SOCI 323 Social Psychology - WordPress.com2014/2015 –2016/2017 SOCI 323 Social Psychology Session 13 –Interpersonal Attraction Lecturer: Dr. Peace Mamle Tetteh, Department of Sociology

College of Education

School of Continuing and Distance Education2014/2015 – 2016/2017

SOCI 323

Social Psychology

Session 13 – Interpersonal Attraction

Lecturer: Dr. Peace Mamle Tetteh, Department of SociologyContact Information: [email protected]

Session Overview

Human beings have a basic innate need to bond with others. This need ishypothesized to be as basic to your psychological wellbeing as food and wateris to your physical wellbeing. Despite this need however, people pick andchoose who they want to affiliate with based on certain distinctions orassessments of people and/or the situation. As we assess others, they also dothe same assessment about us. Hence, you may find out that you likesomeone who does not like you and vice versa. But how does this how doesthis happen? Why do you become attracted to some people and not toothers?

At the end of the session, the student will:• be able to define the concepts of affiliation and interpersonal attraction• be able to identify and explain the factors/determinants of interpersonal

attraction

Social Psychology

Session Outline

The key topics to be covered in the session are as follows:

• Defining Interpersonal Attraction

• Determinants of interpersonal attraction

• Sample Question

• Session Summary

• References

Social Psychology

Reading List

• Please read chapter seven (7) of the required text and the article on this session posted on Sakai.

Social Psychology

DEFINING INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION

Topic One

Social Psychology

What is Interpersonal Attraction?

A person’s desire to approach another individual’ (Franzoi, 2000).

‘The evaluations we make of other people-the positive and negativeattitudes we form about them (Baron & Branscombe,2012)

• The dimension ranges from love/ strong liking (most positive), mildliking, neutral (indifference), strong dislike, hate (most negative).

• Thus, interpersonal attraction could also refer to an attitudinaldimension involving the evaluation of others in relatively positive ornegative terms.

• Such evaluations reflect how we feel emotionally about otherindividuals and determine how we behave towards them. Attractionranges from a negative extreme of hate to a positive extreme of love.

Social Psychology

DETERMINANTS OF ATTRACTIONTopic Two

Social Psychology

Determinants of Attraction

• Individual Characteristics (Evolutionary heritage,personality differences, socio-culturalbackgrounds).

• Observable Characteristics of others(Attractiveness, similarity, complementarity).

• Situational Factors (Proximity/propinquity,familiarity, anxiety)

Social Psychology

INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTRACTION

Topic Three

Social Psychology

Evolutionary Heritage

• The explanation here is basically that humans are extremely socialcreatures. We all have an innate need to interact with others that isessential to our survival as humans.

• Research indicates that on average, teenagers spent about seventy-fivepercent (75%) of their waking up time with others- making them happier,more alert, more excited than when alone (Larson et al, 1982).

• Again, one research points out the higher death rates amonginstitutionalized orphan children who had all their physical needs providedbut had less human/ social interaction and nurturance (Spitz, 1945).

• Thus, we as humans have an inherited, natural tendency to seek outothers.

Social Psychology

Personality Differences

• Though seeking out others is innate, we differ in our motivation to seek orsatisfy such social contact.

• O’Connor and Rosenberg’s (1996) social affiliation model proposes thatthe processes underlying everyday affiliation operates according to ahomeostatic principle.

• The homeostatic principle suggests that we all seek to maintain an optimalrange or level of social contact, but what is optimal differs for eachindividual.

• Thus, according to this model, when people deviate from this ‘range’,- say,too much or excess social contact, it causes them to seek solitude whilsttoo little contact causes them to seek affiliation.

• Basically, at any point in time, individuals try to re-establish or maintainthe optimum (necessary) range of social interaction.

Socio-Cultural Factors

• Affiliation needs are also shaped by cultural factors(individualism/ collectivism)

• Research, (Geert Hofsteede’s, 1980) study of twenty-twocountries has found a positive correlation (r=.46) between acultures degree of individualism and its affiliative needs.

• Individualistic societies have numerous social relations thoughless intimate. The reverse is true. People in individualisticsocieties have many acquaintances but there are no special,loyal bond of intimacy and vice-versa.

OBSERVABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF OTHERS AND ATTRACTION

Topic Four

Social Psychology

Physical Attractiveness

• Even though we say you cannot judge a book by its cover or that beauty is onlyskin deep or fleeting, Aristotle, suggests that ‘personal beauty is a greaterrecommendation than any letter of introduction’’-

• The link between physical appearance/attractiveness is based on a ‘physicalattractiveness stereotype’, a belief that physically attractive individuals possessdesirable personality traits and lead happier lives than less attractive persons.Physically attractive persons are also perceived to be less socially anxious andmore socially skilled.

• The link between beauty and attraction also extends to children. For instance,attractive infants are perceived by adults to be more likeable, sociable, competentand easy to care for than unattractive ones (Casey & Ritter, 1996). Attractivechildren are also more popular with peers than unattractive ones. Children’sattractiveness sometimes influences teachers’/ parents’ expectations of them.

• But the question is what is beauty? There is no universal definition or criteria forwhat it is. What is beautiful or attractive varies from culture to culture and within aparticular period of time or age.

Defining Beauty

• Recent research on the subject has indicated that though there may be no fixeddefinitions of physical attractiveness, there may be some for facial attractiveness.These include;

• Facial Symmetry: (Meahey et al, 1999): This is because symmetry indicatesphysical health and the lack of genetic defects, which are desirable traits orattributes in a sexual partner.

• Normality: usually, ‘average’ faces are attractive than unusual ones. Thus, ‘averagefaces’ are more proto-typically face like and thus seem more familiar (Langlois etal, 1994.) There are some suggestions that extreme beauty can also beproblematic.

• Maturity of the individual (Based on American samples): Youthful immaturefeature (large eyes, full lips, delicate jaw, small nose etc) enhanced femaleattractiveness while mature facial characteristics related to social dominance(small eyes, broad forehead, thick eyebrow, thin lips, large jaw) increased theattractiveness of males.

Other Aspects of Appearance & Behaviour and Attraction

• Physique/Physical body build: these often tend to beculturally determined

• Youthful Walking Style: suggests good health, confidenceand elicits positive responses

• Firm handshake: perceived to be extroverted andemotionally expressive

• Modesty, instead of arrogance is also perceives asattractive

• First Names: Names considered old fashioned mayundermine a persons attractiveness

Social Psychology

Similarity 1

Similarity is attractive because:• Humans have an innate tendency to be drawn to those they consider to be

genetically similar to them or share similar genes to them. Thus, yourespond positively to those who you think have ‘a bit of you’ in them.

• Humans tend to like that which is familiar because that which is familiar issafe. Often you respond to the unfamiliar with caution and distrust.

• Similarity leads to enhanced evaluation of us. Similarity is reinforcing. Ifother people have the same views about others or about objects as youdo, it makes you believe that your views are right.

• Thus, having your views of the world sustained, gives positive effect whilehaving your views attacked gives negative effect. Hence you like to havepeople who agree with you, instead of those who contradict and disagreewith you.

Similarity 2

• People are also attracted to others who are similar to them socio-demographically, attitudinally or in physical appearance.

• Demographic similarity is when you are attracted to people within yourin-group (age, sex, race, religion etc).

• Attitudinal similarity is when you share similar opinion, views of issues,say, politics, gambling etc.

• Some gender differences exist though. For instance, in a research ofcollege students it came to light that sharing of common values is apredictor of same sex attraction between women. Sharing of commoninterests (sports, music etc) is a predictor of same sex attraction betweenmen.

• Similarity in physical attractiveness is beneficial for friendship and evenmarriage lest inferiority and superiority complexes may develop if thedifferences are too wide. (See Mandatory Reader)

Characteristics of Others: Complementarity

• The sociological theory (Needs Complementarity)suggests that people choose relationships in whichtheir basic needs can be met.

• Thus, people who enjoy dominating socialinteractions tend to prefer or are attracted tosubmissive rather than those like themselves andvice-versa.

Criticisms of the complementary Needs theory

• Couldn’t personality needs be met just as easily outsidesay, the couples relationship as through mate selection –eg, cant one who has a need to be dominant findsatisfaction in a job where he is a supervisor?

• What is a complementary need as opposed to a similarvalue- ie, is complementarity not a sharing of similarvalues?

• Don’t people (as well as their needs) change as they age?Could a dependent person grow to become assertive…and no longer in need of being dominated?

SITUATIONAL FACTORS AND ATTRACTION

Topic Five

Social Psychology

Proximity/Propinquity

• Propinquity or physical proximity has a significant effect on attraction. Thisis evident in the ‘Westgate Apartment’ research which examined the linkbetween proximity and liking.

• The emphasis with propinquity is not just mere distance, but functionaldistance that is important. The explanation is that, having people withinthe same area is good for attraction but the proximity should be one thatwill allow for contact and interaction.

• Though it might appear that if we put enemies close together, they mightbecome friends, its important to state that propinquity does not onlypromote liking, it can also lead to disliking.

• Research (Ebbe Ebbesen et al, 1976), established that people madeenemies of people living close by. This is due to what is termed‘environmental spoiling’. Those more likely to have loud night parties,burn trash, pile up garbage etc, and do many things that neighbors do toget on one’s nerves.

Familiarity (Mere Exposure Effect)

• Zajonc has proposed that more exposure to something leads to theliking of that thing. Thus, the more familiar you become withsomething or someone, the more you tend to like them.

• For instance, media exposure of products or people makes thoseproducts or people familiar to you.

• Especially in relation to people, you may even come to think youknow them and may like or love them because you constantly seethem on T.V. Familiarity leads to liking because it is part of ourevolutionary nature.

• You tend to view unfamiliar objects or people with caution andhesitation, even fear, but familiar ones in the opposite way. Thecaution is a preparation for danger- a need to survive!

Anxiety

• The initial research between anxiety and attraction was by Schacter(1999). The findings of the research were that misery does lovecompany.

• A follow up research on the anxiety-affiliation hypothesis sought toinvestigate whether people would choose just anybody forcompany when they are anxious. The findings suggested thatmisery loves not only company, but equally miserable company.Thus people want to affiliate only with others in similar situations.

• Thus, even when they are not allowed to talk, anxious persons stillwanted to be with equally anxious people because of socialcomparison. They are able to compare their emotional reactions tothe stressful situation with that of others by observing their non-verbal behavior. Simply, common danger makes common friends.

Critique of the Anxiety-Attraction Hypothesis

• Though the anxiety hypothesis has found support largely, there aresome limitations. The first has to do with embarrassing situations.When people are faced with embarrassing situations, they oftenwant to be alone and not with others.

• The second is the issue of cognitive clarity- a desire to obtaininformation from others regarding the nature and dangerousness ofa threat (Sharer & Klinnert, 1982). Thus, people will not only seekout similar others, but those who had already gone through orexperienced the event and can tell them what to expect.

• Thus your need for affiliation is not based only on your need tocompare our emotional states with others but also to appraise thestressful situation itself (Van der Zee et al, 1998).

Sample Question

• ‘Attraction is a function of proximity’. Discuss.

Social Psychology

Session Summary

• We have established in this session that seekingaffiliation with others is an innate human need. Thestrength of this need however varies from oneindividual to another across different situations andcultures

• Whether a person would be attracted to another ornot is also dependent on several factors ranging frompersonality and physical looks, external factors andobservable behavior and looks of others

Social Psychology

References

• Robert, B. and Branscombe, N. (2012). Social Psychology. 13th Edition. Pearson Education, Inc.

• Aronson, E., Wilson, T. & Akert, R. (2007) Social Psychology. 6th Edition. Pearson Education Inc.

• Aronson, E., Wilson, T. & Akert, R. (2010) Social Psychology. 7th Edition. Pearson Education Inc.

Social Psychology