Reciprocal affection and attractiveness

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Icon tools.svg

This item has been on the quality assurance side of the portal sociology entered. This is done in order to bring the quality of the articles on the subject of sociology to an acceptable level. Help eliminate the shortcomings in this article and participate in the discussion . ( Enter article )

The social-psychological theory of " reciprocal affection and attractiveness " states that a decisive factor for attractiveness is mutual affection ( reciprocal sympathy ): A person perceives another person as attractive to the extent that he assumes that this person finds him sympathetic and like. The influence of reciprocal affection on attractiveness has been proven in studies (see also attractiveness research ).

Reciprocal affection and resemblance

According to the principle of similarity, we are most attractive to people who are similar to us in our attitudes. This can be attributed to the fact that we have to invest far more in relationships with people who are very different from us than in relationships with similar people. In principle, relationships are preferred that require little investment. However, reciprocal affection can help overcome diversity. When we are liked by another person, we no longer necessarily perceive differences between the other and ourselves as an obstacle to a relationship.

Study by Gold, Ryckman & Mosley (1984)

In a study by Gold, Ryckman and Mosley it was examined whether a low level of attractiveness can be increased to a higher level by a romantic mood. That is, it was measured whether attractiveness was rated higher in a situation where romantic mood was induced.

A total of 60 male test subjects took part in the study , who were first asked to fill out a questionnaire with 15 test items about their attitudes. Five of these test items dealt with personal interests (sports, music, etc.), the other ten dealt with more general topics such as money or laws. After the respective test person had completed his questionnaire, he was given a filling task. In the meantime, the experimenter prepared a dummy questionnaire, the answers of which differed 70% from those of the test subject. The completed dummy questionnaire was given out as that of "Kathy", allegedly another test person with whom the test person is to work together later, and given the test person to read. In fact, Kathy is someone who has been initiated into the experiment.

The investigator then sent the male test subject to a waiting room on the pretext that there was a slight delay in the experiment.

The further course of the experiment differed depending on the test conditions or group to which the test person was assigned:

Romantic mood: The test person was introduced to Kathy in the waiting room. Kathy started a conversation with the subject on certain topics that deliberately did not touch the questionnaire from before, kept eye contact with him and leaned in his direction.

Misattribution manipulation: According to Dutton and Aron (1974), the expectation of a stimulus perceived as unpleasant leads to male test subjects feeling more attracted to a female ally. In the study by Gold, Ryckman and Mosley, such an effect was supposed to arise when the test person in the waiting room was told by the investigator that she would draw blood from them later.

  • 2nd group: induction of romantic mood

The course of the experiment is the same here as in the 1st group, only that the misattribution manipulation was missing: The experimenter left the room without mentioning the blood sample.

  • 3rd group: control group

The test subjects in the control group only saw Kathy briefly before Kathy left the room with the investigator. However, they received another completed questionnaire from her in which she commented on the same issues that she addressed in Groups 1 and 2.

After five minutes, the respective test person was taken out of the waiting room regardless of the test conditions and was given a final questionnaire in which he was asked to rate Kathy's attractiveness using rating scales and to reconstruct her attitudes from the first questionnaire.

Results

  • 1. A significant effect in group 2 could be demonstrated. The subjects rated Kathy's attractiveness as being higher under the condition that romantic mood was induced than in the control condition.
  • 2. However, there was no significant difference between group 1 and 3 . The additional misattribution manipulation canceled out the effect of the romantic mood instead of supporting it, so that the test subjects found Kathy just as attractive as in the control condition.

To find out why group 1 did not differ from the control group, a second experiment was carried out. Gold, Ryckman, and Mosley suspected the reason that the investigator, when she announced the blood test, 1. stated that she herself would draw the test subject's blood and 2. wore a white coat (and thus appeared particularly credible). As a result, it was believed, the subject might become fixated on her rather than on Kathy.

In the second experiment, 15 male subjects took part, who were again divided into three groups. The experimental procedure was for the most part the same as in the experiment above, but the groups were different: again there was one group in which only romantic mood was induced (corresponding to group 2 above). In another group, the experimenter reappeared in a white coat and claimed that she would draw the blood (corresponds to group 1 above). In the third group, however, the experimenter did not wear a white coat and said that a male doctor who was unfamiliar to the test person would draw the blood.

In fact, significant differences were found depending on whether the experimenter was wearing the white coat and drawing the blood herself or not.

Overall, it can be said that Kathy's positive interaction with the male test subjects led them to classify her as more attractive even though her attitudes differed 70% from the test subjects. In addition, there was a tendency among the test persons to perceive Kathy as more similar, although they were able to reconstruct Kathy's attitudes quite correctly (i.e. not distorted). Possible explanations for this would be that they attached less importance than usual to the difference between Kathy and themselves, or that they had adjusted their own attitudes to those of Kathy's.

Reciprocal affection and self-fulfilling prophecy

Self-fulfilling prophecies play a major role in the development of reciprocal affection. Our behavior varies depending on whether we assume we are liked or disliked by another person. If we believe that someone likes us, we behave more openly, more conversationally, and more lovable. If we assume that we are not liked, we behave accordingly dismissive. How we behave actually affects someone else's feelings. Of course, it is usually easier for the other to like us when we act lovable. Conversations are also easier when we are talkative and friendly. In this way, it is possible that our original expectation of whether we will be liked will eventually lead to either being liked or not.

Study by Curtis & Miller (1986)

A study by Curtis and Miller examined the influence of self-fulfilling prophecy on reciprocal affection. For this purpose, 60 test subjects (54 female, 6 male students) were divided into pairs, each consisting of a target and a test subject . The couples were randomly assigned to the test conditions, i.e. either the condition 'mutual liking' or 'dislike'.

The couples were initially given five minutes to get to know each other. Then each individual test person received a questionnaire in which they were asked questions about their own personality, for example whether the test person rated themselves as shy, extroverted or talkative. These questions were used to determine the respondent's effect on others or his kindness or sympathy factor. The test subjects were then informed about the course and aim of the experiment. On the other hand, the target persons were deceived: Depending on the test conditions in which the respective target person found themselves, they were led to believe that the test subject with whom they formed a pair either likes them or dislikes them due to incorrect information given by the test person to the test person would have. The target persons also saw two fake questionnaires. The first was a questionnaire allegedly given by the experimenter to the subject claiming it had been filled in by the subject even though it had been filled out by the experimenter. The second was a questionnaire that the test person allegedly filled out and in which they stated how sympathetic they were with the target person after reading the (fake) questionnaire (depending on the condition, very or not at all sympathetic). The target person was also deceived that the further course of the experiment would be about the behavior of the test person and not about their own. That should make sure she acted as naturally as possible.

The test person and target person were then brought together again for 10 minutes and given topics to talk about. During their interaction, it was observed how often which of them started the conversation, how many questions they asked each other, how often criticism, praise, approval, disapproval, and sarcasm were expressed, and similarities and dissimilarities were noted. The general tone of voice, the mood of the test subjects and their openness were also taken into account.

Results

  • In fact, the subjects behaved differently depending on their expectation of being liked or disliked by the subject. For example, if they were supposedly liked, they behaved more openly, asked more questions, and pushed the conversation forward. Their behavior in turn influenced that of the test subject.
  • Ratings of how much the other person was liked after the ten-minute interaction also showed that the target and subject actually liked each other more if they were in the condition of 'liking each other'.

With this study, Curtis and Miller succeeded in showing that our own expectation of being liked promotes that other people like us. If we assume that we are not liked, we may contribute to our own unpopularity.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Joel A. Gold, Richard M. Ryckman, Norman R. Mosley: Romantic mood induction and attraction to a dissimilar other: Is love blind? In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin . Vol. 10, No. 3 , 1984, pp. 358-368 , doi : 10.1177 / 0146167284103003 (English).
  2. ^ Elliot Aronson, Timothy D. Wilson, Robin M. Akert: Social Psychology . 4th updated edition. Pearson Studium, Munich / Boston et al. 2004, ISBN 3-8273-7084-1 , chapter 10.
  3. ↑ Rebecca C. Curtis, Kim Miller: Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behaviors making the beliefs come true . In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . Vol. 51, No. 2 , 1986, p. 284-290 , doi : 10.1037 / 0022-3514.51.2.284 (English).