Prelim 2 study guide PDF

Preview

Summary

prelim 2 study guide...

Description

Prelim 2 Study Guide Lecture 1) Know the general bonding related milestones between ~2 years and puberty Be familiar with the concepts of sexual imprinting, the Westermarck effect, and the difference between them. a) ~ 2 years Shift in attachment/affiliation balance, start of prolonged parents vs peers trend -made possible by infant cognitive and physical development i) Parents as secure base ii) From which to explore iii) Including peer relations b) ~ 3 years New developments in peer relations, "parallel play" to "true" social exchanges i) Sustained attention ii) Turn taking iii) Relevant responsiveness c) At ~4-6 years - heightened gender awareness, segregation (according to gender on the basis of activities) i) Maybe sexual imprinting - process by which a young animal learns the characteristics of a desirable mate ii) Westermarck effect d) ~8 -12 yrs. The nature and import of peer relations changes, onset of peer-directed attachment behaviors, "social buffering" by parents vs peers i) Social buffering - when someone reduces or alleviates stress through contact e) Puberty i) Hormone-related bodily changes, notably in overall shape ii) 15 pound weight gain iii) Hormone-related facial changes in overall structure: testosterone iv) Growth in cheekbone, increase prominence of brow bone (testosterone) v) Definition in cheek bone, lower lip plumping, suppress growth in jaw/chin (estrogen) vi) Both types of changes increase sexual dimorphism vii) Associated changes in physical intimacy with parents f) Sexual Imprinting i) Process by which a young animal learns the characteristics of a desirable mate (1) E.g. Male zebra finches prefer mates with the appearance of the female bird that rears them

g) Westermarck effect (or reverse sexual imprinting) i) People who grow up in close domestic proximity during a critical period in early life are ruled out as later sexual partners (1) Possibly as an anti-incest mechanism (2) Occurs regardless of genetic relatedness e.g. kibbutz study h) Sexual imprinting vs Westermarck effect i) Sexual imprinting (1) Rule in specific features/characteristics ii) Westermarck effect (1) Rule out specific individuals 2) How do puberty-related surges in estrogen and/or testosterone affect overall body shape, facial structure, and sexual dimorphism? a) Body Shape i) Estrogen causes disproportionate growth in butt and thighs, narrow waist, and suppression of growth in upper-body region ii) Testosterone causes suppression of growth in butt and thighs and disproportionate growth in the upper body b) Facial Structure i) Estrogen increases definition of cheekbones, thickness of lower lip, suppress growth in jaw/chin region ii) Testosterone causes disproportionate growth in chin/jaw region, more defined/prominent brows, defined cheekbones c) Sexual dimorphism i) Hormone changes in both body shape and facial structure can increase sexual dimorphism (external differences between males and females) 3) Based on the results of facialmetric analyses, which facial features are positively correlated, negatively correlated, or uncorrelated with attractiveness ratings of male and/or female faces? [You do not need to know the relative sizes of the correlations.] These features can be grouped into three types, each of which serves as a cue for a specific social-behavioral system. You should know the scientific terms for the three types and the names of the systems corresponding to each. a) Neotenous for caregiving/parenting i) Eyes height/width = positive for both ii) Forehead height = positive for both b) Sexual Maturation for sexual/mating i) Cheek bones prominence = positive for both ii) Lower lip thickness = positive for female faces, unrelated for males

iii) Chin length/width = negative for female faces, positive for male iv) Brow bone thickness = negative in females, positive in males v) Eyebrow height = positive in females, uncorrelated in males c) Expressive for attachment i) Pupil height/width = positive for female, uncorrelated for males ii) Smile area = positive for both 4) Also be familiar with other above-the-shoulders features of attractiveness (e.g., skin quality) and facial symmetry, and what each signals. a) Facial symmetry: i) Fluctuates (random deviations from perfect symmetry in bilaterally paired traits) ii) More symmetric the features = higher attractive iii) Signals: Robust health, resistance to developmental perturbations & pathogens, reproductive fitness and overall good genes b) Above the shoulder features i) Smooth and clear skin ii) White teeth iii) Clear, sparkling eyes iv) Color (in lips, skin, eyes) v) Lustrous hair vi) Signals: A person is healthy and young, and thus makes them more attractive 5) What is the one “universal” in terms of attractiveness ratings of female bodies and what information does it convey in terms of health status and fertility? And on this one dimension, the most attractive is the average for women who have what three characteristics? a) The universal in attractiveness rating is waist-to-hip ratio (.7) b) Low waist-to-hip ratio for women conveys good health and fertility i) Health: positively correlated with diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and overall mortality ii) Fertility: bodily changes at puberty, menopause, and pregnancy, and bodily shape/likelihood of conception iii) Preferences for breast/butt size varies across individuals and cultures c) Most attractive WHR is the average for women who are i) Post-pubescent ii) Pre-menopausal iii) Nulliparous (never given birth)

6) What are the two “universals” in terms of attractiveness ratings of male bodies? On these two dimensions, what is judged to be most attractive, and what information do the two convey? a) SHR (Shoulder to hip ratio) i) Average Post-Pubescent: 1.4 ii) Higher SHR, correlated with higher attractiveness iii) Indicates high testosterone iv) Larger shoulders (compared to hips) are more preferred b) WHR (waist to hip ratio) i) Changes as men get older ii) Post-Pubescent: 1:1 (preferred) iii) Higher WHR (closest to 1:1 ratio), correlated with higher attractiveness 7) What are two types of mating-related information that gait (manner of walking) conveys? a) Info about age b) Info about gender (masculinity/femininity) 8) Be familiar with empirical examples of propinquity effects on interpersonal attraction (i.e., Festinger et al. and Back et al.), and how the results of these studies indicate that propinquity effects are powerful, enduring, and not conscious or explicit. a) Propinquity is "nearness in physical space" - higher probability of ending up with someone you cross paths with i) Physical propinquity: living/sitting near someone ii) Social: in social network, but don't know them personally iii) Cyber: online dating, social media b) Festinger et al i) Focus on friendships in a married student housing complex ii) People who lived next door to each other were 4x more likely to be friends than with people at the other end of the hall iii) People who lived on the end (by the stairs) had twice as many friendships with upstairs neighbors compared to people living in the middle of the hallway iv) People facing street had fewest friends c) Back et al i) Freshmen had 20 secs to introduce themselves ii) The entire group rates them on how likable and if they'd like to get to know them iii) Neighboring seats > same row > different row

iv) v)

One year later, how much do you like them/know them/are friends with them: No physical relation < same row < neighboring seats

9) What is assortative mating? What are examples of ways in which mates are similar? What is the difference between mate similarity due to active phenotypic assortment and mate similarity due to social homogamy? a) Assortative mating: non-random mating. i) Active phenotypic assortment: actively looking for someone similar to you (looking for only catholics) ii) Social homogamy: people you affiliate/socialize with are people who are like you, on the dimensions that matter to you (main factor) b) Similar in religion, age, race, ethnicity, cognitive ability c) Couples tend to be similar in facial attractiveness (associated with relationship outcomes, length/satisfaction) and sometimes facial features (with exceptions) 10) What do the Saegert et al. and Moreland & Beach findings suggest about the effects of familiarity? In theory, why might familiarity enhance liking or attraction, and what are two caveats of the familiarity effect? a) Saegert et al: "Taste" Experiment i) Tasted things in the presence of another person multiple times ii) The more times a person was encountered, the more likable they were rated b) Moreland & Beach: i) Intro psych students, 4 female confederates attended different numbers of sessions ii) The more sessions attended, the greater the attraction to the other person (pos. feelings toward, want to be friends with, wish to work together) c) Suggestions about familiarity enhancing attraction: i) Easier to perceive/process familiar stimuli ii) Stranger wariness & friend v. foe judgements d) Two caveats: i) Repeated exposure enhances liking only when initial reaction is positive or neutral (1) Repeated exposure to disliked others tends to enhance disliking ii) Familiarity dampens physiological arousal and sexual arousal 11) Research has shown that the very same person may be judged as more or less attractive depending on a variety of contextual factors. Be familiar with such factors as

physiological arousal, mood, perceived scarcity, alcohol consumption, the color red (also pink), bodily scent, smell (as it relates to MHC), and menstrual cycle phase. a) Physiological arousal: high suspension bridge vs. low control bridge (more sexual thoughts / greater attraction with heightened heart rate, could be mistaken for attraction), couples who were physically active were more satisfied with partners than those who did sedentary activities b) Mood: watching a happy vs. sad film, listening to pos/neg music, favorable/unfavorable perform. feedback, comfort/uncomfort room temperature i) Some people are more attractive when rater is in a positive mood c) Perceived scarcity: i) Pennebaker et al: Participants were patrons that were going to three bars. The times they went to the bars were 9pm, 10:30pm and midnight (never went to the same bar 2x, never talked to an intoxicated person.) ii) Findings: Individuals' perception of people's attractiveness in the bar increased the later it got (after 10:30) d) Alcohol consumption: i) Parker et al: Some participants drank vodka, and some drank tonic water (placebo). All participants (male and females) were asked to rate the attractiveness of male and female faces. People were more attractive by raters who were drunk. e) The color red (also pink): symbol of lust and fertility, possibly due to roots of red in our biological heritage, mating patterns (more likely if ovulating, higher testosterone for men), physical attraction / sexually desirable i) Heterosexual males rated images of females wearing different colors. Same image of females wearing red were rated as more attractive. f) Bodily scent/smell: females prefer males whose scent and MHC is different from their own (through scent of urine), so that child is more likely to be resistant to multiple diseases i) When pregnant or on birth control, reverse preferences ii) MHC codes for disease and pathogen resistance. Alleles are codominant (ex. Mom is resistant to disease A and Dad is resistant to disease B - child will be resistant to both disease A and B) g) Menstrual cycle phase: people in their follicular phase of their cycle are seen as more attractive, lap dancers got more tips i) Cheating occurs on follicular phase of menstrual cycle 12) How would you summarize personality effects on interpersonal attraction? How would you summarize the effects of “local” and “universal” indicators of status on interpersonal attraction?

a) Personality aspects that affect interpersonal attraction include i) Positive emotion ii) Sense of humor iii) Warmth & kindness b) People are rated more attractive when they elicit a positive emotion in you and/or when they're in a positive mood (caring partner/parent) c) Traits more effective for… i) Short term mating: narcissism, machiavellianism, psychopathy (game-playing and deception) ii) Long-term mating: kindness, warmth, authenticity (being yourself) d) Local: status can be valued but only for people within the group e) Universal: wealth, resources f) Higher status increases one’s attractiveness 13) According to a study of over 10,000 people in 37 different cultures, in terms of the importance of personality, status, and physical appearance (looks), how were male and female respondents similar and different in what traits they reported seeking in a long-term mate? a) Personality characteristics matter more than looks and wealth in the long term for both men and women i) Top 4 for both were: kind/understanding, intelligent, positive personality, healthy ii) Physically attractive was higher on the list for males, and good earning potential was higher on the list for females. iii) Pair A: Personality vs. status (1) Warm > wealthy (men/women, ST & LT) iv) Pair B: Personality vs. looks (1) Attractive > warm (men/women, ST) (2) Warm > attractive (men/women, LT) - men to a lesser effect v) Pair C: Looks v. status (1) Attractive > wealthy (men & women, ST & LT) - women to a lesser effect

14) How would you summarize the interpersonal attraction effects of reciprocal liking and playing “hard to get?” a) Reciprocal liking i) We like who's attainable ii) It can be learned directly through signals or indirectly through informers

iii) iv)

More likely to like someone back if we think they are selective (hard to get? but not impossible) Reciprocal liking is the most common trigger for romantic infatuation (1) We want to avoid rejection at all costs.

15) According to the process model of mate selection presented in lecture, in general how do the multitude of factors (including propinquity, similarity, familiarity, personality, status, looks, context, and reciprocal liking) help narrow the huge pool of potential mates down to one? a) Who's around? (propinquity, similarity, familiarity "the pool of eligibles): the factors that reduce the millions of potential mates to a much smaller number i) Geographic propinquity ii) Social propinquity iii) Cyber propinquity b) Who's appealing? (personality, status, looks, contextual factors) i) What you say you want vs. what you end up with ii) These days ppl search for longer and are pickier than in the old days when ppl were "good enough" c) Who's attainable? (reciprocal liking) i) Reciprocal liking - that person is more attractive because they want you d) Who's the one? (romantic infatuation) 16) Be familiar with the “symptoms” of romantic infatuation, its average duration and time course, its similarities to and differences from lust/sexual attraction, evidence for and against its being just sexual desire a) Romantic infatuation was found to be a common experience with common features described across cultures and over time (ancient literatures, diagnosed ancient greeks with "love sickness") b) Cultural differences: could be grounds for marriage or not (important for western, but chinese consider it being a sign of trouble) c) Acute onset: sudden, ppl can remember the moment it happened d) Physiological arousal: eat less, sleep less, but have more energy (ex. son thought of a girl, he could lift more) e) Mental preoccupation: they can only think of that person and no other subject, with "laser focus" (OCD & student participants had similar brain activity) f) Mood dependency: volatility (highs/lows depending how the person responds to you), you don't know if it's reciprocal liking for sure so you're constantly trying to figure it out, mental bias of seeing that reciprocation even if it may not exist

g) Idealization: most dangerous feature, when your friends/fam can see red flags but you can't or you dismiss them h) Single target: a bunch of feelings for only one person at that time i) Peak intensity is immediate (but could be less you if rush into it or longer if long distance), by the end of the 2nd year it's reduced to at least 50% of the intensity, usually the relationship either ends by the second year, but if it continues intensity cycles asymptotically for years (settle into a pattern of sexual frequency) i) Similarities to and differences from lust/sexual attraction (1) Evidence for just lust (sexual attraction): time courses are the same, and primary targets are the same (2) Evidence against lust: subjective experience - sexual attraction isn't the primary feeling (you want the person to feel the same way as you), children can be romantically infatuated without sexual attraction

Readings 1) Fink & Penton-Voak: Focus on the sections that address the three major cues discussed in lecture—symmetry, averageness, and hormone markers—and the evolutionary explanations for the appeal of each. [the other sections have not yet been addressed in class and will not be covered on the prelim.] a) Symmetry: bilateral symmetry can signal adaptive value - the ability of an individual to cope with the challenges of his or her environment during development, correlated with genetic heterozygosity (genetic diversity that can defend against parasites), signals outbred mate b) Averageness: average denotes heterozygosity, rated more attractive if you average faces together c) Hormone markers: i) High testosterone causes excessive growth in cheekbones, jaw, chin, prominence of brow, lengthening of facial features, suppressed immune system (cope with the debilitating effects) ii) High estrogen causes excessive growth in cheekbones, show fertility, also debilitating on immune system (May indicate that female’s immune system is so good that it can cope with the debilitating effects of estrogen) iii) Males prefer females with: clear skin, no body hair, smooth skin, it signals fertility

iv)

Variability in prefs for males: highly masculine male faces were perceived as less warm, less honest, more dominant (less social). Can depend on menstrual-cycle phase (like more masculine when likely to conceive, short-term, more feminine for investment in offspring, prosocial)

2) Lee et al.: Focus on the intro, the overview of the investigation, and the general discussion. a) People's own physical attractiveness affects their selection of romantic partners-support assortative mating b) People of the same attractiveness level are more likely to be satisfied in the relationship, increases genetic fitness c) Less attractive people don't convince themselves that their dates are more attractive than others perceive them to be i) males are less affected by their own attractiveness d) There are universal determinants of attractiveness (neotenous features, waist-to-hip ratios, etc.), judge the same ppl as attractive regardless of their own attractiveness 3) Hunt et al.: Focus on the method, Figures 1 and 2, and the discussion. a) Attractiveness vs. how long they'd known each other before getting involved b) The longer the couple had known each other before dating (and if they were friends), the less likely they were to be matched for physical attractiveness c) If the couple knew each other for about 9+ months before dating, assortative mating by attractiveness was barely existent d) No association between attractiveness and relationship satisfaction 4) Back et al.: Everything you need to know about this study was covered in lecture. a) In previous section 5) Bosson et al.: Focus on overview of studies and hypotheses, method for Study 3, and the general discussion. a) Sharing a negative attitude about a 3rd partner is effective in promoting closeness between people, in-group/out-group, self-esteem b) Study 1: i) If negative attitudes promote closeness, ppl should recall shared neg attitudes when getting to know friends (early stage). ii) Participants listed likes/dislikes with close friends, rated closeness (recalled more pos)

iii)

Simple effects tests revealed that people recalled sharing a larger percentage of negative than positive attitudes abo...