Ch 11 Attraction and Intimacy
ATTRACTIVENESS OF THOSE WE LOVE: First, a 17-year-old girl's facial attractiveness is a surprisingly (strong/weak) predictor of her attractiveness at ages 30 and 50. Second, not only do we perceive attractive people as likable, but also we perceive likable people as __.
ATTRACTIVENESS OF THOSE WE LOVE: First, a 17-year-old girl's facial attractiveness is a surprisingly weak predictor of her attractiveness at ages 30 and 50 Second, not only do we perceive attractive people as likable, but also we perceive likable people as attractive. Perhaps you can recall individuals who, as you grew to like them, became more attractive. Democrats rated fellow Democrat Barack Obama as more physically attractive than Republicans did; Republicans rated fellow Republican Sarah Palin more physically attractive than Democrats did (Kniffin et al., 2014). It may be true, then, that "handsome is as handsome does," and that "what is good is beautiful." Discovering someone's similarities to us also makes the person seem more attractive (Beaman & Klentz, 1983; Klentz et al., 1987). Moreover, love sees loveliness: The more in love a woman is with a man, the more physically attractive she finds him (Price et al., 1974). And the more in love people are, the less attractive they find all others of the opposite sex (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989; Simpson et al., 1990). "The grass may be greener on the other side," note Rowland Miller and Jeffry Simpson (1990), "but happy gardeners are less likely to notice."
After 2 years of marriage, spouses express affection about half as often as when they were newlyweds (Huston & Chorost, 1994). About 4 years after marriage, the divorce rate peaks in cultures worldwide (Fisher, 1994). If a close relationship is to endure, it will settle to a steadier but still warm afterglow called companionate love. The passion-facilitating hormones (testosterone, dopamine, adrenaline) subside, while the hormone oxytocin supports feelings of attachment and trust (Taylor et al., 2010).
After 2 years of marriage, spouses express affection about half as often as when they were newlyweds (Huston & Chorost, 1994). About 4 years after marriage, the divorce rate peaks in cultures worldwide (Fisher, 1994). If a close relationship is to endure, it will settle to a steadier but still warm afterglow called companionate love. The passion-facilitating hormones (testosterone, dopamine, adrenaline) subside, while the hormone oxytocin supports feelings of attachment and trust (Taylor et al., 2010).
Are eyes an indicator of love ? Zick Rubin (1973) (confirmed/disconfirmed) this. He administered a love scale to hundreds of University of Michigan dating couples.
Are eyes an indicator of love ? Zick Rubin (1973) confirmed this. He administered a love scale to hundreds of University of Michigan dating couples. Later, from behind a one-way mirror in a laboratory waiting room, he clocked eye contact among "weak-love" and "strong-love" couples (mutual gaze conveys liking and averted eye gaze conveys ostracism [Wirth et al., 2010]). So Rubin's result will not surprise you: The strong-love couples gave themselves away by gazing long into each other's eyes. When talking, they also nod their head, smile naturally, and lean forward (Gonzaga et al., 2001). When observing speed-daters, it takes but a few seconds to make a reasonably accurate guess as to whether one person is interested in another (Place et al., 2009).
Arranged versus love-based marriages in India: Those who married for love reported (increasing/diminishing) feelings of love after a 5-year newlywed period. By contrast, those in arranged marriages reported (less/more) love after 5 years (Gupta & Singh, 1982; Figure 7; for other data on the seeming success of arranged marriages, see J. E. Myers et al., 2005, Thakar & Epstein, 2011, and Yelsma & Athappilly, 1988). The cooling of intense romantic love often triggers a period of disillusion, especially among those who believe that romantic love is essential both for a marriage and for its continuation.
Arranged versus love-based marriages in India: Those who married for love reported diminishing feelings of love after a 5-year newlywed period. By contrast, those in arranged marriages reported more love after 5 years (Gupta & Singh, 1982; Figure 7; for other data on the seeming success of arranged marriages, see J. E. Myers et al., 2005, Thakar & Epstein, 2011, and Yelsma & Athappilly, 1988). The cooling of intense romantic love often triggers a period of disillusion, especially among those who believe that romantic love is essential both for a marriage and for its continuation. Compared with North Americans, Asians tend to focus less on personal feelings and more on the practical aspects of social attachments (Dion & Dion, 1988; Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002; Sprecher et al., 1994b). Thus, they are less vulnerable to disillusionment. Asians are also less prone to the self-focused individualism that in the long run can undermine a relationship and lead to divorce (Dion & Dion, 1991; Triandis et al., 1988).
__ attachment: attachments marked by discomfort over, or resistance to, being close to others. An insecure attachment style. Approximately (1/2/7?) in 10 infants and adults exhibit avoidant attachment. Although internally aroused, avoidant infants reveal (high/low) distress during separation and (high/low) clinging upon reunion. Avoiding closeness, avoidant adults tend to be (more/less) invested in relationships and (more/less) likely to leave them. They are (more/less) likely to engage in uncommitted hookups (Garneau et al., 2013) and are (more/less) likely to be sexually unfaithful to their partners in both straight (DeWall et al., 2011) and gay (Starks & Parsons, 2014) relationships. Avoidant individuals may be either fearful ("I am uncomfortable getting close to others") or dismissing ("It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient" [Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991]). (more/fewer) college students in the United States had a dismissing attachment style in the 2010s (vs. the 1980s), and (more/fewer) had a secure attachment style. The researchers speculate that this shift may be rooted in changing family structures and an increasing emphasis on individualism (Konrath et al., 2014).
Avoidant attachment: attachments marked by discomfort over, or resistance to, being close to others. An insecure attachment style. Approximately 2 in 10 infants and adults exhibit avoidant attachment. Although internally aroused, avoidant infants reveal little distress during separation and little clinging upon reunion. Avoiding closeness, avoidant adults tend to be less invested in relationships and more likely to leave them. They also are more likely to engage in uncommitted hookups (Garneau et al., 2013) and are more likely to be sexually unfaithful to their partners in both straight (DeWall et al., 2011) and gay (Starks & Parsons, 2014) relationships. Avoidant individuals may be either fearful ("I am uncomfortable getting close to others") or dismissing ("It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient" [Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991]). More college students in the United States had a dismissing attachment style in the 2010s (vs. the 1980s), and fewer had a secure attachment style. The researchers speculate that this shift may be rooted in changing family structures and an increasing emphasis on individualism (Konrath et al., 2014).
Researchers have found that different forms of a particular gene predict mammalian pair bonding. (True/False)
Because group dwellers survived and reproduced, we today carry genes that predispose us to form such bonds. Researchers have found that different forms of a particular gene predict mammalian pair bonding. In the mouselike prairie vole, and in humans, injections of hormones such as oxytocin (which is released in females during nursing and during mating) and vasopressin produce good feelings that trigger male-female bonding (Donaldson & Young, 2008; Young, 2009). In humans, genes associated with vasopressin activity predict marital stability (Walum et al., 2008). Such is the biology of enduring love.
Characteristics of physical attractiveness: 1.__ faces (digital composite) 2.__ faces and bodies (mirror halves)
Characteristics of physical attractiveness: 1.Average faces (digital composite) 2.Symmetrical faces and bodies (mirror halves) To be really attractive is, ironically, to be perfectly average (Rhodes, 2006). Researchers have digitized multiple faces and averaged them using a computer. Inevitably, people find the composite faces more appealing than almost all the actual faces (Langlois & Roggman, 1990; Langlois et al., 1994; Perrett, 2010; Figure 4). Across 27 nations, an average leglength- to-body ratio looks more attractive than very short or long legs (Sorokowski et al., 2011). With both humans and animals, averaged looks best embody prototypes (for your typical man, woman, dog, or whatever) and thus are easy for the brain to process and categorize, notes Jamin Halberstadt (2006). Let's face it: Perfectly average is easy on the eyes (and brain). Computer-averaged faces and bodies also tend to be perfectly symmetrical—another characteristic of strikingly attractive (and reproductively successful) people (Brown et al., 2008 See also: Evolution and attraction
__ love is the affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply intertwined.
Companionate love is the affection we feel for those with whom our lives are deeply intertwined. Unlike the wild emotions of passionate love, companionate love is lower key; it's a deep, affectionate attachment. It activates different parts of the brain (Aron et al., 2005). And it is just as real.
__ is the popularly supposed tendency, in a relationship between two people, for each to complete what is missing in the other. But as a general rule, opposites (do/do not) attract.
Complementarity is the popularly supposed tendency, in a relationship between two people, for each to complete what is missing in the other. Yet people seem slightly more prone to like and to marry those whose needs, attitudes, and personalities are similar (Botwin et al., 1997; Buss, 1984; Rammstedt & Schupp, 2008; Watson et al., 2004). Perhaps one day we will discover some ways in which differences commonly breed liking. Dominance/submissiveness may be one such way (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997; Markey& Kurtz, 2006). But as a general rule, opposites do not attract.
Consider this: If you had an identical twin who became engaged to someone, would you (being in so many ways similar to your twin) expect to share your twin's attraction to that person? (Yes/No?)
Consider this: If you had an identical twin who became engaged to someone, would you (being in so many ways similar to your twin) expect to share your twin's attraction to that person? But no, reported researchers David Lykken and Auke Tellegen (1993); only half of identical twins recall really liking their twin's selection, and only 5 percent said, "I could have fallen for my twin's fiancé." Romantic love is often rather like ducklings' imprinting, surmised Lykken and Tellegen. With repeated exposure to and interaction with someone, our infatuation may fix on almost anyone who has roughly similar characteristics and who reciprocates our affection. See: proximity,mere exposure.
Getting to know someone—and discovering that the person is actually dissimilar—tends to (increase/decrease?) liking (Norton et al., 2007). If those dissimilar attitudes pertain to our strong moral convictions, we (like/dislike?) and distance ourselves from them all the more (Skitka et al., 2005).
Dissimilarity: Getting to know someone—and discovering that the person is actually dissimilar—tends to decrease liking (Norton et al., 2007). If those dissimilar attitudes pertain to our strong moral convictions, we dislike and distance ourselves from them all the more (Skitka et al., 2005). In general, dissimilar attitudes depress liking more than similar attitudes enhance it (Singh & Ho, 2000; Singh & Teob, 1999). Within their own groups, where they expect similarity, people find it especially difficult to like someone with dissimilar views (Chen & Kenrick, 2002). As a general rule, opposites do not attract.
Do women respond to men's looks?
Do women respond to men's looks? *Basically, yes, but how whether they do so more than men is debated.* See: Attractiveness conclusion In speed-dating research, men (vs. women) thought they would care more about a potential date's physical attractiveness; but when it came time to decide whom to date, a prospect's attractiveness was similarly important to both men and women (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008a,b). In one classic study, Elaine Hatfield and co-workers (1966) matched 752 University of Minnesota first-year students for a "Welcome Week" matching dance. The researchers gave each student personality and aptitude tests but then matched the couples randomly. On the night of the dance, the couples danced and talked for 2½ hours and then took a brief intermission to evaluate their dates. How well did the personality and aptitude tests predict attraction? Did people like someone better who was high in self-esteem, or low in anxiety, or different from themselves in outgoingness? The researchers examined a long list of possibilities. But so far as they could determine, only one thing mattered: how physically attractive the person was (as previously rated by the researchers). The more attractive a woman was, the more the man liked her and wanted to date her again. And the more attractive the man was, the more the woman liked him and wanted to date him again. Pretty pleases.
__ is a condition in which the outcomes people receive from a relationship are proportional to what they contribute to it.
Equity is a condition in which the outcomes people receive from a relationship are proportional to what they contribute to it. (IMPORTANT)Author's Note: Equitable outcomes needn't always be equal outcomes.
Psychologists working from the evolutionary perspective explain the human preference for attractive partners in terms of __ strategy.
Evolution and attraction Psychologists working from the evolutionary perspective explain the human preference for attractive partners in terms of reproductive strategy. They assume that beauty signals biologically important information: health, youth, and fertility. And so it does. Men with attractive faces have higher quality sperm. Women with hourglass figures have more regular menstrual cycles and are more fertile (Gallup et al., 2008). Over time, men who preferred fertile-looking women out-reproduced those who were as happy to mate with postmenopausal females. That biological outcome of human history, David Buss (1989) believes, explains why males in 37 cultures—from Australia to Zambia—did indeed prefer youthful female characteristics that signify reproductive capacity. Evolutionary psychologists also assume that evolution predisposes women to favor male traits that signify an ability to provide and protect resources. In screening potential mates, report Norman Li and fellow researchers (2002), men require a modicum of physical attractiveness, women require status and resources, and both welcome kindness and intelligence. Women's emphasis on men's physical attractiveness may also depend on their goals: Those focused on short-term relationships prefer more symmetrical and thus attractive men, whereas those focused on the long term find this less important, perhaps because physical attractiveness may come with more negative qualities such as infidelity (Quist et al., 2012). Judging from glamour models and beauty pageant winners, men everywhere have felt most attracted to women whose waists are 30 percent narrower than their hips—a shape associated with peak sexual fertility (Karremans et al., 2010; Perilloux et al., 2010; Platek & Singh, 2010). Circumstances that reduce a woman's fertility—malnutrition, pregnancy, menopause—also change her shape. When judging males as potential marriage partners, women, too, prefer a male waistto- hip ratio suggesting health and vigor. They rate muscular men as sexier, and muscular men do feel sexier and report more lifetime sex partners (Frederick & Haselton, 2007). This makes evolutionary sense, notes Jared Diamond (1996): A muscular hunk was more likely than a scrawny fellow to gather food, build houses, and defeat rivals. But today's women prefer men with high incomes even more (Singh, 1995). See also: Social comparison in attractiveness
How does attractiveness relate to martial happiness ?
How does attractiveness relate to martial happiness ? Attractive wives led to happier husbands, but attractive husbands had less effect on wives' happiness (Meltzer et al., 2014). Gay men and lesbian women display these sex differences as well, with gay and straight men both valuing appearance more than lesbian or straight women do (Ha et al., 2012).
(True/False): Perceived inequity contributes to marital distress and vice versa.
In one survey, "sharing household chores" ranked third (after "faithfulness" and a "happy sexual relationship") among nine things that people saw as marks of successful marriages (Pew Research Center, 2007b). Indeed, those in an equitable relationship are typically content (Fletcher et al., 1987; Hatfield et al., 1985; Van Yperen & Buunk, 1990). Those who perceive their relationship as inequitable feel discomfort: The one who has the better deal may feel guilty and the one who senses a raw deal may feel strong irritation. (Given the self-serving bias—most husbands perceive themselves as contributing more housework than their wives credit them for—the person who is "overbenefited" is less sensitive to the inequity.) Perceived inequity triggers marital distress, agree Nancy Grote and Margaret Clark (2001) from their tracking of married couples over time. But they also report that the traffic between inequity and distress runs both ways: Marital distress exacerbates the perception of unfairness (Figure 8).
__ is the use of strategies, such as flattery, by which people seek to gain another's favor.
Ingratiation is the use of strategies, such as flattery, by which people seek to gain another's favor. Obvious ingratiation falls flat: If praise clearly violates what we know is true—if someone says, "Your hair looks great," when we haven't washed it in 3 days—we may lose respect for the flatterer and wonder whether the compliment springs from ulterior motives (Shrauger, 1975). Thus, we often perceive criticismn to be more sincere than praise (Coleman et al., 1987).
Laboratory experiments reveal something we've noted in previous chapters: Our reactions depend on our attributions. Do we attribute the flattery to __ ? aka, to a self-serving strategy? Is the person trying to get us to buy something, to acquiesce sexually, to do a favor? If so, both the flatterer and the praise (gain/lose) appeal (Gordon, 1996; Jones, 1964). If there is no apparent ulterior motive, then we (positively/negatively) receive both flattery and flatterer. Aronson (1988) speculated that (infrequent/constant) approval can lose value. When a husband says for the five-hundredth time, "Gee, honey, you look great," the words carry far less impact than were he now to say, "Gee, honey, you look awful in that dress." A loved one you've doted on is (easy/hard) to reward but (easy/hard) to hurt. IMPORTANT: This suggests that an open, honest relationship—one where people enjoy one another's esteem and acceptance yet are honest—is more likely to offer continuing rewards than one dulled by the suppression of unpleasant emotions, one in which people try only, as Dale Carnegie advised, to "lavish praise."
Laboratory experiments reveal something we've noted in previous chapters: Our reactions depend on our attributions. Do we attribute the flattery to ingratiation—to a self-serving strategy? Is the person trying to get us to buy something, to acquiesce sexually, to do a favor? If so, both the flatterer and the praise lose appeal (Gordon, 1996; Jones, 1964). But if there is no apparent ulterior motive, then we warmly receive both flattery and flatterer. Aronson (1988) speculated that constant approval can lose value. When a husband says for the five-hundredth time, "Gee, honey, you look great," the words carry far less impact than were he now to say, "Gee, honey, you look awful in that dress." A loved one you've doted on is hard to reward but easy to hurt. IMPORTANT: This suggests that an open, honest relationship—one where people enjoy one another's esteem and acceptance yet are honest—is more likely to offer continuing rewards than one dulled by the suppression of unpleasant emotions, one in which people try only, as Dale Carnegie advised, to "lavish praise."
One person's liking for another does predict the other's liking in return (Kenny & Nasby, 1980; Montoya & Insko, 2008). But does one person's liking another cause the other to return the appreciation? People's reports of how they fell in love suggest (yes/no) (Aron et al., 1989). Does discovering that an appealing someone really likes you seems to awaken romantic feelings ? Experiments (confirm/disconfirm) it: Those told that certain others like or admire them usually feel a reciprocal affection (Berscheid & Walster, 1978). And all the better, one speed-dating experiment suggests, when someone likes you especially (Eastwick et al., 2007). A dash of uncertainty can also fuel desire. Thinking that someone probably likes you—but you aren't sure—tends to (increase/decrease) your thinking about, and feeling attracted to, another (Whitechurch et al., 2011). And consider this finding: Students like another student who says eight positive things about them (more/less) than one who says seven positive things and one negative thing (Berscheid et al., 1969). We are sensitive to the slightest hint of criticism. Writer Larry L. King speaks for many in noting, "I have discovered over the years that good reviews strangely fail to make the author feel as good as bad reviews make him feel bad." Whether we are judging ourselves or others, negative information carries more weight because, being (more/less) usual, it grabs (more/less) attention (Yzerbyt & Leyens, 1991). People's votes are more influenced by their impressions of presidential candidates' (strengths/weaknesses) than by their impressions of (strengths/weaknesses) (Klein, 1991), a phenomenon quickly grasped by those who design negative campaigns. It's a general rule of life: Bad is stronger than good (Baumeister et al., 2001). (See "Focus On: Bad Is Stronger Than Good.")
Liking Those Who Like Us: One person's liking for another does predict the other's liking in return (Kenny & Nasby, 1980; Montoya & Insko, 2008). But does one person's liking another cause the other to return the appreciation? People's reports of how they fell in love suggest so (Aron et al., 1989). Discovering that an appealing someone really likes you seems to awaken romantic feelings. Experiments confirm it: Those told that certain others like or admire them usually feel a reciprocal affection (Berscheid & Walster, 1978). And all the better, one speed-dating experiment suggests, when someone likes you especially (Eastwick et al., 2007). A dash of uncertainty can also fuel desire. Thinking that someone probably likes you—but you aren't sure—tends to increase your thinking about, and feeling attracted to, another (Whitechurch et al., 2011). And consider this finding: Students like another student who says eight positive things about them better than one who says seven positive things and one negative thing (Berscheid et al., 1969). We are sensitive to the slightest hint of criticism. Writer Larry L. King speaks for many in noting, "I have discovered over the years that good reviews strangely fail to make the author feel as good as bad reviews make him feel bad." Whether we are judging ourselves or others, negative information carries more weight because, being less usual, it grabs more attention (Yzerbyt & Leyens, 1991). People's votes are more influenced by their impressions of presidential candidates' weaknesses than by their impressions of strengths (Klein, 1991), a phenomenon quickly grasped by those who design negative campaigns. It's a general rule of life: Bad is stronger than good (Baumeister et al., 2001). (See "Focus On: Bad Is Stronger Than Good.")
Most cultures—89 percent in one analysis of 166 cultures—do have a concept of romantic love, as reflected in flirtation or couples running off together (Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992). Note: That's your anthro 101 prof Poggers. But in some cultures, notably those practicing arranged marriages, love tends to follow rather than to precede marriage. It is actually (men/women?) who tend to fall in love more readily (Ackerman et al., 2011; Dion & Dion, 1985). (men/women?) also seem to fall out of love more slowly and are less likely than (men/women?) to break up a premarital romance. Surprisingly to most people, in heterosexual relationships, it's (men/women?), not (men/women?), who most often are first to say "I love you" (Ackerman et al., 2011).
Most cultures—89 percent in one analysis of 166 cultures—do have a concept of romantic love, as reflected in flirtation or couples running off together (Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992). Note: That's your anthro 101 prof Poggers. But in some cultures, notably those practicing arranged marriages, love tends to follow rather than to precede marriage. It is actually men who tend to fall in love more readily (Ackerman et al., 2011; Dion & Dion, 1985). Men also seem to fall out of love more slowly and are less likely than women to break up a premarital romance. Surprisingly to most people, in heterosexual relationships, it's men, not women, who most often are first to say "I love you" (Ackerman et al., 2011).
Ostracism hurts, and the social pain is keenly felt—(__more/less?) than those who are not ostracized ever know (Nordgren et al., 2011). (__Ostracism/bullying?) may be worse than (_Ostracism/bullying?): (_Ostracism/bullying?) at least acknowledges someone's existence and importance, whereas (_Ostracism/bullying?) treats a person as if she doesn't exist at all (Williams & Nida, 2009). In one study, children who were ostracized but not bullied felt (__better/worse?) than those who were bullied but not ostracized (Carpenter et al., 2012). See: What can ostracism lead to ?
Ostracism hurts, and the social pain is keenly felt—more than those who are not ostracized ever know (Nordgren et al., 2011). Ostracism may be worse than bullying: Bullying at least acknowledges someone's existence and importance, whereas ostracism treats a person as if she doesn't exist at all (Williams & Nida, 2009). In one study, children who were ostracized but not bullied felt worse than those who were bullied but not ostracized (Carpenter et al., 2012). See: What can ostracism lead to ?
Our society teaches us to exchange rewards by the __ principle of attraction: What you and your partner get out of a relationship should be proportional to what you each put into it (Hatfield et al., 1978). If two people receive equal outcomes, they should contribute equally; otherwise one or the other will feel it is unfair. If both feel their outcomes correspond to the assets and efforts each contributes, then both perceive equity. Note: Although equity is important, keeping track of debts and instant repayment don't support good relationships. aka, don't consider short-term equity. This is also characteristic of secure-attachment styles. See: Long-term equity.
Our society teaches us to exchange rewards by the equity principle of attraction: What you and your partner get out of a relationship should be proportional to what you each put into it (Hatfield et al., 1978). If two people receive equal outcomes, they should contribute equally; otherwise one or the other will feel it is unfair. If both feel their outcomes correspond to the assets and efforts each contributes, then both perceive equity. Note: Although equity is important, keeping track of debts and instant repayment don't support good relationships. aka, don't consider short-term equity. This is also characteristic of secure-attachment styles. See: Long-term equity.
__ love is a state of intense longing for union with another. These lovers are absorbed in each other, feel ecstatic at attaining their partner's love, and are disconsolate on losing it.
Passionate love is a state of intense longing for union with another. Passionate lovers are absorbed in each other, feel ecstatic at attaining their partner's love, and are disconsolate on losing it.
__ means Geographical nearness (more precisely, "functional distance") It powerfully predicts liking. Related to personal space
Proximity means Geographical nearness (more precisely, "functional distance", which means how often your paths cross) It powerfully predicts liking. EX: Sociologists long ago found that most people marry someone who lives in the same neighborhood, or works at the same company or job, or sits in the same class, or visits the same favorite place (Bossard, 1932; Burr, 1973; Clarke, 1952; McPherson et al., 2001) In baseball, umpires are less likely to call a strike on batters they have stood closer to throughout the game (Mills, 2014). Related to personal space
Psychologist Robert Sternberg (1998) views love as a triangle consisting of three components: __, __, and __. (Figure 5).
Psychologist Robert Sternberg (1998) views love as a triangle consisting of three components: passion, intimacy, and commitment. (Figure 5).
Questions on Friendship and Attractiveness: Questions: Does absence make the heart grow fonder? (True/False) Or is someone who is out of sight also out of mind?(True/False) Do likes attract?(True/False) Or opposites?(True/False) How much do good looks matter? What has fostered your close relationships?
Questions on Friendship and Attractiveness: Questions: Does absence make the heart grow fonder? (False) Or is someone who is out of sight also out of mind?(True) Do likes attract? (True) Or opposites? (False) How much do good looks matter? What has fostered your close relationships?
__ attachment: Attachments rooted in trust and marked by intimacy. Approximately (1/2/7?) in 10 infants, and nearly that many adults, exhibit secure attachment (Baldwin et al., 1996; Jones & Cunningham, 1996; Mickelson et al., 1997). When placed as infants in a strange situation (usually a laboratory playroom), they play comfortably in their mother's presence, happily exploring this strange environment. If she leaves, they become distressed; when she returns, they run to her, hold her, then relax and return to exploring and playing (Ainsworth, 1973, 1979). This trusting attachment style, many researchers believe, forms a working model of intimacy—a blueprint for one's adult intimate relationships, in which underlying trust sustains relationships through times of conflict (Miller & Rempel, 2004; Oriña et al., 2011; Salvatore et al., 2011). Securely attached adults find it easy to get close to others and don't fret about getting too dependent or being abandoned. As lovers, they enjoy sexuality within the context of a secure, committed relationship. And their relationships tend to be satisfying and enduring (Feeney, 1996; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Simpson et al., 1992). See also: avoidant attachment and anxious attachment.
Secure attachment: Attachments rooted in trust and marked by intimacy. Approximately 7 in 10 infants, and nearly that many adults, exhibit secure attachment (Baldwin et al., 1996; Jones & Cunningham, 1996; Mickelson et al., 1997). When placed as infants in a strange situation (usually a laboratory playroom), they play comfortably in their mother's presence, happily exploring this strange environment. If she leaves, they become distressed; when she returns, they run to her, hold her, then relax and return to exploring and playing (Ainsworth, 1973, 1979). This trusting attachment style, many researchers believe, forms a working model of intimacy—a blueprint for one's adult intimate relationships, in which underlying trust sustains relationships through times of conflict (Miller & Rempel, 2004; Oriña et al., 2011; Salvatore et al., 2011). Securely attached adults find it easy to get close to others and don't fret about getting too dependent or being abandoned. As lovers, they enjoy sexuality within the context of a secure, committed relationship. And their relationships tend to be satisfying and enduring (Feeney, 1996; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Simpson et al., 1992). See also: avoidant attachment and anxious attachment.
__-__ is revealing intimate aspects of oneself to others.
Self-disclosure is revealing intimate aspects of oneself to others.
So why does proximity encourage affection more often than animosity? 1. __ OF INTERACTION: 2. __ __
So why does proximity encourage affection more often than animosity? 1. ANTICIPATION OF INTERACTION: Merely anticipating interaction boosts liking. EX: John Darley and Ellen Berscheid (1967) discovered this when they gave University of Minnesota women ambiguous information about two other women, one of whom they expected to talk with intimately. Asked how much they liked each one, the women preferred the person they expected to meet. Expecting to date someone also boosts liking (Berscheid et al., 1976). 2. MERE EXPOSURE Mere exposure to all sorts of novel stimuli—nonsense syllables, Chinese calligraphy characters, musical selections, faces—boosts people's ratings of them. Do the supposed Turkish words nansoma, saricik, and afworbu mean something better or something worse than the words iktitaf, biwojni, and kadirga? University of Michigan students tested by Robert Zajonc (1968, 1970) preferred whichever of these words they had seen most frequently. The more times they had seen a meaningless word or a Chinese ideograph, the more likely they were to say it meant something good (Figure 2). What are your favorite letters of the alphabet? People of differing nationalities, languages, and ages prefer the letters appearing in their own names and those that frequently appear in their own languages (Hoorens & Nuttin, 1993; Hoorens et al., 1990; Kitayama & Karasawa, 1997; Nuttin, 1987). French students rate capital W, the least frequent letter in French, as their least favorite letter. In a stock market stimulation study, American business students preferred to buy stocks that shared the same first letter as their name (Knewtson & Sias, 2010). Japanese students prefer not only letters from their names but also numbers corresponding to their birth dates. Consumers prefer products whose prices remind them of their birthdates ($49.15 for a birthday on the 15th) and their names (fifty-five dollars for a name starting with F). The preference persists even when the price is higher (Coulter & Grewal, 2014). This "name letter effect" reflects more than mere exposure, however— Not only are we prone to self-serving bias, we also exhibit what Brett Pelham, Matthew Mirenberg, andJohn Jones (2002) call implicit egotism: We like what we associate with ourselves. *Note: Related to self-reference effect ?*
To men who have recently been gazing at centerfolds, average women or even their own wives tend to seem (more/less?) attractive (Kenrick et al., 1989).
Social comparison in attractiveness To men who have recently been gazing at centerfolds, average women or even their own wives tend to seem less attractive (Kenrick et al., 1989). It works the same way with our self-perceptions. After viewing a very attractive person of the same gender, people rate themselves as being less attractive than after viewing a homely person (Brown et al., 1992; Thornton & Maurice, 1997). Men's self-rated desirability is also deflated by exposure to more dominant, successful men.
Social psychologists call the motivation to bond with others in relationships that provide ongoing, positive interactions the __ to __.
Social psychologists call the motivation to bond with others in relationships that provide ongoing, positive interactions the need to belong.
The best predictor of whether any two people are friends is their sheer __= to each other. =__ is conducive to repeated exposure and interaction,which enables us to discover similarities and to feel each other's liking.
The best predictor of whether any two people are friends is their sheer proximity to each other. Proximity is conducive to repeated exposure and interaction,which enables us to discover similarities and to feel each other's liking. EX: At the college where I [DM] teach, men and women once lived on opposite sides of the campus. Unsurprisingly, cross-sex friendships were uncommon. Now that they live in gender-integrated residence halls and share common sidewalks, lounges, and laundry facilities, friendships between men and women are far more frequent. Theory: Interaction enables people to explore their similarities, to sense one another's liking, to learn more about each other, and to perceive themselves as part of a social unit (Arkin & Burger, 1980). In one study, strangers liked each other more the longer they talked (Reis et al., 2011).
The flow and ebb of romantic love follows the pattern of __ to coffee, alcohol, and other drugs (Burkett & Young, 2012). At first, a drug gives a big kick, a high. With repetition, opponent emotions gain strength and __ develops. An amount that once was highly stimulating no longer gives a thrill. Stopping the substance, however, does not return you to where you started. Rather, it triggers __ symptoms—malaise, depression, the blahs. The same often happens in love. The passionate high is fated to become lukewarm. The no-longer-romantic relationship becomes taken for granted—until it ends. Then the jilted lover, the widower, the divorcé, are surprised at how empty life now seems without the person they long ago stopped feeling passionately attached to. Having focused on what was not working, they stopped noticing what was (Carlson & Hatfield, 1992).
The flow and ebb of romantic love follows the pattern of addictions to coffee, alcohol, and other drugs (Burkett & Young, 2012). At first, a drug gives a big kick, a high. With repetition, opponent emotions gain strength and tolerance develops. An amount that once was highly stimulating no longer gives a thrill. Stopping the substance, however, does not return you to where you started. Rather, it triggers withdrawal symptoms—malaise, depression, the blahs. The same often happens in love. The passionate high is fated to become lukewarm. The no-longer-romantic relationship becomes taken for granted—until it ends. Then the jilted lover, the widower, the divorcé, are surprised at how empty life now seems without the person they long ago stopped feeling passionately attached to. Having focused on what was not working, they stopped noticing what was (Carlson & Hatfield, 1992).
The __ phenomenon is the tendency for men and women to choose as partners those who are a "good match" in attractiveness and other traits.
The matching phenomenon is the tendency for men and women to choose as partners those who are a "good match" in attractiveness and other traits. People tend to select as friends, and especially to marry, those who are a "good match" not only to their level of intelligence, popularity, and self-worth but also to their level of attractiveness (McClintock, 2014; Taylor et al., 2011). Experiments confirm this matching phenomenon. When choosing whom to approach, knowing the other is free to say yes or no, people often approach and invest more in pursuing someone whose attractiveness roughly matches their own (Berscheid et al., 1971; van Straaten et al., 2009). They seek out someone who seems desirable, but they are mindful of the limits of their own desirability. Good physical matches may be conducive to good relationships, reported Gregory White (1980) tbh, I think this is a useless statement...
The __-__ effect is the tendency for novel stimuli to be liked more or rated more positively after the rater has been repeatedly exposed to them.
The mere-exposure effect is the tendency for novel stimuli to be liked more or rated more positively after the rater has been repeatedly exposed to them. The more two strangers interact, the more attractive they tend to find each other (Reis et al., 2011).
The __-__ stereotype is the presumption that physically attractive people possess other socially desirable traits as well. Is it true ? (Yes/No?)
The physical-attractiveness stereotype is the presumption that physically attractive people possess other socially desirable traits as well. aka, What is beautiful is good. Is it true ? *Basically, yes, due to self-fulfilling prophecies.* Despite others' perceptions, physically attractive people do not differ from others in basic personality traits such as agreeableness, openness, extraversion, ambition, or emotional stability (Segal-Caspi et al., 2012). However, there is some truth to the stereotype. Attractive children and young adults are somewhat more relaxed, outgoing, and socially polished (Feingold, 1992b; Langlois et al., 2000). These small average differences between attractive and unattractive people probably result from self-fulfilling prophecies. Attractive people are valued and favored, so many develop more social self-confidence. (Recall from an earlier chapter an experiment in which men evoked a warm response from unseen women they thought were attractive.) By that analysis, what's crucial to your social skill is not how you look but how people treat you and how you feel about yourself—whether you accept yourself, like yourself, and feel comfortable with yourself.
The psychological literature does seem to confirm that we are social animals.
The psychological literature does seem to confirm that we are social animals. As with other motivations, we pursue belonging when we don't have it, and seek less when our needs are fulfilled (DeWall et al., 2009, 2011). Satisfy the need to belong in balance with two other human needs—to feel autonomy and competence—and the typical result is a deep sense of well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Milyavskaya et al., 2009; Sheldon & Niemiec, 2006).
The __ theory of attraction is the theory that we like those whose behavior is rewarding to us or whom we associate with rewarding events. Those who reward us, or whom we associate with rewards, we like. If a relationship gives us more rewards than costs, we will like it and will want it to continue. We not only like people who are rewarding to be with but also, according to the second version of the reward principle, like those we __ with good feelings. Conditioning creates positive feelings toward things and people linked with rewarding events (Byrne & Clore, 1970; De Houwer et al., 2001; Lott & Lott, 1974). Experiments (confirm/disconfirm) this phenomenon of liking— and disliking—by association (Hofmann et al., 2010). When an experimenter was friendly, participants (chose to interact with/avoided) someone who looked similar to her, but if she was unfriendly, they (chose to interact with/avoided) the similar- looking woman (Lewicki, 1985). Elaine Hatfield and William Walster (1978) found a practical tip in these research studies: "Romantic dinners, trips to the theatre, evenings at home together, and vacations never stop being important. . . . If your relationship is to survive, it's important that you both continue to associate your relationship with good things." TAKEAWAY: Every time people meet with you, it should be a good time/comfort zone (employ zero threat, honesty, calmness <-THIS IS IMPORTANT, do NOT be someone people associate with PANIC AND ANXIETY , aka dad.)
The reward theory of attraction is the theory that we like those whose behavior is rewarding to us or whom we associate with rewarding events. Those who reward us, or whom we associate with rewards, we like. If a relationship gives us more rewards than costs, we will like it and will want it to continue. We not only like people who are rewarding to be with but also, according to the second version of the reward principle, like those we associate with good feelings. Conditioning creates positive feelings toward things and people linked with rewarding events (Byrne & Clore, 1970; De Houwer et al., 2001; Lott & Lott, 1974). Experiments confirm this phenomenon of liking— and disliking—by association (Hofmann et al., 2010). When an experimenter was friendly, participants chose to interact with someone who looked similar to her, but if she was unfriendly, they avoided the similar- looking woman (Lewicki, 1985). Elaine Hatfield and William Walster (1978) found a practical tip in these research studies: "Romantic dinners, trips to the theatre, evenings at home together, and vacations never stop being important. . . . If your relationship is to survive, it's important that you both continue to associate your relationship with good things." TAKEAWAY: Every time people meet with you, it should be a good time/comfort zone (employ zero threat, honesty, calmness <-THIS IS IMPORTANT, do NOT be someone people associate with PANIC AND ANXIETY, aka dad.)
The __-__ theory of emotion: Arousal X its label = emotion EX: According to this theory, emotional arousal caused by an exciting experience such as an amusement park ride may be confused for sexual attraction. From (cognitive Psy316): The two dimensions of emotion are: 1. __=Whether an emotion is positive or negative. 2. __= How strongly the emotion is experienced. __ has a bigger impact on memory recall (Talarico,LaBar,&Rubin,2004). Back to social: According to this theory, being aroused by any source should intensify passionate feelings—provided that the mind is free to attribute some of the arousal to a romantic stimulus. In a dramatic and famous demonstration of this phenomenon, Donald Dutton and Arthur Aron (1974) had an attractive young woman approach individual young men as they crossed a narrow, wobbly, 450-foot-long suspension walkway hanging 230 feet above British Columbia's rocky Capilano River. The woman asked each man to help her fill out a class questionnaire. When he had finished, she scribbled her name and phone number and invited him to call if he wanted to hear more about the project. (Most/Few) accepted the phone number, and half who did so called. By contrast, men approached by the woman on a low, solid bridge (often/rarely) called. Once again, physical arousal accentuated romantic responses.
The two-factor theory of emotion: Arousal X its label = emotion EX: According to this theory, emotional arousal caused by an exciting experience such as an amusement park ride may be confused for sexual attraction. From (cognitive Psy316): The two dimensions of emotion are: 1. Valence=Whether an emotion is positive or negative. 2. Intensity= How strongly the emotion is experienced. Intensity has a bigger impact on memory recall (Talarico,LaBar,&Rubin,2004). Back to social: According to this theory, being aroused by any source should intensify passionate feelings—provided that the mind is free to attribute some of the arousal to a romantic stimulus. In a dramatic and famous demonstration of this phenomenon, Donald Dutton and Arthur Aron (1974) had an attractive young woman approach individual young men as they crossed a narrow, wobbly, 450-foot-long suspension walkway hanging 230 feet above British Columbia's rocky Capilano River. The woman asked each man to help her fill out a class questionnaire. When he had finished, she scribbled her name and phone number and invited him to call if he wanted to hear more about the project. Most accepted the phone number, and half who did so called. By contrast, men approached by the woman on a low, solid bridge rarely called. Once again, physical arousal accentuated romantic responses. Scary movies, roller-coaster rides, and physical exercise have the same effect, especially to those we find attractive (Foster et al., 1998; White & Kight, 1984). The effect holds true with married couples, too. Those who do exciting activities together report the best relationships. And after doing an arousing rather than a mundane laboratory task (roughly the equivalent of a three-legged race on their hands and knees), couples also reported higher satisfaction with their overall relationship (Aron et al., 2000). Adrenaline makes the heart grow fonder. As this suggests, passionate love is a biological as well as a psychological phenomenon. Research by social psychologist Arthur Aron and colleagues (2005) indicates that passionate love engages dopamine-rich brain areas associated with reward (Figure 6).
WHAT LEADS TO FRIENDSHIP AND ATTRACTION? (Peppega D: ) 1. proximity 2. physical attractiveness 3. similarity 4. Simply liking others
WHAT LEADS TO FRIENDSHIP AND ATTRACTION? (Peppega D: ) 1. proximity If you're new in town and want to make friends, try to get an apartment near the mailboxes, a desk near the coffeepot, a parking spot near the main buildings, or a room in a dormitory with shared bathroom facilities (Easterbrook & Vignoles, 2015). Such is the architecture of friendship. 2. physical attractiveness Like it or not, a young woman's physical attractiveness is a moderately good predictor of how frequently she dates, and a young man's attractiveness is a modestly good predictor of how frequently he dates (Berscheid et al., 1971; Reis et al., 1980, 1982; Walster et al., 1966). 3. similarity In experiments, Donn Byrne (1971) and his colleagues captured the essence of Lakesha's experience. Over and over again, they found that the more similar someone's attitudes are to your own, the more you will like the person. Recent studies have replicated these effects, finding that students like others with similar attitudes (Montoya & Horton, 2012; Reid et al., 2013). 4. Simply liking others
What can ostracism lead to ? *Aggression/Self-defeating Behavior: Outside of the laboratory, rejected children were, two years later, (more/less) likely to have self-regulation issues, such as not finishing tasks and not listening to directions (Stenseng et al., 2014). In lab experiments, socially rejected people also became (more/less) likely to disparage or blast unpleasant noise at someone who had insulted them, were (more/less) likely to help others, and were (more/less) likely to cheat and steal (Kouchaki & Wareham, 2015; Poon et al., 2013; Twenge et al., 2001, 2007). In several experiments, students randomly assigned to be rejected by their peers (versus those who were accepted) became (more/less) likely to engage in self-defeating behaviors (such as procrastinating by reading magazines) and (more/less) able to regulate their behavior (such as eating cookies; Baumeister et al., 2005; Twenge et al., 2002). *Biological Reasoning: This might result from a self-control breakdown: Ostracized people show (a surplus/deficit(s)) in brain mechanisms that inhibit unwanted behavior (Otten & Jonas, 2013). Ostracized people exhibit (heightened/reduced) activity in a brain cortex area that also activates in response to physical pain (Figure 1). Ostracism's social pain, much like physical pain, increases aggression (Riva et al., 2011). Hurt feelings are also embodied in a (increased/depressed) heart rate (Moor et al., 2010). Heartbreak makes for heart brake. TRUE/FALSE: the pain of social rejection is so real in the brain that a pain-relieving Tylenol can reduce hurt feelings (DeWall et al., 2010), as can sending a light electrical current to the brain region in which rejection is felt (Riva et al., 2012). *Personal note: Electroconvulsive therapy ? Ostracism's opposite—feeling love—activates brain reward systems. When looking at their beloved's picture, university students feel markedly (more/less?) pain when immersing their hands in cold water (Younger et al., 2010). Asked to recall a time when they were socially excluded—perhaps left alone in the dorm when others went out—people in one experiment even perceived the room temperature as five degrees (warmer/colder) than did those asked to recall a social acceptance experience (Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008). Ostracism is a real pain, and love is a natural painkiller. *How can I help ? Roy Baumeister (2005) finds a silver lining in the rejection research. When recently excluded people experience a (__hint: zero threat) opportunity to make a new friend, they "seem willing and even eager to take it." They become more attentive to smiling, accepting faces (DeWall et al., 2009). An exclusion experience also triggers (increased/decreased) mimicry of others' behavior in an unconscious attempt to build rapport (Lakin et al., 2008). My conclusion: Be friendly and relaxed (recall INTJ-T weakness), demonstrate capability, maintain zero threat.
What can ostracism lead to ? Sometimes deflation turns nasty, as when people lash out at the very people whose acceptance they desire (Reijntjes et al., 2011) or engage in self-defeating behavior. *Aggression/Self-defeating Behavior: Outside of the laboratory, rejected children were, two years later, more likely to have self-regulation issues, such as not finishing tasks and not listening to directions (Stenseng et al., 2014). In lab experiments, socially rejected people also became more likely to disparage or blast unpleasant noise at someone who had insulted them, were less likely to help others, and were more likely to cheat and steal (Kouchaki & Wareham, 2015; Poon et al., 2013; Twenge et al., 2001, 2007). In several experiments, students randomly assigned to be rejected by their peers (versus those who were accepted) became more likely to engage in self-defeating behaviors (such as procrastinating by reading magazines) and less able to regulate their behavior (such as eating cookies; Baumeister et al., 2005; Twenge et al., 2002). Apparently the stereotype of someone eating lots of ice cream after a breakup isn't far off. *Biological Reasoning: This might result from a self-control breakdown: Ostracized people show deficits in brain mechanisms that inhibit unwanted behavior (Otten & Jonas, 2013). Ostracized people exhibit heightened activity in a brain cortex area that also activates in response to physical pain (Figure 1). Ostracism's social pain, much like physical pain, increases aggression (Riva et al., 2011). Hurt feelings are also embodied in a depressed heart rate (Moor et al., 2010). Heartbreak makes for heart brake. (TRUE:)Indeed, the pain of social rejection is so real in the brain that a pain-relieving Tylenol can reduce hurt feelings (DeWall et al., 2010), as can sending a light electrical current to the brain region in which rejection is felt (Riva et al., 2012). *Personal note: Electroconvulsive therapy ? Ostracism's opposite—feeling love—activates brain reward systems. When looking at their beloved's picture, university students feel markedly less pain when immersing their hands in cold water (Younger et al., 2010). Asked to recall a time when they were socially excluded—perhaps left alone in the dorm when others went out—people in one experiment even perceived the room temperature as five degrees colder than did those asked to recall a social acceptance experience (Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008). Ostracism is a real pain, and love is a natural painkiller. *How can I help ? Roy Baumeister (2005) finds a silver lining in the rejection research. When recently excluded people experience a safe opportunity to make a new friend, they "seem willing and even eager to take it." They become more attentive to smiling, accepting faces (DeWall et al., 2009). An exclusion experience also triggers increased mimicry of others' behavior in an unconscious attempt to build rapport (Lakin et al., 2008). My conclusion: Be friendly and relaxed (recall INTJ-T weakness), demonstrate capability, maintain zero threat.
Whether people perceive those of another race as similar or dissimilar influences their __ attitudes. In one study, liberals expressed dislike of conservatives and conservatives of liberals-- race (also affected/did not affect) liking (Chambers et al., 2012). "Cultural racism" persists, argues social psychologist James Jones (1988, 2003, 2004), because cultural differences are a fact of life.
Whether people perceive those of another race as similar or dissimilar influences their racial attitudes. In one study, liberals expressed dislike of conservatives and conservatives of liberals, but race did not affect liking (Chambers et al., 2012). "Cultural racism" persists, argues social psychologist James Jones (1988, 2003, 2004), because cultural differences are a fact of life. Black culture tends to be present-oriented, spontaneously expressive, spiritual, and emotionally driven. White culture tends to be more future-oriented, materialistic, and achievement driven. Rather than trying to eliminate such differences, says Jones, we might better appreciate what they "contribute to the cultural fabric of a multicultural society."
Which attachment style combinations are the best—and worst? Two __ attached partners would seem to be ideal, and pairings in which at least one partner is __ attached may have more issues. The most difficult pairing appears to be an __woman and an __ man; these couples showed the highest levels of stress hormone when they anticipated talking over a conflict, and found it more difficult to give and seek care from their partner (Beck et al., 2013).
Which attachment style combinations are the best—and worst? Two securely attached partners would seem to be ideal, and pairings in which at least one partner is insecurely attached may have more issues. The most difficult pairing appears to be an anxious woman and an avoidant man; these couples showed the highest levels of stress hormone when they anticipated talking over a conflict, and found it more difficult to give and seek care from their partner (Beck et al., 2013). This makes sense: The anxious woman, uncertain of her partner's love, seeks closeness, while the avoidant man, uncomfortable with closeness, distances himself. For better or for worse, early attachment styles do seem to lay a foundation for future relationships.
Zajonc's studies on mere exposure: 1.Mere exposure occurs __: 2. __ occurs instantaneously, independently of cognition. Implications: __ in our implicit attitudes.
Zajonc's studies on mere exposure: 1.Mere exposure occurs unconsciously: 2. Emotion occurs instantaneously, independently of cognition. Implications: Prejudice in our implicit attitudes. 1.Mere exposure's negative side is our wariness of the unfamiliar—which may explain the automatic, unconscious prejudice people often feel when confronting those who are different. Infants as young as 3 months exhibit an own-race preference: If they are being raised by others of their race, they prefer to gaze at faces of their own familiar race (Bar-Haim et al., 2006; Kelly et al., 2005, 2007). Related: Judging by how long they gaze at someone, even 3-month-old infants prefer attractive faces (Langlois et al., 1987). Mere exposure has an even stronger effect when people receive stimuli without awareness (Bornstein & D'Agostino, 1992; Hansen & Wänke, 2009; Kunst-Wilson & Zajonc, 1980; Willems et al., 2010). In one experiment, women heard music in one headphone and words in the other; they were asked to repeat the words out loud, focusing attention toward the words and away from the tunes. Later, when the women heard the tunes interspersed among similar ones not previously played, they did not recognize them. Nevertheless, they liked best the tunes they had previously heard. Even patients with amnesia—who can consciously recall very little of what they experience—prefer faces they saw recently (Marin-Garcia et al., 2013). 2.Zajonc (1980) argues that emotions are often more instantaneous than thinking. Zajonc's rather astonishing idea—that emotions are semi-independent of thinking ("affect may precede cognition")—has found support in recent brain research. Emotion and cognition are enabled by distinct brain regions. Lesion a monkey's amygdala (the emotion-related brain structure) and its emotional responses will be impaired, but its cognitive functions will be intact. Lesion its hippocampus (a memory-related structure) and its cognition will be impaired, but its emotional responses remain intact (Zola-Morgan et al., 1991).
