"Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each other but in looking outward together in the same direction." --- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

It is with true love as it is with ghosts; everyone talks about it, but few have seen it. --- La Rochefoucauld

"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part.“ --- George Bernard Shaw

Quotes

Early Attraction Factors *• Proximity and attraction (Propinquity Effect; from Latin propinquitas, meaning "nearness”)

(The more you see and interact with people, the more likely you’ll become friends with them)

Role of physical distance and functional distance (e.g., common paths, web)

Related to the “Mere Exposure Effect” (the more you are exposed to a stimulus, the more you will like it)

Sit together in school = more likely to be friends a year later (Back et al., 2008)

Attitude similarity and attraction (“General Law of Attraction”) *

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

.00 .20 .40 .60 .80 1.00

Attraction tow

ard other person (range = 2-14)

Proportion of similar attitudes held by other person

Byrne and Nelson (1965) asked to rate how much they liked a stranger after learning he agreed with varying proportions of their attitudes expressed on a questionnaire. (Higher numbers indication greater liking.)

As the graph shows, the greater

the proportion of attitudes subjects shared with the

stranger, the more subjects liked him

Why such a powerful effect of similarity?

B) Social Comparison (validation of one's beliefs)

C) Anticipate/Predict other's behavior (e.g., likes/dislikes, interests)

D) They will like us also (reciprocal) – Told to imagine that someone you had a crush on likes you = Can partly offset the tendency to focus on attractive faces (e.g., Koranyi & Rothermund, 2012)

A) Cognitive Consistency (We like ourselves, therefore we like those who are like us)

• In long-term relationships, perceived similarity predicted liking and attraction more than actual similarity (e.g., Montoya et al, 2008)

• For low-commitment relationships (flings) low similarity may be desired (e.g., Amodio et al., 2005)

Similarity, Appearance, & Affiliation *

People sit next to those who are physically similar to them (3 separate studies)

1) Both wearing glasses

2) Have same hair color

3) Similar facial features (e.g., Mackinnion et al., 2011)

Length of relationship

Short

LongCouple is equal in physical

attraction

Often different in physical attraction

Similarity & Physical Attractiveness

(Matching Hypothesis) *

Similarity & Physical Attraction: Morphed participants faces with opposite-sex photo = Rated opposite-sex “clone” pic highest (e.g., Little & Perrett, 2002)

Technology & SimilarityWeb contact and popularity (e.g., Taylor, et al., 2011)

•Popular web users contacted other popular web users more often than chance

•Low popularity web users contacted other low popular users

--- Matching process may be operating from very early on in relationship development

Stated goal: “eHarmony … creates compatible matches based on 29 dimensions scientifically proven to predict happier, healthier relationships”

Core Traits ---Social Style (Character, Kindness, Dominance, Sociability, Autonomy, Adaptability): How do you relate to other people? Do you crave company, or prefer to be alone? Are you more comfortable leading, or do you prefer to go along with the group?

Cognitive Mode (Intellect, Curiosity, Humor, Artistic Passion) How do you think about the world around you? Are you motivated by an insatiable curiosity about the world and events around you? Are you constantly looking for intellectual challenges? Do you find humor to be your favorite coping strategy when dealing with the world?

Physicality (Energy – Physical, Passion – Sexual, Vitality & Security, Industry, Appearance). How do you relate physically with the world? How do you relate physically with yourself? Are you energetic, athletic and constantly in motion? Or are you more comfortable and happy walking than running?

Application of Similarity TheoryKey Dimensions Used by eHarmony

[http://www.eharmony.com/singles/servlet/about/dimensions]

Relationship Skills (Communication Style, Emotion Management – Anger, Emotion Management – Mood, Conflict Resolution) The amount of effort and skill that you devote to making a relationship work are key elements of who you are, and what type of person you are most likely to succeed with in a relationship

Values and Beliefs (Spirituality, Family Goals, Traditionalism, Ambition, Altruism). Values and Beliefs are at the center of most of our life experiences. How we feel about spirituality, religion, family and even politics for a enormous part of how we think about the world, and who we are going to be most comfortable sharing our lives with.

Key Experiences (Family Background, Family Status, Education) All of your life experiences combine to affect who you are and how you relate to the world. Although many of the effects of these experiences are represented by the other Core Traits and Learned Attributes, the following components of the 29 Dimensions are considered separately as part of your Key Experiences in your compatibility profile

Application of Similarity Theory (cont.)

From eHarmony

Role of the Internet in Dating

Role of the Internet in Dating

On-Line Dating – Accuracy of Narrative Information

No gender differences in accuracy (compared profile narrative with actual data) and people were aware of the inaccuracies using self-ratings of profile accuracy – they realized they had “stretched the truth” (Toma et al., 2008)

On-Line Dating – Accuracy of Photographs *

Asked judges to rate the accuracy of current photo versus one posted on dating profile site (Hancock & Toma, 2009)

Most common judged inaccuracies were related to age, appearing thinner, skin quality (e.g., wrinkles, acne, smoothness) looking younger, hair style (color, texture) and use of retouching. Seemingly unconscious process here

Basic premise: Differences are disliked; perceived as threatening

Repulsion Hypothesis *

“Lab” studies Avg. attraction score

• Similar attitudes 5.5

• No information regarding attitudes 5.2

• Dissimilar attitudes 2.1 (less attraction)

No difference

Iowa Caucus Study (Democratic)

Description of person

Democrat

No party affiliation

Republican Disliked

No difference

D S S D S

D S S D D

D D D S S D

D D S D D D

S D D S D

Reject those who are dissimilar

S S S S

S S S

SEnd result is that we are

left with similar people to interact with

• Balance Theory Imbalance is motivating

• Congruity Theory Incongruity is motivating

• Dissonance Theory Dissonance is motivating

• Equity Theory Inequity is motivating

The motivational value of dissimilarity is various other theories in social psychology:

Naturally discovering similarity/dissimilarity (rather than being given other’s attitudes is quite different)

Active search process

Physical Attractiveness [Reflects the “What is beautiful is good”

stereotype]• Greater overall liking and best predictor of

desire to date (Walster et al., 1966)• More desirable personality traits - sociable,

popular, happy (e.g., Eagly, 1991) -- Halo Effect• Higher income (10-15% more; e.g., Hurst &

Simon, 2009)• Higher performance evaluations (e.g., Rinolo

et al., 2006) • Health (e.g., neonatal care by nurses –

attractive babies gained more weight, shorter hospital stay)

“What is Beautiful is Good” and the Role of Culture

Traits Common to U.S., Korean, and Canadian Stereotype

Sociable Extraverted LikableHappy Popular Well--adjusted

Friendly Mature PoisedSexually warm,

reponsiveOther Traits Shared in the U.S., & Canada

StereotypeStrong Assertive Dominant

Other Traits Within the Korean StereotypeSensitive Empathetic GenerousHonest Trustworthy

From: Eagly et al., 1981; Feingold, 1992, Wheeler & Kim, 1997

The “Bridge” StudyMisattribution of Emotional Arousal

• Tilted, swayed (6 ft.), wobbled• Low handrails (3 feet)• 230 foot drop to rocks and rapids

Misattribution of Emotional Arousal

versus

Higher TAT sexual content scores scores and greater percent called back when on the dangerous bridge

Measures: 1) TAT (men wrote stories) scored for sexual content

2) % of men who called female back

Why??? --- Arousal (anxiety) misattributed as partly due to sexual attraction

Misattribution of Emotional Arousal (cont.)

40

30

20

10

0

40

30

20

10

0

MenWomen

High Budget

Low Budget

Physical attractivene

ss

Social status

Physical attractivene

ss

Social status

% Money spent

% Money spent

Gender Differences in Mate Preferences *

Do such sex difference findings in mate preferences reflect attitudes rather than behavior?

How much are such sex differences in mate preference due to evolutionary factors (e.g., ovulation/peak fertility and more preference for males with signs of good reproductive health (muscles, masculine face, strong jawline) versus social/situational ones (e.g., social roles, economic/social status, media influences)?

Sex Differences in Mate Preferences (cont.)

For both heterosexual and homosexual men and women, physical attractiveness is rated the highest factor that leads to sexual desire

Females with more money and economic value = more likely to rate male physical attractiveness highly (e.g., Rosenblatt, 1974)On-line dating, speed dating, or face-to-face:

Females are more selective as to who to date (e.g., Hitsch, Horacsu, & Ariely, 2010; Schutzwohl, et al., 2009

WHY?

Findings to Consider Regarding Mate Selection

Speed Dating Study (Finkel & Eastwick, 2009)

12 females visited by 12 men; desire to see person again = females more selective (lower romantic desire, few possible dating partners) ….. BUT,

Switched roles:12 males visited by 12 females

Women no longer pickier than men! Indeed, females reported MORE chemistry with partners and chose more possible dating partners

Misattributions of Friendly Behavior *Routine

ConversationFemale

Male

Observers

Female

Male

Viewed female as promiscuous; were attracted to the female; saw themselves as

flirtatious and seductive

Viewed males as behaving in a sexual manner;

females as promiscuousSexual

lens Interaction

• Perceived Costs• Comparison Level

• Comparison Level for Alternatives

Loss of freedom, $, time, effort, annoying habits, etc.

What we expect the outcomes of a relationship to be in terms of costs and rewards (what we deserve)

Expectations about the level of rewards (benefits) and punishments (costs) they would receive in an alternative relationship

Social Exchange Theory * [We “buy” the best relationship we can get, one that gives us the

best value for our emotional dollar]

Outcome

(Rewards

minus Costs)

When outcomes (rewards – costs) match one’s comparison level, satisfaction and commitment are higher – Alternatives are viewed as less desirable

• Perceived Rewards

Companionship, sexual fulfillment, status, greater income, friendships, etc.

~ Exchange Theory ~Investment Model -- Relationship

Satisfaction and Commitment

From: Rusbult, 1983

~ Exchange Theory ~The Role of Investments

From: Rusbult, 1983

Equity Theory *[Role of the perception of

fairness]

• Comparison process results in relationships being viewed as either over benefitted (“getting more than you deserve”) or under benefitted (“getting less than you deserve”)

• Best relationships are those that are perceived as equitable or fair (where levels of rewards and costs are roughly equal)

We evaluate the amount of rewards and costs that exist in a relationship and determine the perceived fairness of the situation

Assumes people keep track of such factors. Less likely to do so in so-called “communal relationships” (e.g., longer-term); cost-benefit assessment less direct, more focused on helping each other

1 2 3 54 6 7 8 9 10Years of marriage

Ratin

gs o

f mar

ital q

ualit

y

Wife Husband

Marital Satisfaction over TimeIn a longitudinal study that spanned ten years, married couples rated the quality of their marriages. On average, these ratings were high, but they declined among both husbands and wives. As you can see, there were two steep drops, occurring during the first and eighth years of marriage. (Kurdek, 1999.)

Consummate

Commitment

Liking

Passion

Romantic

Intimacy

Companionate

FatuousInfatuate Empty

Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love

(Intimacy & Passion)

(Intimacy & Commitment)

(Passion & Commitment)

˜ Intimacy Component ˜I am actively supportive of _____'s wellbeing.____

I have a warm relationship with _____.

I am able to count on _____ in times of need.

˜ Passion Component ˜Just seeing ________ excites me.

I find myself thinking about _____ frequently during the day.____

My relationship with ___________ is very romantic.

˜ Commitment Component ˜I know that I care about _____.

I am committed to maintaining my relationship with _____.

Because of my commitment to ________, I would not let other people come between us.

Sample Question Based on Sternberg’s Triangular Love Theory

Intimac

yPassion Commitment

Non-Love x x xLiking x xInfatuated x xEmpty x x Romantic xCompanionate

x

Fatuous x Consummate

Sternberg’s 8 Components of Love *

Ending Intimate Relationships

The current American divorce rate is nearly 50% of the current marriage rate and has been for the past two decades

Countless romantic relationships between unmarried individuals end every day.

So, social psychologists are now beginning to explore the end of the story

Changes in Life Satisfaction Before and After Divorce

In this study, 817 men and women who were divorced at some point rated how satisfied they were with life on a scale of 0 to 10 every year for eighteen years. Overall, divorcees were less satisfied than their married counterparts-a common result. On the question of whether time heals the wound, you can see that satisfaction levels dipped before divorce, rebounded afterward, but did not return to original levels. It appears that people adapt but do not fully recover from this experience. (Lucas, 2005.)

0.00

-0.50

-1.00

2 4-8 0-2 6-6 -4

Life

Sati

sfac

tion

Ratin

gs

Years Before and After Divorce

Divorce

Ending of Relationships

Typically, goes through several phases (Duck, 1982)

•Intrapersonal (e.g., assess partner’s behavior, withdrawal costs)•Dyadic (e.g., discuss relationship, attempt repair)•Social (e.g., talk with friends, create own account of issues)•Intrapersonal (ending activities, retrospection)Role of destructive and constructive behaviors --- (e.g., Rusbult, 1987, Rusbult et al., 1996)•Destructive/Active (e.g., abuse, infidelity) •Destructive/Passive (e.g., allowing problems to continue)•Constructive/Active (e.g., discussing issues, counseling) •Constructive/Passive (e.g., support, optimism) No gender differences in who initiates breakups moreKey is how conflict is handled

The Breaking-Up Experience *One’s Perceived Role in the

DecisionBreakers (lot of responsibility for the decision) Less negative effects

Breakees (little responsibility for decision) Most negative effects

Mutuals (equal responsibility)Who wants to remain friends after breakups?Heterosexual men breakers and breakees = less interestHeterosexual females = more interest in being friends

Greater investment = greater interest in remaining friends