{"id":4314,"date":"2018-09-18T22:06:54","date_gmt":"2018-09-19T02:06:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/?p=4314"},"modified":"2019-05-25T23:45:00","modified_gmt":"2019-05-26T03:45:00","slug":"interpersonal-attraction-close-relationships-and-groups","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/cultural-psychology\/interpersonal-attraction-close-relationships-and-groups\/","title":{"rendered":"Interpersonal Attraction, Close Relationships, and Groups"},"content":{"rendered":"

Interpersonal Attraction<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n
Important to contrast the similarities and differences in the ways people go about trying to make themselves more attractive o Ex: Women in Paduang in Thailand elongate their necks, Mursi women in Ethiopia stretch their lower lips, Mentawi women from Indonesia file their teeth into sharp points so they have a smile like a shark \uf0b7 Darwin noticed similarities across cultures \uf0b7 Variables that matters for attractiveness:\n
\n
Complexion\n
\n
around the world, people agree that clear skin individuals are more attraction<\/li>\n
signals good health, healthy offspring, healthy mate, free of parasites and diseases<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
Bilateral Symmetry\n
\n
Indicator of developmental stability<\/li>\n
The more asymmetrical someone is, the more likely they have genetic mutations or to have developed in less than ideal circumstances and less likely they are in prime health<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
General Average Faces\n
\n
this means that their facial features are close to the average in size and in configuration and are perceived most attractive<\/li>\n
We see people with average size features are less likely to have genetic abnormalities than people with deviant features<\/li>\n
People prefer average features because we can process quickly something that resembles a prototype<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
quick processing is associated with good feelings and feelings of attraction\n
\n
The average Eurasian face and the averae biracial face were the most attractive faces of all, especially if the member of opposite sex judge<\/li>\n
But this is not true about average weight, height, etc. \u2013 the kind of bodies that are considered attractive are far away from the average<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
Human universal that women are viewed most attractive when heavier – in 1951<\/li>\n
In West Africa being called fat is a compliment<\/li>\n
Lot of variation in the kinds of bodies that are viewed attractive<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n
Other Bases of Interpersonal Attraction<\/u><\/h2>\n
\n
Propinquity Effect<\/u>: people are more likely to become friends with people with whom they interact with often<\/li>\n
Accessibility Universal<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
People are more likely to develop relationships with people they see more often<\/p>\n
\n
Lot of people have friends who\u2019s last names were within a few letters of theirs<\/li>\n
Mere Exposure Effect:<\/u> more we are exposed to a stimulus the more we are attracted to it<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
o Our attraction to frequently encountered stimuli appears to be due to the pleasant associations that we develop through classical conditioning when we learn that a stimulus is not threatening to us and to the pleasant affect associated with an easy to process stimuli<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>Similarity \u2013 Attraction Effect<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
\n
Similarity-Attraction Effect: people tend to be attracted to those who are most like themselves o Similarity in attitudes, economic background, personality, religion, social background, and activities<\/li>\n
The similarity-attraction effect is powerful and reliably found predictors of whether people will become friends or romantic partners<\/li>\n
Canadians show evidence of similarity-attraction effect, Japanese are unaffected by this similarity<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
Close Relationships<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Relationships present some of our most significant concerns<\/li>\n
Most common topic of convo is gossip about other people<\/li>\n
Our happiest times are when we are with others<\/li>\n
Human nature is universal in that there are no cultures in which people live as lone individuals<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
Friends and Enemies<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
The quality of one\u2019s friendships is one of the best predictors of happiness o Research shows that close friends increase the length of one\u2019s life<\/li>\n
Enemies<\/u>: those who are wishing for your downfall or are trying to sabotage your progress<\/li>\n
Ghanians were more likely to view their enemies as coming from within their ingroups, where as americans view their enemies from outgroups<\/li>\n
The nature of relationships that people have loosely parallels the distinctions between independent and interdependent self-concepts o People with independent views of self perceive themselves as being disconnected with others and only reason they would form connections is because they choose to do so.<\/li>\n
No relationship develop unless independent individuals see a benefit to themselves<\/li>\n
High Relational Mobility:<\/u> Their relational ties are flexible enough and opportunities for new relationships are availblae enough so that people feel that they can find new relationships and not feel overly bound by their old relationships o Being attracted to tothers is more important in high relational mobility context such as USA<\/li>\n
Interdependent self-concepts:<\/u> one\u2019s close relationships\n
\n
ingroups are not chosen among individuals as they exist by default<\/li>\n
Ex: At work, your family, relatives, the school you go to \u2013 they all share a context and are apart of a relationship<\/li>\n
Interdependent contexts people do not so much choose whom they will have a relationship with, it just naturally exists<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
Low relational mobility<\/u>: they have few opportunities to form new relationships and their past relationships, and their commitments and obligations to them, continue to guide them o They\u2019re not all good, some are bad relationships you must have like your Father in Law.\n
\n
Ghanians are more interdependent<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
People from different cultures form relationships for different reasons<\/li>\n
Relationships in high relational mobility contexts are entered into and maintained on a mutually voluntary basis<\/strong><\/li>\n
Relationships in less relationally mobile contexts tend to be viewed in more unconditional terms<\/li>\n
Americans have more friends then Ghanians, they have more casual attitude toward forming friends<\/li>\n
The meaning of friendships are different around world\n
\n
Ghanians perceive friendship to involve more obligations o Americans don\u2019t few it that way \uf0b7 Similarity:<\/li>\n
Relationship-attracting feature<\/li>\n
People tend to be more attracted to similar others (this is less clear in Japan)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
Halo Effect:<\/u> Attractive people have a higher number of more positive outcomes than less attractive people o Ex: Less jail time, better grades, higher salary, more votes, etc.<\/li>\n
Many diverse consequences emerge when people change their residence o Those who have moved many times in their life show\n
\n
More conditional loyalty to their colleges<\/li>\n
Have more FB friends on campus<\/li>\n
View their personality traits to be more central part of their identity than their group memberships<\/li>\n
Prefer large national chain stores, like Starbucks, Wal-Mart, etc.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Love<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Parents who didn\u2019t love their kids in evolutionary perspective did not pass on as many surviving genes then those who did feel strong feelings of love to their kids \uf0b7 Romantic love is a human universal.<\/u><\/li>\n
Marrying someone because you have fallen in love with them is a relatively new idea\n
\n
More likely to see this in nuclear family structures then they were in cultures with extended family systems.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
Assumptions made by westerners about love:\n
\n
You will only love someone you have chosen for yourself<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
\u00e0 Many Indian cultures have expressed they fall in love with their partner over time<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
It is ultimately an individualistic choice\n
\n
\u00e0 many cultures think marriage is an intersection of two families therefore it\u2019s a better position for the family to decide for them and the couple usually trust their family<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
A marriage that does not have love at the foundation is bound to be miserable\n
\n
\u00e0 in some cultures, people view arranged marriages as being more likely to succeed than love marriage<\/li>\n
\u00e0 there are positive correlation between the amount that culture emphasizes love as the basis of marriage and its divorce rate \/<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
ironic because it shows the more we insist on maintaining love in a marriage the less successful we seem to be at doing it\n
\n
Those in arranged marriages are at least as satisfied with their marriages as those in love marriages<\/li>\n
Over time, those in arranged marriages reported having the most love than those in love marriages.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
Groups<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
\uf0b7 People exist as members of various groups o Ex: nuclear families, extended families, tribes, schools, clubs, teams, social cliques, neighborhoods, etc.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
Relationship with In-groups and Out-groups<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
People wit h independent selves were depicted as having had a number of close relationships with members of their in-group o Those relationships were less self-defining than were the corresponding relationships of those with more interdependent selves (they have a more clear cut boundary distinguishing these groups)<\/li>\n
Stronger the ties are within the group, the weaker they are between groups<\/li>\n
People from individualistic cultures show a tendency to view themselves as distinct from all others, regardless of their relationship to the others<\/li>\n
People from collectivistic cultures view in-group members as an extension of themselves while maintaining distance from out-group members<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
The Four Elementary Forms of Relationships<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Communal Sharing:<\/u> the members of a group view themselves by emphasizing their common identity rather than by considering their idiosyncrasies o Every person is treated the same\n
\n
They have identical rights and privileges as everyone in that group o Ex: In a family o Equality among all members<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
Authority Ranking<\/u>: people are linearly ordered along a hierarchical social dimension\n
\n
People with higher ranking have prestige and privileges o But lower ranked people receive protection and care o Ex: The military<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
Equality Matching:<\/u> Based on the idea of balance and reciprocity \u2013 people keep track of what is exchanged and they are motivated to pay back what has been exchanged in equivalent terms o Ex: The exchange of Christmas cards, exchange of dinner invitations, carpooling, etc.\n
\n
No rank, each get their own turn<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
Market Pricing:<\/u> it is concerned with proportionality an ratios o People expect to ultimately receive something equivalent to what they have given\n
\n
Both sides of the exchange usually occur at once, and different kinds of goods can be exchanged<\/li>\n
Ex: You repair my leeky roof in an exchange of 500$<\/li>\n
They calculate the ratios of the goods that are exchanged so that the transacions will be equivalent<\/li>\n
No formalized relationships amongst each other in this structure o Status or Rank doesn\u2019t matter either. i.e CEO pays just as much as the new employee for that latte.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
Working With Others<\/em><\/strong> \u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Social Facilitation<\/u>: people will perform well-learned tasks better, and poorly learned tasks worse, when they are in the presence of others o There is a physiological arousal that affects how well we can work on a task o It facilitates dominant responses tendencies, and inhibits secondary response tendency<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
o It\u2019s an Accessibility Universal<\/p>\n
\n
Social Loafing:<\/u> When it is not clear how much any individual is contributing people often don\u2019t work as hard o Ex: Members in a choir don\u2019t sing as hard, or people don\u2019t clap as hard in a crowd, etc.\n
\n
People socially loaf less with groups of friends than among groups of strangers, and groups that consist of all women loaf less than groups that consist of all men<\/li>\n
There is less social loafing in interdependent cultures<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
Social Striving:<\/u> working better when they are evaluated as a group than individual \uf0b7 Competing Vs Cooperating:<\/u>\n
\n
Zero-sum game: which an individual\u2019s gains are entirely at the expense of the opponent Ex: Chess<\/li>\n
Non-Zero-Sum game: an individual\u2019s gains do not necessarily come at the expense of their opponent\n
\n
There can be outcomes where both parties win Ex: A trade<\/li>\n
This provides profitable cooperation among individuals<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
Negotiation Strategies<\/strong>:\n
\n
Confrontational\/Adversial:<\/u> they ignore the other side\u2019s position and only press for one\u2019s own cause\n
\n
Ex: Making threats, accusing, etc..<\/li>\n
Individualistic cultures use these tactics o Compromises<\/u>: trying to find the best of both worlds for both parties<\/li>\n
Helps reduce conflicts, neither gets what they want but neither party loses out either<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
\u00e0 Intercultural negotiations often fare worse for both sides as both parties struggle to figure out what the other side is trying to accomplish<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Interpersonal Attraction \u00a0 Important to contrast the similarities and differences in the ways people go about trying to make themselves more attractive o Ex: Women in Paduang in Thailand… Continue Reading Interpersonal Attraction, Close Relationships, and Groups<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[108],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4314"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4314"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4314\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4855,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4314\/revisions\/4855"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}