Presentation

Interpersonal Attraction

Research Assignment

GROUP MEMBERS: KIMBERLEY EE SZE ANN

(0315319),

KAWTHAR RASHID JEEWA

(0314832)

LEE YAUE SHEN (0315381),

YUAN KHAI SHIEN

(0314818),

KELVIN NG (0315381),

NOR AYUNI BINTI NORDIN (0315072).

Topic: Interpersonal Attraction

Meaning: Interpersonal attraction is defined as the evaluation one person makes of another along a dimension that ranges from strong liking to strong dislike. (Baron and Byrne, 2000)

Research assignment based on the Interpersonal Attraction Scale by McCroskey and McCain (1974).

Aim of research: To identify the type of attraction that influences a person when choosing a life partner.

Types of attraction: Physical Attraction, Social Attraction and Task Attraction.

McCroskey an McCain proved that Physical Attraction was the highest rated attraction.

Hypothesis: The majority of people would be greater influenced by Physical Attraction when choosing a life partner.

Participants: 100 students from Taylor’s University Ranged from 13 to 17 years old-33 years old and above 57 male participants 43 female participants

Method

13-17 18-22 23-27 28-32 33 and above0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Graph Showing Age and Sex of Participants

Male

Female

Age

No.

of P

arti

cipa

nts

Materials/Apparatus: Questionnaires were used to collect data from

participants Also to identify participants general demographics (sex

and age) Participants were asked questions relating to the

Interpersonal Attraction Scale Participants were asked to identify the type of individual

they would be answering the survey about:a. A committed partnerb. A new/casual partnerc. An ideal partner

Method

Procedure: Participants were informed that the study was to

investigate the types of attraction that influence a person when choosing a life partner.

The purpose of the survey was clearly printed on the questionnaire .

Participants were verbally informed that they had the right to withdraw from the survey at any time.

The participants were each handed a questionnaire and given some time to fill in the answers.

The questionnaires were collected once participants were ready to hand them in.

Method

Types of Attraction Desired by Females in a Committed Partner: Female participants aged 13-17 = Physical Attraction Female participants aged 33 and above = Physical Attraction Female participants aged 18-22 = Social Attraction Female participants aged 28-32 = Social Attraction.

Results

13-17 18-22 23-27 28-32 33 and above0

0.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.5

Graph of Types of Attraction Desired by Females in a Committed Partner

Physical AttractionSocial Attraction Task Attraction

Age

No

of P

arti

cipa

nts

Results

Types of Attraction Desired by Females in an Ideal Partner: Female participants aged 13-17 = Physical Attraction. Female participants aged 18-22 = Social Attraction. Female participants aged 23-27= Social Attraction. Female participants aged 33 and above = Social Attraction.

13-17 18-22 23-27 28-32 33 and above

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Graph of Types of Attraction Desired by Females in an Ideal Partner

Physical Attraction

Social Attraction

Task Attraction

Age

No

of P

arti

cipa

nts

Results

Types of Attraction Desired by Females in a New/Casual Partner: Female participants aged 13-17 = Social Attraction. Female participants aged 18-22 = Social Attraction. Female participants aged 23-27= Social Attraction. Female participants aged 33 and above = Social Attraction.

13-17 18-22 23-27 28-32 33 and above

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Graph of Types of Attraction Desired by Females in A New/Casual Partner

Physical Attraction

Social Attraction

Task Attraction

Age

No.

of P

arti

cipa

tion

Results

Types of Attraction Desired by Males in a Committed Partner: Male participants aged 13-17 = Physical Attraction. Male participants aged 18-22 = Physical Attraction. Male participants aged 28-32= Social Attraction.

13-17 18-22 23-27 28-32 33 and above

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Graph of Types of Attraction Desired by Males in a Committed Partner

Physical Attraction

Social Attraction

Task Attraction

Age

No.

of P

arti

cipa

nts

Results

Types of Attraction Desired by Males in an Ideal Partner: Male participants aged 13-17 = Social Attraction. Male participants aged 18-22 = Social Attraction.

13-17 18-22 23-27 28-32 33 and above

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Graph of Types of Attraction Desired by Males an Ideal Partner

Physical Attraction

Social Attraction

Task Attraction

Age

No.

of p

arti

cipa

nts

Results

Types of Attraction Desired by Males in a New/Casual Partner: Male participants aged 13-17 = Physical Attraction + Social Attraction. Male participants aged 23-27= Physical Attraction. Male participants aged 28-32= Physical Attraction.

13-17 18-22 23-27 28-32 33 and above0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Graph of Types of Attraction Desired by Males in a New/Casual Partner

Physical Attraction

Social Attraction

Task Attraction

Age

No.

of p

arti

cipa

nts

DISCUSSION

Analysis of Female Participants: In the case of new/casual partners, females of all age

groups involved in the study seemed more inclined to feel an attraction to partners that were socially compatible to themselves. Indeed, 83.3% of all females in the study were drawn to social attraction.

Similarly, in ideal partner’s of females, it was recorded that a vast majority of the females in the study (a startling 72.7%) preferred their ideal partner to posses some degree of social attraction rather than physical or task attraction.

Finally, in the case of committed relationships, females seemed to weigh physical attraction of some value as well, as 44.4% were recorded to find it the most important draw to their respective partner. However, more females still felt that social attraction was the most important type of attraction.

In closing, females mostly seem to value social attraction above all else and while physical attraction is seen to be of some importance, it seems that task attraction is an almost negligible factor.

Analysis of Male Participants: In the case of new/casual partners, the participants of younger

age groups seemed to come to a standstill as they viewed both physical and social attraction equally important in respective partners.

However, among all the males involved in the study (especially participants from older age groups), the majority found that physical attraction was the most important of the types of attractions considered.

In the case of ideal partners, males seemed to value social attraction above all else evident by the fact that more than half the male participants (51.9%) were attracted to partners socially on parr with them.

Lastly, the findings revealed that in committed partners, most males valued physical attraction more (62%) although the older age group seemed torn between physical and social attraction.

In closing, it is found that males are more inclined to be attracted to a partner they find physically attractive (63.6%) and that social attraction plays second fiddle in the case of male participants. Again task attraction is an almost negligible factor.

Overall Analysis for Male and Female participantsIn conclusion, we can observe that females are shown to place more value in social attraction (67.4%) while males tended to value physical attraction more (51%). Final Conclusion• As for participants in general, the highest valued attraction was social

attraction (55.5%), followed by physical attraction (51%) and task attraction (5%).

• McCroskey and McCain hypothesis (1974) that the majority of people would be greater influenced by physical attraction when choosing a life partner is not supported. The reason for this is because the original surveys carried out by McCroskey and McCain (1974) were carried out in Western countries. This survey was however carried out in Malaysia and thus yielded different results.

• Some of the reasons for this are that that Asian people have different views than Westerners. For example, Asians emphasize the group as a primary whereas Westerners put the individual ahead of the group (Psychologytoday.com, 2014).

• Therefore it could be that Asians prefer social partners that would be more suitable for group interaction and to them this is may be much more important than physical features.

• Furthermore, when compared to Asians, Westerners tend to focus on central objects more than on their surroundings (Goldberg, 2014), this could very well be the reason why Westerners find physical attraction to be more important than social attraction as they are more concerned with the immediate characteristics (physical appearance) than the long term characteristics (sociability).

1. Goldberg, C. (2014). Differences between east and west discovered in people’s brain activity - the tech. [online] Retrieved from: http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N9/culture.html [Accessed: 21 Jan 2014].2. Jamescmccroskey.com. (2014). Feelings about communicating with others. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/measures/attraction_interpersonal.htm [Accessed: 21 Jan 2014].3. Jamescmccroskey.com. (2014). [online] Retrieved from: http://www.jamescmccroskey.com/publications/057.pdf [Accessed: 21 Jan 2014].4. Midss.org. (2014). Measures of interpersonal attraction | measurement instrument database for the social sciences. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.midss.org/content/measures-interpersonal-attraction [Accessed: 21 Jan 2014].5. Psychologytoday.com. (2014). Is there a difference between psyches east and west? [online] Retrieved from: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am-i-right/201304/is-there-difference-between-psyches-east-and-west [Accessed: 21 Jan 2014]. 

References