Social Psychology, Lecture on April 18th Interpersonal Relationships ...
Social Psychology, Lecture on April 18th Interpersonal Relationships Internal determinants, Need for affiliation. o Inborn motivation to seek interpersonal contact. o Individual difference variable. o Can be situationally sensitive. Schacter, 1959: threat of painful shocks. Painful emotional shocks / wanted to wait with other people. Role of affect. o Direct and indirect. External determinants, Propinquity (proximity). o Macro and micro levels. More likely to meet people at UMASS then Hampshire college or on the sit of the room you’re sitting on than the other side. o Physical and functional proximity. More likely to be friends with your neighbor than the girl upstairs / More likely to be friends with a girl who lives near the mailboxes since you check your mailbox everyday. o Segal, 1974: police academy friendships. Similarity in age, marital status, religion, friends based on the first letter of their last names (put together) all contributes to friendships. o Mere exposure effect. Liking increases with frequency of exposure. Moreland and Beach, 1992: RAs come to class. Asked RAs to come to class and sit in for a number of times. One women shows up zero times another five times and another ten times. With frequency of contact, the woman tended to be more comfortable and subconsciously enjoy attending the class. Physical attractiveness. o Physically attractive people are better lied. o Dion (1972): Misbehaving child. Showed people a photograph of a misbehaving child either mild or severe behavior. The photo either showed an attractive or unattractive child then asked whether or not the behavior was typical. If the child was attractive people said that the behavior was not typical, but when the child was ugly people assumed that the child always misbehaved.
o Hatfield et al. (1966): “Computer dance.” Told people they were “matched” by a computer program, had them get together at a dance. The only variable that depended on whether or not the “matches” went out on a second date was physical attractiveness.
Why does attractiveness increase liking? o Aesthetic appeal. o “What is beautiful is good” stereotype. Halo effect. May evoke self-fulfilling prophecy. Snyder, Tanks, and Berscheid, 1977: Intercom study. o Women and men are paired up to talk over an intercom. Men were given false information about the woman and given a manipulated photography (either ugly or beautiful). Conversations were played back to other judges who were given no information on the women and to judge the social attractiveness of the woman. When men thought they were talking to a beautiful woman, they elicited the social skills present when interacting with someone attractive. Surrounding oneself with attractive people makes themselves feel more attractive. Attractive people do tend to have better social skills. Social profit.
Physical attractiveness. o Objective standard. High consensus, even cross culturally. Certain features reliably considered more attractive. Women: small nose / Men: wider jaw. Symmetry. Infants’ preference. More inclined to smile at attractive people and stare at them longer. o Subjective standard. Different cultural practices and standards. Standards change over time. Perceptions of individuals attractiveness change with familiarity. Interactive determinant. o Do opposites attract? No. o Similarity.
Repulsion hypothesis, is it similarity that makes you like someone? Or is it differences that make you dislike them? Newcomb (1961): Male transfer students in boarding house. Griffitt & Veitch (1974): Male volunteers living in fallout shelters. Sprecher & Duck (1994): Students on blind dates. Most did not want to see another a second time, those that did were similar to one another. o Reciprocal liking. We tend to like others that like us, those who sit near us, make eye contact, flatter us, and ask us questions. o Self-disclosure. We like people who self-disclose to us and if we self-disclose to them.
Davis (1985): o Friendship elements, Enjoyment. Acceptance. Trust. Respect. Confiding. Understanding. Spontaneity. o Love elements, Passion: fascination, exclusiveness, sexual desire. Caring: giving the utmost, being a champion advocate. Sternberg’s triarchic theory of love. o Commitment. o Intimacy. o Passion. Combinations product different kinds of love, o Non-love. o Liking (intimacy). o Infatuation (Passion). o Empty love (Commitment). o Romantic love (Intimacy and Passion). o Fatuous love (Passion and Commitment). o Companionate love (Intimacy and Commitment). o Consummate love (Intimacy, Passion and Commitment). Passion o Arousal and attribution. Excitation transfer. Dutton & Aron, 1974: Dangerous bridge study. One scary bridge and another standard bridge.
Young man walking alone and a young attractive female asks him to participant in an experiment then gives him her phone number. Those walking across the scary bridge were more likely to call the woman rather than those walking across the standard bridge (this is due to physiological arousal from the fear of walking across the bridge).
o Hatfield et al. (1966): “Computer dance.” Told people they were “matched” by a computer program, had them get together at a dance. The only variable that depended on whether or not the “matches” went out on a second date was physical attractiveness.
Why does attractiveness increase liking? o Aesthetic appeal. o “What is beautiful is good” stereotype. Halo effect. May evoke self-fulfilling prophecy. Snyder, Tanks, and Berscheid, 1977: Intercom study. o Women and men are paired up to talk over an intercom. Men were given false information about the woman and given a manipulated photography (either ugly or beautiful). Conversations were played back to other judges who were given no information on the women and to judge the social attractiveness of the woman. When men thought they were talking to a beautiful woman, they elicited the social skills present when interacting with someone attractive. Surrounding oneself with attractive people makes themselves feel more attractive. Attractive people do tend to have better social skills. Social profit.
Physical attractiveness. o Objective standard. High consensus, even cross culturally. Certain features reliably considered more attractive. Women: small nose / Men: wider jaw. Symmetry. Infants’ preference. More inclined to smile at attractive people and stare at them longer. o Subjective standard. Different cultural practices and standards. Standards change over time. Perceptions of individuals attractiveness change with familiarity. Interactive determinant. o Do opposites attract? No. o Similarity.
Repulsion hypothesis, is it similarity that makes you like someone? Or is it differences that make you dislike them? Newcomb (1961): Male transfer students in boarding house. Griffitt & Veitch (1974): Male volunteers living in fallout shelters. Sprecher & Duck (1994): Students on blind dates. Most did not want to see another a second time, those that did were similar to one another. o Reciprocal liking. We tend to like others that like us, those who sit near us, make eye contact, flatter us, and ask us questions. o Self-disclosure. We like people who self-disclose to us and if we self-disclose to them.
Davis (1985): o Friendship elements, Enjoyment. Acceptance. Trust. Respect. Confiding. Understanding. Spontaneity. o Love elements, Passion: fascination, exclusiveness, sexual desire. Caring: giving the utmost, being a champion advocate. Sternberg’s triarchic theory of love. o Commitment. o Intimacy. o Passion. Combinations product different kinds of love, o Non-love. o Liking (intimacy). o Infatuation (Passion). o Empty love (Commitment). o Romantic love (Intimacy and Passion). o Fatuous love (Passion and Commitment). o Companionate love (Intimacy and Commitment). o Consummate love (Intimacy, Passion and Commitment). Passion o Arousal and attribution. Excitation transfer. Dutton & Aron, 1974: Dangerous bridge study. One scary bridge and another standard bridge.
Young man walking alone and a young attractive female asks him to participant in an experiment then gives him her phone number. Those walking across the scary bridge were more likely to call the woman rather than those walking across the standard bridge (this is due to physiological arousal from the fear of walking across the bridge).
