1. Interpersonal attraction
Seminar 8
(Week 9)

2. Relationship formation

3. Similarity
Propinquity
Physical attraction

4. “Birds of a feather flock together”
vs.
“Opposites attract”

5. Similarity and attraction
No strong evidence for “opposites attract”
Similarity is a powerful predictor of attraction
Similarity of what?
Age, race, religion,
nationality, education, income
Interests and experiences
Opinions and personality
Communication style, sexual compatibility
Online dating websites can assess these well

6. People like others similar to themselves
Part 1: Subject completed a personality test
Part 2: Subject rates liking
of another person
Traits “other” has D E F
Traits subject has A B C
Traits “other” has A B C
Who do you think Subject will like more – the similar or dissimilar “other”?

7. Why does similarity matter?
Increases the probability of initiating contact
Self-validation
Disagreement is aversive

8. Propinquity (mere exposure)
For two people to “fall in love”, they must meet. More chances of meeting  ♥♥♥

9. Propinquity In already-occupied residences…
Students were already living in their residences.
Festinger et al. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups. New York: Harper

10. Propinquity In to-be occupied residences
Priest & Sawyer (1967). Proximity and peership: bases of balance in interpersonal attraction. Am J Socio.

11. Propinquity Under random assignment conditions
Segal (1974). Alphabet and attraction: An unobtrusive measure of the effect of propinquity in a field setting. J Pers Soc Psy.

12. 1932 Propinquity 5,000 Philadelphia marriage licenses
52% couples live within 20 blocks
33% couples live within 5 blocks
17% couples live within 1 block
Brossard (1932). Residential propinquity as a factor in marriage selection. Am J Socio.

13. Why propinquity matters
Mere exposure/familiarity likely to play a role
Mutual dependency
(except when that person is a total *******)
*******Norton, Frost, & Ariely (2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. J Pers Soc Psy.

14. The power of familiarity on liking
Applicable not just to interpersonal liking, but to food, shopping, etc.
(Remember Westermarck hypothesis & Google Glass?)
Mita, Dermer, & Knight (1977)

15. Birds of a feather flock together
Birds who just happen to be near each other grow similar feathers

16. Physical attractiveness

18. Our eyes are “glued” to beautiful people
Normal attentional disengagement
Attentional “adhesion” (difficulty in disengagement)
B = press 1, G = press 2, O = press 3, Y = press 4 Easy peasy.
B = press 1, G = press 2,
O = press 3, Y = press 4, F = press F
Slower to react to 2nd stimulus if the preceding stimulus was an attractive face
Maner et al. (2007). Can't take my eyes off you: Attentional adhesion to mates and rivals. J Pers Soc Psy.

19. Even babies are attracted to beautiful faces
Infants look longer at attractive faces than non-attractive faces
Langlois et al. (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces. Dev Psy.

20. Importance of physical attractiveness
To men (self-report)
To women (self-report)
However, behaviorally, smaller effects were found.

21. Cues for facial beauty In women (i.e., for men):
In men (i.e., for women)
large eyes, small nose, small chin, prominent cheekbones, narrow cheeks, high eyebrows, large pupils, big smile
large eyes, prominent cheekbones, large chin, big smile
Cross culturally stable

22. What about the so-called “figure”?

23. That depends…
10,000 BC
1890

24. .7, .8, .9, 1.0, for each of three sets
Singh (1993) Adaptive significance of female attractiveness: Role of waist to hip ratio. J Pers Soc Psy. 

25. Sociobiological hypothesis
Behaviors in humans are the result of evolution
“Successful” genes survive and prosper (passed on to next generation)
“Unsuccessful” genes die out

26. Personality inferences from beauty
What is beautiful is good + Halo effect
Attractive people
Likeable
Sociable
Competent
Smart

27. Relationship sustenance
What predicts relationship longevity?

28. Michaelangelo Phenomenon
A sculptor’s job is to release an ideal figure from a block of dull stone.
Rusbult, Finkel, & Kumashiro. (2009). The Michaelangelo phenomenon. Cur Dir Psy Sci.

29. Michaelangelo Phenomenon
People have ideal selves. Relationship partners who “sculpt” each other into perfection (help us to achieve our ideal selves) are: appreciated & affirms our self-concepts enhances our well-being
Rusbult, Finkel, & Kumashiro. (2009). The Michaelangelo phenomenon. Cur Dir Psy Sci.

30. Three general models Social exchange theory Equity theory
Rusbult’s investment model

31. Social exchange theory
“Buying the best relationship we
can get for our emotional dollar…”

32. Evaluation of social exchange theory
Good empirical support
Key criticism: Unilateral view of relationship longevity
Your benefit may be my loss, but the outcome is collective.

33. Equity Theory Similar to social exchange theory, except
Equity is assumed to be a powerful norm
People wish to avoid imbalances:
Underbenefited vs. Overbenefited

34. Rusbult’s investment model
But why do people stay in dysfunctional relationships?
Investment is key

35. Rusbult’s Investment Model of Commitment
Rewards
Satisfaction with relationship
Costs
Commitment to relationship
Comparison level
Level of investment
Stability of relationship
Quality of alternatives

36. Test of investment model

37. Relationship dissolution
(aka. breakup)

38. What is the #1 cause of divorce?

39. Will relationship last?
Satisfaction + Investment – Alternatives
Stay:
Leave:

40. “Fatal attractions” Dissimilarity predicts breakups Now x years later
He’s so cute!
He’s so immature
He’s so unusual and different!
We have nothing in common
She’s so exciting and unpredictable!
I can never count on her.

41. Love in modern times

42. Are long-distance relationship bad?
LDR vs Geo-close
Intimacy
Communication
Relationship satisfaction
Commitment
Sexual satisfaction
>
> =
> =
Dargie et al. (2015). Predictors of positive relationship outcomes in long-distance relationships. J Sex Marital Ther.

43. Technology and love
Many classic attraction studies were done in a very different social landscape.
How has technology changed the way we love?
Have we fundamentally changed?

44. Last message
Many of the fundamental psychology of attraction may remain the same, despite huge social/technological changes