Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Propinquity (mere
exposure)
Similarity
Interpersonal
Physical appearance
attraction
Inferences of personality
Next door
Opposite
ends of hall
Conceptual replications
Priestand Sawyer (1967)
Segal (1974)
Why propinquity matters
Several reasons, but mere
exposure/familiarity likely to play a role, as
we have already seen in earlier chapters
Book implies that it’s only familiarity, but
this is probably not correct (too simple)
Interesting demonstration of the power of
familiarity on liking:
Mita, Dermer, & Knight (1977)
self + +
People + +
you
know
original reversed
Similarity and attraction
There is no strong evidence for the complementarity
view (i.e. that opposites attract)
Rather, similarity is a powerful predictor of attraction
Classic study by Newcomb (1961)
Link between similarity and attraction is quite robust:
– Opinions and personality
– Interpersonal style
– Interests and experiences
Why does similarity matter?
We expect that people who are similar
to us will also like us
– Increases the probability of initiating
contact
Self-validation
Disagreement is aversive
On the importance of
physical attractiveness
On the power of attractiveness:
empirical demonstrations
Elaine (Walster) Hatfield, 1966
– “Mother of all blind dates”:
– 752 students paired up, at random!
Subsequent replication with gay
couples by Sergios and Cody (1985)
Gender differences
Do men regard physical attractiveness as
more important than do women?
Complex
Self report vs. actual behavior
– On self-report, men often, although not always,
say that p.a. is more important
– But behaviorally, differences are much smaller.
What are the cues for physical
attractiveness?
Inwomen: large eyes, small nose, small chin,
prominent cheekbones, narrow cheeks, high
eyebrows, large pupils, big smile
Men: large eyes, prominent cheekbones, large
chin, big smile
Some overlap here—people like “baby-like”
features in the opposite sex (e.g. large eyes)
– But this is especially pronounced in terms of female
beauty
Surprisingly, these findings do generalize cross
culturally.
Interesting twist: the apparent
appeal of typicality
Researchers have tested the degree to which people rate
individuals vs. “composites”—images that are based on the
average of several people (e.g., Langlois et al. 1987)
– Data indicate that the composites are usually liked better than the
individuals that went into the composites
Does this mean that the “average” face is most attractive?
– No. We are clearly most attracted to very atypical faces.
– But when comparing composites to most individuals, the
composites win out
– Suggests rank ordering
Highly attractive individuals with strong loadings on key facial cues
(statistically rare)
Composites (based on ordinary, run of the mill individuals, not including
movie stars, etc)
Most individuals
On the “market value” of being attractive
– Highly valued commodity
– On the “rub-off” influence of
Friends
Dating partners, spouses
Unattractive man
(same) woman
Beliefs vs. reality
Attractive people are believed to be more
– Likeable, friendly, sociable, extraverted,
popular, happier, sexier, assertive
– this is “narrow”?? (see p. 329)
Cross cultural differences
Reality?
Battle about the sexes
(and about sex)
genetic
(“innate”) differences between
men and women?
– dating/mating strategies
– what qualities they find attractive ?
Some issues that often get confused
Really, two questions
– Are there observable differences
between men and women?
– If so, why?
Evolutionary/sociobiological hypothesis
Socialization hypothesis
“An ancestral woman who had sex with 100 men in the course of a year would
still have produced a maximum of one child. An ancestral man who had sex
with 100 women during the same time would have most likely produced
substantially more than one child….In sum, for the high-investing sex
(typically, females), the costs of indiscriminate sex are high whereas for the
low investing sex (typically, males), these costs are low.
So, what’s the evidence?
pro and con
Pro:
Positive Negative
attributes
+ attributes
= Greater liking
Social costs
Major, Carrington, & Carnevale (1984)
“seen”
Attractive* vs. non-
attractive* Positive attribution
participants write feedback
essay “not seen”
Attribution of
positive
evaluation to
writing
not seen
augmentation discounting
seen
seen
not seen
Unattractive Attractive
When mistakes make
people like us more
Bay of Pigs incident
Aronson, Willerman, & Floyd (1966)
mistake No mistake
Satisfaction with
Costs relationship
Commitment
Comparison Level of
level
to relationship
investment
Quality of Stability of
alternatives relationship
satisfaction
Test of investment model
alternatives
investment
.85 .84
.62
.50
.32 .28
– Stay:
– Leave:
Note: bottom of p. 347 to middle of p. 349
is very confusing and contradictory of
previous portion of chapter—ignore it.
Attachment Theory
Harlow, 1959: Monkeys with 2 “mothers”:
Avoidant ?
Anxious