Chapter 9âInterpersonal Attraction
Chapter 9—Interpersonal Attraction Is aesthetics preference related to complexity of the stimulus Preference increases complexity √ Canadian India and Uganda √ (berlyne, robbins & thompson 1974) Preference is better for moderate levels of complexity √ Holland √ (hekkert & van wieringer 1990) Physical Attractiveness Is physical attractiveness universal or culturally variable? Charles Darwin (1871) considered “attractive face” Some aspects of physical attractiveness (the face only) have been found to be universal: 1) Clear complexion 2) Bilateral symmetry 3) Average features
Clear Complexion
Skin that looks free of blemishes, blotches, sores and rashes Indicator: our ancestor believed that blemish free skin would mire likely to be healthy and have healthy babies People are attracted to healthy mates. The cosmetics industry provides people with ways to make their complexion look clearer. People have strong aversive reactions to skin conditions.
Bilateral Symmetry
Left side of their bodies are identical to their right side of their bodies Indicator: development of stability Genetic mutations, pathogens, or stressors in the womb can lead to asymmetrical development. On average, asymmetrical faces are viewed as less attractive.
Average Features
Faces with averagely proportioned features are more attractive than faces that deviate from average. Average features are less likely to contain genetic abnormalities and are more symmetrical.
We can process any kind of stimulus that is closer to a prototype easier than one that is further from a prototype. • Easy processing is associated with a pleasant feeling that gets interpreted as attractive.
Biracial: average face is most attractive face of all
Cultural Variability—Body Weight
The kinds of body weights that are perceived to be most attractive vary considerably across cultures. Western women who are unusually thin fit the ideal body weight. Africa women ideal body image is heavier ‘fat’ indicates strength and beauty
‘Tranny of the Beautiful” Physical attractive Canadians election Canadians receive 3 times as many votes as unattractive ones More attractive MBA’s earned more money than less attractive MBA’s Attractive defends in misdemeanour cases are assigned lighter sentences than less attractive ones? Value of Attractiveness Study(Anderson, Adams, & Plaut, 2008). (United States vs. Ghana – life outcomes due to attractiveness) Participants indicated how satisfied they were with various life outcomes (e.g. their career, friendships, abilities, etc.). Research found: Physically attractive Americans were more satisfied with their lives— positive correlations between satisfaction and attractiveness. Physically attractive Ghanaians were not more satisfied with their lives— negative correlations between satisfaction and attractiveness. The “Tyranny of the Beautiful” may be largely restricted to independent cultural contexts. Relational Mobility relational mobility, has implications for the basis of relationships. • This affects how we form and view relationships. • Relational mobility can be either high or low, and parallels approximately with independence and interdependence. In individualistic cultures promoting independent selves, people typically have much freedom in deciding with whom they will have relationships. The social environment presents many opportunities for people to create new social ties. They have more flexibility in deciding whether or not to associate with someone not in their in-group.
This is referred to as high relational mobility. collectivistic contexts, promoting interdependent selves, people have less freedom in deciding who they have relationships with. The social environment does not provide very many opportunities to create new relationships. Significant relationships come from various out-groups, and such ingroups are not chosen —they exist by default. This is referred to as low relational mobility.
Propinquity effect: People are more likely to befriend people they interact with frequently
MERE EXPOSURE AND SIMILARITY ATTRACTION EFFECT A couple of mechanisms:
Mere exposure effect = a culturally universal mechanism whereby the more we are exposed to a stimulus, the more we are attracted to it Interpersonal attraction (propinquity and mere exposure) – Segal, 1974 Maryland police (Segal, 1974) alphabetical order of friends chosen, last names played a role in choosing friends Other influences: personalities, backgrounds and religious beliefs
Similarity-attraction effect = a non-universal mechanism whereby people are attracted to others if they share many similarities (attitudes, economic backgrounds, religion, social backgrounds) (heine et al 2007) Similarity -attraction effect –Canadians better liked a stranger they considered very similar to themselves, Japanese attitudes toward strangers were unaffected by perceived similarity reason maybe because self-esteem Benefits of Attractiveness In cultures with high relational mobility: Lots of opportunities for people to seek new interactions Thus beneficial to attract potential new relationship partners In cultures with low relational mobility Much more stable relationship networks Characteristics that attract people are relatively less useful Friends and Enemies
HIGH RELATIONAL MOBILITY 1. People choose there own ingroup members 2. They can opt to avoid people who can be enemies 3. Independent people -
LOW RELATIONAL MOBILITY 1. people aren’t likely to be able to choose in-groups or in-group members 2. Enemies are likely to emerge within 3. Interdependent
Adam 2003 (Ghana vs. American friendships) Americans(high relational mobility) have a greater # of friends than Ghanaians (low relational mobility) Ghanaians believe having a lot of friends is “foolish” because they are only good for practical support (financially, social needs) Westerners say they don’t have enemies because they avoid people they don’t like. Ghanaians view “enemyships” as a natural state of life.
Romantic Love Romantic love is an evolutionary adaptation to ensure that children had adequate resources and protection also known as “parental love” Romantic love is a universal. Marriages being based on romantic love is NOT universal (arranged marriages) Divorce • Highest in Quebec (51%)
Marriage Systems Comparison of quality of ones own romantic relationship with peoples Romantic Relationships • Canadians quality of their own romantic relationships to fit superior to those of other people • A similar bias hold for Asian Canadians and Japanese but is smaller Arranged marriages • Are more common in cultures with extended family systems (India) • Some have argued that social pressures from an extended family system keep a relationship together. Allowing parents to choose their partners • Arranged marriages are often quite successful. Studies find that arranged marriages are at least as happy as love marriages (except for women in China and Japan). • Most arranged marriage end up working and becoming loving relationships, even if they start out without love
ARRANGE AND LOVE MARRIAGES IN INDIA People in love marriages report more love than those in arrange marrages in the first few years of marriage Later years, arrange marriages profess more love than those in love marriages due to divorce and other issues. Love marriages • are more likely in cultures with nuclear family structures. • In the absence of this pressure, love serves as the glue that maintains a relationship.
GROUPS
The distinction between in-groups and out-groups is more pronounced for people with interdependent selves.
Independent selves = see in-groups as important for SELF-IDENTITY It is rare for people to loose in-group status and fall into out-group Obligations to others is an important part of in-group They distinguish between people they want to be around and people they do not Show more trust and dependence within their in-groups
Independent Selves = more willing to form new relationships and maintain larger networks
Show more trust to strangers
Active-observer bias see own behaviour as best explained by situational factors (grumpy because I didn’t get much sleep last night) where as the behaviours of others is explained better by dispositional factors (grumpy because hes a jerk) Personality traits useful for describing in-groups and out-groups Study: how well do personalities traits apply Euro-Americans view traits as equally descriptive for friends and enemies but less descriptive for themselves Japanese consider traits similarity descriptive for themselves and friends but more descriptive for enemies YAMAGISHI MODEL OF TRUST AND COMMITMENT (individualistic vs. collectivistic) Japan (collectivistic) commitment to in-groups is strong, less cooperate with out-groups, focus on trust with people they have relationships with Americans have higher level of general trust towards strangers than Japanese Americans have higher level of general trust towards strangers than Japanese
ASH’S CONFORMITY Conformity among collectivist appear to more contingent on the nature of the majority group than it is for individualistic Situation with peers, collectivists show heightened conformity Largest conformity (Fijian Indians and Japanese) Group Identification East Asians – specific less likely to establish roles and obligations, common with interpersonal networks and less with strangers Americans in-group based on common identity – recognize to share identity with stranger and establish in-group relationships University game study between Japanese and Canadians Japanese trust those from different university where they have acquaintances (know someone) who went the that university than Americans Types of Groups/Relationships Fiske (1991, 1992) argued that all relationships are based on one or more of the four basic elements of sociality.
Communal sharing members of a group emphasize common identity • Everyone treated the same • Resources tend to be pooled for use by everyone • No one person “deserves” more of the resources more than others • An example is family
Authority ranking people linearly ordered along hierarchical social dimension • Higher on the ranking = more privilege and prestige • Lower on the ranking = entitled to protection and care from those above • An example of this is the military.
Equality matching social structure based on balance and reciprocity • Record keeping is done to keep track of what is exchanged, and people are motivated to pay back what has been exchanged, in turns. • A turn-based social structure • Not common in Western cultures, but quite common in cultures around the word • An example of this is exchanging Christmas cards.
Market pricing a social structure that also emphasizes balance and reciprocity • Unlike equality matching, though, the equal exchange in a market pricing structure occurs on the same turn. • Based on proportionality and ratio • An example of this is usually the buying and selling in the marketplace. While Fiske hypothesizes that these four social structures are universal, there is cultural variability in the extent to which each operates.
Market pricing is more common in individualistic cultures. Equality matching is emphasized more in traditional subsistence societies.
Groups: working with others Social facilitation = presence of others helps performance on well-learned tasks, but interferes with performance on poorly-learned tasks. There is no cultural variation for this process, and it is even observed across species. Presence of others creates a physiological arousal and this affects how well we can work on a task Social loafing = individuals’ work input is less when performance is measured on a group level, compared to when performance is measured on an individual basis (example – pulling the rope) Americans pulled the rope stronger individually compared to when they were with two or more people. Ingram et al 1974, Earley, 1993 ∞ Chinese and Israeli’s work hardest when they are in-group ∞ Americans work hardest when they are working as individuals Social loafing is commonly found, but circumstances affect its likelihood. 1. Less loafing on more challenging tasks because people find it intrinsically rewarding 2. Less loafing in groups of friends than in groups of strangers 3. Less loafing among groups of women than groups of men 4. Less loafing if people care about their relationship because they will care about the outcome INDIVIDUALISTIC cultures show more social loafing than collectivistic cultures Social striving – collectivistic cultures (chinese)
Competing vs. Cooperating
collectivistic cultures tend to cooperate more than those from individualistic cultures.
individualistic cultures compete more than those from collectivistic cultures.
Performance on a cooperation task (Madsen, 1971) Mexican children tend to perform better than American children on a cooperation task. After training, Americans were able to cooperate better Older the Mexicans got, the harder it was to cooperate Summary Physical attractiveness has universal aspects, which are primarily limited to the face. • Other aspects of physical attractiveness show cultural variability. How different cultures view the nature of relationships is fundamentally different, depending on whether they have high or low relational mobility. Cultures work in groups differently (cooperating, loafing, etc.).
Clear Complexion
Skin that looks free of blemishes, blotches, sores and rashes Indicator: our ancestor believed that blemish free skin would mire likely to be healthy and have healthy babies People are attracted to healthy mates. The cosmetics industry provides people with ways to make their complexion look clearer. People have strong aversive reactions to skin conditions.
Bilateral Symmetry
Left side of their bodies are identical to their right side of their bodies Indicator: development of stability Genetic mutations, pathogens, or stressors in the womb can lead to asymmetrical development. On average, asymmetrical faces are viewed as less attractive.
Average Features
Faces with averagely proportioned features are more attractive than faces that deviate from average. Average features are less likely to contain genetic abnormalities and are more symmetrical.
We can process any kind of stimulus that is closer to a prototype easier than one that is further from a prototype. • Easy processing is associated with a pleasant feeling that gets interpreted as attractive.
Biracial: average face is most attractive face of all
Cultural Variability—Body Weight
The kinds of body weights that are perceived to be most attractive vary considerably across cultures. Western women who are unusually thin fit the ideal body weight. Africa women ideal body image is heavier ‘fat’ indicates strength and beauty
‘Tranny of the Beautiful” Physical attractive Canadians election Canadians receive 3 times as many votes as unattractive ones More attractive MBA’s earned more money than less attractive MBA’s Attractive defends in misdemeanour cases are assigned lighter sentences than less attractive ones? Value of Attractiveness Study(Anderson, Adams, & Plaut, 2008). (United States vs. Ghana – life outcomes due to attractiveness) Participants indicated how satisfied they were with various life outcomes (e.g. their career, friendships, abilities, etc.). Research found: Physically attractive Americans were more satisfied with their lives— positive correlations between satisfaction and attractiveness. Physically attractive Ghanaians were not more satisfied with their lives— negative correlations between satisfaction and attractiveness. The “Tyranny of the Beautiful” may be largely restricted to independent cultural contexts. Relational Mobility relational mobility, has implications for the basis of relationships. • This affects how we form and view relationships. • Relational mobility can be either high or low, and parallels approximately with independence and interdependence. In individualistic cultures promoting independent selves, people typically have much freedom in deciding with whom they will have relationships. The social environment presents many opportunities for people to create new social ties. They have more flexibility in deciding whether or not to associate with someone not in their in-group.
This is referred to as high relational mobility. collectivistic contexts, promoting interdependent selves, people have less freedom in deciding who they have relationships with. The social environment does not provide very many opportunities to create new relationships. Significant relationships come from various out-groups, and such ingroups are not chosen —they exist by default. This is referred to as low relational mobility.
Propinquity effect: People are more likely to befriend people they interact with frequently
MERE EXPOSURE AND SIMILARITY ATTRACTION EFFECT A couple of mechanisms:
Mere exposure effect = a culturally universal mechanism whereby the more we are exposed to a stimulus, the more we are attracted to it Interpersonal attraction (propinquity and mere exposure) – Segal, 1974 Maryland police (Segal, 1974) alphabetical order of friends chosen, last names played a role in choosing friends Other influences: personalities, backgrounds and religious beliefs
Similarity-attraction effect = a non-universal mechanism whereby people are attracted to others if they share many similarities (attitudes, economic backgrounds, religion, social backgrounds) (heine et al 2007) Similarity -attraction effect –Canadians better liked a stranger they considered very similar to themselves, Japanese attitudes toward strangers were unaffected by perceived similarity reason maybe because self-esteem Benefits of Attractiveness In cultures with high relational mobility: Lots of opportunities for people to seek new interactions Thus beneficial to attract potential new relationship partners In cultures with low relational mobility Much more stable relationship networks Characteristics that attract people are relatively less useful Friends and Enemies
HIGH RELATIONAL MOBILITY 1. People choose there own ingroup members 2. They can opt to avoid people who can be enemies 3. Independent people -
LOW RELATIONAL MOBILITY 1. people aren’t likely to be able to choose in-groups or in-group members 2. Enemies are likely to emerge within 3. Interdependent
Adam 2003 (Ghana vs. American friendships) Americans(high relational mobility) have a greater # of friends than Ghanaians (low relational mobility) Ghanaians believe having a lot of friends is “foolish” because they are only good for practical support (financially, social needs) Westerners say they don’t have enemies because they avoid people they don’t like. Ghanaians view “enemyships” as a natural state of life.
Romantic Love Romantic love is an evolutionary adaptation to ensure that children had adequate resources and protection also known as “parental love” Romantic love is a universal. Marriages being based on romantic love is NOT universal (arranged marriages) Divorce • Highest in Quebec (51%)
Marriage Systems Comparison of quality of ones own romantic relationship with peoples Romantic Relationships • Canadians quality of their own romantic relationships to fit superior to those of other people • A similar bias hold for Asian Canadians and Japanese but is smaller Arranged marriages • Are more common in cultures with extended family systems (India) • Some have argued that social pressures from an extended family system keep a relationship together. Allowing parents to choose their partners • Arranged marriages are often quite successful. Studies find that arranged marriages are at least as happy as love marriages (except for women in China and Japan). • Most arranged marriage end up working and becoming loving relationships, even if they start out without love
ARRANGE AND LOVE MARRIAGES IN INDIA People in love marriages report more love than those in arrange marrages in the first few years of marriage Later years, arrange marriages profess more love than those in love marriages due to divorce and other issues. Love marriages • are more likely in cultures with nuclear family structures. • In the absence of this pressure, love serves as the glue that maintains a relationship.
GROUPS
The distinction between in-groups and out-groups is more pronounced for people with interdependent selves.
Independent selves = see in-groups as important for SELF-IDENTITY It is rare for people to loose in-group status and fall into out-group Obligations to others is an important part of in-group They distinguish between people they want to be around and people they do not Show more trust and dependence within their in-groups
Independent Selves = more willing to form new relationships and maintain larger networks
Show more trust to strangers
Active-observer bias see own behaviour as best explained by situational factors (grumpy because I didn’t get much sleep last night) where as the behaviours of others is explained better by dispositional factors (grumpy because hes a jerk) Personality traits useful for describing in-groups and out-groups Study: how well do personalities traits apply Euro-Americans view traits as equally descriptive for friends and enemies but less descriptive for themselves Japanese consider traits similarity descriptive for themselves and friends but more descriptive for enemies YAMAGISHI MODEL OF TRUST AND COMMITMENT (individualistic vs. collectivistic) Japan (collectivistic) commitment to in-groups is strong, less cooperate with out-groups, focus on trust with people they have relationships with Americans have higher level of general trust towards strangers than Japanese Americans have higher level of general trust towards strangers than Japanese
ASH’S CONFORMITY Conformity among collectivist appear to more contingent on the nature of the majority group than it is for individualistic Situation with peers, collectivists show heightened conformity Largest conformity (Fijian Indians and Japanese) Group Identification East Asians – specific less likely to establish roles and obligations, common with interpersonal networks and less with strangers Americans in-group based on common identity – recognize to share identity with stranger and establish in-group relationships University game study between Japanese and Canadians Japanese trust those from different university where they have acquaintances (know someone) who went the that university than Americans Types of Groups/Relationships Fiske (1991, 1992) argued that all relationships are based on one or more of the four basic elements of sociality.
Communal sharing members of a group emphasize common identity • Everyone treated the same • Resources tend to be pooled for use by everyone • No one person “deserves” more of the resources more than others • An example is family
Authority ranking people linearly ordered along hierarchical social dimension • Higher on the ranking = more privilege and prestige • Lower on the ranking = entitled to protection and care from those above • An example of this is the military.
Equality matching social structure based on balance and reciprocity • Record keeping is done to keep track of what is exchanged, and people are motivated to pay back what has been exchanged, in turns. • A turn-based social structure • Not common in Western cultures, but quite common in cultures around the word • An example of this is exchanging Christmas cards.
Market pricing a social structure that also emphasizes balance and reciprocity • Unlike equality matching, though, the equal exchange in a market pricing structure occurs on the same turn. • Based on proportionality and ratio • An example of this is usually the buying and selling in the marketplace. While Fiske hypothesizes that these four social structures are universal, there is cultural variability in the extent to which each operates.
Market pricing is more common in individualistic cultures. Equality matching is emphasized more in traditional subsistence societies.
Groups: working with others Social facilitation = presence of others helps performance on well-learned tasks, but interferes with performance on poorly-learned tasks. There is no cultural variation for this process, and it is even observed across species. Presence of others creates a physiological arousal and this affects how well we can work on a task Social loafing = individuals’ work input is less when performance is measured on a group level, compared to when performance is measured on an individual basis (example – pulling the rope) Americans pulled the rope stronger individually compared to when they were with two or more people. Ingram et al 1974, Earley, 1993 ∞ Chinese and Israeli’s work hardest when they are in-group ∞ Americans work hardest when they are working as individuals Social loafing is commonly found, but circumstances affect its likelihood. 1. Less loafing on more challenging tasks because people find it intrinsically rewarding 2. Less loafing in groups of friends than in groups of strangers 3. Less loafing among groups of women than groups of men 4. Less loafing if people care about their relationship because they will care about the outcome INDIVIDUALISTIC cultures show more social loafing than collectivistic cultures Social striving – collectivistic cultures (chinese)
Competing vs. Cooperating
collectivistic cultures tend to cooperate more than those from individualistic cultures.
individualistic cultures compete more than those from collectivistic cultures.
Performance on a cooperation task (Madsen, 1971) Mexican children tend to perform better than American children on a cooperation task. After training, Americans were able to cooperate better Older the Mexicans got, the harder it was to cooperate Summary Physical attractiveness has universal aspects, which are primarily limited to the face. • Other aspects of physical attractiveness show cultural variability. How different cultures view the nature of relationships is fundamentally different, depending on whether they have high or low relational mobility. Cultures work in groups differently (cooperating, loafing, etc.).
