PSY 331Social Psychology – Exam IVMiura Anginterpersonal attraction Chapter 9 - Interpersonal Attraction: the desire to approach other ppl- How personal characteristics of the individual, situational factors, and characteristics of others influence the attraction process. Affiliation Needs – Reasons for Interpersonal Attraction= Social Comparison theory: the theory that proposes that we evaluate our thoughts and actions by comparing them w those of others- We possess a strong need to have accurate views, both abt our social world and abt ourselves. - We generally prefer to compare ourselves w similar others. o The more similar ppl are to us, the more likely we will be to use the info gained thru social comparison in better udsing ourselves and out future actions. - We use social comparison, to judge/improve ourselves and to judge our emotions and choose our friends.= Social Exchange Theory: the theory that proposes that we seek out and maintain those r/ss in which the rewards exceed the costs- And ppl avoid/terminate r/ss when costs are greater than rewards. = Affiliation desires are influenced by evolutionary heritage, biological arousability and other neural activity, and culture and gender. What makes ppl attracted to each other?- Typically know whether we like smo... harder to explain why- A Few common sayingso “Familiarity breeds contempt”, “Opposites attract”, “Birds of a feather flock tgt”Four Factors:1) Familiar People- We tend to like them - We like what we’re used to – same goes for peopleo Fact that they are living around us seem more attractive to us2- Obvious but easy to overlook- How does familiarity overlap?Ø Situational Factors- Proximity: We form emotional bonds w those who are physically (or virtually)close to us.- Anxiety-Inducing Events: Desire for social comparison attracts us to similarly anxious othersØ Proximity - Single biggest predictor of attractiono Most social interaction w ppl in same placeo Having someone having close to u, makes u more similar with and attracted to  Leads to biggest liking- Festinger et al. (1950)o Friendship patterns in married student housingo Students randomly assigned to residenceso Who are your closest friends?Results: o Friends w neighbors 2/3 of friends listed lived in the same building Pattern of friendships within each buildingo Greater proximity  More friendshipso Residents in busy areas were more often listed as close friends- Classroom: the Alphabet (Segal, 1974) was predictive for who ppl become friends with o Self-reported reasons for friendship?Ppl don’t uds why this is happeningo Stages of life As proximity changes, our r/ss change as wellWhen u move, u maintain diff r/ss- Why does proximity influence r/ss? – Makes contact more likely- Close proximity fosters liking because it often leads to more frequent exposure and increased familiarity. Ø Exposure3- Mere exposure effect – works for ppl, tooo Repeated exposure to smt or smo is sufficient, by itself, to increase attraction. - Usually attributed to likingo Not always: Ebbesen et al. (1976) and enemiesBeing exposed to them, doesn’t necessarily make u like them more, but the less they like their enemies. - Mirror images (Mita et al.)o 2 pictures: Actual vs. mirroro Results: Friends like the actual picture because they are exposed to thatactual picture more often while …You prefer to see the mirror image because we don’t like the actual pic as much. We tend to like things that we are more exposed to. - Moreland & Beach (1992)o Real college classroom – 4 “typical” female student confederates Took pictures – 1: never came to class, 2: 5 times, 3: 10 times, 4: 15 times (never said anything in class) o End of semester, showed photos to classo DV: rate likingo Results: The more she came to class, the more she was liked. 2) Physically attractive people- We tend to like them- Physical attractiveness stereotype: the belief that physically attractive individuals possess socially desirable personality traits and lead happier lives than less attractive personso Beautiful ppl are perceived to have better personalities and to lead healthier and happier lives4 Stereotype untrue except that beautiful ppl are less socially anxious. o Physically attractive ppl are perceived to be more sociable, successful, happy, dominant, sexually warm, mentally healthy, intelligent, and socially skilled than those who are unattractive. - Preferred female body type/size: 0.7 waist-to-hip ratioo Greater focus of the female body as a thin beauty object causes lower body esteem, especially among women w feminine gender roles. - Facial Attractiveness: Universal Standards + Gender Differenceso Cross-cultural studies find some universal beauty standards:  Men place a higher value on a physically attractive partner than do women.  Women are judged more attractive if they have immature and dependent-looking features.  Men are judged more attractive if they have mature facial characteristics related to social dominance. - Is beauty only skin deep? We don’t act that way- A few research exs.: o Texas judge: Lower bail & smaller fineso Across occupations, men and women who were more attractive and earned more.- Face only a mother could love?o When their babies were more cute, mothers were more attentive, affectionate, & playful. o Adults perceive attractive infants as more likable, sociable, competent,and easy to care for than unattractive babies. Ø What is beauty?- Evidence for universal agreement on faceso Different (ethnic grp) faces rated similarly by diff pplo 2-mth-old infants looked longer at attractive faceso Unaware of cultural standards5Ø Symmetrical faces- Tend to prefer “ “- Avging a face increases symmetry- Langlois et al. (1994): Yearbook photoso 1 vs. avgs of 4, 8, 16, 32o Results: more faces = higher rating Avg is familiar – Once u avg the faces over and over again, it become more familiar to us.  Sign of good genes – Evolutionary HeritageØ Role of the situation- Personal connectionso Tend to rate smo more physically attractive after we grow to like them- Comparisonso Kenrick et al. (1989): Men perused Playboy or Penthouse Then asked to rate “regular” women right after Men rated avg women less attractive including own wives afterreading the magazines. -Because now they have a comparison standard. o Thornton & Moore (1993): Same idea, but w self ratings Men and women