INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION:Reasons for affiliation, Theory of Social exchange

<< REDUCING PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION:The contact hypothesis

INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION (CONTINUE……..):Physical attractiveness >>

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Lesson 28

INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION

Aims

To introduce the concept of interpersonal attraction and related concepts

Objectives

· To explain what is interpersonal attraction.

· To discuss the reasons for affiliation.

· To describe factors influencing our affiliation desires.

· To discuss the characteristics of the situation which attract us.

What is Interpersonal attraction?

Definition:

Interpersonal attraction is the desire to approach another person.

The American Poet Lucy Graely's book "Autobiography of a Face" (1994) relates the story of her

childhood and young adulthood, a time of overwhelming pain caused by intensive chemotherapy and

radiation for facial bone cancer. She mentions the derogatory remarks of other children in middle school

about her disfigured face. Very few people understand what it feels like to be the target of such remarks;

yet many of us would have experienced the rejection by others as one or more of our personal qualities do

not measure up to the standards of acceptability. This lecture will describe that besides physical

appearance, what qualities, situational factors shape our desire to approach or avoid others.

Affiliation Needs

Around the world and across age-groups, most people spend about 3/4 of their time with others. People

want not merely the presence of others but close ties with people who care about them.

Reasons for affiliation

Two theories explain the reasons for our affiliation needs:

1. Social comparison Theory

2. Social exchange theory

Social comparison Theory

· One way to know ourselves and better understand our place in the social environment is to

compare ourselves with others.

This information is required to evaluate the self.

This theory proposes that we evaluate our thoughts and actions by comparing them with those of

others (Festinger, 1954)

Social comparison is most likely when we are in a state of uncertainty

We prefer to compare ourselves with similar others

Used not only to judge-and improve ourselves, but also to provide information about our emotions

and even to choose our friends

111

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Theory of Social exchange

Focus of this theory is on interaction between people

This theory proposes that we seek out and maintain those relationships in which the reward exceeds

the cost. The exchanged goods can be either material (money, food, etc.) or nonmaterial (social

influence, affection, information, etc.). For example, teachers exchange information for money.

Husband and wife exchange work and affection with each other.

States that people are basically hedonists and they exchange rewards for maintaining their well-

being.

Earliest versions of this theory (George Homans, 1958) state that all social relationships are like

economic bargains in which each party places a value on the goods they exchange with one

another.

Reward and cost can not be viewed in isolation as the possibility of an alternative relationship

determines whether people will stay in a relation or not (Thibaut & Kelly, 195). This is the reason

why people sometime stay in very dissatisfying or harmful relations.

Factors influencing affiliation desires

Evolutionary heritage

The brain & central nervous system (CNS) activity

Culture, gender & affiliation

Our evolutionary heritage

Need to belong is a powerful, fundamental and extremely pervasive motivation. Evolutionary

psychologists state that the tendency to socialize, and make friends is an inherited trait. People differ in

their desire for affiliation; some are "people persons" while some like a more restricted range of social

contact. People want not merely the presence of others but close ties to people who care about them.

Unfulfillment of these needs leads to stress, anxiety, and self-defeating thinking and behaviour.

MRI studies show that the social pain we experience following rejection is neurologically similar to the

affective distress associated with physical pain, both originating in anterior cingulate, a part of frontal

lobe of cerebral cortex of brain tissue. The social attachment alarm system seems to be connected with

anterior cingulate during the course of evolution.

The brain & central nervous system (CNS) activity

Individual differences in the need for affiliation have been reported to involve differences in CNS

Arousability & brain activity:

CNS Arousability:

The Habitual degree to which stimulation produces arousal of the CNS

Introverts have inherited a NS that operates at a higher level of arousal than extroverts (Eysenck,

1990). Studies have demonstrated that anterior cingualte, brain's danger and pain alarm centre, is

more active among introverts, because of which they avoid a great deal of social interaction and

situational change in order to keep their arousal from reaching to uncomfortable level.

Socially active extroverts not only choose to perform tasks in noisy settings, they actually perform

better there (Geen, 1996).

112

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Brain activity:

· Extroverts appear to experience greater activation of dopamine pathways in the brain associated

with reward and positive affect

On showing positive images, extroverts experience greater activation of brain areas that control

emotion, such as frontal lobe and amygdala (Canli et al., 2001). Research suggests that experience

of positive affect may be a primary feature of extroversion.

Each of us has a NS that causes us to have varying degrees of tolerance for stimulation for social

interaction, which may influence the emotion we experience in such settings. It is this biological

difference that significantly shapes our affiliation desires

Culture, gender, & affiliation

· Affiliation needs are also shaped by cultural variables. It has been demonstrated through research

that people residing in individualistic cultures have a greater affiliation need as people have to

individually develop their own relationships over there. They also have to establish these

relationships in many varied social settings. However, these relationships may be numerous but

may not be particularly intimate.

Geert Hofstede's study (1980) of 22 countries found a positive relationship between a culture's

degree of individuation and its citizens' affiliation needs.

Women have greater tendency to define themselves in terms of their close relationships. This is the

reason that they remember birthdays and anniversaries more accurately. Women are generally

known as relational people because of these traits.

Characteristics of the situation & attraction

Proximity

Familiarity

Anxiety

Close Proximity Fosters Liking

The best single predictor of whether two people will be friends is how far apart they live. There is

evidence that proximity can affect intimate relationships. In an early sociological study, James

Bossard (1932) plotted the residences of each applicant on 5,000 marriage licenses in Philadelphia

and found a clear relation between proximity and love. Couples were more likely to get married the

closer they lived to each other. In another study, Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) found that

the closer people lived, the more friendly they became with each other. They investigated the

development of friendships in married graduate student housing at the MIT in USA. After world-

war II, these couples were randomly assigned to 17 different buildings. The couples were asked to

name their 3 closest friends in the housing units. The results showed that two thirds of couples'

friends remained in the same building and about 2/3 were living on the same floor. These findings

were replicated in later research as well (Ramsoy, 1966).

Ebbe Ebbesen and his colleagues (1976) found that residents in a California condominium complex

not only established most of their friendships with people who lived in the same housing units, but

they also developed most of their enemies close-by as well. Ebbesen explains this effect by stating

that those who live closer to you are better able than those living farther away to spoil your

happiness and peace of mind.

113

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Why does proximity have an effect?

Ease of availability

Lower cost in terms of time, money, forethought

Cognitive dissonance pressures to like those with whom we must associate

The mere anticipation of interaction increases liking

Familiarity Breeds Liking

Another important situation factor determining attraction is familiarity, the frequency of actual contact with

individuals. Zajonc's (1968) mere exposure hypothesis proposes that repeated exposure to something or

someone is sufficient, by itself, to increase attraction. In one experiment, participants were shown photos of

different faces. The number of times each face was

seen was varied. The more people saw a face, the

Familiarity

more they liked it (Zajonc, 1968). The results are

illustrated below in the graph.

Joseph Grush and his colleagues (1978) found that 83

· Participants were

percent of the primary winners in the election could be

shown photos of

predicted by the amount of media exposure they

different faces. The

3.5

received. This candidate exposure effect has been

number of times each

replicated in numerous studies (Schaffner et al., 1981).

face was seen was

At present, it's not clear why familiarity leads to

varied. The more

2.5

liking. One possibility is that it is part of our

people saw a face,

evolutionary heritage: we may have evolved to view

the more they liked it

unfamiliar objects or situations with caution,

1 2 5 10 25 (Zajonc, 1968).

hesitation, and even fear.

Frequency

Does affiliation desires increase with anxiety?

In the late 1950s, Stanley Schachter attempted to answer this question by bringing female college students

into the laboratory and creating a stressful event. In his initial study, Schachter (1959) introduced himself to

the women as "Dr. Gregor Zilstein" of the Neurology and Psychiatry Department. He told them that they

would receive a series of electrical shocks as part of an experiment on their physiological effects. In the

"high-anxiety" condition, participants were told that the shocks would be quite painful but would cause no

permanent damage. In the "low-anxiety" condition, they were led to believe that the shocks were virtually

painless, no worse than a little tickle. In actuality, no shocks were ever delivered--the intent was merely to

cause participants to believe that they soon would be receiving these shocks.

After hearing this information, the women were told there would be a ten-minute delay while the

equipment was set up. They could spend this time waiting either in a room alone or in a, room with another

participant in the study. Their stated preference was the dependent variable.

The results showed that the high anxiety people wanted to stay with others while waiting. Even when

people were not allowed to talk with each other, even then others presence was preferred. Perhaps others

serve as a social distraction to anxious individuals, temporarily taking their minds off their anxiety.

Schachter believed that the high- anxiety participants wanted to wait with similarly threatened others not

necessarily to talk to them, but rather, to compare the others' emotional reactions to the stressful event with

their own.

114

Social Psychology (PSY403)

Desire to affiliate among high & low anxious

individuals

Percentage

choosing to 40

wait with

others

High

Low

High

Low

With

anxiety

people

no talk

not in

the exp.

Reading

· Franzoi, S. (2003). Social Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 11.

Other Readings

· Lord, C.G. (1997). Social Psychology. Orlando: Harcourt Brace and Company. Chapter 8.

· David G. Myers, D. G. (2002). Social Psychology (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

115

Table of Contents: