Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
163 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Six ways intimate relationships differ from casual
|
Knowledge
Caring Commitment Mutuality Interdependence Trust |
|
|
Interdependence in intimate relationships (4 qualifications)
|
Frequent
Strong Diverse Enduring |
|
|
Mutuality
|
"Us" instead of "me"
Measured by Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale |
|
|
Marriage Rates 1960 v. now
|
94% v. 85%
|
|
|
Role of cultural standards
|
Shape expectations and define patterns we see as normal
|
|
|
Cohabitation before Marriage
|
-Higher break up rates
-Less commitment, more infidelity -As time passes, become LESS likely to get married but no less likely to break up. But longer a couple is married, LESS LIKELY to divorce -Undermines determination to make a marriage work, to work at it. More casual. |
|
|
Socioeconomic development and Marriage/Relationships
|
-Accept more single people
-More open to divorce -Support later marriage age With increasing wealth and industrialization |
|
|
Sources of Change in Social patterns
|
-Socioeconomic development
-Individualism -Technology (reproductive, also reducing contact with physical others) |
|
|
Sex ratio
|
A measure of the number of men for every 100 women in a specific population.
High sex ratio = more men than women Low sex ratio = more women than men Generally compare the ratio of women to the men slightly years older. |
|
|
Meanings of sex ratios
|
High sex ration (more men, lack of women) propagate traditional roles for both genders.
Low sex ratio (excess women, not enough men) tend to be less traditional and more permissive |
|
|
Marcia Guttentag and Paul Secord Sex Ratios Studies
|
Worked with sex ratios
Said that a society's norms evolve to promote the interests of its most powerful members - men. So high sex ratio - women become conservative, try to appeal to men and stick with relationships. Low sex ratio, men less interested in being tied down, so women get jobs and become more independent, delay marriage, divorce easily. So, drastic changes in norms for American relationships since 1960s may be due to sex ratio fluctuations. |
|
|
Attachment Styles in Children
|
Secure
Anxious/Ambivalent Avoidant |
|
|
Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver, adult attachment
|
Attachment style behavior observed among adults.
Surveyed readers of Rockey Mountain News. Majority said they were relaxed & comfortable in relationships. 40% said they were insecure. This was related to their memories of their childhood & parents |
|
|
Kim Bartholomew, reasons to avoid rel.
|
-2 reasons people might avoid getting close to others.
1 = want to be in a relationship, but are scared, fearing rejection and mistrusting them. 2 = Independent and self-reliant, genuinely preferring autonomy to close relationships with others. |
|
|
Bartholomew's Four general categories of attachment style
|
Secure
Preoccupied (anxious-ambivalent) (next two are both avoidant) Dismissing Fearful |
|
|
Fraley's two themes
|
1. Avoidance of intimacy
2. Anxiety about Abandonment Continuous dimensions that range from low to high People now described based on relative standing on the 2 dimensions |
|
|
Changes in attachment styles as adults
|
Up to 1/3 of us will have real change in out attachment styles over a 2-year period.
Insecure more likely to change than secure! |
|
|
Inheritance of assertion and kindness %
|
Only about 1/4-1/3 inherited. Most of these behaviors are learned.
|
|
|
% that fit gender roles neatly
|
50%
|
|
|
% of population with = amount of both M and F traits
|
First, called androgynous
35% |
|
|
Other names for "M" and "F" traits
|
Masculine, task-oriented: "instrumental"
Feminine, social and emotional skills: "Expressive traits" |
|
|
Some instrumental traits
|
Assertiveness
Self-reliance Ambition Leadership Decisiveness |
|
|
Some Expressive traits
|
Warmth
Tenderness Compassion Kindness Sensitivity to others |
|
|
"Cross-Typed"
|
High in the skills of the other sex
|
|
|
"Undifferentiated"
|
Low in both sets of skills
|
|
|
Ickes and Barnes Experiment (gender roles)
|
Set up dates
Either (a) both couples fit gender roles or (b) one or both partners were androgynous. If an androgynous person was involved, everyone got along much better. This continues into marriage. (Helms et al) Especially in terms of expressiveness and kindness. Traditional gender roles do men a disservice. But T.G.R. also do women a disservice - low in instrumentality, low in self confidence. So, best to be both instrumental and expressive. |
|
|
Big Five personality traits & Least important one
|
1.Extraversion
2. Agreeableness 3.Conscientiousness 4.Neuroticism 5.Openness to experience (least important) |
|
|
Neuroticism
|
Most important
Negative impact Less neurotic, happier marriage. Kelley & Conley study: 10% of satisfaction and contentment spouses would experience in their marriages could be predicted by measures of their neuroticism when they were still engaged. |
|
|
Sociometer
|
Subjective measure of self-esteem, measures the quality of our relationships with others.
When others like us, we like ourselves. Evolved mechanism that feeds our need to belong. Self-esteem as a psychological gauge that alerted people to declining acceptance by others |
|
|
Leary et. al study (self esteem)
|
Excluded from attractive group. Either thought it was random or the group voted you out. Same thing lost in both cases, but people personally rejected felt much worse about themselves.
|
|
|
Sandra Murray Study (self esteem)
|
Self esteem
People with low self-esteem sometimes saboutage tehir relationships by underestimating their partners' love for them. Overreact to partners' bad moods. Act defensively, distance themselves, feel even worse about selves. |
|
|
Three Suggestions of Evolutionary Psychology
|
1. Sexual selection made us the species we are today, including psychologically.
2. Men and women should differ from one another only to the extent that they have historically faced different reproductive dilemmas 3. Cultural differences determine whether evolved patterns of behavior are adaptive - and cultural change occurs faster than evolution does. |
|
|
Minimal group
|
Assign you to a group, and that influences how you treat strangers in your own group and outside of it. More friendly to people in your group.
|
|
|
Proximity Seeking
|
COME BACK TO THIS
|
|
|
Relationships as natural social categories
|
We spontaneously organize info in terms of social relationships.
|
|
|
Next in line Effect
|
Don't remember the information from people to the right or left of a significant other/friend as well as you do their info.
|
|
|
Self-serving bias
|
Project onto those closest to us
Take credit for their success Unrealistic optimism |
|
|
Burnham and Discrimination learning in rats
|
Unlesioned v. lesioned rats
Manipulate which rats were thought to be lesioned. Minus the effect for lesioning, Human's expectations (even about something remedial) influences perception |
|
|
Complex accounting for sources of variance in dyadic interaction
|
Huge amount of difference, even with just two people. There's the relationship, and the situation.
15 possible combinations or effects of these categories |
|
|
Methods for studying close relationships (6)
|
1. Physiological Measures
2. Experimental 3. Observational Data 4. Peer report 5. Life event archives 6. Self report |
|
|
Types of Self report (5)
|
1. Interview method (unstructured v. semi-structured)
2. Questionnaire 3. Interaction record: answer questions shortly after evens happen/ 4.Epistles 5. Diary accounts |
|
|
Reliability
|
Consistency/Repeatability
Observed in a consistent and repeatable fashion Are observers seeing the same thing? --> Agreement across observations, correlation across observations |
|
|
Interrater reliability
|
Correlated ratings among observers
|
|
|
Internal consistency
|
Do the items relate to each other?
|
|
|
Temporal consistency
|
Stability of measure over time
|
|
|
Historical perspective on close relationships (impt. factor)
|
Equity
Primarily used in the 70s |
|
|
Justice theories
|
Psychology of justice, when do you feel there is a just relationship?
Equality or equity or need-based EQUITY (ratio of inputs/outputs) |
|
|
Communal and exchange relationships (definition)
|
Communal - governed by a norm of need (close/intimate)
Exchange - casual relationships (acquaintance relationships) |
|
|
Clark Communal and Exchange Experiment
|
Man'd whether you though person was available for com or ex rel
Then also rigged experiment to help the other person, man'ing whether other person reciprocates right away SO, when you have an exchange rel with someone, you LIKE THAT PERSON MORE if they RECIPROCATE IMMEDIATELY. If there's a potential for a Comm Rel, though, prefer delayed reciprocation. |
|
|
Fiske - Four Forms of Social Relations
|
- People are fundamentally social
- Lives are organized in terms of relations with others -All cultures use just four rel models to generate most kinds of social interaction 1. Communal Sharing 2. Authority ranking 3. Equality matching 4. Market pricing But culture still important: Determines When the model applies How the model is applied |
|
|
Communal Sharing
|
Focus on what people have in common
Ignore distinctive ind. identities Respond to others' needs Altruism guides behavior Simple membership entitles one to resources. This could negate the whole altruism thing, b/c there might be an expectation that things will even out later. Objects take on meaning - bonding/belonging Common resources Consensus - decision maknig Downsides: De-individuation, de-personalization. Makes it easier to do things to other groups; ethnocentrism Groupthink - flaw in decision making, lack of dissent |
|
|
Authority Ranking
|
Most distinctive from other relationship researchers
About hierarchy Interactions governed solely by rank Superiors: prerogatives/privileges Subordinates: Protection Noblesse oblige: obligation to be generous and responsible to inferiors Knowing one's place Need to believe in all powerful/good other Criteria for according rank |
|
|
Equality Matching
|
Everyone entitled to the same amount
Reciprocity important Turn taking, equal time Rotating credit associations Attend to magnitude of imbalances more than CS or AR Sustained imbalances can create debts and AR |
|
|
Market Pricing
|
Rational calculations of efficiency and expected utility
Ratio of inputs and outputs Equity Individual's choices and social generated values set prices Profit motives much less important than other social motives internationally What may be bought and sold |
|
|
Qualifiers for closeness based on rel. type
|
- Frequency of interactions
-Diversity of domains of interaction -Rel. length |
|
|
Order of Fiske's types in terms of closeness (Least-->Most)
|
MP - EM - CS
|
|
|
Aristotle: Man by nature a social animal. 3 bases for relationships
|
-Relationships based on utility
-Relationships based on pleasures -Relationships based on virtues - highest form |
|
|
Will S Monroe Study
|
Children in W Mass, identified traits/habits they thought important in selecting friends.
Marked sig. change in how we studied relationship - Philosophical to EMPIRICAL focus |
|
|
Byrne Study
|
Asked people to inspect attitude survey from another person in the room
Apparent agreement caused people to like stranger more Demonstrated sources of liking could be understood in lab Did a poor job of representing actual real relationships "Phantom stranger" technique |
|
|
Rel science today
|
-Uses diverse samples of people
-Examines varied types of family/friendship/romantic relationships -Studies relationships over time -Studies both unpleasant/pleasant aspects of relationships -Follows relationships in natural setting |
|
|
Eli Finkel studied...
|
Speed dating! Recorded interactions and gave them a website where they could contact who they liked afterward
|
|
|
William Ickes Study
|
Spontaneous, unscripted interactions btwn 2 people by leaving them alone on a couch.
Then they view the tapes and tell what they thought they were thinking/what the other person was thinking. This provides an objective record of the interaction |
|
|
Matthias Mehl Study
|
Equipped people with pocket PCs and they recorded 30 seconds 70 times a day. Showed a history of their interactions. Real life interaction.
|
|
|
John Gottman Study
|
Married couples revisit their most recent disagreement.
Measured physiological responses - could predict with 93% accuracy which couples would divorce later |
|
|
Terri Orbuch/Joseph Veroff
|
Early Years of Marriage Project - took note of influences of social/economic conditions in marital satisfaction.
|
|
|
Convenience sample
|
Convenient sample for researchers to obtain.
Could be limited to people like participants, but then, most relationships are generalizable. |
|
|
Representative Sample
|
Strives to ensure that participants resemble entire pop of people relevant
|
|
|
Correlation
|
Ranges from -1 to +1
Shows if 2 events go together, if there is an association between 2 things. BUT doesn't say WHY they're related - NOT CAUSATION |
|
|
Cross-sectional design
|
Compares different people at diff stages/ages in dev'l process
Open to specific kinds of ambiguity - diferent social/cultural/political events that participants have experienced |
|
|
Longitudinal design
|
Same people are followed with repeated measures over time
Problem: participant attrition - loss of participants over time - longer study goes on, greater problem becomes |
|
|
Retrospective design
|
Go back in time - not sure if the info received is true
|
|
|
Pros/cons of lab/natural
|
Lab - greater control over extraneous/unwanted influences
Natural - advantage of obtaining more typical behavior |
|
|
Role play
|
Scenarios played out to avoid trouble in finding people in really difficult situations. More ethically sound.
Problem: Tell us what people SHOULD, rather than WOULD do in a given situation. |
|
|
Self-reports
|
-Retrospective v. contemporaneous
-Global v. specific -Subjective v. objective Can tell us about the meaning of relational events for those that experience them -Inexpensive and easy to obtain -Participant can misinterpret what the question is actually asking -People can remember things that happened recently -Systematic bias/distortion in reports (may not know know what the truth is, self-serving bias) -Obtain people's PERCEPTIONS of the truth, not necessarily reality |
|
|
Social desirability bias
|
Distortion of results from people's wishes to make good impressions
|
|
|
Loving/Agnew scale
|
Developed scale to measure people's tendency to misrepresent rel'ships o others
|
|
|
Experience-Sampling
|
Uses intermittent/short periods of observation to capture samples of behavior
-Study random sampling of behavior -EARs - electronically activated recorders -Event may not occur while observations are being made -Coding procedures: focus on specific behaviors - more objective than ratings -Eye-tracking method - focus on center of vision |
|
|
Reactivity
|
Tendency of people to change behavior because they know they're being watched
|
|
|
Physiological measures
|
Assess heart rate/tension/arousal/hormone production to determine physical states and their association with social behavior
|
|
|
Statistically significant results
|
Risk must be 5% or less to be actually significant
|
|
|
Paired/independent data
|
Most stats procedures assume scores of different participants aren't connected.
Data obtianed from rel partners often interdependent and can't use these methods |
|
|
Three Sources of Influence
|
Rels emerge from individual contributions and from effects of how they combine
|
|
|
Meta-analyses
|
Studies that statistically combine results from prior studies. Identify the themes of a particular phenomenon
|
|
|
Two types of rewards that influence attraction
|
Direct - receive more interactions from others (more direct rewards people provide us, the more attracted we are to them)
Indirect benefits - associated with someone else |
|
|
Festinger/Schacther/Back Friendship Study
|
Examined friendships among MIT students
People who lived close more likely to be friends Whenever we choose WHERE we are, we are choosing WHO we interact with. When others nearby, easier to enjoy their rewards |
|
|
Moreland/Beach Familiarity Study
|
College women attended certain classes 15/10/5 times. Real students then given pictures of the women.
The more familiar the women were, the more attracted the students were to them. |
|
|
Saturation & attraction
|
Saturation has a negative effect
|
|
|
What is beautiful is good
|
But socially constructed traits go along with what is beautiful and good
|
|
|
Ideal W-H ratio for women
|
.7
Waist 30% narrower than the hips |
|
|
Ideal W-H ratio for men
|
.9
|
|
|
University of Minnesota Blind Date Study
|
Computer dance - expected to meet compatible partner selected by computer match
Physical attractiveness was the only thing that really mattered - the more attractive, the more their partners liked them |
|
|
Self-monitoring
|
People's tendency to regulate social behavior to meet demands of social situations
High self-monitoring men more likely to hire beautiful but incompetent women |
|
|
Contrast effect
|
Perceptual phenomenon in which a given object perceived differently depending on other objects to which it's compared
Happens when we compare ourselves to beautiful people Pop cult leaves us less equipped to evaluate beauty of people we will meet. |
|
|
Matching
|
Partners in est. rel.s likely to have similar levels of attractiveness - looks are well-matched
Also, frequently women with youth/beauty and men with status/resources matched |
|
|
Potential partner's desirability
|
His/her physical attractiveness x his/her probability of accepting you
= Mate value |
|
|
Mate value
|
Expectations of regarding the probability of others' acceptance
|
|
|
Balance Theory
|
People desire consistency among their thoughts/feelings/social relationships
When 2 people like each other, feelings together can be said to be balanced |
|
|
Cultural constructive perspective (no women marrying older, richer men)
|
Women seeking resources due to the fact they are denied them in many contemporary societies
|
|
|
Newcomb perceived similarity study
|
Men liked best the housemates who they thought were most like them
|
|
|
Murstein: Stimulus-Value-Role Theory
|
When partners first meet, attraction based on STIMULUS INFORMATION:
Age Sex Physical attractiveness Value stage: attraction depends on similarity in attitudes/beliefs Role stage: Compatibility becomes important as partners agree on life tasks |
|
|
Similarity & marriage
|
High correlation between perceived similarity and marital success
|
|
|
Complementarity
|
Reactions that provide a good fit to our own - can be attractive
-Similar actions: warm and agreeable -Different behaviors between 2 people: dominance and submission Opposites can attract under these circumstances The partners who report most love/least conflict are those who are SIMILAR IN WARMTH but DISSIMILAR IN DOMINANCE |
|
|
Psychological reactance
|
When people lose their freedom of action/choice, they strive to regain that freedom
|
|
|
Romeo and Juliet Effect
|
The more partners interfere with romances, the more love people feel for their partners
Overtime, increases love young people feel for each other |
|
|
Closing time effect
|
Desired but forbidden fruit - find people more attractive toward the end of the night
|
|
|
Around the world, we evaluate potential mates on:
|
Warmth/loyalty
Attractiveness/Vitality Status/resources |
|
|
Components of Friendship
|
Acceptance
Support Enjoyment Caring Knowledge Trust Equality - both partner's preferences being valued Authenticity - people feel free to be themselves Respect |
|
|
Affective component of friendship
|
Sharing of personal thoughts/feelings related expressions of intimacy
|
|
|
Communal aspect
|
Participating in common activities/similarity, giving and receiving practical assistance
|
|
|
Sociability aspect
|
Sources of amusement/fun/recreation in friends
|
|
|
Fehr's definition of friendship
|
Voluntary, personal relationship, typically providing intimacy and assistance, in which 2 parties like one another and seek each other's company
|
|
|
Responsiveness
|
Combination of attentive/supportive recognition of needs/interest.
Understand/appreciate us - leads us to feel valued/validated/understood Promotes intimacy |
|
|
Capitalization
|
Share good news with friends/receive enthusiastic/rewarding responses
|
|
|
Social comparison
|
Rewarding to find that our friends share/validate our opinions/taste
BIRGing - Basking In Reflected Glory |
|
|
Types of Social Support
|
-Emotional support
-Advice support -Material support |
|
|
Social Support & Attachment style
|
Also, type of support given influenced by attachment style.
Secure - effective support that reassures/bolsters recipient - altruistic, compassionate reasons. Insecure - More self-serving, provide help out of obligation or for promised reward. Tends to be less effective - help is controlling/intrusive |
|
|
Perceived support
|
More support our partners give us, the more we think they do
|
|
|
Rules for relationships
|
Shared cultural beliefs about what behaviors friends should/shouldn't do
-Learn rules during childhood -Involve: Equity Trust Self-disclosure Support Care Most rules only followed 50% of the time, But more closely we adhere, more satisfied we are |
|
|
Selman, Childhod friendships
|
Before 10: Fair weather cooperation
Middle school: Intimate-mutual sharing Teens: Autonomous interdependence |
|
|
Burhmester/Furman Key Needs
|
Acceptance in early elementary years, intimacy in preadolescence, sexuality in teens
Lack of acceptance leads to maladjustment |
|
|
Teens increasingly turn to friends for attachment needs:
|
Proximity seeking - approaching, staying near, making contact
Separation protest - resist being separated from partner, distressed if it occurs Safe haven - attachment figure as a source of comfort, support during stress Secure base - using partner as foundation for exploration of new environments |
|
|
Erikson: intimacy v. isolation
|
Learn how to form enduring/committed intimate relationships during young adulthood.
113 college students kept diaries of social interactions during college, after graduation, and 6 years later. Less of friends each week once out of school. Same sex partners declined. Developmental theory: Average intimacy levels of participants' interactions increased during 20s |
|
|
Dyadic withdrawal
|
People see more of a lover and less of friends
Harold/Carly |
|
|
Socioemotional Selectivity Theory
|
Seniors have different interpersonal goals than younger people do - spend less time with casual friends
YA presumed to be future-oriented As they get older, emphasize emotional fulfillment As perspective shrinks, hone social group. Same findings with AIDS |
|
|
Face to Face / Side to Side
|
Women's friendships = FtoF
Men's = StoS |
|
|
Self-monitoring
|
High - Big groups of friends, activity specialists = less invested in friendships than low
Low - Fewer friends, but more in common with them |
|
|
Relational Self-Construal
|
Extent to which we think of ourselves as interdependent rather than independent.
High - relationships important to self concept |
|
|
Chronic Shyness (3)
|
1. Fear negative evaluation (worry about social disapproval more than others)
2. Poor self-regard (low self esteem) 3. Lower levels of social skills than others |
|
|
Leary Experiment (shyness)
|
Asked people to meet/greet a stranger in a noisy environment.
Some were told it was loud, others that it wasn't a problem. Those who were told it was loud were able to relax and overcome their shyness, b/c their expectations were lowered. Shyness depends on the context in which it occurs |
|
|
Weiss: Social isolation
|
Being dissatisfied b/c we lack a social network of friends/acquaintances
|
|
|
Weiss: Emotional isolation
|
Being lonely b/c we lack a single, intense relationship
|
|
|
Expressivity
|
Promotes meaningful/fulfilling interactions with others.
Qualities that make someone warm, sensitive,kind appear to make it less likely they will be lonely |
|
|
Pens Study
|
Significance of pen color = differentiation
Exchange rel = different pen color --> Want to disting. inputs Potential Communal Rel - Same color. --> Want to work together, share the credit. Communal Rel - random. --> Don't care what color pen they use. Important = C does not equal PC PC quickest to reciprocate |
|
|
Traditional approaches to First impression research
|
-Focus on the target
-Manipulate traits such as warm v. cold -Information integration -Is it algebraic or configural (gestault) - Changing one trait that then changes everything. Algebraic = average of traits |
|
|
How did Brewer's Dual Process Model & Fiske/Neuberg's Continuum Model differ from previous research on first impressions?
|
Both models shift focus from target to perceiver
Start with a category, then engage in TOP-DOWN processing v. Data-driven bottom-up approach where you build up an impression |
|
|
Brewer's Dual Process Model
|
IDENTIFICATION - even if impression is unintentional, there are certain features we don't mean to process:
Age Gender Race Physical attractiveness We implicitly process that info. B/c person isn't relevant, don't bother to process more. But if person matters, CATEGORIZATION typing -Cat accessibility -Salient cues from enviro/setting -Perceiver's needs/goals/objectives trigger different thoughts If poor fit, individuation |
|
|
Fiske/Neuberg Continuum Model
|
Start with CAT, if it works, good.
But if not, then ALLOCATION OF ATTENTION - if person unimportant, go with stereotype. If person more important, then they transcend cat. |
|
|
Allocation of Attention (6 variables)
|
Rel to Fiske/Neuberg Continuum
Time pressure - DA Stimulus overload - DA Outcome dependent - IA Subordinate - IA Accountable - IA Depressed - IA |
|
|
Person Memory (4)
|
Increase with each step
Memorize info Form an impression Anticipate an interaction Actually have an interaction |
|
|
Goodwin Study Eye of the Beholder (know 3 things)
|
Clouded Judgment Hypothesis
Judgment in other domain is clouded if goal is something specific. Often, a pos. judg. Default positivity - If goal is social, and person attractive, assume pos. social traits Selective Accuracy - When you do get relevant info, you will be accurate about info rel to your goal |
|
|
Guess Who Might be Coming to Dinner Study
|
1 date v. 3 dates
Care more if 3 dates, more critical, care about what he thinks of you So if no interaction, not involved, no attention to target. If some interaction, moderate involvement, and HIGH attention to target. But if A LOT of interaction, HIGH involvement and MODERATE attention to target. Self-preservation, self-regulating. |
|
|
Perceiving people v. objects (1st impression studies)
|
Causal agents
Target perceives you back Implications for self perception (not 1-way street) Nonobservable traits hard to verify Variability of the person (moving target) |
|
|
Our own needs/goals influence in 1st impression formation: (2)
|
How (effort)
What (schemas) |
|
|
What makes a person attractive?
|
Physical appearance
Dominance Agreeableness Expressiveness |
|
|
Michael Cunningham Studies
|
23 different indices of the face
Multiple fitness model For females: some babyish features that convey youth, but some features that convey sexual maturity. For men, large, large, large |
|
|
Averaging Effect
|
Average of 32 faces more attractive than individual faces
Prototype - PERCEIVED FAMILIARITY BAD GENES HYPOTHESIS |
|
|
Halberstadt/Rhodes studies
|
NONFACE Averages
Birds/Dogs/Wristwatches. More attracted to averages, prototypes |
|
|
Functionality of Prototypicality (4)
|
-Categorization
Should get neg response from neg. object, but didn't apply for guns. did for spiders - explains some, but NOT enough. -Fluency Process stimuli more efficiently,features faster. Not enough. -FAMILIARITY Subjective familiarity worked for non-animals. Not ACTUAL familiarity -MATE CHOICE Bad Genes hypothesis - bad genes wiped out. Overgeneralization hypothesis - this was just about people, then we made it into a big deal |
|
|
Facial attractiveness (5 things)
|
Averageness
Symmetry Positive expression & behavior Youthfulness Familiarity Don't need all to be Attractive, but for UNattractiveness, maybe highly Asymmetrical. |
|
|
Daryl Bem
|
Biological variables --> childhood temperaments --> sex-typical/atypical/activity & playmate preference/feeling different --> nonspecific autonomous arousal to ooposite/same-sex peers/erotic/romantic attraction to opposite/same-sex persons
SO, in S.O, bio puts in motion dev'l processes that lead to sexual orientation. Sex typical v. sex atypical activities |
|
|
Gender conformity in childhood & adult sexual orientation
|
Gay men/women more likely to recall gender nonconforming behavior
BUT, remember retrospective nature may skew self-report answers |
|
|
Peplau Critique
|
Critique of EBE
Attraction to a category v. an individual Bem takes attraction to INDI. and using it to explain att. to CATEGORIES of people Bem arguing for IMPRINTING aspect Kibbutz critique: either asexual or bisexual. Sambian critique - a lot more homo in Sambians than Bem knew/let on |
|
|
Bogaert & Older siblings
|
More older male siblings, higher likelihood younger sibling is gay
Effect size very small 94.4% of males with older male siblings turned out straight |
|
|
Diamond: distinction between love and desire
|
Sexual desire = drive to engage in sexual activities
Romantic love = attachment between intimate partners Sexual desire for both/either different than love for a member of either sex |
|
|
Why do women place more emphasis on relational context for sexuality?
|
-More likely to have 1st experience of sexual arousal in a dating context than masturbation
-Socialized to restrict sexual feelings and behaviors to intimate (not casual) rels -Neurochems that mediate bonding also mediate sexual behavior -Oxytocin greater release in women than men during sex -Women's emphasis on rel'nal context of sex'ity |
|
|
Lippa: Sex drive and attraction
|
What sex drive will predict attraction to preferred sex
Dominanace hypothesis: greater sex drive, you'll be more attracted to your preferred sex Generalized hypothesis: Stronger sex drive, more attraction you have to each sex WOMEN show GENERALIZATION hypothesis, but not lesbians |
|
|
Personal ads & homosexuality
|
Nonsexual descriptors - physical characteristics, behavior, interests
Gay males described themselves almost exclusively in terms of MASC characteristics, LOOKED FOR SAME in other men Held for gay women |
|
|
Jensen Campbell - preference for dominance study
|
Man. dominance & prosocial behavior.
So dominant/non-dominant and selfless/self-interested PROSOCIAL influenced physatt ratings |
|
|
Li/Kenrick necessities v. luxuries study
|
Mating dollars
Mating GOAL important Women: Short-term: PHYSATT > STATUS > WARMTH Long-term: WARMTH>STATUS>PHYSATT Extra $ - AFFAIR - STATUS, LT - no change MEN Short term - PHYSATT > warmth sign. luxury Long term - WARMTH + ATT = necessary So gender differences don't hold up as much as we thought |
|
|
Speed/Gangestad romantic popularity/mate preferences
|
Women
-Most physatt -Self confident -Trendsetter -Well-dressed (warmth doesn't correlate w/pop.) Physatt = most of the variance neg corr with GPA 16% each GPA & boldness MEN: -Physatt -Outgoing -Trendsetter -Well-dressed (money, athletics, leadership didn't matter) |
|
|
Sprecher/Duck First Date Study
|
if wanted second date, what did you perceive?
Men - physatt & similarity Women - physatt & quality of communication Actual first date - similarity & her attractiveness |
|
|
Speed deating ideal v. actual preferenfes
|
IDEAL
He - physatt she - earning prospects ACTUAL Both - physatt, earning prospects/ambition |
|
|
Attachment anxiety & SDing
|
Worry, fear rejection
Unselective, but unpopular Attachment anxiety predicts how others rate attractiveness |
