Module 79 Attraction
LEARNING TARGETS
79-1 Explain why we befriend or fall in love with some people but
not others.
79-2 Describe how romantic love typically changes as time passes.
As social animals—as people who need people—we often approach
people not with closed fists, but with open arms. Social psychologists
focus not only on the dark side of social relationships, but also on the
bright side, by studying prosocial behavior—behavior that intends to help
or benefit someone. Our positive behaviors toward others are evident from
explorations of this module’s focus, attraction, and those of the next
module, altruism and peacemaking.
Pause a moment and think about your relationships with two people—a
close friend, and someone who has stirred your romantic feelings. What
psychological chemistry binds us together in friendship or love? Social
psychology suggests some answers.
2133
The Psychology of Attraction
79-1 Why do we befriend or fall in love with some people but not
others?
We endlessly wonder how we can win others’ affection and what makes
our own affections flourish or fade. Does familiarity breed contempt, or
does it amplify affection? Do birds of a feather flock together, or do
opposites attract? Is it what’s inside that counts, or does physical
attractiveness matter too? To explore these questions, let’s consider three
ingredients of our liking for one another: proximity, attractiveness, and
similarity.
Familiarity breeds acceptance When this rare white penguin was born in
the Sydney, Australia zoo, his tuxedoed peers ostracized him. Zookeepers
thought they would need to dye him black to gain acceptance. But after three
weeks of contact, the other penguins came to accept him.
Proximity
Before friendships become close, they must begin. Proximity—geographic
nearness—is friendship’s most powerful predictor. Proximity can provide
opportunities for aggression. But much more often it breeds liking (and
sometimes even marriage) among those who live in the same
neighborhood, sit nearby in class, work in the same office, share the same
parking lot, or eat in the same cafeteria. Look around. Matching starts with
2134
meeting.
Proximity breeds liking partly because of the mere exposure effect.
Repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases our liking for them. By age 3
months, infants prefer photos of the race they most often see—usually
their own race (Kelly et al., 2007). For our ancestors, this mere exposure
effect likely had survival value. What was familiar was generally safe and
approachable. What was unfamiliar was more often dangerous and
threatening. Evolution may therefore have hard-wired into us the tendency
to bond with those who are familiar and to be wary of those whose looks
are unfamiliar (Sofer et al., 2015; Zajonc, 1998).
mere exposure effect
the phenomenon that repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of
them.
Mere exposure increases our liking not only for familiar faces, but also
for nonsense syllables, musical selections, geometric figures, Chinese
characters, and the letters of our own name (Moreland & Zajonc, 1982;
Nuttin, 1987; Zajonc, 2001). So, within certain limits, familiarity feeds
fondness (Bornstein, 1989, 1999). This would come as no surprise to the
young Taiwanese man who wrote more than 700 letters to his girlfriend,
urging her to marry him. She did marry—the mail carrier (Steinberg,
1993).
AP® EXAM TIP
Can you remember the other use of the term proximity earlier in the course? It’s
one of the Gestalt principles from Unit IV.
No face is more familiar than your own. And that helps explain an
interesting finding by Lisa DeBruine (2002, 2004): We like other people
2135
when their faces incorporate some morphed features of our own. When
McMaster University students played a game with a supposed other
player, they were more trusting and cooperative when the other person’s
image had some of their own facial features morphed into it. In me I trust.
Which is the real Sofía Vergara? The mere exposure effect applies even to
ourselves. Because the human face is not perfectly symmetrical, the face we see
in the mirror is not the same face our friends see. Most of us prefer the familiar
mirror image, while our friends like the reverse (Mita et al., 1977). The person
actress Sofía Vergara sees in the mirror each morning is shown at right, and
that’s the photo she would probably prefer.
Modern Matchmaking
Adults who have not found a romantic partner in their immediate
proximity may cast a wider net by joining an online dating service.
2136
Millions search for love on one of the 8000 online dating services
(Hatfield, 2016). In 2015, 27 percent of 18- to 24-year-old Americans tried
an online dating service or mobile dating app (Smith, 2016).
Online matchmaking definitely expands the pool of potential mates
(Finkel et al., 2012a,b). But how effective is the matchmaking? Compared
with those formed in person, Internet-formed friendships and romantic
relationships are, on average, slightly more likely to last and be satisfying
(Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Cacioppo et al., 2013). In one study, people
disclosed more, with less posturing, to those whom they met online
(McKenna et al., 2002). When conversing online with someone for 20
minutes, they felt more liking for that person than they did for someone
they had met and talked with face-to-face. This was true even when
(unknown to them) it was the same person! Internet friendships often feel
as real and important as in-person relationships.
Small wonder that one survey found a leading online matchmaker
enabling more than 500 U.S. marriages a day (Harris Interactive, 2010).
By one estimate, online dating now is responsible for about a fifth of U.S.
marriages (Crosier et al., 2012). And in a national survey of straight and
gay/lesbian couples, nearly a quarter of heterosexual couples and some
two-thirds of same-sex couples met online (Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012;
see Figure 79.1).
Figure 79.1 Percentage of heterosexual and same-sex couples
2137
who met online
Speed dating pushes the search for romance into high gear. In a
process pioneered by a matchmaking Jewish rabbi, people meet a
succession of prospective partners, either in person or via webcam (Bower,
2009). After a 3- to 8-minute conversation, people move on to the next
prospect. (In an in-person heterosexual meeting, one group—usually the
women—remains seated while the other group circulates.) Those who
want to meet again can arrange for future contact. For many participants, 4
minutes is enough time to form a feeling about a conversational partner
and to register whether the partner likes them (Eastwick & Finkel,
2008a,b).
For researchers, speed dating offers a unique opportunity for studying
influences on our first impressions of potential romantic partners. Some
recent findings:
People who fear rejection often elicit rejection. After a 3-minute speed
date, those who most feared rejection were least often selected for a
follow-up date (McClure & Lydon, 2014).
Given more options, people make more superficial choices. When
people meet lots of potential partners, they focus on more easily
assessed characteristics, such as height and weight (Lenton &
Francesconi, 2010).
Men wish for future contact with more of their speed dates; women tend
to be choosier. But this difference disappears if the conventional roles
are reversed, so that men stay seated while women circulate (Finkel &
Eastwick, 2009).
Physical Attractiveness
Once proximity affords us contact, what most affects our first
impressions? The person’s sincerity? Intelligence? Personality? Hundreds
of experiments reveal that it is something more superficial: physical
appearance. This finding is unnerving for those of us taught that “beauty is
only skin deep” and “appearances can be deceiving.”
2138
FYI
Percentage of Men and Women Who “Constantly Think About Their Looks”
Men Women
Canada 18% 20%
United States 17 27
Mexico 40 45
Venezuela 47 65
From Roper Starch survey, reported by McCool (1999).
In one early study, researchers randomly matched new University of
Minnesota students for a Welcome Week dance (Walster et al., 1966).
Before the dance, the researchers gave each student a battery of personality
and aptitude tests, and they rated each student’s physical attractiveness.
During the blind date, the couples danced and talked for more than two
hours and then took a brief intermission to rate their dates. What predicted
whether they liked each other? Only one thing: appearance. Both the men
and the women liked good-looking dates best. Women are more likely than
men to say that another’s looks don’t affect them (Lippa, 2007). But
studies show that a man’s looks do affect women’s behavior (Eastwick et
al., 2014a,b). In speed-dating experiments, attractiveness influences first
impressions for both sexes (Belot & Francesconi, 2006; Finkel &
Eastwick, 2008).
Physical attractiveness also predicts how often people date and how
popular they feel. And it affects initial impressions of people’s
personalities. We don’t assume that attractive people are more
compassionate, but we do perceive them as healthier, happier, more
sensitive, more successful, and more socially skilled (Eagly et al., 1991;
Feingold, 1992; Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986).
FYI
Estimated length of human nose removed by U.S. plastic surgeons each year: 5469
feet (Harper’s, 2009).
2139
For those of us who find the importance of looks unfair and
unenlightened, three other findings may be reassuring.
People’s attractiveness is surprisingly unrelated to their self-esteem and
happiness (Diener et al., 1995; Major et al., 1984). Unless we have just
compared ourselves with superattractive people, few of us (thanks,
perhaps, to the mere exposure effect) view ourselves as unattractive
(Thornton & Moore, 1993).
Strikingly attractive people are sometimes suspicious that praise for
their work may simply be a reaction to their looks. Less attractive
people have been more likely to accept praise as sincere (Berscheid,
1981).
For couples who were friends before lovers—who became romantically
involved long after first meeting—looks matter less (Hunt et al., 2015).
With slow-cooked love, shared values and interests matter more.
FYI
Women have 91 percent of cosmetic procedures (ASPS, 2010). Women also recall
others’ appearance better than do men (Mast & Hall, 2006).
Beauty is also in the eye of the culture. Hoping to look attractive,
people across the globe have pierced and tattooed their bodies, lengthened
their necks, bound their feet, and artificially lightened or darkened their
skin and hair. They have gorged themselves to achieve a full figure or
liposuctioned fat to achieve a slim one, applied chemicals to rid
themselves of unwanted hair or to regrow wanted hair, strapped on leather
garments to make their breasts seem smaller or relied on push-up bras and
surgery to make them look bigger. Cultural ideals change over time. For
women in North America, the ultra-thin ideal of the Roaring Twenties
gave way to the soft, voluptuous Marilyn Monroe ideal of the 1950s, only
to be replaced by today’s lean yet busty ideal.
2140
In the eye of the beholder Conceptions of attractiveness vary by culture and
over time. Yet some adult physical features, such as a healthy appearance and a
relatively symmetrical face, seem attractive everywhere.
“Play coy if you like, but no one can resist a perfectly symmetrical
face.”
Some aspects of heterosexual attractiveness, however, do cross place
and time (Cunningham et al., 2005; Langlois et al., 2000). By providing
reproductive clues, bodies influence sexual attraction. As evolutionary
psychologists explain (Module 15), men in many cultures, from Australia
to Zambia, judge women as more attractive if they have a youthful, fertile
appearance, suggested by a low waist-to-hip ratio (Karremans et al., 2010;
Perilloux et al., 2010; Platek & Singh, 2010). Women feel attracted to
healthy-looking men, but especially—and more so when ovulating—to
those who seem mature, dominant, masculine, and affluent (Gallup &
Frederick, 2010; Gangestad et al., 2010).
Faces matter, too. When people rate opposite-sex faces and bodies
separately, the face tends to be the better predictor of overall physical
attractiveness (Currie & Little, 2009; Peters et al., 2007). So what makes a
face attractive? Part of the answer is features that are neither unusually
2141
large nor small. Symmetrical faces and bodies are also perceived as more
sexually attractive (Rhodes et al., 1999; Singh, 1995; Thornhill &
Gangestad, 1994). This helps explain why an averaged (and therefore
symmetrical) face is attractive (Figure 79.2). In one clever demonstration,
researchers digitized the faces of up to 32 college students and used a
computer to average them (Langlois & Roggman, 1990). The result?
Viewers judged the averaged, composite faces as more attractive than 96
percent of the individual faces. (If only we could merge either half of our
face with its mirror image: Our symmetrical new face would be a notch
more attractive.)
Figure 79.2 Average is attractive
Which of these faces offered by University of St. Andrews
psychologist David Perrett (2002, 2010) is most attractive? Most
people say it’s the face on the right—of a nonexistent person that is
the average composite of these 3 plus 57 other actual faces.
Our feelings also influence our attractiveness judgments. Imagine two
people: One is honest, humorous, and polite. The other is rude, unfair, and
abusive. Which one is more attractive? Most people perceive the person
with the appealing traits as more physically attractive (Lewandowski et al.,
2007). Or imagine being paired with a stranger of the sex you find
attractive—someone who listens intently to your self-disclosures. Might
you feel a twinge of sexual attraction toward that empathic person?
Student volunteers did, in several experiments (Birnbaum & Reis, 2012).
Our feelings influence our perceptions. Those we like we find attractive.
In a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, Prince Charming asks
2142
Cinderella, “Do I love you because you’re beautiful, or are you beautiful
because I love you?” Chances are it’s both. As we see our loved ones
again and again, their physical imperfections grow less noticeable and
their attractiveness grows more apparent (Beaman & Klentz, 1983; Gross
& Crofton, 1977). Shakespeare said it in A Midsummer Night’s Dream:
“Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind.” Come to love someone
and watch beauty grow. Love sees loveliness.
Similarity
So proximity has brought you into contact with someone, and your
appearance has made an acceptable first impression. What influences
whether you will become friends? As you get to know each other, will the
chemistry be better if you are opposites or if you are alike?
Extreme makeover In affluent, beauty-conscious cultures, increasing
numbers of people, such as reality TV star Kylie Jenner, have turned to cosmetic
procedures to change their looks.
It makes a good story—extremely different types liking or loving each
other: Rat, Mole, and Badger in The Wind in the Willows, Frog and Toad
in Arnold Lobel’s books, Edward and Bella in the Twilight series. The
stories delight us by expressing what we seldom experience. In real life,
opposites retract (Rosenbaum, 1986; Montoya & Horton, 2013).
Compared with randomly paired people, friends and couples are far more
likely to share common attitudes, beliefs, and interests (and, for that
matter, age, religion, race, education, intelligence, smoking behavior, and
economic status). Moreover, the more alike people are, the more their
liking endures (Byrne, 1971; Hartl et al., 2015). Journalist Walter
2143
Lippmann was right to suppose that love lasts “when the lovers love many
things together, and not merely each other.” Similarity breeds content.
“ I like the Pope unless the Pope doesn’t like me. Then I don’t like the Pope.”
Donald Trump, February 18, 2016
Similarity attracts; perceived dissimilarity does not.
Proximity, attractiveness, and similarity are not the only determinants
of attraction. We also like those who like us. This is especially true when
our self-image is low. When we believe someone likes us, we feel good
and respond to them warmly, which leads them to like us even more
(Curtis & Miller, 1986). To be liked is powerfully rewarding.
Indeed, all the findings we have considered so far can be explained by
a simple reward theory of attraction: We will like those whose behavior is
rewarding to us, including those who are both able and willing to help us
achieve our goals (Montoya & Horton, 2014). When people live or work in
close proximity to us, it requires less time and effort to develop the
friendship and enjoy its benefits. When people are attractive, they are
aesthetically pleasing, and associating with them can be socially
rewarding. When people share our views, they reward us by validating our
beliefs.
2144
Check Your Understanding
Ask Yourself
Think of your closest friends. What factors led to your getting to know them,
and to liking them more and more?
Test Yourself
People tend to marry someone who lives or works nearby. This is an
example of the ______________ ______________ ______________ in
action.
How does being physically attractive influence others’ perceptions?
Answers to the Test Yourself questions can be found in Appendix E at the end of the book.
2145
Romantic Love
79-2 How does romantic love typically change as time passes?
Sometimes people move quickly from initial impressions, to friendship, to
the more intense, complex, and mysterious state of romantic love. If love
endures, temporary passionate love will mellow into a lingering
companionate love (Hatfield, 1988).
Passionate Love
Passionate love mixes something new with something positive (Aron et
al., 2000; Coulter & Malouff, 2013). We intensely desire to be with our
partner (Hatfield et al., 2015). Seeing our partner stimulates blood flow to
a brain region linked to craving and obsession (Acevedo et al., 2012).
passionate love
an aroused state of intense positive absorption in another, usually present at the
beginning of a romantic relationship.
The two-factor theory of emotion (Module 41) explains the intense
positive absorption of romantic love (Hatfield, 1988). That theory assumes
that
emotions have two ingredients—physical arousal plus cognitive
appraisal.
arousal from any source can enhance one emotion or another, depending
on how we interpret and label the arousal.
In tests of the two-factor theory, college men have been aroused by
fright, by running in place, by viewing erotic materials, or by listening to
humorous or repulsive monologues. They were then introduced to an
attractive woman and asked to rate her (or their girlfriend). Unlike
unaroused men, the stirred-up men attributed some of their arousal to the
2146
woman or girlfriend, and felt more attracted to her (Carducci et al., 1978;
Dermer & Pyszczynski, 1978; White & Kight, 1984). In one classic
experiment, researchers studied people crossing two bridges above British
Columbia’s rocky Capilano River (Dutton & Aron, 1974, 1989). One, a
swaying footbridge, was 230 feet above the rocks; the other was low and
solid. As men came off each bridge, an attractive young woman (working
for the researchers) intercepted them and asked them to fill out a short
questionnaire. She then offered her phone number in case they wanted to
hear more about her project. Far more of the men who had just crossed the
high bridge—which left their hearts pounding—accepted the number and
later called the woman.
To be revved up and to associate some of that arousal with a desirable
person is to feel the pull of passion. Adrenaline makes the heart grow
fonder. Sexual desire + a growing attachment = passionate love
(Berscheid, 2010).
Companionate Love
Although the desire and attachment of romantic love often endure, the
intense absorption in the other, the thrill of the romance, the giddy
“floating on a cloud” feelings typically fade. Does this mean the French
are correct in saying that “love makes the time pass and time makes love
pass”? Or can friendship and commitment keep a relationship going after
the passion cools?
As love matures, it typically becomes a steadier companionate love—
a deep, affectionate attachment (Hatfield, 1988). Like a passing storm, the
flood of passion-facilitating hormones (testosterone, dopamine, adrenaline)
subsides. But another hormone, oxytocin, remains, supporting feelings of
trust, calmness, and bonding with the mate. This shift from passion to
attachment may have adaptive value (Reis & Aron, 2008). Passionate love
often produces children, whose survival is aided by the parents’ waning
obsession with each other.
companionate love
2147
the deep affectionate attachment we feel for those with whom our lives are
intertwined.
In the most satisfying marriages, attraction and sexual desire endure,
minus the obsession of early stage romance (Acevedo & Aron, 2009).
Indeed, failure to appreciate passionate love’s limited half-life can doom a
relationship (Berscheid et al., 1984). Recognizing the short duration of
obsessive passionate love, some societies deem such feelings an irrational
reason for marrying. Better, they say, to search for (or have someone
choose for you) a partner with a compatible background and interests.
Non-Western cultures, where people rate love as less important for
marriage, do have lower divorce rates (Levine et al., 1995).
One key to a gratifying and enduring relationship is equity. When
equity exists—when both partners receive in proportion to what they give
—their chances for sustained and satisfying companionate love have been
good (Gray-Little & Burks, 1983; Van Yperen & Buunk, 1990). In one
national survey, “sharing household chores” ranked third, after
“faithfulness” and a “happy sexual relationship,” on a list of nine things
people associated with successful marriages. As the Pew Research Center
(2007) summarized, “I like hugs. I like kisses. But what I really love is
help with the dishes.”
equity
a condition in which people receive from a relationship in proportion to what
they give to it.
2148
Equity’s importance extends beyond marriage. Mutually sharing one’s
self and possessions, making decisions together, giving and getting
emotional support, promoting and caring about each other’s welfare—all
of these acts are at the core of every type of loving relationship (Sternberg
& Grajek, 1984). It’s true for lovers, for parent and child, and for close
friends.
Sharing includes self-disclosure, revealing intimate details about
ourselves—our likes and dislikes, our dreams and worries, our proud and
shameful moments. “When I am with my friend,” noted the Roman
statesman Seneca, “me thinks I am alone, and as much at liberty to speak
anything as to think it.” Self-disclosure breeds liking, and liking breeds
self-disclosure (Collins & Miller, 1994). As one person reveals a little, the
other reciprocates, the first then reveals more, and on and on, as friends or
lovers move to deeper levels of intimacy (Baumeister & Bratslavsky,
1999).
self-disclosure
the act of revealing intimate aspects of ourselves to others.
2149
Love is an ancient thing This 5000- to 6000-year-old “Romeo and Juliet”
young couple was unearthed locked in embrace, near Rome.
One experiment marched some student pairs through 45 minutes of
increasingly self-disclosing conversation—from “What is the greatest
accomplishment of your life?” to “When did you last cry in front of
another person? By yourself?” Other pairs spent the time with small-talk
questions, such as “What was your high school like?” (Aron et al., 1997).
By the experiment’s end, those experiencing the escalating intimacy felt
much closer to their conversation partner than did the small-talkers.
Likewise, after dating couples spent 45 minutes answering such questions,
they felt increased love (Welker et al., 2014).
In addition to equity and self-disclosure, a third key to enduring love is
positive support. Relationship conflicts are inevitable, but hurtful
communications are not. Do we more often express sarcasm or support,
scorn or sympathy, sneers or smiles? For unhappy couples, disagreements,
criticisms, and put downs are routine. For happy couples in enduring
relationships, positive interactions (compliments, touches, laughing)
outnumber negative interactions (sarcasm, disapproval, insults) by at least
5 to 1 (Gottman, 2007; see also Sullivan et al., 2010).
In the mathematics of love, self-disclosing intimacy + mutually
supportive equity = enduring companionate love.
2150
Check Your Understanding
Ask Yourself
When you think of some of the older couples you know, which ones seem to
experience companionate love? How do you think they’ve achieved it?
Test Yourself
How does the two-factor theory of emotion help explain passionate love?
Two vital components for maintaining companionate love are
______________ and ______________-______________.
Answers to the Test Yourself questions can be found in Appendix E at the end of the book.
2151
Module 79 REVIEW
79-1 Why do we befriend or fall in love with some people but not
others?
Proximity (geographical nearness) increases liking, in part because of
the mere exposure effect—exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of
those stimuli.
Physical attractiveness increases social opportunities and improves the
way we are perceived.
Similarity of attitudes and interests greatly increases liking, especially as
relationships develop. We also like those who like us.
79-2 How does romantic love typically change as time passes?
Intimate love relationships start with passionate love—an intensely
aroused state.
Over time, the strong affection of companionate love may develop,
especially if enhanced by an equitable relationship, by intimate self-
disclosure, and positive support.
Multiple-Choice Questions
1. Which of the following terms describes our geographic nearness to
another person?
a. Mere exposure effect
b. Proximity
c. Similarity
d. Intimacy
e. Symmetry
2. Which of the following is an example of the mere exposure effect?
a. Adrianna has started arriving tardy to her second period class to
2152
avoid a group of kids in the hall who constantly tease her.
b. Abe has biked the same route to school so many times that he no
longer has to think about where to turn.
c. Daiyu has seen the same toothpaste ad on television a hundred times.
Each time she sees it she hates it more.
d. Abdul has always loved dogs, so he adopted one from the local
shelter.
e. Guiren didn’t like sushi the first couple of times he tried it, but his
friend encouraged him to keep eating it and now it’s one of his
favorite foods.
3. Lisa and Nate are on their first date at a local restaurant. Which of the
following is the best predictor of whether they will have a second date?
a. How physically attractive they find each other
b. If they both have successful careers
c. If they are of the same religion
d. If they met using an online dating service
e. If they have a shared desire to have children one day
4. Over time,
a. passionate and companionate love both decrease.
b. passionate love increases and companionate love decreases.
c. passionate and companionate love both increase.
d. passionate love decreases and companionate love increases.
e. there is no consistent relationship between the levels of passionate
love and companionate love.
Practice FRQs
1. Describe one key factor present in passionate love and two key
factors present in companionate love.
Answer
1 point: Physical arousal is the key factor that accompanies passionate
2153
love. Page 812
1 point: Equity—when people receive from a relationship in proportion
to what they put into it—is one key component of companionate love.
Page 813
1 point: Self-disclosure—revealing intimate aspects of yourself to
others—is another key component of companionate love. Page 814
2. Matt has just finished a five-mile run with his new friend Janelle. How
might the following influence him to ask her for a date?
Similarity
Two-factor theory of emotion
Proximity
(3 points)
2154