PSYC 474 Midterm PDF

THE DEEP ROOTS OF OUR LONGING FOR SOCIAL CONNECTION PSYC474 | INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS LECTURE 1 | U01 | KRISTINA TCHALOVA MCGILL UNIVERSITY | F2023 EMOTIONAL LIFE EVENTS Our most intense emotional experiences tend to be centered on interpersonal (relationship-focused) rather than indep...

THE DEEP ROOTS OF OUR LONGING FOR SOCIAL CONNECTION PSYC474 | INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS LECTURE 1 | U01 | KRISTINA TCHALOVA MCGILL UNIVERSITY | F2023 EMOTIONAL LIFE EVENTS Our most intense emotional experiences tend to be centered on interpersonal (relationship-focused) rather than independent (self-focused) events ~3.59/5 participants listed the most negative and positive emotional events in their lives as interdependent General finding holds across different age groups, time periods (e.g., month vs. lifetime), and is true of both men and women Interdependent events also rated as having a stronger, longer-lasting emotional impact Jaremka, Gabriel, & Carvallo, 2011 6 BUT, WHAT’S MORE… Even seemingly self-oriented, independent events (e.g., achievement-oriented stresses or successes) may not be truly “independent” More on that in Week 4 7  WHY DO INTERDEPENDENT EVENTS AFFECT US SO STRONGLY? 8 THE NEED TO BELONG Human beings have a fundamental need to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships Baumeister & Leary, 1995 9 WHAT DOES IT MEAN? To call something a ”fundamental need” is a pretty bold claim Fundamental = essential, indispensable, integral, intrinsic – Something that would have to come “programmed” in Suggests an evolutionary perspective 10 THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION (A BRIEF REFRESHER) Natural selection = process through which certain traits become more or less common in a population over time Natural selection is a combination of 3 components: 1. Variation 2. Heredity 3. Differential fitness 11 VARIATION Within a population of organisms, there is variation in traits or characteristics 12 HEREDITY Some of this variation is passed down from parents to offspring – We now know this happens through genetic inheritance 13 DIFFERENTIAL FITNESS Not all individuals in a population survive and reproduce equally Adaptations = favourable traits better suited to the environment that increase chances of survival & reproduction These favourable traits gradually accumulate over generations 14 NOT THE WHOLE STORY Inclusive fitness = success in passing on one’s genes to the next generation – Comprises both individual survival & reproduction AND – Impact on the survival & reproduction of genetic relatives Selection happens at the level of the gene, not the individual 15 CAN A DESIRE FOR SOCIAL CONNECTION BE CONSIDERED AN ADAPTATION? Humans are not very impressive, physically speaking Environment of evolutionary adaptedness: the ancestral environment to which a species is adapted Throughout our evolutionary history, group living served as multi-purpose survival tool – Help hunting large game & foraging – Sharing food – Defensive vigilance and greater strength against predators and hostile outgroups – Help caring for offspring – Access to mates 16 Babies & the Shanidar I skeleton of Homo neanderthalensis: Two testaments to the life-sustaining benefits of belonging 18 BAUMEISTER & LEARY, 1995 Those who were more motivated to belong would be more likely to survive, passing on those belonging- inclined genes – We’ll discuss some candidate genes in week 10 19 SUPPORTING EVIDENCE Should see evidence of universality – People in every society on earth naturally gravitate towards small primary groups (Coon, 1947; Mann, 1980) – People become attached even to meaningless groups (Tajfel’s minimal group paradigm) – People around the world experience profound distress when their relationships are threatened or lost (Hazan & Shorer, 1994, Reiss, 1986) 20 UNIVERSALITY Not just cross-cultural evidence, but cross-species evidence as well – Research on baboon BFFS: Female baboons with stronger & more stable social bonds live longer (Silk et al., 2010) Also have better chances of their offspring surviving (Silk et al., 2009) 21 UNIVERSALITY One perspective on emotion argues that we share the same basic emotional brain circuitry with other animals (Panksepp, 1998) But subject to myriad cognitive elaborations unique to humans Next week: we don’t have social experiences, we actively construct social experiences This leaves room for cross-cultural and individual differences deriving from experience 22 SO, IS THE NEED FOR BELONGING REALLY A NEED? Universal – All around the world, social bonds: – Are easy to form – Hard to break Reluctant to admit that even relatively meaningless relationships will end Many people experience difficulty ending even toxic relationships 23 SO, IS THE NEED FOR BELONGING REALLY A NEED? We suffer when relationships end or when we lack relationships – Lack of social network is a strong predictor of illness & mortality Social Relationships: Overall meta- analysis Social Relationships: High vs. low social support Social Relationships: Social integration Smoking < 15 cigarettes daily Cease vs. continue smoking among patients with CHD Abstinence vs. excessive drinking (> 6 drinks/day) Flu vaccination in adults (for pneumonia mortality) Exercise for patients with CHD Physical activity (controlling for adiposity) BMI: Lean vs. obese 24 WHAT IS THIS COURSE ABOUT? How we go about fulfilling this fundamental need 8/ 29/ 24 25 WHAT IS THIS COURSE ABOUT? Focus on intimate relationships—relationships that are characterized by: Knowledge = extensive, very personal Interdependence = impact each other in frequent, strong, diverse, & enduring ways Caring = affection Trust = expect to be treated well Responsiveness = feeling that partner understands, respects, and appreciates you Mutuality = “us” vs. “me” and “them” Commitment = expect relationship to continue and invest in the relationship 26 WHAT IS LOVE? 27  “ “Love is such a tissue of paradoxes, and exists in such an endless variety of forms and shades, that you may say almost anything about that you please, and it is likely to be correct” Henry Finck 28  Intimacy Passion Commitment Sternberg, 1987, 2006 29 TRIANGULAR THEORY OF LOVE Passion Physical arousal, desire, excitement, and need Usually includes sexual desire Typically, the difference between “loving” and “being in love” Intimacy Feelings of closeness, connection, warmth Emotional component Commitment Permanence, stability, and the decision to maintain the relationship Cognitive component Sternberg, 1987, 2006 30 KINDS OF LOVE Nonlove Intimacy, passion, & commitment are all absent/low Casual, superficial relationship Liking Intimacy is high; passion & commitment are low Many friendships Infatuated love Passion is high; intimacy & commitment are low E.g., “love at first sight” Sternberg, 1987, 2006 31 KINDS OF LOVE Empty love Commitment is high; intimacy & passion are low Burned out relationships; beginning of arranged marriages Romantic love High intimacy & passion, but not high commitment Can lead to commitment, but not necessarily (e.g., summer fling) Companionate love High intimacy & commitment, low passion Common in long, happy marriages Sternberg, 1987, 2006 32 KINDS OF LOVE Fatuous love High passion & commitment, low intimacy E.g., whirlwind courtships Consummate love High intimacy, passion, & commitment Highly sought & much idealized, but may be hard to maintain over time Sternberg, 1987, 2006 33  Liking Intimacy Romantic Companionate Love Love Consummate Love Passion Commitment Infatuation Fatuous Empty Love Love 34 SOME OF THE QUESTIONS WE’LL ADDRESS IN THIS COURSE How can we make love last? Is decline in passion inevitable? What contributes to the growth of intimacy? What informs our choice of relationship partners? How do previous relationship experiences affect our future relationships? What predicts satisfaction and stability in relationships? Why do people sometimes stay together even though they’re unhappy? How can we become better at managing conflict in relationships? How do relationships affect our health? …and much, much more! 35 LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. Identify and describe fundamental concepts and theories in the study of interpersonal relationships 2. Apply these fundamental concepts and theories to real-world scenarios 3. Evaluate psychological research evidence and identify valid and invalid conclusions drawn on the basis of such evidence 36 EVIDENCE-BASED STUDY STRATEGIES Distributed practice – Retain more information by spacing out your study sessions over a longer period of time (aka “don’t cram!”) (Cepeda et al., 2009) 56 EVIDENCE-BASED STUDY STRATEGIES Testing effect: – Testing/self-testing has been shown to be far more effective than rereading/restudying the material (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006) Do the quizzes! Use flashcards Find a study buddy and test each other 57 EVIDENCE-BASED STUDY STRATEGIES Deep encoding – We remember new information better when we process it more deeply upon encoding—make it meaningful Relate ideas to your observations of other people, movies, TV shows, reality TV, etc. – Make it personal—we are especially likely to remember information when it’s personally relevant to us 58 EVIDENCE-BASED STUDY STRATEGIES Sleep – While you sleep, your brain is hard at work consolidating information you previously learned (Diekelmann & Born, 2010) – Make sleep a priority Reach out – As we will see, there are myriad benefits to social support 59 CONSTRUCTING SOCIAL EXPERIENCE U02 | PSYC474 KRISTINA TCHALOVA MCGILL UNIVERSITY | F2024 MAKING MEANING OF OUR RELATIONSHIP INTERACTIONS Many social experiences are ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations – Is my girlfriend laughing at her ex’s jokes because it’s a party and she’s just being friendly, or is she still hung up on him? – Is the cute stranger I’m chatting up flirting back or are they just being polite/friendly? – Is he taking a long time to text back because he’s busy, or because he doesn’t want to talk to me? – Is my partner giving me unsolicited advice because he loves me and wants to help, or because he thinks I can’t handle things on my own? – Are they really too tired to have sex, or are they no longer attracted to me? 4 Is this: A) An efficient way to confirm plans and end a conversation B) A sign that the other person might actually hate you 5 MAKING MEANING OF OUR RELATIONSHIP INTERACTIONS Some studies estimate that as much as 70% of our thoughts and conversation are spent trying to make sense of others – UK poll: ¼ adults admit to spending “hours” analyzing wording/tone of a text Couple conflict is often rooted in disagreements about the meaning of an event rather than disagreement about its occurrence From Bradbury & Karney, 2019 Umiltá, Simion, & Valenza, 1996; Song & Wang; Lieberman, 2013; Snowden, 2021 6 ATTRIBUTIONS Attributions: explanations we make to understand causes of an event “my partner bought me flowers because… …he feels guilty”...he loves me”...he is a considerate person” 7 ATTRIBUTIONS Can be categorized along two dimensions Locus dimension: is the cause of the behaviour internal or external to the person? Stability dimension: is the cause of the behaviour temporary or stable? Often go hand-in-hand (e.g., internal causes are more likely to be stable), but not necessarily 8 YOUR PARTNER IS LATE FOR DINNER ”He’s late because he’s a thoughtless jerk” Internal & stable attribution 9 YOUR PARTNER IS LATE FOR DINNER ”He’s late because he forgot to set his alarm” Internal & temporary attribution 10 YOUR PARTNER IS LATE FOR DINNER ”He’s late because he got stuck in traffic” External and temporary 11 YOUR PARTNER IS LATE FOR DINNER ”He’s late because the stupid car keeps breaking down” External and stable 12 RELATIONSHIP-ENHANCING ATTRIBUTIONS Seeing positive behaviours as internal and stable He always knows just what to get me—he is so thoughtful! INSTEAD OF He got them from someone at work and is just regifting them to me Seeing negative behaviours as external and temporary She must have had a bad day at work INSTEAD OF She is such an irritable person 13 DISTRESS-MAINTAINING ATTRIBUTIONS Seeing positive behaviours as external and temporary He got them from someone at work and is just regifting them to me INSTEAD OF He always knows just what to get me—he is so thoughtful! Seeing negative behaviours as internal and stable She is such an irritable person INSTEAD OF She must have had a bad day at work 14 RELATIONSHIP-ENHANCING VS. DISTRESS-MAINTAINING ATTRIBUTIONS Satisfied couples tend to make relationship-enhancing attributions (Fincham & Leary, 1983; Jacobson et al., 1985) Distressed couples tend to make distress-maintaining attributions The pattern of attributions partners make also predicts which couples are likely to stay happy and together over time (Bradbury & Fincham, 1991) 15 WHAT INFLUENCES THE ATTRIBUTIONS WE MAKE? The explanations we make for an event (attributions) shape our interpretation of the event (construal), which in turn affects our behaviour But what influences our attributions and construals? In any given interaction, bring our pre-existing knowledge of what: – Our partner is like – What people are like in general – What relationships are like 16 SCHEMAS Schemas = mental frameworks or cognitive structures that helps make sense of our complex world – Streamline information processing by providing an organizational structure where we can slot new information – Guide perception – Allow us to make predictions (i.e., includes expectancies) 17 EXPECTANCY CONFIRMATION Schemas can be updated with new information, but also tend to be self- perpetuating Expectancies tend to be confirmed through two pathways: 1) Perceptual confirmation: “we see what we expect to see” 2) Behavioral confirmation: “we behave in a way that makes our expectations happen” 18 REJECTION SENSITIVITY Rejection sensitivity: disposition (individual tendency) to “anxiously expect, readily perceive, and overreact to rejection” (Downey & Feldman, 1996) – High RS: people who anxiously expect rejection – Low RS: people who calmly expect acceptance Repeated experiences of rejection lead to formation of rejection expectancies These expectancies are activated in situations where rejection is possible Once activated, increase readiness to perceive rejection 19 RS MEASURE Lists variety of interpersonal situations where rejection is possible and assesses responses along two dimensions: – Degree of anxiety & concern about the outcome – Expectations of acceptance & rejection Score for each situation calculated by weighting expected likelihood by degree of concern 20 PERCEPTUAL CONFIRMATION For individuals high in RS, rejection-related cues more likely to capture attention (attentional bias) (Berenson et al., 2009) 21 EMOTIONAL STROOP TASK Ps asked to process one aspect of a stimulus (i.e., naming the ink colour a word is printed in) while ignoring an irrelevant aspect of the stimulus (the content of the word) Content of the word: rejection-related (e.g., ignored, unwanted), non-rejection negative (e.g., accident, disaster), neutral (e.g., pavement, radiator) If Ps take longer to name ink colour for rejection-related word relative to neutral word, suggests attentional bias towards rejection-related words 22 UNWANTED 23 RESULTS RS associated with slower response time on rejection-related word trials (controlling for response on neutral trials) – I.e., greater interference on rejection-related word trials = greater attentional bias towards rejection-related cues No such association between RS and response time on negative trials – Consequently, does not suggest general tendency to pay more attention to negative stimuli 24 MORE EVIDENCE OF PERCEPTUAL CONFIRMATION IN RS RS individuals more likely to construe ambiguous social behaviour of a stranger as rejecting (Downey & Feldman, 1996) – Experiment involves two “get to know you” interactions with another “participant” After first interaction, told 1 of 2 things: – “Amy did not want to continue with second part of experiment” (ambiguous) – “There is not enough time for the second interaction” Rejection sensitivity linked to greater feelings of rejection in ambiguous condition 25 MORE EVIDENCE OF PERCEPTUAL CONFIRMATION IN RS Also more likely to construe insensitive behaviour of new partners as intentionally rejecting (i.e., attribute behaviour to hurtful intent) – E.g., “If your boyfriend or girlfriend was being cool and distant, you would feel he or she was being intentionally hurtful to you” 26 BEHAVIOURAL CONFIRMATION People who expect rejection tend to behave in ways that elicit rejection from close others (self-fulfilling prophecy) (Downey et al., 1998) College-age (mostly) heterosexual couples in exclusive relationships – Asked to select up to 5 topics of ongoing conflict (e.g., ”commitment”, “sex”, “spending time together” from list and indicate most salient issue – Assigned to discuss mutually agreed upon issue for 20 min – Completed measure of affect pre- and post-interaction (RS was assessed on separate day) – Behaviour during interaction coded by independent observers 27 BEHAVIOURAL CONFIRMATION High RS women displayed more negative behaviours (e.g., hostile tone, put-down, denial of responsibility) during interaction than low RS women Partners of HRS women angrier about the relationship following discussion relative to partners of LRS women Women’s negative behaviour accounted for 54% of the effect of women’s RS on their partner’ change in anger 28 GENDER EFFECTS No effect observed for male partners in this study – But, in other research (Downey & Feldman, 1996): Lower levels of relationship satisfaction in female partners of men high in RS explained by these men’s jealous & controlling behaviour 29 WHY DO THEY BEHAVE LIKE THAT? HRS & LRS women similar in hostility when not primed by rejection cues Possible explanation: partner selection – But controlled for a number of partner & relationship variables Possibly a behavioural manifestation of feelings of hurt, anger, frustration, hopelessness 30 RELATIONAL IMPACT OF SELF-DOUBT Individuals with low self-esteem also have chronic concerns about acceptance See themselves negatively & believe that others do too – Naïve realism = idea that one’s perception of the world is an accurate representation of reality – SE does not predict objective features like attractiveness May defend against relationship anxieties triggered by self-doubts by devaluing the relationship 31 RELATIONAL IMPACT OF SELF-DOUBT Ps completed completed purported measure of intelligence Three conditions: failure feedback, success feedback, neutral (no feedback) For low SE individuals, self-doubts about intellectual abilities triggered: – Anxieties about partner rejection, lower confidence in partner’s regard – Lower valuation of the relationship, derogation of the partner – Lowered confidence in partner’s regard mediated negative impact of failure manipulation on relationship devaluation Opposite pattern for high SE individuals Murray et al., 1998 32 SUMMING UP: EXPECTANCY CONFIRMATION Helps understand why many of us find ourselves experiencing the same relationship dynamics over and over again – “Wherever you go, there you are” Often not aware of this – Recall the fundamental attribution error: Tendency to underestimate situational influences & overestimate dispositional influences on the behaviour of others – Don’t realize that, in our relationship interactions, WE are often the situation 33 MOTIVATED COGNITION Interpretations shaped not only by what we expect but also by what we want – “We see what we expect to see” AND – “We see what we want to see” Motivated cognition: the ways in which our motives and desires shape how we select, interpret, and organize information, with the aim of achieving some desired outcome Motive = drive to reach a specific goal Bias = tendency to process information in a systematic way to reach a certain point of view Kunda, 1990 34 MOTIVATED COGNITION Our motive to believe certain things about our partner & the relationship can lead to biases in how we perceive our partner & the relationship Helps explain why outsiders sometimes evaluate a relationship very differently from its participants 35 MOTIVATED COGNITION Recall that we strive to maintain consistency between our thoughts, beliefs, & actions (e.g., cognitive dissonance theory) Few relationships are perfect and some degree of doubt & conflict is inevitable How to resolve the tension between our desire for certainty and consistency and these inevitable doubts? Make cognitive adjustments 36 ENHANCEMENT MOTIVE In committed relationships, motivated to see our partner & the relationship in a positive light This leads to an enhancement bias = processing information in a way that casts our partner/relationship in a positive light Manifests in a number positive illusions about the partner and relationship 37 POSITIVE ILLUSIONS ABOUT PARTNER Satisfied partners tend to idealize their partners (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996) – See partners more positively than the partners perceive themselves – Can’t be explained by partners being modest (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000) Happy spouses rate partners more positively than their friends do 38 POSITIVE ILLUSIONS (MURRAY & HOLMES, 1999) Elevate relational virtues and minimize faults Ascribe special significance to relationship virtues I don’t think I will ever have to doubt his love for me for me because he is always making me feel good about myself Use “yes, but” arguments to minimize faults Yes, he tends to over-react to things… But, I have realized that he does this to protect me 40 POSITIVE ILLUSIONS ABOUT RELATIONSHIP Believe one’s own relationship is better than the relationships of other people Rate likelihood of own marriage failing below base rates Less realistic about relationship prospects than outside observers – Researchers asked relationship partners, as well as their friends and family to predict whether couple will still be together in 1 year – Partners were more optimistic and less accurate than friends and family (despite having access to much more insider information!) Rusbult et al., 2000; Fowers et al., 2001; MacDonald & Ross, 1999 41 SO, ARE WE TOTALLY DELUSIONAL? If our views of our lovers are overly rosy, are we putting undue pressure on our partners and setting ourselves up for disappointment? Positive illusions are related prospectively to: – Greater relationship satisfaction & stability – Fewer and less destructive relationship conflicts – Partner’s increasingly positive perception of self Recall self-fulfilling prophecy à if our expectations our positive, our relationships may flourish and partners may come to “live up” to our idealized image of them – Maybe ”love is not blind, but prescient” Murray et al., 1996 42 SO, ARE WE TOTALLY DELUSIONAL? Perceptions of partner vary in levels of abstraction, ranging from very specific to global Top of hierarchy: fewer objective standards, more latitude to place partner in positive light Possible to view partner positively at global level, while acknowledging specific positive & negative traits Neff & Karney, 2005 43 GLOBAL ADORATION, SPECIFIC ACCURACY In newlyweds, high levels of enhancement at global level Fairly high accuracy at trait level, but significant variability In heterosexual marriages, wives’ more accurate specific perceptions associated with greater support behaviour, feelings of control within marriage, & decreased likelihood of divorce Love may be stronger when grounded in specific accuracy Positive illusions blend of “reality” and “illusion” based on projected ideals & hopes Neff & Karney, 2005; Murray et al., 1996 44 JUSTIFICATION MOTIVE Not all motivated cognition is about relationship enhancement 45 JUSTIFICATION MOTIVE Not all motivated cognition is about relationship enhancement Also want to hold favourable attitudes about ourselves (justification motive) In a clearly troubled relationship can still uplift ourselves by blaming the partner for faltering relationship Self-serving bias = tendency to make internal attributions for our positive behavior, external for our negative behavior 46 SELF-SERVING BIAS IN RELATIONSHIPS Can occur even in happy relationships Don’t want to believe that we could cause our partner pain or distress – Deflect responsibility by blaming the situation or blaming the partner 47 DYADIC NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP INTERACTION Generally, two people involved in relationship interactions & both susceptible to self-serving biases Additional wrinkle: actor-observer difference – Degree to which you are oriented towards the person vs. the situation depends on whether you’re engaged in the action yourself (you’re the actor) or if you’re just observing someone else (you’re the observer) – Actors more likely to make situational attributions, while observers more likely to make dispositional attributions – Again, don’t realize that we’re part of the situation for our partner 48 MEMORY BIAS Autobiographical memory is not like a video recording Rather, a constructive process – Pieces of remembered information + current knowledge = narrative that makes sense to us now – Can leave out or amplify information to support our current view of the partner & relationship (memory bias) 49 MCFARLAND & ROSS, 1987 Couples asked to rate partner’s personality & relationship – Do it again two months later; ratings compared Memories of past feelings guided by current feelings about the relationship – If satisfaction improved: remember feeling more positively than they actually did – If satisfaction declined: remember feeling more negatively than they actually did 52 SUMMING UP It’s tempting to think we are objective observers of our social world In reality, we actively construct our social reality – Pay attention to some things and not others – Select one interpretation over possible others (attributions, construals) – Remember some things and not others This construction process is shaped by – Our prior knowledge and expectations – Our desires and motivations Something we will return to throughout the course 53 W HY T ALK AB OUT R E S E AR C H ME T HODS ? Foster critical thinking and media literacy – Headlines in media often sensationalize research findings, distorting nuanced insights and obscuring study limitations – Many opinions about relationships online are presented as facts, but lack scientific backing 9/ 5/ 24 2 LIMITATIONS OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE & INTUITION Confirmation bias = tendency to seek out, pay attention to, and believe evidence that supports our preexisting beliefs Not objective observers of our relationship interactions: Interpretations of events are biased by our expectations and emotions Our perspective is unique and limited Experience has no control group Your experiences are just a small sample of all relationships Often unaware of many forces on behaviour (e.g., underestimate power of the situation) – Too quick to see causal relationships where there may be none Just because two things co-occur, doesn’t mean one causes the other 3 THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH Thus, our lay theories are not always correct Relationship scientists examine questions systematically by collecting data and testing their hypotheses while taking steps to reduce bias, subjectivity, and rule out alternate explanations 4 CAN LOVE BE STUDIED? “No one—not even the National Science Foundation—can argue that falling in love is a science” - U.S. Senator William Proxmire, 1975 Studying love is not impossible, but it is challenging – Things research scientists are interested in—like love, commitment, satisfaction, trust, attraction—are all very abstract – How we operationalize these psychological constructs is key 5 OPERATIONALIZING OUR CONSTRUCTS Can’t measure these psychological constructs directly, only their operationalizations – E.g., attraction—could look at: Behavioural indicators (smiling, exchanging phone numbers) operational Self-reported ratings of attraction definitions Physiological measures (heart rate, brain activity) Need to carefully consider whether we are really measuring what we think we are measuring 6 MEASUREMENT VALIDITY Measurement validity = extent to which an operationalization adequately captures the psychological construct of interest – “Are you measuring what you think you’re measuring?” Measure should make sense “on its face” Should be well grounded in existing theoretical conceptions of the construct Should relate to other measures of construct & The Sock-Compatibility Measure of Love predict future outcomes (Tchalova, 2024) 7 DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEASURES Self-report Behavioural observations Indirect measures Physiological measures 9/ 5/ 24 8 SELF-REPORT Simply ask participants to describe their thoughts, feelings, & behaviours Includes fixed-response questionnaires and open-ended questions – Fixed-response questionnaire = specific set of questions and possible responses predetermined by the researchers E.g., The Love Scale (Rubin, 1970) 9 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Open-ended questions = participant gives any answer that comes to mind Helpful when studying something we don’t know much about yet A way of gathering information to generate more specific questions later on Qualitative research: methodological approach relying primarily on open- ended questions – Examine the broader themes that emerge from participants’ responses (content analysis) 11 SELF-REPORT: PROS & CONS Pros Inexpensive and easy to administer, no special equipment required – Means that we can recruit more participants à more power, more reliable findings Allow us to “get inside people’s heads” 12 SELF-REPORT: PROS & CONS Cons Difficulties with self-awareness and recall Social desirability bias (desire to be seen in a positive light) – Relationship researchers deal with many sensitive topics E.g., higher reported rates of infidelity in online surveys vs. face-to-face interviews (Whisman & Snyder, 2007) Participants may not interpret questions in the way you intended 13 WOULD YOU SAY YOU “HAD SEX” IF… Behaviour Women Men Overall Deep kissing 1.4% 2.9% 2.0% Person touches your 2.0% 4.5% 3.0% breasts/nipples Oral contact on your 2.3% 4.1% 3.0% breasts/nipples You touch each 11.6% 17.1% 13.9% other’s genitals Oral contact with 37.3% 43.7% 39.9% other’s genitals Penile-anal 82.3% 79.1% 81.0% intercourse Penile-vaginal 99.7% 99.2% 99.5% intercourse 14 Now, imagine how much variation there might be in the way people interpret questions about arguments, love, support, etc.! Researchers must carefully define crucial terms on questionnaires Good idea to talk to your participants during debriefing to better understand their experience of the study 15 SENTIMENT OVERRIDE (WEISS, 1984) What if we want to ask participants about their partner’s behaviours? Sentiment override = global beliefs about the partner/relationship may colour perception and memory of specific interactions E.g., “how many times did your partner kiss you yesterday?” – “I don’t remember, but he loves me and we have a good relationship, so must have been a lot” 16 BEHAVIOURAL OBSERVATION Gather data about relationship events without having to ask people who are experiencing those events directly – E.g., how do people in happy and distressed relationships differ in the way they behave towards each other? Train observers to watch & code recordings of participant behaviour Can observe people: – In the lab – At home – Anywhere! (e.g., speed dating events, airports) 17 BEHAVIOURAL OBSERVATION Need to decide which behaviours to observe Coders must agree about what constitutes incidents of a given behaviour category – Interrater reliability = extent to which coders agree on whether a specific behaviour has or has not occurred – A lot of behaviours require interpretation E.g., lighthearted joke vs. hostile sarcasm May be easier to agree on a super concrete behaviour, but lose the broader meaning of the behaviour (“can’t see the forest through the trees”) – Requires extensive training 18 BEHAVIOURAL OBSERVATIONS: PROS & CONS Pros Directly assess behaviours of interest Don’t have to rely on faulty memories Avoid social desirability bias Cons Expensive, time and labour-intensive Reactivity = a change in behaviour caused by the knowledge one is being observed 19 INDIRECT MEASURES Designed to avoid reactivity and social desirability E.g., reaction time = time it takes to respond a stimulus on screen – Can be used to assess implicit attitudes = the automatic tendency to associate a given stimulus with positive or negative feelings 20 IMPLICIT RELATIONAL ATTITUDES Index of automatic attitudes = negative word RT – positive word RT Higher score = more positive attitude Underlying premise: some concepts are more tightly linked in our minds on the basis of experience McNulty et al., 2013 23 IMPLICIT RELATIONAL ATTITUDES Conscious/explicit attitudes not correlated with implicit attitudes Suggests that Ps not aware of implicit attitudes Do implicit attitudes predict anything? Implicit but not explicit attitudes associated with newlyweds’ changes in satisfaction over time (4 years) Implicit attitudes predict nonverbal behaviour in couple discussions – Nonverbal behaviours linked to satisfaction with conversation and relationship satisfaction over following week – Explicit attitudes did not predict either verbal or nonverbal behaviour McNulty et al., 2013; Faure et al., 2018 24 INDIRECT MEASURES Pros Avoid social desirability & reactivity problems – Could be particularly useful for sensitive topics Cons Big gap between construct of interest and operationalization – Can we be sure that we are studying what we think we are studying? 25 PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES Physiological responses = body’s reaction to various experiences/stimuli – Autonomic nervous system activity (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure) – Hormone changes (e.g., cortisol, sex hormones) – Immune system changes – Brain activity 26 CHALLENGES COLLECTING & INTERPRETING FMRI DATA Very confined & noisy environment – Makes it challenging to create powerful psychological experience for participants Don’t see brain “activation” per se—infer activation by subtracting response on control trial from trial of interest – Need to think carefully about task design 27 PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES Pros Interesting in their own right (e.g., understanding link between relationships and health) Outside participants’ control (not susceptible to social desirability bias, etc.) Cons Very expensive à smaller sample size Ambiguity in interpretation Could be more invasive (depending on the measure) 28 ARCHIVAL DATA Might be able to draw on publicly available documents & data – E.g., marriage licenses, yearbooks, Facebook, personal ads Data collected by someone else, often for an unrelated purpose E.g., more positive facial expressions in yearbook photos predict likelihood of being happily married 30 years later (Harker & Keltner, 2001) 29 ARCHIVAL DATA Pros Typically economical Can examine historical trends Cons Limited by type and quality of original data 30 MEASUREMENT: TAKEAWAY No single approach is perfect & free of limitations Ideally, want to adopt a multimethod approach—using combination of methods to triangulate on an answer 31 STUDY DESIGN Multiple options – Pros and cons – Some may be appropriate for certain research questions – Again, will often want to use a multimethod approach 32 CORRELATIONAL DESIGN Examine naturally occurring associations between variables (the things we are measuring) – E.g., do people tend to be attracted to those more similar to themselves? Strength of association captured by the correlation coefficient (r), which can range from -1 to +1 – Sign tells us direction – Magnitude tells us strength of association 33 CORRELATIONAL DESIGN: PROS & CONS Pros Sometimes the only option available – Some variables researchers cannot manipulate—gender, culture, age, marriage status, chronic illness, having an affair, etc. Cons Can’t draw conclusions about causation (conclusion about cause and effect) 35 DOES MARRIAGE CAUSE HAPPINESS? Evidence to suggest that marriage & happiness are associated Plausible that marriage may increase happiness But could also be true that happier people are more likely to get married OR: optimistic people may be more likely to get married AND more likely to be happy 36 CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION Three criteria must be met to conclude causation: 1. Two variables must be correlated 2. One variable must precede the other 3. There must be no reasonable alternative explanations for the pattern of correlation 37 CROSS-SECTIONAL VS. LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH Cross-sectional data = data collected at one single point in time Longitudinal data = data collected from the same participants on multiple occasions – Allows us to examine change over time E.g., how does satisfaction change over the course of a relationship? Do communication patterns early in the relationship predict whether the couple will stay together or break up later on? 38 LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH: CHALLENGES & CONSIDERATIONS Choosing the right interval – For certain questions, may need to follow couples for a long time (months, years, decades) – Sometimes, may be interested in more frequent assessments over a shorter period of time Daily diary study = type of longitudinal approach where Ps provide data every day at about the same time Experience sampling = type of longitudinal approach where data is gathered throughout the day, thereby capturing behaviours, thoughts, & feelings as they occur 39 LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH: CHALLENGES & CONSIDERATIONS The sample you start with may not be the sample you end up with – Attrition bias = the participants who drop out may systematically differ from those remaining in the study Example: researchers have often observed U-shaped pattern of marriage satisfaction – Could be an artifact of unsatisfied couples dropping out of study Satisfaction 40 Time LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH: PROS & CONS Pros Captures change over time Can examine processes that would be impossible/unethical to cause – E.g., can’t “assign” people to get married, but can look at how marriage affects them over time Daily diary & experience sampling: less subject to retrospective bias – Capture real experiences as they happen 41 LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH: PROS & CONS Cons Expensive, time- and labour-intensive Attrition bias Getting 1 step closer towards making causal claims, but still not there 42 STILL CORRELATIONAL Three criteria must be met to conclude causation: 1. Two variables must be correlated 2. One variable must precede the other 3. There must be no reasonable alternative explanations for the pattern of correlation 43 STATISTICALLY “CONTROLLING” FOR ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS You measure an alternative variable that might explain your effect, and you include it in your analyses If your effect is just a proxy for something the control variable is doing, your effect will be wiped out E.g., When children eat more ice cream, they’re more likely to drown! – Have you tried controlling for whether it’s summertime? – Oh hey, the effect is gone. Wild. Although helpful, this type of statistical control is still subject to limitations – Also, can be hard to anticipate every relevant variable 44 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Manipulate one variable to determine effect on another variable – The only design that (if properly executed) allows us to make causal claims Independent variable = the manipulated variable in an experiment (possible cause) Dependent variable = the measured variable in an experiment (possible effect) 45 IMPORTANCE OF A GOOD CONTROL Compare experimental group to control group to determine effect of experimental intervention Want the control condition to match experimental condition as closely as possible minus the key ingredient – Want to avoid confounds = alternate explanations for relationship between two variables 46 EXAMPLE Are attractive people seen more positively? Have participants rate target profiles on positive & negative personality traits – Manipulate attractiveness of photo: attractive vs. unattractive Must make sure photos match on all other factors—e.g.: – Gender – Age – Race – Quality/colour of photo 47 IMPORTANCE OF RANDOM ASSIGNMENT Every participant in your study brings unique set of perspectives, biases, etc. – Potential threat to internal validity Random assignment = every participant has equal chance of being assigned to experimental or control group – With large enough sample, our two groups should be similar on all these individual traits – This helps rule out alternative explanations 48 EXAMPLE Study to access effectiveness of couples therapy Two conditions: weekly therapy sessions for 6 months VS. no therapy (control) Allow couples to self-select into condition After 6 months, conclude that intervention worked Problem? 49 INTERNAL VALIDITY Three criteria must be met to conclude causation: 1. Two variables must be correlated 2. One variable must precede the other 3. There must be no reasonable alternative explanations for the pattern of association Internal validity = can we rule out alternate explanations in the experiment? – Relies on selection of appropriate control & random assignment 50 LONGITUDINAL-EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES Could expose couples to an intervention and track them over time (longitudinal assessments) Same concerns about attrition bias apply E.g., recruit couples to test effectives of couples’ therapy – 50% assigned to weekly therapy, 50% control – After 6 months, experimental more committed to their marriage than control group—yay! – Not so fast! Turns out that large number of couples dropped out from experimental group 51 LONGITUDINAL-EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES Weekly therapy is demanding Couples who remain in therapy may have been more committed to begin with So, despite use of random assignment in the beginning, our experimental and control groups are no longer matched due to differential attrition 52 EXPERIMENTS Pros - Allows us to make causal claims - Caveat: as long as there are no threats to internal validity Cons May have lower external validity = extent to which results obtained in a given generalize to other contexts Not always an option 53 CHOOSING PARTICIPANTS Population = all the people we are interested in Sample = a subset of that population – Must be chosen carefully to ensure it represents the population we want to generalize to Often make universal claims about relationships, but do not study diverse samples – E.g., homosexual couples historically underrepresented in relationships research (although this is changing) 54 CONVENIENCE SAMPLES Anyone who is readily available – E.g., undergraduate students Easier to get, BUT May not be representative of people in broader population 55 WEIRD PARTICIPANTS Because convenience samples are much easier and cheaper to get, they are used more frequently Most studies have been conducted on people who are WEIRD WEIRD = Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic countries 56 REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE A sample that resembles the entire population we want to study on the variables of interest – E.g., all nationalities, SES backgrounds E.g., national statistical agencies (like Statistics Canada) Very difficult to get Even if we do a good job of reaching out to representative sample, the people who agree to participate may differ from those who don’t (volunteer bias) 57 WHO PARTICIPATES? Mailed invitation to participate in longitudinal study to couples who had obtained their marriage license in LA county between 1993-1994 Those who responded to invitation: – Higher SES (more years of education, higher status job) – More likely to have cohabitated prior to marriage Karney et al., 1995 58 WHO PARTICIPATES? Often want to get dyadic data to examine dyadic processes But are dyadic samples representative of the population or unique? Individuals whose partner agreed to participate with them reported: – Greater relationship satisfaction, commitment, more secure attachment (Barton et al., 2020) Couples who agreed to participate together less likely to experience breakup over time (Park, Impett, & MacDonald, 2020) 59 TAKEAWAY Relationships researchers generally use a combination of convenience and more (though not totally) representative samples Having a non-representative sample does not make the study wrong—it just limits the extent to which we can generalize our findings Some relationship phenomena more universal than others Overarching theme: no one study is perfect – Relationship science is an incremental process 60 NATURE OF DYADIC DATA In order to examine dyadic processes, often want to get data from both members of couple Requires different analytic approach—need to account for dependency in the data – Fundamental assumption of regression: independence of the data – Using regular approach may lead to bias in our significance tests – Also, fundamentally interested in the interdependent nature of dyadic processes 61 ACTOR-PARTNER INTERDEPENDENCE MODEL (KASHY & KENNY, 1999) Allows us to examine how individual outcomes are affected by BOTH one’s own characteristics (actor effect) AND the partner’s characteristics (partner effect) actor effect Characteristic of Partner A ffe ct A’s Outcome Em e er rtn pa pa rtn er ef fe ct Characteristic of Partner B B’s Outcome Ef actor effect 62 ETHICAL ISSUES Asked to deeply think about and confide about issues of a highly personal and sensitive nature May experience negative effects, like recognizing problems in relationship for the first time (Bradbury, 1994) Cost-benefit analysis: – Need to consider not only the cost of doing studies, but also the benefit of doing them (or the cost of not doing them) Need to sensitive in how we approach our participants, provide effective debriefing, counselling resources 63 EXERCISE TO HELP YOU STUDY Next time you see an intriguing research claim related to relationships: – What am I being asked to believe? – Is there a causal claim being made? Is that reasonable given the study design? If correlational: are there alternative explanations (third factors or reverse causation?) If experimental: are there any threats to internal validity? (poor control, lack of random assignment, differential attrition?) – How were the constructs of interest operationalized? Are the measures valid? What are the limitations of these measures? – Who was studied and in what context? Do you think these findings would generalize to other people and/or contexts? 64 ATTRACTION & PARTNER SELECTION UNIT 4 | PSYC474 KRISTINA TCHALOVA MCGILL UNIVERSITY | F2024  POWER OF PROXIMITY Proximity = closeness/nearness Basic, powerful factor that drives liking More likely to meet, get to know, & form a relationship with someone with someone you see regularly where you live, work, etc. 9/ 12/ 24 3 WESTGATE HOUSING STUDY Married MIT students assigned to one of 17 buildings in a housing complex in a random fashion (by the building manager) à natural experiment Virtually no one knows anyone in the complex beforehand Simple question: Who ends up liking whom? RESULTS Not just about physical distance – Those living next to stairwells made more friends with people upstairs – Those living next to high traffic areas (e.g., laundry room, mailboxes) and/or those who had windows facing a common courtyard made more friends Functional distance = likelihood of coming into contact with other people due to location or features of architectural design HOW DOES IT WORK? We have an increased I like it! # opportunity to interact with people who live close to us It’s growing We tend to like people and on me…" Liking things more after we have I don’t know been repeatedly exposed to how I feel them (mere exposure) and about this ! they become more familiar to us Exposure MERE EXPOSURE EFFECT College-age female confederates attended class 0, 5, 10, or 15 times during a semester – At end of semester, students asked to evaluate photos of each confederate – The more often the confederate attended class, the more positively she was rated Moreland & Beach, 1992 UNDERLYING MECHANISMS? Perceptual fluency explanation – Easier to process information about familiar stimuli (greater fluency) – Pleasant feelings associated with more fluent processing mistaken for liking Classical conditioning (Zajonc, 1968) – Encounters with novel stimuli put us on our guard – Repeated exposure to a stimulus without any negative consequence signals that the stimulus is safe and nonthreatening – The comfortable feeling of safety associated with the stimulus after multiple exposures renders it more pleasant Some evidence that anxiety impedes mere exposure effect 9 PHYSICAL APPEARANCE Has received large amount of research attention – Do we agree on what makes someone physically attractive? – How much does physical attractiveness matter, and does it matter to a different extent for men and women? 11 IS BEAUTY IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER? Some disagreement on whether a given photo is attractive (Marcus & Miller, 2003; Diener et al., 1995) – Idiosyncratic preferences come into play when judging individuals Certain standards of beauty differ across cultures & time 12  Some standards of beauty shift and we may not always agree on a specific individual’s attractiveness SO, DO WE But there is broad consensus about the general features that are considered AGREE ON attractive – Evident across different cultural WHO’S groups ATTRACTIVE? – Newborn infants share adults’ preferences These two factors suggest a degree of innateness Griffey & Little, 2014 14 FACIAL SYMMETRY Bilateral (two-sided) symmetry contributes to attractiveness True of other species as well (Markow & Ricker, 1992) 15 WH Y IS FAC IAL S YMME T R Y AT T R AC T IV E ? Perceptual fluency explanation: average (“prototypical”) and more symmetrical faces are easier to process, and ease of processing is associated with feelings of pleasantness 16 WHY IS FACIAL SYMMETRY ATTRACTIVE? Evolutionary explanation: facial symmetry is indicator of reproductive fitness (capacity to pass on one’s genes to next generation) – Pronounced asymmetry may be indicative of issues during prenatal development (e.g., injuries in utero, infectious disease experienced by the mother) – Declining health in macaques associated with declines in facial symmetry (Little et al., 2012) – Some evidence that facial symmetry is linked to better health in humans as well (Thornhill & Gangestad, 2005) 17  CAVEATS Subtle asymmetries do not detract from attractiveness Perfect symmetry may be less attractive – May exaggerate imbalances or “imperfections” in the face – Balance or “averageness” of features may be more important Zaidel & Deblieck, 2007; Zheng et al., 2021 20 THE “AVERAGENESS” EFFECT Faces that are “average” are seen as more attractive – Tend to perceive a composite image of many faces “averaged” together as more attractive than the individual faces of which the composite is comprised 21 ANOTHER CAVEAT Our liking for symmetry/averageness may not trump our liking for familiarity Study: – Participants from New Zealand and the Netherlands – Celebrity faces from New Zealand & Netherlands presented as morphs and as original faces – Participants showed typical preference for averageness only for morphed faces of celebrities from the foreign country Halberstadt et al., 2013 25  SEX-SPECIFIC PREFERENCES Female features: cross-cultural preference for “baby-faced” features (large eyes, small nose, small chin, full lips) – But combined with signs of maturity: e.g., high, prominent cheekbones, thick hair Less cross-cultural consensus for male features – Preference for wide smile & broad jaw and forehead – But “softer” features attractive too (convey warmth & friendliness) 26 Cunningham et al., 1990, 1995, 2002 Women’s bodies Waist-to-hip ratio =.70 – Signal of fertility, better physical health Men’s bodies Waist-to-hip-ratio=.90 – Also linked to better physical health Shoulder-to-hip ratio = 1.2 Height Signals of strength and status 27 “WHAT IS BEAUTIFUL IS GOOD” BIAS Another way in which physical attractiveness is powerful Tend to assume that physically attractive people possess other desirable qualities – E.g., kinder, more sensitive, more trustworthy, more likely to be successful Dion et al, 1972 28 WHAT IS BEAUTIFUL IS GOOD BECAUSE WHAT IS BEAUTIFUL IS DESIRED? Lemay, Clark, & Greenberg, 2010: 1. Beauty is an intrinsic reward Feel more positively when interacting (or expecting to interact) with attractive targets Overlap in brain regions reactive to physically attractive faces & rewards like food and money 2. We generally want to approach rewarding stimuli E.g., more likely to initiate conversations with attractive individuals Garcia et al., 1991; Pataki & Clark, 2004; O’Doherty et al., 2003; Sangrador & Yela, 2000) 30 WHAT IS BEAUTIFUL IS GOOD BECAUSE WHAT IS BEAUTIFUL IS DESIRED? Lemay, Clark, & Greenberg, 2010: 1. Beauty is an intrinsic reward 2. We generally want to approach rewarding stimuli 3. Through projection, perceive attractive targets as possessing attributes compatible with our approach goals “We see what we want to see” 31  Perceived positive interpersonal attributes Target’s physical Desire to bond attractiveness with target Original view (bias due to cultural associations) Desire to bond with target Perceived positive Target’s physical interpersonal attractiveness attributes Motivated cognition view 32 RESULTS What comes first: desire to bond or perceptions of positive interpersonal qualities? Data better fit to motivated cognition view (although limitations to this kind of statistical approach) Desire to bond with target Perceived positive Target’s physical interpersonal attractiveness attributes Motivated cognition view 33 BEHAVIOURAL CONFIRMATION Recall that we not only see what we want to see, but also act in ways that make our expectations come true Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977: – Male “perceivers” interacted by phone with female “targets” – Experimental manipulation: perceivers led to believe target either was or was not physically attractive – Tape recording of the interaction rated by outside observers 34 RESULTS Men (perceivers): – Before interaction: formed more positive impressions of the target when they believed her to be attractive – During interaction: behaved more positively towards “attractive” targets Women (targets): – Rated by observers as more sociable, poised, warm, outgoing, etc. when interacting with a man who thought she was attractive 35 RECAP Generally, tend to see beautiful people in a positive way May ascribe positive characteristics to pretty people due a) learned associations, b) motivated reasoning Act more positively towards pretty people à more positive behaviour in return à confirmation of stereotype (behavioural confirmation/self-fulfilling prophecy) 36 WHAT IS GOOD IS BEAUTIFUL Participants rated yearbook photos of people they knew, while strangers also rated the same photos Examined how much variance in participants’ ratings of physical attractiveness could be explained by objective measure of physical attractiveness (stranger’s rating), liking, familiarity and respect People find find those they like more physically attractive than those they don’t like Kniffin & Wilson, 2004 37 WHAT IS GOOD IS BEAUTIFUL Face preferences reflect desired personality Step 1 Ask Ps 1) which personality traits they find attractive in partner, and 2) which faces they find attractive Step 2 Create composite faces of the 15 faces most attractive to those expressing highest desire for a trait and 15 faces attractive to those expressing lowest desire for the trait Step 3 Ask new set of participants to make personality judgments based on faces Little et al., 2006 38 SEX DIFFERENCES IN MATE PREFERENCE Is there truth to the widely-held belief that, when it comes to seeking a mate, men prioritize youth & physical beauty, while women prioritize status & wealth? 9/ 12/ 24 41 EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE Minimal parental investment = least amount of time, energy, and resources that a parent must expend to produce offspring For male members of the species: minimal time investment & biological cost For female members of the species: much greater investment of time & resources – Eggs are biologically more costly than sperm – Pregnancy, producing a placenta, lactation, extended period of infertility following childbirth Creates large asymmetry in minimal parental investment of male & female members of the species à different adaptive problems & strategies 42 MALE ADAPTIVE STRATEGY Reproductive success primarily limited by availability of fertile mates Solution: may have evolved preference for females possessing indicators of fertility 43 FEMALE ADAPTIVE STRATEGY Also care about genetic quality, but Invest much more, so they should: – Be more selective than males – Prefer males that can best ensure survival of offspring Females may select mates based on their ability to provide resources to potential offspring May need to make trade-offs In humans, women may view such characteristics as social status, wealth, intelligence, ability, and ambition as attractive 44 EVIDENCE? A lot of early research relied on self-reported ratings or rankings Which attributes do you find appealing in a potential partner? (Buss & Barnes, 1986) – Most attributes rated similarly by men & women – Men valued physical appearance more highly, women value characteristics related to resource acquisition Difference replicated across different cultures (Buss, 1989) 46 STRUCTURAL POWERLESSNESS & GENDER ROLE SOCIALIZATION Critique: evidence that men and women have different preferences for potential mates may be due to social (rather than innate, evolved) factors (Wendy & Eagly, 2002) For instance, across cultures women may find status and resources attractive in men because women have less access to status and resources Traditional socialization practices maintain & support these differences The two hypotheses not fundamentally incompatible: no reason we should not expect differential socialization of the young according to evolutionary view 47 STRUCTURAL POWERLESSNESS & GENDER ROLE SOCIALIZATION In cultures where there is greater gender equality, women place less importance on a man’s status and resources However, gender equality does not affect importance placed on female attractiveness 48 WHAT ABOUT REAL LIFE? Paper preferences may not translate into real-life contexts Meta-analysis of 97 studies involving romantic evaluations of a partner (either initial attraction contexts like speed-dating or established relationships) – Evaluations generally more positive for more attractive partners, and partners with better earning potential – No difference by sex Physical attractiveness: men r=.43, women r=.40 Earning prospects: men r=.09, women r=.12 Eastwick et al., 2014 49 SHORT-TERM VS. LONG-TERM MATING STRATEGIES Because of the asymmetry in levels of minimal parental investment & risk, males more likely to pursue short- term mating strategies BUT both males & females can both shift between short-term and long-term mating strategies when conditions are suitable (i.e., benefits outweigh costs) Some evidence that both men AND women likely to prioritize attractiveness in short-term relationships Buss & Schmidt, 1993; Meltzer et al., 2014 50 DUAL MATING STRATEGY HYPOTHESIS Corollary idea: women may combine mating strategies & mating strategy may shift with their ovulatory cycle Hypothesis: – Women will show preference for putative cues of male fitness (e.g., masculinized faces) during the high-fertility ovulatory phase of their menstrual cycle (high estradiol, low progesterone), and – Preference for cues of prosociality (e.g., feminized faces) at other points in the menstrual cycle Gildersleeve et al., 2014 51 FINDINGS Early studies found support for the hypothesis that women show stronger preference for masculinized faces during high fertility phase – Most pronounced for partnered women assessing men’s attractiveness for hypothetical, short-term relationships Since replicated; similar findings obtained for other fitness cues (e.g., body & vocal masculinity, body odours) Also evidence that male partners may pick on signs of female fertility – E.g., increased mate guarding, positive attention when partners ovulating Gildersleeve et al., 2014; Penton-Voak et al., 1999, Gangestad et al, 2000 53 DEBATE & CONTROVERSIES Many small, underpowered studies, widespread use of self-report for menstrual cycle data (potentially unreliable) Mixed findings for studies correlating estradiol/progesterone levels with masculinity preferences Theoretical challenge: rates of extra-pair paternity are generally very low But there is evidence that ovulatory phase increases women’s sexual motivation more broadly Jones et al., 2019 54 WHAT ABOUT NON-PHYSICAL TRAITS? Social exchange theory postulates that we act a bit like shoppers in an interpersonal marketplace – Want to maximize rewards while minimizing costs – Seek partners with highest mate value possible Mate value is more than physical attractiveness or resources – Seek partner traits conducive to high relationship quality: warmth, understanding, kindness (regardless of sex) Eastwick & Hunt, 2014; Li et al., 2002 55 RECIPROCITY We like people more if they know they like us (e.g., Backman & Secord, 1959) Aronson & Linder, 1965 – Ps paired with a confederate to work on a task – Overheard either positive or critical evaluation of themselves – Report more liking for confederate after positive evaluation 60 REWARDS OF BELONGING Recall that belonging has historically been essentially to our survival Are there biological mechanisms that positively reinforce belonging? Hsu et al. 2014 – PET study (detects changes in neurochemical activity) – Participants told that a desirable potential partner likes them showed increased activation of a system of receptors that mediate rewarding effects of opioid drugs like heroin – And the stronger the activation, the more desire to interact with that person 61 BUT SELECTIVITY MATTERS TOO Highest liking when confederate’s evaluations went from negative à positive – Although rated confederate more positively (e.g., as ”kinder”) in consistently positive condition If uniformly positive, could be that they like everybody We want to feel that the other likes us specifically (selectivity) See this in romantic attraction contexts too 62 SELECTIVITY Speed-dating study When a participant uniquely desired a particular partner, partner tended to reciprocate desire & feel more chemistry with the participant When a participant tended to desire many partners, partners experienced less desire for & chemistry with participant – Mediated by perceived unselectivity—suggests that this is something people can pick up on 4 min conversation! Eastwick et al., 2007 63 MANAGING RISK Generally, do not simply pursue the most attractive option Matching phenomenon = some evidence that couples tend to be similar on attractiveness (broadly construed) Balance assessment of reward & risks (rejection) May use ambiguity to manage risk Feingold, 1988 64 MANAGING RISK Ps participating in “movie rating” exercise Setting: – Two tables, each with two chairs and a screen – One chair at one of the tables is occupied by a very attractive confederate Two conditions: – Low ambiguity: same movie on both screens – High ambiguity: different movie Much more likely to sit next to confederate in different movie condition (and it wasn’t about the movie) Bernstein, 1983 65  WHAT ABOUT UNREQUITED LOVE? Generally, seem to strive to maximize rewards & minimize costs How to explain unrequited love (love that is not reciprocated)? Your responses 66 WHAT ABOUT UNREQUITED LOVE? 80% of college participants had experienced unrequired love 3 factors predict intensity: – Perceived potential value of relationship with the person – Perceived probability of striking up a relationship – Perceived benefits to self of loving the person, even if it is not reciprocated Aron et al., 1998 67 CULTURAL SCRIPTS Cultural depictions where would-be lover persists & wins in the end abound Fewer depictions from the target’s perspective—sense of “scriptlessness” (Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell, 1993) – May struggle to figure out how to act Baumeister et al., 1993 68 UNREQUITED LOVE Both rejectors & pursuers have sense of emotional interdependence & feel like victims, struggle to understand each other Pursuer: – Situation as high-stake gamble – Look back on experience with mix of positive & negative emotion – Feel that they had been led on & communication was unclear Your responses Baumeister et al., 1993 69 UNREQUITED LOVE Both rejectors & pursuers have sense of emotional interdependence & feel like victims, struggle to understand each other Rejector: – No-win situation – Uniformly negative in their accounts – See themselves as morally innocent but still feel guilty – Reluctance to cause pain may be misconstrued as ”mixed signals” Your responses Baumeister et al., 1993; Folkes, 1982 70 SO, SHOULD YOU PLAY HARD TO GET? Some truth to the idea that we like to “win someone over”, but, ultimately, we want to be liked Want to communicate that you’re selectively hard to get Don’t be mean to prospective partners Realize that prospective partners may be wary of rejection & incurring high costs Within a relationship, want to be reliable & steady to foster sense of security in your partner – Ambiguity is bad for your partner and bad for your relationship 71 GRO WTH O F I N TI MA C Y: ME RG I N G SEL F & O TH E R UNIT 5 | PSYC474 KRISTINA TCHALOVA MCGILL UNIVERSITY | F2024 BUILDING INTIMACY o Last time: what initially draws us to a potential partner? o Today: How do we move beyond the initial attraction phase to develop an intimate relationship? o One influential perspective: intimacy is the reciprocal, iterative interplay between self and other Gable & Reis, 2006 3 THE SELF-CONCEPT o Self-concept: what we know and believe about ourselves ”Who am I” Our attributes, abilities, values, goals Descriptive & evaluative components (how you feel about those attributes) o Where does it come from? 4 THE LOOKING-GLASS SELF o Charles Horton Cooley (1902): the looking-glass self Develop self-concept through interactions with others 1. Imagine how we appear to others (”How do others see me?”) 2. Interpret others’ reactions (”How do they judge/evaluate me”?) 3. Develop & revise self-concept based on these perceptions & judgments 5 ACTIVE ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL o Not simply passively internalizing interactions with others o Individual plays active role in selecting & interpreting perceived judgments & perceptions of others Also attempts to manage others’ perceptions through self-presentation strategies 6 CLASSROOM EXAMPLE o “How do my students see me?” o ”How are they judging the image they have of me?” Look to and interpret their reactions—are they nodding, smiling, frowning, do they look bored, asleep? o Shapes self-feeling (e.g., pride, mortification) and self-concept (“I’m funny”, “I’m dull”) o Pay attention to some reactions and not others o Discount some reactions and not others o May not be accurate in my perceptions 7 SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM o Overarching thesis: The self is a social construction, developed & maintained via inferences from experiences with others o Sense of self is experienced in relation to some audience Real or imagined Specific or generalized o Imagining reactions of others may be a conscious or non-conscious process 8 PR IV AT E B E LIE F S & IMAG INE D AUDIE NC E S o A study in two ostensibly unrelated parts o First part: visualization exercise OR Baldwin & Holmes, 1987 9 PRIVATE BELIEFS & IMAGINED AUDIENCES o “Since we have time, would you mind helping with another study?” o “We’re trying to figure out what makes certain written passages more enjoyable—could you read and rate the following passages? Baldwin & Holmes, 1987 10 RESULTS o Ps who had previously thought about friends reported the passage being more enjoyable, pleasurable, & exciting than Ps who had thought about older relatives o Private beliefs are tailored for public acceptance—although we may not be consciously aware of this 11 SELF-ESTEEM o Evaluative component of self-concept How good or bad do we feel about ourselves o Trait level Enduring level of self-regard Fairly stable o State level Dynamic, changing feelings about the self Vary moment to moment o Where do these feelings come from? 12 SOCIOMETER THEORY Self-esteem as a “gauge” to assess the degree of acceptance by others Leary, 1999 13 RESEARCH EVIDENCE o Trait self-esteem strongly correlates with perceptions of acceptance Directionality? o Experimental study of “individual and group decision making” Exchange description of yourself with other group members, indicate which group members you want to work with Then told they had to work alone either 1) because of random assignment, or 2) because other group members did not choose them (rejection condition) Rejected participants felt worse about themselves (inferior, worthless, etc.) Leary, 1999 14 VALUATION OF PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES o Intrapersonal view of self-esteem: private self-valuation E.g., ratio of one’s successes to one’s failures (James, 1890) o Interpersonal view: believing that one possesses certain attributes should only affect self-esteem to the extent that one considers these attributes to be judged positively or negatively by other people 15 VALUATION OF PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES o Ps 1) filled out global measure of self-esteem, 2) rated themselves in 5 domains (e.g., physical attractiveness, intelligence, morality), 3) indicated how important those domains were for social approval or disapproval o Interaction between self-evaluations & the perceived approval value of the domain How closely your performance in a given domain is tied to your self-esteem depends on how much you think people around you value that domain MacDonald et al., 2003 17 People who see People who see themselves as themselves as UNattractive attractive 18 VALUATION OF PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES Phase 1) What research ideas are you thinking about these days? Phase 2) 2-ms exposure Approving or disapproving Phase 3) How good is this idea? How important is it? Etc. Baldwin, 1990 19 RESULTS When primed with approving face: When primed with disapproving face: “But I am very poorly today & very stupid & hate everybody & everything. One lives only to make blunders.” -Charles Darwin in a letter to Charles Lyell, 1 Oct 1861 20 MERGING SELF & OTHER o What we’ve seen so far: The self is not an isolated entity entirely separate from others o Aron & Aron (1986): as we grow closer to a relationship partner, our self-concept expands to incorporate aspects of the other 21 SELF-EXPANSION MODEL o People are motivated to expand their potential efficacy Accrue resources, knowledge, perspectives, abilities, identities, etc. that make it possible to achieve future goals o One means to achieve this is close relationships o In a close relationship, incorporate partner’s identities, perspectives, skills, & resources in the self Aron & Aron, 1986 22 FALLING IN LOVE o Students provided assessments of their sense of self: self-esteem, self-efficacy, & spontaneous self-concept (“who are you today”?) every 2 weeks over 10 week period § And which significant life events they had experienced o Those who had fallen in love experienced greater increase in self-concept (compared to before falling in love & Ps who did not fall in love) Also increase in self-efficacy & self-esteem Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1995 23 COGNITIVE CONFUSION OF SELF & OTHER o Evidence that individuals cognitively ”confuse” self & close others o Phase 1: How well does this trait describe… a) You b) Partner c) Stranger (media personality) (Rated each trait for one type of target only) Mashek et al., 2003 24 COGNITIVE CONFUSION OF SELF & OTHER o Phase 2: NEAT For which target was this word presented? Self Partner Stranger Mashek et al., 2003 25 COGNITIVE CONFUSION OF SELF & OTHER o More source confusion between self and close other (e.g., romantic partner, best friend) Not explainable by familiarity or similarity— closeness appears to be the key ingredient Mashek et al., 2003 26 SELF-EXPANSION MODEL o We include: Various kinds of resources: § Knowledge: information & skills § Material assets § Social assets: family, friends Identity—their traits become seen as your traits Perspectives—seeing the world from a different point of view Aron & Aron, 1986 27 FALLING IN LOVE AS PROCESS OF RAPID SELF-EXPANSION o Recap: self-expansion represents movement towards desired goal (expanded sense of self and self-efficacy) o Movement toward desired goal is associated with positive affect o Velocity with which we approach a desired goal is an important predictor of affective experience (Laurenceau et al., 2005) o Self-expansion is very rapid in early stages of the relationship—gives rise to sense of exhilaration (Aron & Aron, 1986) Argue that this is the sensation of “falling in love” 28 UPWARD SPIRAL OF SELF-EXPANSION o Relationship between self-expansion & positive affect may be reciprocal o Self-expansion fuels positive affect o Positive affect, in turn, “broadens” our understanding of the world (Fredrickson, 2001) Fosters curiosity & interest, desire for novelty, increased tendency to approach & engage with the world o In longitudinal roommate relationship study, positive affect predicts more complex understanding of roommate and greater perception of self-other overlap (Waugh & Fredrickson, 2006) 29 SLOWING DOWN & INFIDELITY o Rate of self-expansion slows over time o In monogamous relationship, may begin to look outside relationship if need for self-expansion is not being met o Potential for future self-expansion negatively predicts susceptibility to infidelity (Lewandowski & Ackerman, 2006) 30 SELF-DISCLOSURE o How does this process unfold? o Self-disclosure = sharing personal information about the self (Aron et al., 1997) o Central to development of intimacy Intimus (Latin) = ”that which is innermost” o Tend to like those who share personal information with us o Also tend to like people better after disclosing personal information to them 31 SELF-DISCLOSURE TASK o Lab-based task for creating feelings of closeness o Reciprocal exchange o 3 sets x 12 questions gradually escalating in intimacy within & across sets Aron & Aron, 1997 32 RESULTS o Greater feelings of closeness with partner following disclosure task (relative to small-talk control) o Does not matter if Dyad was (mis)matched on important attitudes Ps expected to like each other Getting close was an explicit goal o No difference between all-women and all-men pairs 34 SOCIAL PENETRATION THEORY o Task set up to mirror what naturally happens in relationships over time o Social penetration theory: gradually move from exchanging superficial information to more intimate information over time Breadth & depth of topics both increase, but breadth increases more quickly o Balance desires for expansion & connection with desire to feel safe (approach & avoidance motives) 35 RISKS OF SELF- DISCLOSURE o Evaluation (could be judged negatively) E.g., excessive disclosure can be seen as immature or needy (Wortman et al., 1976) o Maintenance (could disrupt the relationship) o Defense (information could be used against you) o Communication problems (could be difficult to talk about) Vangelisti, 1994 36 RESPONSIVENESS o How do we want our partners to respond once we have made ourselves vulnerable? o Reciprocity o Perceived partner responsiveness—degree to which: You believe that yo