Discussion
Raciel1990
CULTPSY3_Ch11_InterpersonalAttraction.pptx
Lecture PowerPoint Slides
By
Benjamin Cheung
Chapter 11—Interpersonal Attraction and Close Relationships
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Cultural Psychology
Third Edition
Steven J. Heine
Chapter Objectives
In this chapter, you will:
Discuss the different universal and culturally variable factors that predict attractiveness
Explain how the propinquity effect enhances perceived attractiveness
Define the mere exposure effect
Explain the similarity-attraction effect
Differentiate between the four elementary forms of relationships
Discuss how friends and enemies are conceptualized differently across different cultures
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Chapter Objectives
In this chapter, you will:
Explain how relational mobility and residential mobility affect one’s psychology
Discuss the social consequences of cultural differences in simpático
Explain the evolutionary advantages love and romantic love
Explain how love is conceptualized differently across cultures
Discuss the different factors that predict whether a culture favors love marriages versus arranged marriages
Contrast the emotional consequences of love and arranged marriages
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Overriding Theme in This Chapter
Independence/Interdependence and Individualism/Collectivism all have a role in how people view relationships and group work.
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Physical Attractiveness
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Discuss: What does it mean to be “physically attractive”?
Universals of Physical Attractiveness
Some aspects of physical attractiveness have been found to be universal:
Clear complexion
Bilateral symmetry
Average features
© 2012 by W. W. Norton & Company
Universals—Clear Complexion
People are attracted to healthy mates.
Skin signals health more directly than any other visible aspect.
The cosmetics industry provides people with ways to make their complexion look clearer.
People have strong aversive reactions to skin conditions.
© 2012 by W. W. Norton & Company
Blemishes on the skin tend to signal poor health and the presence of parasites and or diseases, leading to preference for clear complexion as signal of good health.
8
Universals—Bilateral Symmetry
Another marker of health is bilateral symmetry.
When an organism develops under ideal conditions its right and left sides will be symmetrical.
Genetic mutations, pathogens, or stressors in the womb can lead to asymmetrical development.
On average, asymmetrical faces are viewed as less attractive.
© 2012 by W. W. Norton & Company
Universals—Average Features
Faces with averagely proportioned features are more attractive than faces that deviate from average.
Average features are less likely to contain genetic abnormalities and are more symmetrical.
We can process any kind of stimulus that is closer to a prototype easier than one that is further from a prototype.
Easy processing is associated with a pleasant feeling that gets interpreted as attractive.
© 2012 by W. W. Norton & Company
Universals—Average Features
Which female face and which male face are the most attractive?
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Euro-Australian
Japanese
Eurasian
Female
Male
Which female face and which male face are the most attractive?
Interestingly, the “average is attractive” idea also holds even when considering faces from different cultures.
Researchers found that, when averaging Japanese faces with Australian faces together (creating Eurasian faces), these Eurasian faces were seen as more attractive than their component faces.
11
Cultural Variability— Body Weight
It is noteworthy that “average is attractive” does not apply to aspects beyond facial features.
This is seen with people’s weight, height, muscles, breasts, and hips.
For such aspects, it’s bodies that depart from average that are seen as more attractive.
The kinds of body weights that are perceived to be most attractive vary considerably across cultures.
© 2012 by W. W. Norton & Company
Cultural Variability— Body Weight
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Discuss: How How have our preferences for women’s body weight changed over the ages?
13
Cultural Variability— Body Weight
In 1951, anthropologists concluded that heavier women were universally found to be more attractive.
E.g. in Western Africa, the term “fat” is often viewed as complimentary, indicating strength and beauty.
In many ways, in the West, women who are unusually thin fit the ideal body weight.
These ideals for thinner women have been more prevalent during the past few decades, while actual average body weights have increased.
© 2012 by W. W. Norton & Company
If we took cues exclusively from the common image of the thin woman that is seen in the media in the West, we may be tempted to think that “thin” is a universal marker of attractiveness.
But in 1951, anthropologists concluded that heavier women were universally found to be more attractive – even African Americans have heavier ideal body weights compared to European Americans.
Culturally, this may be linked to how in Western Africa, the term “fat” is often viewed as complimentary, indicating strength and beauty. Moreover, many African cultures apply the same idea of “heavy is attractive” to both men and women.
In many ways, in the West, women who are unusually thin fit the ideal body weight.
These ideals for thinner women have been more prevalent during the past few decades, while actual average body weights have increased.
14
Mechanisms of Attraction
How do people become drawn to each other?
A couple of mechanisms:
Propinquity effect = a culturally universal mechanism whereby the more we are exposed to a stimulus, the more we are attracted to it
Similarity-attraction effect = a nonuniversal mechanism whereby people are attracted to others if they share many similarities
Not a universal evidence of cultural variability (particularly strong in cultures with high relational mobility)
© 2012 by W. W. Norton & Company
One important way for people to enter into interpersonal relationships with each other is obviously to actually meet them first; but out of all the people you meet, the people that you become friends with are usually the people whom you meet more frequently.
This is the propinquity effect – the first explanation for why people enter into interpersonal relationships with others. The propinquity effect operates due to the mere exposure effect – the more exposure to a stimulus, the more we are attracted to it.
15
Mechanisms of Attraction
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Discuss: Why does this difference exist?
Another mechanism that explains why people enter into interpersonal relationships is called the similarity attraction effect.
On average, people are attracted to others who are more similar to them in economic background, personality, religion, social background, and activities.
However, this appears to only be restricted to Western samples, as people in Japan did not demonstrate this effect. Specifically, in a study, the perceived similarity of a target strongly predicted how much someone likes the target in a Canadian sample; but this perceived similarity was not related to how much someone likes the target in a Japanese sample.
Discuss: Why does this difference exist?
16
Types of Groups/Relationships
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Discuss: How can we categorize all the different types of relationships that exist?
Discuss: How can we categorize all the different types of relationships that exist?
17
Types of Groups/Relationships
All relationships are based on one or more of the four basic elements of sociality.
Communal sharing
Authority ranking
Equality matching
Market pricing
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
18
Types of Groups/Relationships
Communal sharing = members of a group emphasize common identity
Everyone treated the same
Resources pooled for everyone
No one “deserves” more than others
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Communal sharing = members of a group emphasize common identity
Everyone treated the same
Resources tend to be pooled for use by everyone
No one person “deserves” more of the resources more than others
An example is family
19
Types of Groups/Relationships
Authority ranking = people linearly ordered along hierarchical social dimension
Higher ranking more privilege & prestige
Lower ranking entitled to protection & care from above
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Authority ranking = people linearly ordered along hierarchical social dimension
Higher on the ranking = more privilege and prestige
Lower on the ranking = entitled to protection and care from those above
An example of this is the military.
20
Types of Groups/Relationships
Equality matching = based on balance and reciprocity
Record keeping done to track what is exchanged
People take turns to pay back what has been exchanged
More common in non-Western cultures
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Equality matching = social structure based on balance and reciprocity
Record keeping is done to keep track of what is exchanged, and people are motivated to pay back what has been exchanged, in turns.
A turn-based social structure
Not common in Western cultures, but quite common in cultures around the word
An example of this is exchanging Christmas cards.
21
Types of Groups/Relationships
Market pricing = also emphasizes balance and reciprocity
Equal exchange in a market pricing structure occurs on the same turn
Based on proportionality and ratio
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Market pricing = a social structure that also emphasizes balance and reciprocity
Unlike equality matching, though, the equal exchange in a market pricing structure occurs on the same turn.
Based on proportionality and ratio
An example of this is usually the buying and selling in the marketplace.
22
Types of Groups/Relationships
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
All relationships should encompass one or more of these components or structures.
While these four social structures are universal, there is cultural variability in the extent to which each operates.
Market pricing is more common in individualistic cultures.
Equality matching is emphasized more in traditional subsistence societies.
23
Friends and Enemies
What do you think about this poem from Ghana?
Beware of friends.
Some are snakes under grass;
Some are lions in sheep’s clothing;
Some are jealousies behind their facades of praises;
Some are just no good;
Beware of friends.
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
What do you think about this poem from Ghana?
Beware of friends.
Some are snakes under grass;
Some are lions in sheep’s clothing;
Some are jealousies behind their facades of praises;
Some are just no good;
Beware of friends.
How might one explain this view of “enemies are among friends” idea with relational mobility?
24
Friends and Enemies
In one study, 71% of Ghanaians report having enemies compared to 26% of Americans reporting enemies.
Ghanaians were more likely to say that their enemies were coming from in-groups
Americans say they don’t have enemies because they avoid people they don’t like.
© 2012 by W. W. Norton & Company
71% of Ghanaians in one study also said that they had enemies, compared to only 26% of American participants.
More surprisingly, Ghanaians were more likely than Americans to say that their enemies were coming from in-groups.
Why might that be?
25
Friends and Enemies
High relational mobility people choose who will be ingroup members they can opt to avoid people who can be enemies
Low relational mobility people aren’t likely to be able to choose ingroups or ingroup members enemies are likely to emerge from within
© 2012 by W. W. Norton & Company
With an independent view of self, which is more characteristic of Americans, the self is generally disconnected from other people.
There is generally more relational mobility, or the freedom for people to choose the relationships in which they want to engage.
With this perspective, it’s easier for people to disengage from people, even if they’re in the ingroup; and it’s also easier for them to form relationships with new people.
On the other hand, with an interdependent view of self, which is more characteristic of Ghanaians, the self is intertwined within a web of relationships.
There is generally less relational mobility, or that people have less ability to choose the relationships in which they engage. In particular, people often have little choice in the people with whom they are affiliated.
As a result, there are people within their ingroups with whom the individual does not get along, perhaps even to the point of being enemies.
The relationships are viewed as being stable, and they see themselves as having little ability to form new relationships.
26
Relational Mobility
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
High relational mobility
Low relational mobility
More friends
More emphasis on attractiveness
More cautious with friends
More obligations associated with friendships
Among the different consequences of relational mobility, we also have evidence that people in societies that are high in relational mobility tend to have more friends than people in societies that are low in relational mobility.
On the other hand, people who have low relational mobility tend to be more cautious with their friends, and more likely to perceive friendships as being associated with social obligations.
Because relationships in societies that are high in relational mobility can act like a marketplace in which people are free to look for new relationships, attractiveness if an important factor.
For societies that have low relational mobility, signs of attractiveness play less of a role because relationships are generally relatively stable, and few new relationships are struck.
27
Relational Mobility
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Much research, largely conducted with Westerners, finds that physically attractive people receive many other kinds of benefits—“Tyranny of the Beautiful.”
Physically attractive Canadian election candidates received three times as many votes as unattractive ones.
More attractive MBAs earned more money than less attractive MBAs.
Attractive defendants in misdemeanor cases are assigned lighter sentences than less attractive ones.
…But are such benefits universal?
Much research, largely conducted with Westerners, finds that physically attractive people receive many other kinds of benefits, an effect known as the “Tyranny of the Beautiful.”
For example, physically attractive Canadian election candidates received three times as many votes as unattractive ones.
More attractive children are rated as smarter and better behaved by their teachers.
More attractive MBAs earned more money than less attractive MBAs.
This is assumed to be due to the halo effect, or the association of attractiveness with other positive traits and attributes.
28
Relational Mobility
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
High relational mobility
Low relational mobility
More friends
More emphasis on attractiveness
More cautious with friends
More obligations associated with friendships
Going back to this comparison chart, the emphasis on attractiveness in societies that have high relational mobility also show more evidence of tyranny of the beautiful, with more physically attractive people having better life outcomes and well-being – a pattern that is not found in societies with low relational mobility.
29
Relational Mobility
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
High residential mobility
Low residential mobility
More conditional loyalty to college
More likely to view personality to be more central to identity
More unconditional loyalty to local sports teams
More preference for local stores
Somewhat related to relational mobility is the idea of residential mobility, which is the extent to which people physically move to different places of residence.
Residential mobility can predict some very interesting cultural differences.
For instance, college students who have high residential mobility tend to display more conditional loyalty to their college (that is, they like their college only when people say good things about it).
People high in residential mobility in general are also more likely to view personality as being a more central part of their identity.
In contrast, people with low residential mobility display more unconditional loyalty to their local sports teams, and also have a greater preference for local stores over large national chain stores.
30
Simpático
Friendships also differ based on the ways in which people present themselves.
Simpático is an example of how a culture has a prescribed presentation of the self in social contexts – a set of traits that people strive to achieve in social interactions.
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
Friendships also differ based on the ways in which people present themselves.
Simpático is an example of how a culture has a prescribed presentation of the self in social contexts – a set of traits that people strive to achieve in social interactions.
This group of traits include being easygoing, courteous, and agreeable.
This leads to generally smoother social interactions, and more positive social interactions as well, compared to European-American interactions (which do not strive for simpático as a goal)
31
Romantic Love
Romantic love is an evolutionary adaptation to ensure that children had adequate resources and protection.
Romantic love is a universal.
However, the idea of marriages being based on romantic love is not universal.
Arranged marriages have been common in many cultures.
© 2012 by W. W. Norton & Company
Romantic love is an evolutionary adaptation to ensure that children had adequate resources and protection.
With babies being so vulnerable for so long, parents would’ve been needed to stay together to provide the resources necessary to raise, support, and protect the child.
Romantic love evolved as a way to glue the couple together.
Romantic love is a universal.
32
Marriage Systems
Arranged marriages are more common in cultures with extended family systems.
Some have argued that social pressures from an extended family system keep a relationship together.
© 2012 by W. W. Norton & Company
Marriage Systems
Love marriages are more likely in cultures with nuclear family structures.
In the absence of this pressure, love serves as the glue that maintains a relationship.
© 2012 by W. W. Norton & Company
Love marriages are also associated with idealization of one’s partner.
This is a useful cognitive bias to engage in because it buffers us from thinking about our partners as bad people when we see them do something bad.
But research has suggested that this idealization is much weaker in more collectivistic cultures.
The reason for this is because if people generally draw situational (rather than dispositional) attributions anyway, then there isn’t as much of a need to not think bad things about one’s partner.
34
Marriage Systems
Arranged marriages may be puzzling to Westerners because this goes against many Western assumptions about love and marriage.
However, arranged marriages are often quite successful.
Studies find that arranged marriages are at least as happy as love marriages (except for women in China and Japan).
© 2012 by W. W. Norton & Company
Arranged marriages may be puzzling to Westerners because this goes against many Western assumptions about love and marriage.
Firstly, people assume that people will only love someone that they have chosen for themselves.
Secondly, only the individuals themselves can make the best choice for themselves.
Thirdly, a marriage that is not built on love will end in misery.
However, arranged marriages are often quite successful – love develops over time even if the individual hasn’t chosen the partner; they assume that the family will make the best choice for them; and interestingly, most people in cultures that practise arranged marriages feel that such an arrangement works, and there is a positive correlation between divorce rates and the extent to which a culture emphasizes the importance of love in a marriage.
35
Marriage Systems
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
A comparison of marital satisfaction comparing love and arranged marriages shows that while love marriages are initial higher in marital satisfaction compared to arranged marriages for both men and women, this trend reverses as time goes on.
Most arranged marriages end up becoming loving relationships, even if they start out without love.
Generally, there is either no difference between love marriages and arranged marriages in terms of marital satisfaction; but it is noteworthy that in several societies, men in arranged marriages are more satisfied than women in arranged marriages.
36
Summary
Physical attractiveness has universal aspects, which are primarily limited to the face.
Other aspects of physical attractiveness show cultural variability.
How different cultures view the nature of relationships is fundamentally different, depending on whether they have high or low relational mobility.
Cultures work in groups differently (cooperating, loafing, etc.).
© 2016 by W. W. Norton & Company
