homicide/suicide

Emotional/Verbalname calling criticizing minimizing ignoring yelling isolating humiliation victim suicide

Sexualunwanted touching sexual name calling infidelity false accusations forced/hurtful violent rape

Continuum of Violence