Social Psych Lecture 7 2.16

Self-handicapping: people create obstacles/excuses for themselves to avoid blaming self for failure
- Two ways:
  - Create obstacles (Behavioral S-H)
    - Drugs
    - Alcohol
    - Reduced effort
    - Failure to prepare
    - Men tend towards this
  - Ready-made excuses (Reported S-H)
    - Women tend towards this
- Drawbacks:
  - Come to believe excuses and exert less effort
  - Come to be disliked by others
    - Women more critical of self-handicapping than men
Identity Negotiation (Swann, 1987)
- Swann & Read (1983)
  - Basic Principle: Persons seek verification and confirmation of their self-concepts
    - What happens if that doesn't occur?
  - Method
    - Two strangers meet
    - Person A forms impression of B
    - B is given false expectation of A's "view" of B
  - Would you rather people have a positive view of you or an accurate view of you?
    - It depends on your self-concept
      - Positive: no conflict
      - Negative:
        
        Affective Crossfire
      - Swann, Hixon, & de la Ronde (1992)
        
        Persons with positive self-concepts were more committed to partners who thought well of them
        
        Persons with negative self-concepts were more committed to partners who thought less well of them
  - Generality
    - Aggressive boys
    - Rejection Sensitivity
      - Rejection-sensitive people behave more negatively in conflicts w/partners
        Attraction and Relationships:
Initial Attraction:
- Propinquity (physical closeness)
  - Festinger, Schachter, & Back (1950)
    - Friendships in married student housing
      - 41% of next door neighbors got together socially
      - 22% next door away
      - only 10% at opposite end of hall
    - Exception: ppl at the hallway ends were more likely to be friends w/someone one lvl up (stairways were at the ends of the halls)
  - Mere Exposure Effect
    - Repeated exposure to a stimulus increases our liking for it
    - Zajonc (1968)--Chinese characters
    - Moreland & Beach (1992)
      - female "student" attends class 0, 5, 10, or 15 times
      - Students in class rate attractiveness of picture
      - None of the students could remember whether they had seen the women before or not
      - The more often the woman had been to class, the more attractive she was rated
- Similarity
  - Attitudes:
    - Persons like another when they share a high proportion of similar attitudes
  - Personality (not so straightforward)
    - These traits are favored:
      - Agreeableness
      - Conscientiousness
      - Emotional Stability (opposite of Neuroticism)
      - Perceived Similarity>Actual Similarity
- Reciprocal Liking
  - Knowing someone likes us fuels attraction to that individual
  - May even overcome lack of similarity
  - In most typical circumstances, similarity is the single best predictor of interpersonal attraction, except physical attractiveness
- Physical Attractiveness
  - Readily obvious
  - Attractive ppl are liked better than less attractive ppl
  - Walster et al. (1966)
    - Randomly pair for get-acquainted date
    - No. 1 predictor for liking was physical attractiveness
    - Sprecher & Duck (1994)--same result
  - What features are attractive
    - In women
      - large eyes, small nose, small chin (neonatal features)
      - prominent cheekbones (maturity features)
      - high eyebrows, large pupils, big smile (expressive features)
    - In men:
      - large eyes (neonatal features)
      - prominent cheekbones, large chin (maturity features)
      - big smile (expressive features)
  - "What is beautiful...is good" stereotype
    - Strongest effects for more sociable, extroverted, popular
    - Moderate effects for sexual warmth, happiness, assertiveness
    - Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid (1977)
      - Men and women "get acquainted"
      - Results:
        
        Men: more sociable, warmer to "attractive" partner
        
        Women tended to confirm
        
        Independent Observers:
        
        "attractive" women rated as more confident, animated, warm, and attractive
      - Andersen & Bem (1981) replicated with roles reversed
- Evolutionary Approach:
  - Women face higher reproductive "costs"
  - Men face lower reproductive "costs"
  - Women value...
    - Resources & status, especially if the man will invest those things in her and her offspring
  - Men value...
    - Youth & attractiveness
  - But: access to financial resources for women...
    - Women with access to financial resources place more importance on the man's attractiveness
  - But: reversing roles: speed-dating study
    - women seated, men move: women pickier than men
    - men seated, women move: men pickier than women