W6 L2: Liking, attraction and relationships

How could mere exposure effect explain these findings from Festinger et al and Matthew J Easterbrook

When we seen people more regularly or bump into them more regularly. Not only do we have an opportunity to talk to them and find more things in common but if you see someone regularly, you might like them more if you see them regularly.

Activity - 3 qualities to look for in a partner

1. Caring 2. Trustworthy 3. Affectionate

Festinger big effect

2 and half times.more likely to form friends if you lived at number 1 than 3 that is big effect Over 2 and half times more many friends based where you were randomly allocated by.

Topic studying in sexual behaviours and risk taking especially in young people

A lot of time evolutionary psychologists look at different biological behaviours Research depending on time on month depends what type of men find attractive/evolutionary fitness Lynn Copper did a review (2002) looking at 10 years of research looking at risky sexual behaviour of university students and role of alochol made Findings found over 10 years that alocohl is the single biggest predictor of risky sexual behaviour/activity - ignore biological explanations How much alocohol you had and the opportunity to alone with someone Drinking was strongly related to decison to have sex, risky sex and multiple partners. Reason mentioned is complex biological expanations on why people do things. Looking at social variabes at studying this behaviour

Activity

Activity (2 minutes) Think about the friends you have formed since starting uni. What is the biggest factor that has determined who you have made friends with? My opinion is their personality

Festinger et al. (1950) Aim, Method and Findings

Aim: The aim of the field study was to investigate formation of friendship patterns at Westgate Housing for student couples Procedure: The researchers made observations and interviewed the residents regularly Results: Showed that proximity or opportunities to bump into each other on a daily basis increased chances for friendships. After some months more than 10 times as many friendships had developed with people who lived in the same building, and even more with people who lived next door higher frequency of coincidental meetings

what is coincidental meetings?

Amount of times you bump into someone Determine factor on who people make friends with

Critcism Dutton and Aron

Asumming males are straight and find her attractive Also only doing hetrosexual

Student learning outcomes

Define the mere exposure effect and give an example of its effectiveness in marketing Give an opinion on whether liking and interpersonal attraction are mostly social or mostly biological functions Explain why opposites attract is supported by research findings

What are the problems with Festinger and Matthew J Easterbrook studies?

Dont have a big effect size and have significant results Meaning is small

Technology Based Communication research articles

Example recent research Facebook and found was that interested is social media affect romantic relatiosnhips Type of longuitindal study School age 480 adolescents, ' Participants reported daily communication had with partners on Facebook and compared with in-person. Measured comptence , negative asseration (ways you assert what you want in relationship in a negative/healthier way) Found at start couples would be at the start to manage conflict, couples use social media reported lower levels of competences particular true for boys - more likely to not communciate as well if they relied on technology

Classic study by Dutton and Aron (1974) demonstrated that

Fear arousal can be misattributed to romantic arousal

Festinger et al diagram of accommodation sites

Festinger et al. 1950 showed that students are 4x more likely to be friends with their neighbours than with students at opposite ends of a corridor. Students that lived in a stairwell were 250% more likely to form friendships with people they shared a entry/exit route with (apartments 1 and 6 vs apartments 2 and 7) 9 and 10 - people who lived ext door to one another were four times likely to become friends than people at the opposite ends of the hallway. 1 - Residents near stairwells formed twice as many friendships with upstairs neighbours as those living in the middle apartments. e.g 3 and 4 room you are going in and out without having to go to talk to someone else. in 8/9 you go past 1 and 7, two opportunities to bump into someone to talk to. in number 1 and 5 have the most friends as they have the most people to go past them (8) Big effect size - reasons people want friendship

What is mere exposure effect also known as?

How advertising works

Zajonc experiment example

If you show someone a memory test but get participants rember images and words e.g separate things by pulling the participants and asked to rate these symbols They would rate them and they find out symbols shown more are liked more.

Non-conscious effects of imitation on attraction and pro-sociality Findings e.g useful in jobs Going for meal ad want this person to like you and wait till they have a drink and just a second after have a drink. Then they stop eating, you stop also. Researchers can say that if they know you are imitating then it won't work. If it does work they are more likely to trust you

Infants as young as 18 months old have shown increases in prosocial behaviour after being imitated (Over & Carpenter, 2009). If you mimic behaviour, infants smile more Chartrand and Bargh (1999) demonstrated that confederates who covertly mimicked participants' hand and foot tapping behaviours were subsequently rated as more trusting and likeable; even though participants did not report being aware of the imitation. One of the first studies and got participants in room to do the task, the confederate in room and working with experimentor and covertly (without noticing) and hand tapping and foot tapping behaviour. Conderate leave and researcher ask how did you find the person? If they mimic they find them more positively and trustwrothy. The participant weren't aware they were being imited. Researchers have even demonstrated that computerised avatars which mimic participants' head movements are subsequently rated as more persuasive and trusting (Bailenson & Yee, 2005). They got participant to wear VR headset and watch a computer avater and programmed to mimic head behaves after a time delay. Computer avater tell message about product. Then researcher asked how much they like the product and how trustworthy the message was, (researcher not aware of imitation) in condition where avater mimic, rated as persuasive and trustworthy Van Baaren, Holland, Steenaert and van Knippenberg (2003) found that waitresses who mimicked their customers received higher tips. Huge effect sizes, 50% percent more in tips, not necessiarly being more positive but mimiciing the behaviour of the customer would lead to more tips. Imitation is bi-directional (Bird et al., 2010). So if someone imitates you, you are more likely to like them and iminiate them as well.

•Give an opinion on whether liking and interpersonal attraction are mostly social or mostly biological functions

It is social because • •Social factors can also provide unique predictors to explain interpersonal friendships, e.g. related to social identity theory (we are more likely to favour, like, trust, reciprocate, with ingroup members vs. outgroup members), i.e. we are attracted to similar others. • •Similarity is a powerful predictor of interpersonal relationships (both platonic and romantic). • •Burgess & Wallin (1953) - similarity ratings higher in engaged couples and engaged couples less dissimilar compared to non-engaged couples. Strongest type of similarity was for health and physical attractiveness, as well as social class and religion (personality was less strong). • •But, Buss (1984) married couples exhibit greater personality similarity.

Differences between these images

Left is true image ( how we percieve Obama)and right is mirror image (how Obama percieves himself e.g looking into a mirror) People tend to prefer the image that they would see. But prefer picture on left as we see on the image. Poeple tend to prefer mirror image than true image

When you were thinking factors who determined who you have made friends with What did you not think about?

Most of you probably didn't put sharing a bathroom or a kitchen however seems a very important infleluential factor how they form friendship - their environment and times of people they bump into each other

Love and commitment

One popular model is the Investment Model of Commitment (Rusbult, 1980). The model lists a several predictors of relationship length, e.g. • •Satisfaction, i.e. what each partner 'gets' out of the relationship. Satisfaction differs according to the individuals involved, but one common example is fun. Partners that have more fun will be more satisfied and enjoy longer relationships. • •Availability of alternative partners is also a strong predictor. The fewer options that each partner has, the more likely they are to stay in their current relationship. • •Practical Investment is also a strong predictor, e.g. time, effort, shared experiences, friends, and of course, possessions and financial investment. • •Note that 'common sense' variables such as attractiveness, personality and attachment styles (how you were raised when young) play less of a role than you might think (although these may play a role in break ups). • •Also note, these factors may influence relationship longevity through other mediators, e.g. increased forgiveness, compromise, and perspective taking. Self-selection is a problem...

Reis et al (2011)

People are more attracted to strangers (online or face-to-face) as they interact with them more frequently

What research supports mere exposure effect?

Researchers have shown that you can predict how much someone likes a letter in the English alphabet based on how frequently that letter is seen (Alluisi & Adams, 1962) (similar effect for fruits, cities, etc.). e.g letter e is liked more than letter x even more frequent words are liked more than infrequent words

Study conducted by Matthew J Easter brook studied between Cardiff and Sussex and published in BPS. looked at 462 students and looked at students in shared and unshared accommodation What did they find?

Shared accommodation students particular sharing facilities such as bathroom and kitchen. They would have many more friends compared to students that had en suite bathrooms in their accommodation.

What did Matthew J Easterbrook predicted?

That respondents living in flats with communal areas with an absence of ensure toilets reported undeniably meeting their flatmates more frequently within their flats. This then leads to the strength of bonding with their flatmates and becoming friends with them. Had a positive effect on their wellbeing.

What did Festinger (1950) predict?

That the location of room you are randomly allocated can predict how much friends you have.

Define the mere exposure effect and give an example of its effectiveness in marketing

The mere-exposure effect means that people prefer things that they are most familiar with. Familiarity can greatly enhance browsers ability to engage with your product, and ultimately become buyers. In marketing, the Mere-Exposure Effect is used to cultivate positive feelings towards a brand or product through large-scale saturation campaigns. This is particularly prevalent in food and drink industries, where a number of major brands devote the majority of their marketing resources to developing brand familiarity. Facebook is a great platform for making the most of mere exposure. The network is better suited to building brand awareness than directly converting leads and its targeting options mean you can pinpoint audiences that are most likely to do business with your brand later on. One tactic that works really well with Facebook is to target people based on life events or previous purchases that mean people will be in the market for what you're selling in the near future.

How to make relationships last

There are some characteristics to encourage (and to avoid) if one wants a long and healthy relationship, e.g. some very negative behaviours include showing contempt, being overly sensitive and/or critical, stonewalling (lack of communication, especially problematic for males) and being highly suspicious. Good behaviours to encourage include: Capitalizing on the good, e.g. focusing on your partner's achievements and being engaged with their good news is very positive (Gable et al. 2004) Be playful, having fun is very important (unfortunately, children tend to reduce the capacity for fun and married couples satisfaction levels tend to drop until the children leave home) (Myers, 2000). Look on the bright side. A glass half full approach works best. Encourage positive illusions with regards to your partner where possible (Murray et al. 1993; 1997).

What did Matthew J Easterbrook findings shown?

This shows that the development of shared housing is designed to Foster positive relationships and well being among residents

Evolutionary perspective on forming friends e.g Festinger et al and Matthew J Easterbrook

You could argue that this phenomenon on shared housing and how it predicts friends could be an evolutionary benefit. In natural environment, that people had more neighbours, friends or large people in their proximity have to be socialble and depend on others and therefore if more sociable it would improve their natural selection and have more children. A problem with this approach When using evolutionary approach they can never not find an answer to everything. Approach which is never criticised Another is students who are randomly assigned to rooms. In this instance it is not saying that students who are more sociable. we could say when a person put in this situation have to be more sociable.

What did Zajonc find?

Zajonc (1968) has demonstrated that manipulating familiarity breeds liking, rather than contempt, by manipulating the exposure of different objects and then measuring liking. The mere exposure effect = more exposure increases liking. Words from another language Chinese pictographs shown to Westerners Photographs

Interpretation of Matthew J Easter room results

in their model they found that what predicted long lasting friendships is the number of times you bumped into someone - coincidental meetings. you would then start a conversation with them and form a friendship

Dutton & Aron (1974) study

oFemale experimenter approached male subjects 18-35 on a bridge oBridge was either a ropey, wobbly bridge high above rocky ground (230 ft), or a sturdy wooden bridge above a river and not so high (10 ft) - different level of dangerous predicting high dangerous situation have more arousal oMale participants saw a photo of a female with a hand over her face and another hand outstretched and then wrote a dramatic story Females approach participant and take part in creative task/writing and showing photo, telling how to feel about this photograph e.g young woman with hand over the face with dramatic pose. Then male asked to write a story about photograph. Looking at stories and rating sexual content in them. oStories were scored for sexual content from 1 (low) to 5 (high), e.g. sexual intercourse = 5, kiss = 3, girlfriend = 2. oMale participants over the dangerous bridge reported more fearful arousal and also wrote more sexual stories oExperimenter also gave participants her phone number at the end of experiment and asked him to call her to 'talk' more... can you guess what happened? Male on 230 ft bridge write stories high in sexual content - more arousing content as they were on a arousing envirnoment Also asked male participant if she could give his number to talk more. Participants in bridge are dangerous more likely to phone her later.

The mere exposure effect Cross et al (1967)

oRats raised listening to Mozart for 12 hours a day or Schoenberg. oRats placed in a cage where their weight on one side of the cage would cause Mozart to be played and on the other side Schoenberg to be played. oRats preferred the side of the cage that played their 'favourite' music. o •The mere exposure effect would suggest that we are more likely to be attracted to people and objects that we see / have seen on a regular basis Rats move to the music they have been exposured to for 12 hours e.g good envirnoment for them explanation for romantic relationships e.g repeated exposure to person to get comofortable

How did Matthew J Easterbrook conducted his study?

studied students over 10 weeks and looking over 2 and half months what predicted friendships A type of longuitindal study Studied 462 new university residents

What is the mere exposure effect?

the phenomenon that repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of them

Defining love

•Difficult to define but most people think of three broad types of love: companionate, compassionate, romantic (Berscheid, 2010; Sternberg, 1986) They differentiate differentt types of love e.g romantic , compassionate love (love for those who care for) companionate love is love for friends and family oCompanionate love refers to love towards friends and family. oCompassionate love refers to love for those we care for, e.g. a mother towards her child. oRomantic love is also referred to as passionate love. This is the brief but all-consuming love that we see in the movies. o •Romantic love is nearly always directed towards a single target and seems to encourage biological reactions. Love causes changes in brain chemistry (increases in dopamine and oxytocin receptors; Fisher et al. 2006). Speed daters who are focused on a single target tend to have their feelings reciprocated compared to speed daters who hedge their bets (Eastwick et al. 2007). • •Romantic love is fleeting (thank goodness!) and turns into a deeper, more intimate type of love (Aron & Aron, 1997). • •In fact, partners that take each other's perspective more in day-to-day decisions tend to have longer relationships (Berscheid et al. 1989).

It's not just physical attraction - we like similar others

•Students (strangers) offered to live rent free in a shared house in exchange for doing surveys. Perceived similarity predicted how much the students liked each other (Newcomb, 1961; Griffitt & Veitch, 1974) • Asked questions about the other students •Liking ratings of a 'bogus' person can be manipulated by changing the similarity in a personality test (Byrne, 1961). Read job description and liked person that had a similar name to them than others who had different name • •Zajonc et al. (1987) - blind judges are able to match couples in long term relationships (e.g. > 25 years) from separate photographs. These couples tend to look more alike over time , e.g. in dress style and facial lines. •There is some evidence of complementarity (opposites attract) (Winch, 1955), but typically only in more opposed personality types, e.g. dominant or caring. Much more evidence suggests that similarity is a much stronger predictor of relationship choice.

It's not just physical attraction - we like similar others

•There are many social and environmental factors that are just as strong (if not stronger in cases) at explaining sexual behaviour and romantic relationships. •Social factors can also provide unique predictors to explain interpersonal friendships, e.g. related to social identity theory (we are more likely to favour, like, trust, reciprocate, with ingroup members vs. outgroup members), i.e. we are attracted to similar others. • •Similarity is a powerful predictor of interpersonal relationships (both platonic and romantic). • •Burgess & Wallin (1953) - similarity ratings higher in engaged couples and engaged couples less dissimilar compared to non-engaged couples. Strongest type of similarity was for health and physical attractiveness, as well as social class and religion (personality was less strong). • •But, Buss (1984) married couples exhibit greater personality similarity. • •Interracial couples more similar in personality than same-race couples (Rushton & Bons, 2005)

Explain why opoosite attract is supported by research findings

•There is some evidence of complementarity (opposites attract) (Winch, 1955), but typically only in more opposed personality types, e.g. dominant or caring. Much more evidence suggests that similarity is a much stronger predictor of relationship choice.

The mere exposure effect Mita et al. (1977)

•We prefer our mirror image (because that is what we see in the mirror) and tend not to like our actual image as much, what we might see on film. By contrast, our friends prefer our actual image rather than our mirror image.