For this discussion, first think over some “relationship” you recently encountered (either real or fictional). Review in your reflection who was involved, what happened, and what impact this relationship had on you.NOW: step away from this episode and assess / discuss this from a social psychological perspective. This means you will want to explore the social psychological perspectives behind our need to belong. What are those aspects that lead us to friendship and attraction? You may want to include ideas such as proximity, mere exposure, physical attractiveness, similarity, and/or the reward theory of attraction. Your discussion takes into account many factors affecting one’s “need to belong.” If you choose a person who you love and care for, your “relationship” will be quite different than say, your ‘hard to relate to boss. Your discussion can include a number of the psycho / social attributes, including some of the key theoretical premises of the “Theory of Attraction.”To prepare for this discussion, please read Chapters 12 of your textbook . 250 words. Identify a relationship (from a book, play, television show, movie, etc.). For example, you might choose a love story or a story about a deep friendship. Briefly relate pertinent information about the characters and the nature of their relationship.Analyze the connection from a social psychological perspective. Point out specific examples to illustrate the following:Which of the various factors in attraction are present?Is the relationship based on friendship or love? If love, what type of love is portrayed?Summarize any factors in the relationship that resulted in conflict. If the relationship dissolved, explain factors that may have led to the demise. Predict elements that are present and may eventually create problems in the relationship.use vocabulary from the book
12ch_feenstra_psychology.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Attraction and Relationships
12
Learning Objectives
By the end of the chapter you should be
able to:
• Describe how proximity, attractiveness, matching,
similarity, equitability, and being “hard to get”
influence attraction
• Explain the two factors of the need to belong
and how human tendencies toward social bonds,
including what happens when we are deprived,
show the need to belong
• Explain the difference between companionate
love, passionate love, and compassionate love
• Explain the difference between a communal
relationship and an exchange relationship
Fuse/Thinkstock
• Explain Sternberg’s triangular theory of love
• Describe how interdependence theory works
• Explain the components of the investment model
• Describe John Gottman’s findings about relationship maintenance
Chapter Outline
12.1 Factors in Attraction




We Like Those Who Are Close to Us
We Like Those Who Are Attractive
We Like Those Who Are Similar to Us
We Like Those We Have Equitable
Relationships With
• We Like Those Who Are Hard to Get
12.4 Relationship Maintenance
12.5 When Relationships End
  
Chapter Summary
12.2 Need to Belong
• Social Bonds
• Deprivation
12.3 Love
• Types of Love
• Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 257
7/16/13 9:47 AM
Section 12.1 Factors in Attraction
CHAPTER 12
Around 2 million Americans marry each year, with other couples entering into
long-term commitments with a partner or beginning cohabitation (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2013; Copen, Daniels, Vespa, & Mosher, 2012).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the average household size was 2.59
in 2010. When it comes to other close relationships, most adults in the United
States report that they have around nine close friends (Brewer & Webster, 1999;
Carroll, 2004). The majority of people say they have at least one close friend, with
fewer than 2% of U.S. residents reporting no close friends. For those who use
the social networking site Facebook, the average friend count is 303, though such
counts may be artificially inflated by a few users who have a very large number
of friends. Younger Facebook users tend to have more friends, with an average
of 506 and 510 for those aged 12–17 and 18–24, respectively (Marketing Charts
Staff, 2013). Seeking out, forming, and maintaining relationships seem to be major
activities among human beings. Who do we tend to form friendships with? Who
will become our romantic partners? In this chapter, we explore attraction, the need
for social connections, love, and maintaining relationships.
12.1 Factors in Attraction
M
any of us meet a variety of people each day. Some we become friends with, others remain strangers. We may begin a romantic relationship with one person
but, refuse to even date another. What attracts us to some people and not others?
There are a variety of factors related to attraction.
We Like Those Who Are Close to Us
Surprisingly, simple proximity, or propinquity, has a lot to do with who we meet and
become friends with. First-year students were more likely to develop a friendship with
someone they sat next to during an introductory session than those they were not sitting
near (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2008). In a student apartment building, individuals were
more likely to make friends with those living in apartments next to theirs, as opposed to
those down the hall or up the stairs. The one exception to this was for those living near
the mailboxes. The people in the apartments near the mailboxes saw individuals from all
areas of the building frequently and thus became friends with residents on different floors
or farther down the hall (Festinger, Schacter, & Back, 1950; also Cadiz Menne & Sinnett,
1971). The most important factor in our liking of those who are close to us is repeated
exposure. Exposure does not need to be in a face-to-face context. When we frequently
interact with someone online, such as in a chat room or online classroom, we show greater
liking for that person (Levine, 2000).
This tendency to have greater liking for things we see often is the mere-exposure effect.
The familiarity created by multiple exposures creates greater fondness for someone over
time. Repeated exposure to people and objects is related to greater liking for those people
or objects (Monahan, Murphy, & Zajonc, 2000; Zajonc, 1968). A piece of modern art that
you thought was merely interesting the first time you saw it may, with repeated exposure,
become well loved. In one study of this phenomenon, women who attended more class
sessions were better liked by their classmates, even when they did not interact with those
classmates (Moreland & Beach, 1992).
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 258
7/16/13 9:47 AM
CHAPTER 12
Section 12.1 Factors in Attraction
We Like Those Who Are Attractive
Imagine you are beginning school at a large university and have signed up to be part of a
welcome week dance. For the dance, you are paired with another student of the opposite
sex based on your answers to some questionnaires. You meet your date and the two of
you try to get to know each other over the course of the evening. As part of this dance,
you are asked to evaluate your partner and consider whether you would like to date him
or her again. What might influence your answer? Would how intelligent your date is
matter? His or her sincerity? Other personality factors? When researchers did this study,
they found none of these predicted evaluations of the date. The only predictor of the
evaluation students gave of their partner was how physically attractive the date was. The
partners of more-attractive dates liked them more and showed a greater desire to go out
with them again (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966). All other things being
equal, we prefer highly attractive individuals: as dates, as friends, and to interact with in
a social situation (Black, 1974; Byrne, London, & Reeves, 1967). In a study of speed daters,
the strongest predictor of attraction for both men and women was attractiveness of the
partner (Luo & Zhang, 2009). In another study involving third and eighth graders, physical attractiveness was an important factor in a desire for friendship with a peer (Zakin,
1983). Physical attractiveness can also play a role in employment. People are more likely
to recommend terminating employment of an unattractive employee than a moderately
or very attractive employee (Commisso & Finkelstein, 2012).
Social Psychology in Depth: What Is Beautiful?
How do we decide what is beautiful? Why is beauty so important to
us? Throughout history and across
cultures, there have been different ideals of beauty. In the 1600s,
one ideal for beauty in women was
conveyed in the art of Peter Paul
Rubens. Rubens painted plump,
voluptuous women—a portrayal
that came to be known for him in
the term rubenesque. In contrast,
the idea for female beauty in the
1960s was closer to that of Twiggy, ©Bridgeman Art Library, London/Superstock; Science and Society/SuperStock
an English model who took on the Beauty ideals have varied throughout history. In the 1600s,
nickname because of her thin, voluptuousness was most desired, as characterized by the
Peter Paul Rubens painting on the left. However, by the
boyish figure.
1960s, beauty was connoted by a thin, waif-like figure, like
In research on beauty, the pri- that of model Twiggy.
mary focus has been on the face.
Researchers have found that symmetrical face and faces with ratios that match the average
for the population are more attractive. If you look at your face in a mirror you might notice
some asymmetries. For example, your right nostril might be slightly larger than your left
or your left ear higher on your head than your right ear. Individuals who have greater symmetry are judged more attractive (Bridgstock & Townsend, 1999; Rhodes, Proffitt, Grady, &
Sumich, 1998; Rhodes et al., 2001).
(continued)
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 259
7/16/13 9:47 AM
CHAPTER 12
Section 12.1 Factors in Attraction
Social Psychology in Depth: What Is Beautiful? (continued)
When composite faces are created by a computer from a number of individual faces, composite faces are judged to be more attractive than the individual faces that went into the
composite. When faces have features placed in locations that are the average for those
found in the population, and the size of features are the average size for the population,
such faces are judged to be beautiful (Langlois & Roggman, 1990). The ratios that fit these
averages are a vertical distance between eyes and mouth of about 36% of the length of the
face. The most beautiful horizontal distance between the eyes is 46% of the width of the
face (Pallett, Link, & Lee, 2010). The final set of features that make faces attractive is masculine features in men and feminine features in women. A man’s face with a square chin, thick
brows, and thin lips is rated more attractive. A woman’s face with a smaller chin, smaller
lower face area, and fuller lips is judged more attractive (Rhodes, 2006).
According to evolutionary psychologists, beauty may signal fitness. People without genetic
disorders and those with good immune system responses to disease have more average
faces (Rhodes, 2006). More fertile women have been shown in some samples to have
more symmetrical faces (Pfluger, Oberzaucher, Katina, Holzleitner, & Gammer, 2012; for an
opposing viewpoint see Silva, Lummaa, Muller, Raymond, & Alvergne, 2012). People’s careful attention to attractiveness may, therefore, be based on a desire to choose a mate who
will help produce valuable offspring.
Test Yourself

According to the mere-exposure effect, which song would you like more: song A that
you heard for the first time today or song B that you have heard 15 times in the last
2 weeks?
Because it has been heard more often, song B should be preferred over song A. According
to the mere-exposure effect, we like things more with more exposure.

All things being equal, who would most people choose to interact with: Mary, a beautiful
woman, Joan, a woman of average attractiveness, or Lisa, an unattractive woman?
When possible people prefer to interact with and form relationships with attractive
people, so Mary should be the most preferred partner.
We Like Those Who Are Similar to Us
While individuals might desire a relationship with an attractive other, an attractive person might not desire a relationship with the not-so-attractive individual. One of the messages that an individual who refuses a date or relationship might be sending concerns the
desirability of the other person. In other words, the woman may be communicating to the
man she rejects that he is not as attractive as he thinks he is, and is “out of her league.”
She rejects him because she can do better. Perhaps because of this message, unrequited
love tends to reduce self-esteem in the would-be lover (Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell,
1993). Most people expect and tend to end up in a romantic relationship with someone
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 260
7/16/13 9:47 AM
Section 12.1 Factors in Attraction
CHAPTER 12
who is similarly physically attractive (Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971; Folkes,
1982; Montoya, 2008; Murstein, 1972). This tendency to have relationships with those who
match us is called the matching hypothesis. The next time you have a chance to observe
couples, perhaps at a party, look around and notice whether the couples are about the
same in attractiveness. When couples do not match, there is often a quality in the lessattractive member that in some way makes up for his or her lack of physical beauty, such
as social status, money, education, physical grooming, sense of humor, or personality
(Carmalt, Cawley, Joyner, & Sobal, 2008; Feingold, 1981).
According to the matching hypothesis, we tend to end up with those who are similar to us
in attractiveness. Beyond that, do the values or interests of a potential relationship partner, either friend or romantic partner, make a difference in our liking of that person? In
general, we like and want to interact with those who are similar to us in values, interests,
personality, gender, and race (Byrne et al., 1967; Johnson, 1989; Tenney, Turkheimer, &
Oltmanns, 2009). Among those who are already our friends, researchers find, the intensity
of friendship is greater among those who perceive their friend to be similar (Selfhout,
Denissen, Branje, & Meeus, 2009). If a new acquaintance is similar to you, you may feel more
comfortable and be able to better predict what the other person would want to talk about
or do (Berg & Clark, 1986; Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Similarities can allow interactions to
progress smoothly and reduce conflict, particularly at the beginning of a relationship.
Similarity may be a more long-term relationship factor than a short-term factor. For
example, speed daters showed no greater attraction to those who were similar; attractiveness was more important (Luo & Zhang, 2009). Greater similarity is attractive for
long-term relationships like friendship, or relationships with long-term romantic partners. Even when we desire similarity in our friendships, we may not actually be friends
with similar people if our options are limited. Friends in the United States tend to show
greater similarity than friends in Japan. Researchers found that this was because of a
difference in the ability of individuals within those cultures to form new relationships.
The Japanese population, as a whole, is less mobile that the U.S. population, with lesser
likelihood of moving away from family or friends for employment or other reasons. With
fewer opportunities for new friendships to form, we tend to stick with friends who are
not necessarily similar to ourselves but are close in geographic proximity (Schug, Yuki,
Horikawa, & Takemura, 2009).
We Like Those We Have Equitable Relationships With
Have you ever had a relationship where you felt you were giving more than you were
getting from the other person? If so, you were part of an inequitable relationship. Equity
involves receiving benefits proportional to what one provides (Hatfield, 1983). According to equity theory, it is not the overall amount of benefit one receives from a relationship that is important, but whether what one gives and what one gets are equal. Partners
who gives more than they receive in a relationship are underbenefited in the relationship. Partners who receive more than they give in a relationship are overbenefited. As
you might imagine, underbenefiting is more distressing to individuals. If you have ever
invested in a relationship and have not received rewards proportional to your input,
you were likely unhappy with that relationship. This theory also predicts that overbenefiting is problematic. When one relationship partner overbenefits, that person gains
rewards he or she knows are undeserved, causing distress (Sprecher, 1986; 1992; Stafford
& Canary, 2006).
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 261
7/16/13 9:47 AM
Section 12.1 Factors in Attraction
CHAPTER 12
Although there is some support for this theory, the overall amount of benefits in a relationship may be more important than equity (Cate, Lloyd, Henton, & Larson, 1982; Cate,
Lloyd, & Long, 1988). If one is in an equitable relationship, but is neither giving nor receiving much from that relationship, it is unlikely to be a relationship for very long. Some people may expect fairness and pay attention to equity; others may be satisfied with an unbalanced relationship (Donaghue & Fallon, 2003). In long-term, intimate partnerships, there
may also be certain domains where equity is more important. Housework and childcare
often fall inequitably to married women, which can potentially create problems within the
relationship (Davis, Greenstein, & Marks, 2007). Equitability in these areas may, therefore,
be more important to relationship success for some married couples than equity in other
domains (Gottman & Carrere, 1994).
We Like Those Who Are Hard to Get
The idea of playing hard to get is a familiar notion within the dating sphere. Individuals who play hard to get appear to be selective in their social choices, and are not easily
swayed by the advances of another. Magazines and websites give men and women advice
on how to play hard to get in order to win over the object of their affection (Dahlstrom,
2011). Advertisers use scarcity to suggest their product is particularly desirable, so would
the same be true about potential dates? Like that rare painting or limited-edition collectible, are people who play hard to get liked better?
Much of the advice about playing hard to get, and therefore the research on the idea,
focuses on women playing hard to get in their potential romantic relationships. In an
impressive series of studies, Elaine Walster and colleagues (Walster, Walster, Piliavin, &
Schmidt, 1973) investigated whether those who were more selective in their romantic
interactions were liked more than those who were less selective. College students who
read a story about a woman who was not all that interested in a potential romantic partner
(Studies 1 and 2), and male students who called up a woman who was hesitant about
accepting his invitation to go out (Studies 3 and 4), did not report more attraction to that
person. Researchers used a unique confederate, a prostitute, to show that her clients
seemed to like her less and were less likely to call her in the future when she played
hard to get (Study 5). Finally, Walster and colleagues discovered that targeted selectivity is what is most attractive about being hard to get (Study 6). Women who appeared to
like and want to date the man in question, but not other men, were more attractive than
women who were uniformly hard to get or who were willing to date anyone. The men
were most likely to report wanting to date the women who liked them but no one else,
liked her most, and expected fewer problems in dating.
The strategy of being selectively hard to get is true for both men and women (Wright
& Contrada, 1986). Interacting with someone who likes you but not other people may
provide a boost in self-esteem (Matthews, Rosenfield, & Stephan, 1979); being singled
out by another person makes us feel good. In addition, further work has revealed that
uncertainty can be attractive. Women were most attracted to men when they were uncertain how the man had rated them (Whitchurch, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2011). Perhaps a little
mystery is motivating in romantic relationships. Hard-to-get tactics also work better for
women than for men, and for long-term relationships rather than casual flings. Potential
romantic partners report being willing to invest more time and money in a partner who
seems hard to get, perhaps because of the concept of scarcity (Jonason & Li, 2013).
fee85798_12_c12_257-282.indd 262
7/16/13 9:47 AM
CHAPTER 12
Section 12.2 Need to Belong
Test Yourself

Are people who are very attractive likely to end up in a relationship with someone who
is not-at-all attractive?
Probably not. According to the matching hypothesis people tend to be in relationships
with those who match them in attractiveness. However, if the not-at-all attractive
individual has other positive qualities, such as wealth, that person may appeal to the
attractive individual.

Which adage is most accurate “birds of a feather flock together” or “opposites attract”?
“Birds of a feather flock together” is more accurate. We are more attracted to individuals who are similar to us.

Within a relationship, is it best to get more than you give, give more than you get, or
give and get in equal measure?
According to equity theory it is best to have a balance of giving and getting. However, overall benefits may be more important because they signify investment in a
relationship.

Is being universally ha …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment