Dr K Williams 11/13/06Interpersonal Attraction 1InterpersonalAttractionPsy 240; Fall 2006Purdue UniversityDr. Kipling WilliamsInitial Attraction:Initial Attraction:What matters at first?What matters at first? Propinquity (we like those who live/work near us;mere exposure) Physical Attractiveness (we like those who arephysically attractive; halo, rewards, kernel of truth;evolutionary signs of health and reproductiveadvantage) Similarity/Complementarity (we like those who aresimilar to us—it’s rewarding; complementarity ofneeds) Responsiveness (we like those who are responsive tous; signals belonging, worth, and control) Reciprocal liking (we like those who like us—it’srewarding)Dr K Williams 11/13/06Interpersonal Attraction 2PropinquityPropinquity Festinger, Schachter & Back (1959)’s “Socialpressures in informal groups: A study ofhuman factors in housing” Zajonc’s (1968) “Attitudinal effects of mereexposure” (JPSP) “Mirror exposure” - we like our reflection viewbetter than the view that others see of us; andvice versa. Moreland & Beach’s (1992) “Exposure effectsin the classroom…” (JESP)Physical AttractivenessPhysical Attractiveness Walster, Aronson, Abrahams & Rottman, 1966: ComputerDating paradigm Take a battery of measures of personality SES interests physical attractiveness Randomly pair college students with person of oppositesex. Asked them to rate their date Only one factor predicted liking and intention to ask outagain…physical attractiveness (for males & females!) How about after the fifth date? (Mathes, 1975)Dr K Williams 11/13/06Interpersonal Attraction 3Physical AttractivenessPhysical Attractiveness How ubiquitous? In the courtroom less likely to be found guilty; if guilty, lightersentence (except if used to commit crime) In job applications More likely to be hired even for jobs in whichappearance could have no conceivablerelationship to job performance Class project (High, Med, Low Phys AttractivenessX High, Med, Low Qualifications)• Which matters most?Physical AttractivenessPhysical Attractiveness How ubiquitous? With children They are more popular, betterliked by parents, teachers,and peers. Dealt with less severely ifthey commit a transgression Teachers give them moreinformation, betterevaluations, moreopportunities to perform, andmore support for theireducational endeavors.Dr K Williams 11/13/06Interpersonal Attraction 4Physical AttractivenessPhysical Attractiveness How ubiquitous? With infants Langois, 1991 -infants (6 montholds) smile more atattractive thanunattractive photosof adults (regardlessof race of child andrace of photo) and, the other wayaround...Physical AttractivenessPhysical Attractiveness Explanations: Learning - we are taught that what is beautiful is good. Goodwitches are pretty; bad witches are ugly... Halo effect - we are attracted to the positive characteristicsassociated with physical attractiveness. Kernel of truth - attractive people have higher self-concepts,better mental health, are more assertive and more confident.Preferred even on telephone! Rewarded by association - if we are with a physicallyattractive person, we’ll be rewarded, too Evolutionary Psychology - We are attracted to that which isevolutionarily related to reproductive success and successfulrearing of the children. Physical attraction matters with loweranimals, too.Dr K Williams 11/13/06Interpersonal Attraction 5Physical Attractiveness StereotypesPhysical Attractiveness Stereotypes What are they? Different for cultures (Wheeler) Western cultures (high in individualism) attributepotency to physically attractive people (assertiveand dominant) Eastern cultures (high in collectivism and groupharmony) attribute high concern for others andintegrity to attractive people But, there are stable factors Waist-to-hip ratio: ~.75 (25in waist; 34inch hips or63cm hips to 86cm waist) Men also prefer neotenous (child-like)characteristics in women. Why?SinghSingh’’s waist-to-hips waist-to-hip ratio ratio .67 - .80 (hips roughly athirdlarger than the waist) more likely to be healthy health is predictive ofreproductive successDr K Williams 11/13/06Interpersonal Attraction 6Neoteny is a desirable facialNeoteny is a desirable facialcharacteristiccharacteristicYouthful = Reproductively Healthy?Other stable characteristics ofOther stable characteristics ofphysical attractivenessphysical attractiveness Men prefer “neotenous”charactertistics in females baby-like features round mouth, full lips, bigeyes Women, on the otherhand, tend to prefer V-shape in menDr K Williams 11/13/06Interpersonal Attraction 7Similarity/Similarity/ComplementarityComplementarity Byrne (1971) “The attractionparadigm” - We like those whobelieve what we believe Similarity-attraction or dissimilarity-repulsion (Rosenbaum, 1986) When do opposites attract? NeedcomplementarityResponsivenessResponsiveness Rats like responsive rats(Latane) People like responsivepeople (Davis, Bernieri) Chartrand (nonconsciousmimicry)Dr K Williams 11/13/06Interpersonal Attraction 8Reciprocal likingReciprocal liking We like people who like us. We also… comply more help more attribute more positive characteristics to and judge their actions more favorablyLove & LustLove & Lust Do short-term influencesaffect long-term likingand love? Are there other factorsand issues that makelong-term attractionworth studying?Dr K Williams 11/13/06Interpersonal Attraction 9Short-Term Mate SelectionShort-Term Mate Selection Males are more likely to report that theywould enter into a short-term sexualrelationship than are females. The sexes are more similar in what theyprioritize in their partners for suchrelationships. Five studies (Li & Kenrick, JPSP, 2006) Men and women given “matebudgets” to design short-term mates,and asked whether they wouldactually mate with their constructedpartner. Mate screening paradigm Reported reasons for having casualsex.Sex Differences in Short-term matingWhether to enter into a short term sexual relationship? Men have lower thresholds for entering into short-termmating relationships More willing than women to engage in sexual relations afterany length of acquaintance 1 hr to 5 yrs 75% say “yes” to opposite sex strangers proposal for casualsex; 0% for