relay-11-7-23.pptx

The Psycholog y of Relationshi ps Guiding Questions • What are the broad motivations that drive romantic attraction? • What do people look for in a partner, and why? • How do a person’s sex and their relationship goals affect partner preferences? • When do hypothetical partner preferences predict...

The Psycholog y of Relationshi ps Guiding Questions • What are the broad motivations that drive romantic attraction? • What do people look for in a partner, and why? • How do a person’s sex and their relationship goals affect partner preferences? • When do hypothetical partner preferences predict attraction? • What situational factors promote attraction and why? • What contextual factors promote attraction and why? What do you want in a Romantic Partner? • Think about what you want in a romantic partner, first individually, and then through a rotating pairshare, and then group discussion, look at the commonalities and differences in partner preferences • First work independently (3-5 minutes) making a list of top 10 ideal partner preferences. You can choose to make this list about what you think most people want if you are not comfortable disclosing your own preferences o • Sit opposite from another student, discuss their preferences for a brief time (90 seconds), then rotate to speak to another student. Continue until you have have talked to all or a good subset of students. What do you want in a Romantic Partner? • What traits/characteristics did they discover were common on people’s ideal lists? • Were some traits/characteristics generally at the top of people’s lists whereas others were somewhat less important? • Did everyone have the same preferences or were their differences? • Did they observe any gender differences in preferences? Ideal Partner Preferences • The traits and characteristics that comprise people’s mental representations of a hypothetical, hoped-for partner • Why these traits, and not others? Two-Dimensional Model of Romantic Attraction (Source: Drawn based on data from Montoya and Horton [2014] and Finkel and Baumeister [2019]) Traits as Indicators • Observable traits can sometimes be reliable cues for underlying desired qualities • E.g., humor can suggest intelligence • Other traits that might be reliable or unreliable? Physical Attractiveness • The aesthetic appeal of a person’s outward appearance, especially their face and body • Cross-culturally desirable • Minnesota “computer” dance (Walster et al. 1966) • Measured personality, intelligence, popularity, physical attractiveness, selfesteem • Physical attractiveness alone predicted attraction Physical Attractiven ess Can Signal DomainGeneral Rewards • People take pleasure in beauty • People assume that beautiful people have favorable qualities, live better lives, etc. • The “what is beautiful is good” maxim • Universal but culturallyspecific (Western: more dominant; Eastern: more integrity, concern for others) • The problem of colorism Physical Attractiveness Can Signal Good Genes and Good Partner Traits • Humans may judge some traits as physically attractive because these traits confer an evolutionary benefit • Traits that signal “good genes” indicate favorable inheritable traits (reproductive benefit) • Traits that signal “good partner traits” indicate skills that benefit coparenting (survival benefit) What Makes for an Attractive Face? • Facial symmetry • May signal health, free of pathogens • Facial adiposity • Less adiposity signals health • Facial sexual dimorphism (sex-typical faces) • May signal healthy immune systems • Facial averageness • May signal familiarity, safety • Facial adiposity has the most consistent evidence that it attractive because it signals health What Makes for an Attractive Face? • Facial symmetry • This refers to the degree to which the features on one side of the face match the features on the other side. • May signal health, free of pathogens What Makes for an Attractive Face? • Facial averageness • May signal familiarity, safety • Facial averageness refers to faces that are closer to the population average in terms of their features. What Makes for an Attractive Face? • Facial sexual dimorphism (sex-typical faces) • May signal healthy immune systems • Sexual dimorphism refers to the differences in appearance between males and females of the same species What Makes for an Attractive Face? • Facial adiposity • This is the distribution of fat in the face, affecting facial fullness and roundness. In some studies, moderate facial adiposity is associated with perceived health and attractiveness. • Facial adiposity has the most consistent evidence that it attractive because it signals health What Makes for an Attractive Face? • In psychology, these facial traits are often studied in the context of evolutionary psychology, as they may be indicative of genetic fitness, health, and reproductive potential. These factors influence perceptions of attractiveness, which, in turn, can impact social interactions, mate selection, and even certain societal judgments. • While perceptions of attractiveness can be influenced by cultural and individual variations, these features often play a significant role in initial judgments and social interactions. They form part of the complex tapestry that shapes human preferences and behaviors in social and romantic contexts. What Makes for an Attractive Body? • Attractive men often have: • • • • Muscularity Broad shoulders Height Caveat: the “dad bod” • Attractive women often have: • Firm breasts • Waist-to-hip ratio ~ .70 Photo: Westend61 / Getty Images Sex Differences in Desiring Physical Attractiveness Men > women in is less strong in Effect long-term short-term relationshirelationships ps • Men need to prioritize cues for Why? fertility • Women need to Evolutiona ry prioritize cues for resources in longargument: term (but good genes in short-term) Discussion: Given Evolutionary Arguments, Why Do People Sometimes Find Different People Physically Attractive? Social Status, Education, & Intelligence What signals these characteristics when you meet a new person? Why are these desirable? Who desires them more? Social Status A person’s relative standing on socially-valued traits (e.g., wealth, athletics, power) Women prioritize social status more than men in partners Observed cross-culturally Aligned with evolutionary ideas that women require resource-providers Heightened in societies with low gender equity Education and Intelligence Intelligence is widely desired • Confers a vast array of benefits, including survival and reproduction People like similarly educated, same or more intelligent partners • For long-term relationships (men and women) • For short-term relationships (only women – for good genes; not prioritized for Warmth, Kindness, Trustworthiness • What signals these characteristics when you meet a new person? • Why are these desirable? • Who might desire them more? Warmth, Kindness, Trustworthiness: Universal “Must-Haves” Consistent priority for both men and women • Cross-culturally and across sexual orientations • Long-term relationships > short-term (where good genes are more important than good partner traits) Women > men • Evolutionarily, women benefit from preferring partners who will share resources, co-parent • Evolutionarily, a preference for kind/trustworthy partners among men may reduce paternity uncertainty Altruism and Heroism • Serve as costly signals of warmth, kindness, trustworthiness • Appeal is amplified by physical attractiveness Thor captures people’s hearts through his heroism; off screen, actor Chris Hemsworth impresses with public philanthropic acts (Photo: Simon James / FilmMagic / Getty Images [a] and Mark Metcalfe / Stringer / Getty Images Entertainment [b]) Additional Key Preferences: Gender Sexual orientation often, not always, corresponds with preferred partners’ gender We have more to learn Knowledge is disproportionally based on research on cisgender, different-sex monogamous individuals Dominant theories (e.g., evolutionary) based on male-female relationships Additional Key Preferences: Age • Do people generally have an age range for “acceptable” partners? • Men tend to prefer women in their 20s/30s • Age as a cue for fertility • Women tend to prefer older men • Older men have had time to acquire status (resources) • Men are fertile into old age • Socioculturally: gender inequity increases age gap preferences Dealbreakers • What you don’t want in a partner • Dealbreakers may have a stronger negative effect on attraction than preferences have a positive effect • Common dealbreakers include: • Undesirable traits (e.g., lazy, racist, stubborn, narcissistic) • Poor health • Mismatched values • Different family plans • Undesirable habits • Unavailable • Mismatched intimacy, etc… Do Hypotheti cal Preferenc es Inform Face-toFace Attraction ? • Speed-dating research (e.g., Eastwick & Finkel, 2008) • Standard sex-linked preferences disappeared • Stated preferences did not predict actual attraction • Long-term vs initial attraction • Practical constraints Photo: Fuse / Corbis / Getty Images Social and Situational Factors: Proximity • Geographical nearness • Supports attraction through the mererepeated exposure effect • Works implicitly • Fosters feelings of safety and familiarity Social and Situational Factors: Familiarity Breeds attraction when: Initial impressions are positive It’s not a competitive situation New info reinforces initial impression New info doesn’t create boredom or disgust Why? Supports safety, pleasure, and belonging needs Situational and Social Factors: Similarity • People are attracted to similar others in…. • Age, educational background, SES • Race, ethnicity, religion (declining) • Abilities, intelligence • Hobbies, habits • Attitudes and values • Why? Supports self-esteem and validation needs, more perceived opportunity for self-expansion and pleasure • Perceived similarity trumps actual similarity Activity: Pairing Game • Listen for instructions Similarity: Assortative Mating • People seek others who are like them • The matching hypothesis • People sort on dimensions of social desirability • High seek high and low seek low • Focus on physical attractiveness is not well supported (People are all seeking attractive partners) Situational and Social Factors: Reciprocity • Expressed attraction fosters liking • Why? Being liked generates positive emotions; we make prosocial inferences about the person expressing liking • Dyadic liking, not generalized liking Attraction in Context • Sociocultural factors • E.g., Approaching produces more liking than being approached (Finkel & Eastwick, 2009). • Social factors • E.g., mate-copying: using others’ interest as a cue for own • Situational factors • Misattribution theory: physiological arousal can be mislabeled as romantic attraction Attraction in Reproductive Context • Ovulatory-shift (of partner preferences) hypothesis • From prioritizing “good partner” traits to “good genes” when fertile • Inconsistent evidence; need for further research • Attractiveness during (concealed) ovulation • E.g., lap dancers earn more when ovulating (Miller et al., 2007) Major Take-Aways We are attracted to people who have traits that offer domain general rewards or support evolutionary goals The desire for physically attractive; high status, educated, intelligent; and warm/ kind partners can be explained from an evolutionary perspective as signaling “good genes” or “good partner” traits. Men and women typically prioritize partner qualities that respond to their reproductive challenges • Hypothetical preferences do not always predict actual in-person attraction. Proximity, familiarity, similarity, and reciprocity breed attraction because they help support domain-general and specific evolutionary goals. • Context (e.g., sociocultural and situational factors, women’s reproductive cycles) shapes attraction Activity: Hello Stranger! Listen for instructions The Science Behind Attraction • Romantic attraction is a multifaceted phenomenon that has roots in biology, psychology, and culture • From a biological perspective, several factors play a role in why we might be attracted to certain individuals: While biology provides a framework for understanding romantic attraction, it's essential to consider that human relationships are complex • Psychological, social, cultural, and individual factors interplay with biological ones to shape who we're attracted to and how we experience love Are You “Ready for a Relationship? What is “Dating”? • The earliest use of the noun “date” is in 1896 by George Ade, a columnist for the Chicago Record • “Date” referred to “public.” • Courtship, when a woman would meet a man publicly rather than privately at a residence or at court Relationship Receptivity theory • Centers on the proposition that perceived appropriateness of personal timing is consequential for relationship cognitions, behavior, and stability • At any given time, a person is more or less receptive to relationship involvement throughout their lifetime Mating Motives • The basic principle is that the preferred mate choices and attendant social cognitions and behaviors of both women and men, and those of other species, have evolved to focus on and exploit the reproductive potential and reproductive investment of members of the opposite sex • Women are thought to seek long-term partners with resources that provide aid and support survival of offspring • The key benefit for males pursuing a long-term strategy is higher parental certainty Mating Motives Mating Tactics What people do to initiate relationships? Barriers to Initiation: Accessing Partners • •A logistical issue • •Are available partners accessible? Data from a US nationally representative sample, spanning 2013–2017, show where people are meeting their differentsex partners (N = 274) and same-sex partners (N = 131). (Source: Based on data from Rosenfeld et al. [2019]) Barriers to Initiation: The Popularity of Online Dating Barriers to Initiation: Accessing Partners Paradox of Choice • When the number of choices increases, so does the difficulty of knowing what is best • Instead of increasing our freedom to have what we want, the paradox of choice suggests that having too many choices actually limits our freedom • Learning to choose is hard Barriers to Initiation: Tradition al Gender Roles • Gender roles provide expectations and constrain “who does what” • Activity: Who does what in relationship initiation today? • Dating scripts: Mental representations of the sequence of events and expectations characterizing early relationship experiences Barriers to Initiation: Traditional Gender Roles in Dating Scripts •In different-sex relationships, Men are constrained to be the initiator Women are constrained as passive Can change over time (today still heavily gendered) Same-sex relationships May provide opportunity to endorse a non-gendered script Dating scripts • Cognitive Uncertainty • Behavioral Uncertainty The STAGE Model of Relationship Initiation 4 Stages of Relations hip Initiation Stag e1 Stage 2 Stage 2 Direct and Indirect Overture s Stage Two - Direct overtures Stage 2 In the context of relationship psychology, a "direct overture" refers to a clear and unambiguous action or gesture that signals interest or intent in initiating or progressing a relationship Some examples of direct overtures in the context of romantic relationships include: Direct overtures are typically appreciated for their clarity, as they reduce ambiguity and uncertainty in the early stages of relationship formation However, the appropriateness and effectiveness of direct overtures can vary based on cultural, individual, and situational factors Stage 2 Stage 2 Stage Two - Indirect Overtures Stage 2 Indirect overtures in relationship psychology refer to subtle, often non-verbal actions or cues that hint at interest or intent in initiating or progressing a relationship, but without directly stating such intent Some examples of indirect overtures in the context of romantic relationships include: The nature of indirect overtures means that they can be interpreted in multiple ways While they offer a safer approach by reducing the risk of outright rejection, they can also lead to misunderstandings or missed opportunities due to their inherent ambiguity Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 4 Stage 4 Stage 4 Relationship Initiation in Context • •People’s social networks teach, guide, and shape norms • •Arranged marriages rely on social networks • •Cooperative courtship • •Friends help each other gain access to new desired partners and avoid undesirable potential partners Primarily Sexual To Long-Term Relationships • Statistic: 20% of of “hookup” or sexual encounters between friends result in a romantic relationship Initiation Gone Wrong: Rejection • •Rejectors do not have a clear script to follow • •Rejectors tend to be kind, balancing • •Being clear • •Preserving own reputation • •Preserving the rejected’s reputation • •Preserving relationship with rejected partner (when applicable) Initiation Unwanted: Desiring Singlehood • •Singlehood is preferred relationship status for 9-15% of single people • •Singlehood offers: • •Freedom • •A chance to focus energy elsewhere (career, friends, family) • •Attachment and sexual needs can still be met Initiation Gone Wrong: Unrequite d Love • •Loving someone who does not return your affection • •An aversive, no-win situation • •May reflect an unmet attachment drive • •Unresolved partner-specific attachment anxiety, which typically occurs in the earliest phases of relationships (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008) Dating scripts Predicted-outcome-value theory/AKA Expected value Theory Attraction increases as the predicted outcome value increases • Prediction of positive future outcomes leads to future interactions • Prediction of negative future outcomes ends future interactions • People focus and discuss Topics that facilitate positive predicted Outcomes Dating scripts • Uncertainty Reduction Theory • How human beings utilize communicative strategies to reduce uncertainty regarding other human beings • The main purpose of communication in ambiguous situations is to add clarity and predictability • Uncertainty reduction Strategies • Planning – Relying on previous experience to develop a plan • Hedging-asking benign “low-risk” questions to determine the other person’s romantic interest • Information-seeking – communicating directly with person of interest • Active Strategies – setting up an environment to gauge potential partner’s response • Extractive Strategies – background checks, “googling” the person, asking common acquaintances • Passive Strategies – Scrolling through potential partner’s social media, face-toface observation • Developed by psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor in the 1970s, describes how interpersonal relationships develop over time The Relationship Initiation Process • The theory uses the metaphor of an "onion" to describe the layers of personal depth and intimacy that can be achieved in a relationship: Social Penetration Theory is a framework for understanding how relationships evolve and how intimacy is developed through mutual self-disclosure and vulnerability Social Penetration Theory Dual Staircase Model • The "Dual Staircase" Model, also known as the "Dual Process Model of Romantic Relationship Initiation," proposes two distinct pathways that people can take as they form romantic relationships: one focused on romantic physical attraction and the other on emotional connection • These two staircases or pathways can function independently, but they can also intertwine as relationships develop • The model underscores the complexity of relationship initiation, suggesting that romantic relationships can begin and evolve through different mechanisms, whether physical or emotional, or a combination of both Other Methods of Relationship Initiation Dating Apps • Online dating has become increasingly popular over the years, and there are several psychological theories and concepts that help explain why people turn to online platforms to find romantic partners. Here are some key psychological theories and factors behind online dating: 1.Social Exchange Theory: 2.The Matching Hypothesis: 3.Attachment Theory: 4.Psychological Well-being and Selfesteem: 5.The Uncertainty Reduction Theory: 6.Online Disinhibition Effect: 7.The Paradox of Choice: 8.Accessibility and Convenience: 9.Interpersonal Attraction: Social Exchange Theory • Dating apps involve individuals assessing potential partners' profiles for the perceived rewards and costs of pursuing a relationship, such as companionship and the investment of time and effort. The Matching Hypothesis • Dating apps use algorithms and user profiles to match people based on shared characteristics and interests, making it easier for individuals to find like-minded partners. Attachment Theory • Dating app users may seek partners who align with their attachment needs, and these platforms offer a space for individuals with different attachment styles to connect. Psychological Well-being and Self-esteem • can impact users' self-esteem and well-being, with some seeking validation through matches and positive interactions, while others may use the apps to boost their self-image. The Uncertainty Reduction Theory • Dating apps allow users to gather information about potential partners before meeting in person, reducing uncertainty and anxiety through virtual interactions. Online Disinhibition Effect • Users of dating apps may exhibit more open and selfdisclosing behavior online due to the reduced social cues and anonymity of virtual communication. The Paradox of Choice • Dating apps provide a vast array of potential partners, which can lead to the challenge of decision-making and settling on a single partner due to the abundance of options. Accessibility and Convenience • Dating apps offer a convenient way to connect with potential partners, expanding the range of people one can meet, especially for those with busy lives or limited social circles. Interpersonal Attraction 1.Dating app users often base their initial interest on profile photos and descriptions that align with principles of attraction, such as physical attractiveness, similarity, proximity, and reciprocity. Dating Apps • Dating apps have transformed the way people meet and interact, leveraging various psychological principles in their design and usage • From a psychological perspective: In summary, dating apps harness various psychological principles in their design and user experience • While they provide a modern means to meet potential partners, it's essential for users to be aware of these dynamics to navigate the online dating world effectively and healthily Hot Or Not? • Dating apps that require users to rate each other's profile pictures introduce additional psychological dynamics that can impact both individual users and the broader dating app culture • Here's a breakdown: In conclusion, dating apps that rely on rating profile pictures can significantly impact individual psychology and the broader app culture • While some effects might be positive for certain users , many potential negative implications warrant consideration, especially if users base their self-worth largely on these ratings