SOC 3310 1st Edition Lecture 5Outline of Last Lecture I. Theories of Emotiona. James-Lange Theory (1985)b. Schachter& Singer’s two-factor theory and experimentc. Dutton &Eron (1974) d. Evolutionary Theory (Darwin, 1872; Izard,1984)Outline of Current Lecture I. Theories of interpersonal attraction: Liking another persona. Cognitive approach: Heider’s Balance Theory/Newcomb’s ABX symmetry modelb. Experimental evidence: Aronson & Cope (1968)II. Factors affecting interpersonal attraction: Physical and functional proximityIII. Why is the effect of physical proximity so strong? Three reasons.IV. Factors affecting interpersonal attraction: Positive qualities of the personCurrent LectureI. Theories of interpersonal attraction: Liking another persona. Cognitive approach: Heider’s Balance Theory/Newcomb’s ABX symmetry model-We like people who have the same beliefs and attitudes that we do because we are motivated to have a consistent, coherent system of beliefs about the world.-People who don’t think as we do throw our system out of balance, and we are less attracted to them-Strong emphasis on the cognitive basis of attractionExperimental evidence: Aronson & Cope (1968)-Showed that people try to maintain a cognitive balance in attitudes, and this can influence interpersonal attraction and liking. Groups of test subjects were These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.placed into a room with an experimenter who instructed them to write an essay/story. The experiment tests individual’s behaviors when met with certainattitudes.-Subjects received negative feedback from the experimenter that the stories that they wrote were not creative. Feedback by experimenter was done in a harsh or kind manner.-Experimenter receives with harsh or kind criticism from supervisor in front of the test subjects.-Subject asked to help supervisor making calls to recruit subjects, what happens?Results:-Subjects worked harder for the supervisor who treated the harsh experimenter harshly (my enemy’s enemy is my friend), than for the supervisor who treated the harsh experimenter kindly (my friends enemy is my enemy), or a supervisor who treated a kind experimenter harshly (my friend’s enemy is my enemy).ExperimenterKind HarshKind+ -Harsh- +Supervisor-Subjects who worked hardest for the supervisor treated a kind experimenter kindly (my friend’s friend is my friend)People make judgments about other people to maintain an order or balance to their thoughts.b. Reward Theory of Attraction1.We like people who reward us and make us feel good in terms of self-esteem-Minimax Principle: We balance the pros/cons of a relationship. We are attracted to relationships that minimize cons and maximize the pros. Emphasis on the balancing of pros and cons, most applicable to the early formation of relationships.-Equity Principle: Relationships that are equitable will thrive. If equity is not present, the person receiving more “cons” than “pros” will want out of the relationship.2. We like people associated with the positive experiences or “rewards”Examples:Griffit and Guay (1969): subjects rated an innocent bystander more positively when that person was present when an experimenter gave another subject a reward versus a punishment.-Veitch and Griffit (1970): subjects’ ratings of a stranger were more positive after hearing a “good” news broadcast versus a “bad” news broadcast.C. Sociobiology (E.D. Wilson):-Focus on how organisms evolved to adapt to the environment.-Only those characteristics of species that are adaptive will survive.-Idea is that liking, particularly those who are similar to us, close by, and familiar is preferred from an evolutionary point of view, because we want to share our gene pool with those of the same species. Liking those similar to us, and being sociable is advantageous from an evolutionary point of view.II. Factors affecting interpersonal attraction: Physical and functional proximity.-Research shows that we tend to form relationships with people who are close to us in terms of physical space.Bossard (1932): examined 5000 marriage licenses in Philadelphia, found inverse relation between distance and number of applications. (We end up marrying people who live near us.)Festinfer, Schachter, and Back (1950): found proximity leads to liking in a group of married students whoentered a dorm at M.I.T. When asked to name their 3 closest friends, 2/3 named someone on the same floor, and most frequently chose the person who lived next door. Also, 41% indicated that they got together with their next door neighbor, and only 10% got together with people at the other enf of the hall (only 69 feet away)Segal (1974): found that proximity predicted friendship patterns in a group of Maryland State Police Officers better than many other factors such as similarity of religion, hobbies, and so on.III. Why is the effect of physical proximity so strong? Three reasons:a. Availability: Spatial Ecology-Physical and functional distance affects passive contacts and likelihood of contact (not just physical distance, but functional distance as well-meaning the physical layout of the environment.) Exposure facilitates friendship. Ex. Sitting by the coffee maker at work you are likely to make a lot of friends. b. Anticipated interaction-If you live near someone, you expect to see them periodically, and this anticipated interaction enhances liking. The idea is that because both parties expect to see each other, they prepare for the interaction (remembering things going on in the life of each other, and thus interactions are mutually rewarding)-Darley and Berscherid (1978): College women are given ambiguous information about two women. Subjects are led to believe that they would meet one of them. After evaluating the information, subjects consistently said they would like the woman they were going to meet more than the woman they would not meet. c. Mere exposure produces liking:Zanjoc argues that we develop preference or liking through mere exposure because our emotions are instantaneous and more primitive than cognitions.-Mita, Derner, and Night (1977): Showed college women a photo of themselves, or a photo of a mirror image and asked which they liked. Subjects liked the mirror image better(because they’ve seen that one more);boyfriends of the women liked the