Thought Frequency As Pie Charts

The
The Women Men relationship
relationship
Sports Sex

Sex
Men Pets
Going
thrashing Food bald
Aging Things we Career
Having to shouldn’t Strange ear Aging
pee have eaten & nose hair
growth
 Quotes
"Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each
other but in looking outward together in the same direction."
--- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

It is with true love as it is with ghosts; everyone talks about it, but
few have seen it.
--- La Rochefoucauld

"When two people are under the influence of the most violent,
most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they
are required to swear that they will remain in that excited,
abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do
them part.“
--- George Bernard Shaw
ALVY'S VOICE OVER: I THOUGHT OF THAT OLD JOKE,
YOU KNOW, THIS GUY GOES TO A PSYCHIATRIST AND
SAYS, "DOC, MY BROTHER'S CRAZY. HE THINKS HE'S
A CHICKEN." AND, THE DOCTOR SAYS, "WHY DON'T
YOU TURN HIM IN?" AND THE GUY SAYS, "I WOULD,
BUT I NEED THE EGGS." WELL, I GUESS THAT'S
PRETTY MUCH HOW I FEEL ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE TOTALLY IRRATIONAL AND
CRAZY AND ABSURD AND...BUT, I GUESS WE KEEP
GOING THROUGH IT BECAUSE, UH, MOST OF US NEED
THE EGGS.

---ANNIE HALL
 CECILIA: I JUST MET A WONDERFUL NEW MAN. SURE,
HE'S FICTIONAL BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING.
---THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO

IKE: WELL, I'M OLD-FASHIONED. I DON'T BELIEVE IN

EXTRAMARITAL RELATIONSHIPS. I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD
MATE FOR LIFE, LIKE PIGEONS OR CATHOLICS.
---MANHATTAN

CLIFF: WENDY AND I FINALLY DECIDED TO CALL IT QUITS, YOU

KNOW, AND EVEN THOUGH THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAVE
BEEN TERRIBLE, THIS KIND OF THING MAKES ME FEEL SAD, YOU
KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY.
BABS: BUT YOU KNOW WHAT YOU TOLD ME? YOU TOLD ME IT'S
BEEN PLATONIC FOR A YEAR. AND I SAY, ONCE THE SEX GOES, IT
ALL GOES.
---CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS
ARTHUR: I HAD DROPPED OUT OF LAW SCHOOL WHEN I
MET EVE. SHE WAS VERY BEAUTIFUL. VERY PALE AND
COOL IN HER BLACK DRESS...WITH NEVER ANYTHING
MORE THAN A SINGLE STRAND OF PEARLS. AND
DISTANT. ALWAYS POISED AND DISTENT.

BY THE TIME THE GIRLS WERE BORN...IT WAS ALL SO

PERFECT, SO ORDERED. LOOKING BACK, OF COURSE, IT
WAS RIGID. THE TRUTH IS...SHE'D CREATED A WORLD
AROUND US THAT WE EXISTED IN WHERE EVERYTHING
HAD ITS PLACE, WHERE THERE WAS ALWAYS A KIND OF
HARMONY. OH, GREAT DIGNITY. I WILL SAY...IT WAS LIKE
AN ICE PALACE.

THEN SUDDENLY, ONE DAY, OUT OF NOWHERE...AN

ENORMOUS ABYSS OPENED UP BENEATH OUR FEET. AND I
WAS STARING INTO A FACE I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE.

---INTERIORS
 Early Attraction Factors

• Proximity (physical distance, repeated exposure)

• Anxiety Affiliation Link (Dr. Zilstein study)

• General Emotional Arousal Attraction Link

 Results of Schachter’s “Dr. Zilstein study”
Nonanxious Anxious subjects Schachter (1959)
subjects manipulated the anxiety
levels of female subjects by
20 20 having them anticipate
either painful or innocuous
18 18 shock. The dependent
16 16 variable was subjects’
choice to wait with others
# of Subjects

14 14 or to wait alone.
The results indicated
12 12
that anxious subjects
10 10 chose to wait with
others more than non-
8 8 anxious subjects.
6 6 Also, a follow-up study
4 4 found that anxious
people preferred to
2 2 wait with other
Choose to wait Choose to wait anxious people
alone with others rather than those who
 Attitude similarity and attraction
Attraction toward other person (range = 2-14)

Byrne and Nelson (1965)

asked to rate how much they
13.00
liked a stranger after
12.00 learning he agreed with
varying proportions of their
11.00 attitudes expressed on a
questionnaire. (Higher
10.00 numbers indication greater
9.00 liking.)
As the graph
8.00
shows, the greater
7.00 the proportion of
6.00 attitudes subjects
.00 .20 .40 .60 .80 1.00 shared with the
stranger, the more
Proportion of similar attitudes held by
other person subjects liked him.
 WHY SUCH A POWERFUL EFFECT OF
SIMILARITY?

A) COGNITIVE CONSISTENCY
(WE LIKE OURSELVES, THEREFORE WE LIKE THOSE WHO ARE LIKE US)

B) SOCIAL COMPARISON (VALIDATION OF ONE'S BELIEFS)

C) ANTICIPATE/PREDICT OTHER'S BEHAVIOR (e.g., LIKES/DISLIKES,

INTERESTS)

D) THEY WILL LIKE US ALSO (RECIPROCAL)

 REPULSION HYPOTHESIS

Basic premise: Differences are disliked; perceived as threatening

“Lab” studies Avg. attraction score

• Similar attitudes 5.5 No
• No information regarding attitudes 5.2 difference

• Dissimilar attitudes 2.1 (less attraction)

Iowa Caucus Study (Democratic)

Democrat No
difference
Description of person No party affiliation

Republican Disliked
D S S D S
DS S D D
Reject those who are
DDD S S D dissimilar
DDSDDD
S D D S D

S S S S
S S S
End result is that we are
left with similar people to S
interact with
 The motivational value of dissimilarity is various other
theories in social psychology:

• Balance Theory Imbalance is motivating

• Congruity Theory Incongruity is motivating

• Dissonance Theory Dissonance is motivating

• Equity Theory Inequity is motivating

Naturally discovering similarity/dissimilarity (rather

than being given other’s attitudes is quite different

Active search process

 Misattribution of Emotional Arousal
Bridge characteristics:
• Tilted, swayed (6 ft.), wobbled
• Low handrails (3 feet)
• 230 foot drop to rocks and rapids

versus

Higher scores and TAT (men wrote stories) scored for sexual content
greater percent
% of men who called female back
called back when on
this bridge •
Arousal (anxiety) misattributed as partly due to sexual attraction
 EATING LIGHTLY AND SELF-PRESENTATION

Basic Premise: People are motivated to behave in ways to enhance their image

• Females have greater number of eating disorders and dieting than males
(emphasis on thin as attractive)

“Undesirable”
Male

Equal intake of candy by

males and females

“Desirable”
Male

• Females ate less food when interacting with a desirable male

 Conversation Style and Relationship Type

Intimate Friend (versus Casual Friend)

Voice Quality Trait Ratings

Feminine Submissive
Babylike Scatterbrained
High pitch Approachable
Relaxed Sincere
Pleasant

Much better than chance identification of who was being spoken to, a
casual versus intimate friend.
No difference in what was said (transcript analysis). Focus on how
things were said, paralinguistic cues.
 Physical Attractiveness
Advantages:
• Greater overall liking (best predictor of desire to date)
• More desirable character traits (e.g., sensitive, warm, intelligent)
• Higher income
• Higher evaluation of work performance
• More lenient treatment in the legal system Often different in
physical
• Better mental health attraction
• Matching Short
Length of
relationship Couple is
Long equal in
physical
attraction
 Misattributions of friendly behavior
Routine
Conversation
Female
Viewed female as
Male promiscuous; were attracted to
the female; saw themselves as
flirtatious and seductive
Female

Observers Viewed males as behaving

Male in a sexual manner;
females as promiscuous
Sexual Interaction
 The life Communication/ Relationship
consolidation continues
cycle of a
relationshi
p Buildup Deterioration
and decline

Attraction Ending

Important Triggering Social-exchange and equity: Social-exchange and

variables factors: Communication, Self- equity/inequity: Relative
influencing Proximity, disclosure, Communal attractiveness of
attraction Similarity, Erotic concern, External supports alternatives, Barriers to
love etc… dissolution
Low: High: Upset of
High: Heady Relationship deterioration and
Emotion
feeling of in stable state trauma of
romantic love disruption
 Social Exchange Theory

• Costs (Inputs) Loss of freedom, $, time, etc.

• Benefits (Outputs) Companionship, sexual

fulfillment, etc.

• Comparison Level Other person in a relationship,

(e.g., a standard) yourself in the past, an ideal

• Comparison Level for

Evaluation of the value of
Alternatives other partners
 Gender and the Personal Columns

Males Females

Offer Seek Offer Seek

Money Young Physical Money

attractiveness Job information
Status Physically
attractive Personality traits
Career
(e.g., sincerity)
 Relationship Breakups

About 50% “survival” rate; on average overall relationship

satisfaction goes down across time

• Who identifies more problems?

• Who initiates most breakups?
• When are the partners most likely to remain friends, when
the male of female initiates the breakup?
 Relationship-Enhancing and Distress-Maintaining Attributions

Relationship-Enhancing Distress-Maintaining
Attribution Attribution
Positive Event
My partner takes me My partner is My partner took
out to an expensive sweet and me out to write the
dinner thoughtful cost off on taxes
Internal, stable, External, unstable,
global specific

Negative Event
Something My partner is
My partner forgot my
unexpected must always uncaring
birthday
have come up and selfish
External, unstable, Internal, stable,
specific global
 Sample Liking Scale Items

When I am with _____, we are almost always in the same mood.

I think that _____ is unusually well-adjusted.
I would highly recommend _____ for a responsible job.
In my opinion, _____ is an exceptionally mature person.
I have great confidence in _____’s good judgment.
I think that _____ is someone one of those people who quickly
win your respect.
_____ is one of the most likeable people I know.
_____ is the sort of person whom I myself would like to be.
I would vote for _____ in a class or group election.
 Sample Love Scale Items

I would do anything for _____.

I feel responsible for _____’s well being.
I feel very possessive toward _____.
If I could never be with _____, I would feel miserable.
If I were lonely, my first thought would be to seek _____ out.
I would forgive _____ for practically anything.
In would greatly enjoy being confided in by _____.
When I am with _____, I spend a good deal of my time just
looking at him/her.
I would be hard for me to get along without _____.
 Liking & Loving for Dating Partners and Same-Sex Friends

Index Women Men

Love for Partner 89.5 89.3

Liking for Partner 88.7 84.6

Love for Friend 65.3 55.1

Liking for Friend 80.5 79.1

 Interpersonal Relationship --- Newer Approaches

• Individual subjective reactions to cues in

an interaction

Relationships • Active search/detection process for cues

• Timing and sequencing of cues (e.g.,

baking a cake example)
 Interpersonal Relationship --- Newer Approaches
(cont.)

• Future
Thoughts about Evaluation of
possibilities
interpersonal interaction as good,
interactions average, poor • Strategies

• Who is told? When they are told?

Narratives/stories What is said? Why they are told?
about
relationships • Differences in perceptions;
memory for facts