Lecture 7: Interpersonal Attraction and Close Relationships Flashcards Preview

🚫 PSY321H1F: Cross-Cultural Psychology with A. Sharples > Lecture 7: Interpersonal Attraction and Close Relationships > Flashcards

Flashcards in Lecture 7: Interpersonal Attraction and Close Relationships Deck (17):

Are there faces that we universally view as attractive? [3]

  • Faces that have a healthy complexion
  • Faces that are symmetrical
  • Faces that are average


Swami et al. (2010) [9]

 (hint: "ideal" body)

  • International body project: 7,434 Ps in 41 sites across 26 countries
  • The Contour Drawing Figure Rating Scale
  • Looked at discrepancy between current and ideal size to calculate body dissatisfaction
  • Western Media Exposure: television, movies, magazines, and music
  • Demographic information: gender, height, weight
  • Men preferred a female body weight that was heavier than women’s perceptions of what men would prefer
  • Ps in rural areas preferred the heavier figures, had higher current +ideal body ratings + lower body dissatisfaction vs. urban Ps
  • Men and women who reported more exposure to Western media → slender women = most attractive body type
  • Women who reported more exposure to Western media → more body dissatisfaction


video: TEDx Youth Talk by Zyrah Ashraf [3]

  • Cross-cultural differences in perceptions of beauty
  • The dual standards of beauty pressure women + men into an identity crisis
  • Do you have to strive for the beauty standards of your heritage/host culture?


Wheeler & Kim (1997) [7]

(hint: halo effect, cross-culture)

  • Does the "halo effect" apply across cultures?
  • Showed Korean Ps 30 yearbook photos pre-rated for attractiveness
  • Asked them to rate traits of people in the photos on a number of dimensions
  • Social competence; intellectual competence; concern for others; integrity; adjustment; potency (assertive, dominance); sexual interest/warmth; modesty; attractiveness
  • Desirable traits in US, Canada, + Korea: intellectual competence, social competence, adjustment, sex interest/warmth
  • Traits only in US + Canada: potency
  • Traits only in Korea: integrity + concern for others


communal sharing [2]

  • Members of a group emphasize their common identity rather than consider their idiosyncrasies
  • e.g. Families (but there’s still authority ranking in families)


authority ranking [3]

  • People are linearly ordered along a hierarchical social dimension
  • Higher ranking → prestige + privileges those with lower ranking don’t
  • e.g. Military rankings


equality matching [2]

  • People keep track of what’s exchanged and are motivated to pay back what’s been exchanged in equivalent terms
  • e.g. Exchanging Christmas cards


market pricing [2]

  • A system of exchange that can be reduced to a single underlying dimension (usually money) + both sides of exchange occur at once
  • Members of a party calculate the ratios of the goods that are exchanged so that the transaction will be equivalent in value for both parties


self-disclosure [4]

  • A process of communication where one person reveals info about themselves to another
  • Info can be descriptive/evaluative
  • Can include thoughts, feelings, aspirations, goals, failures, successes, fears, dreams, preferences, etc.
  • Important for friendship development b/c it creates closeness + trust


relational mobility [1]

  • The degree to which individuals have opportunities to voluntarily form new and terminate old relationships in a given context


high relational mobility [1]

  • When relational ties are flexible enough, and opportunities for new relationships are available enough, that they feel they can find new relationships and not feel overly bound by their old relationships


low relational mobility [1]

  • Contexts where relations are largely unchosen + stable → few opportunities to form new relationships + past relationships w/ commitments+obligations to them continue to guide people


Schug, Yuki, & Maddux (2010) [15]

(hint: relational mobility + disclosure)

  • More relational mobility → more effort in maintaining committed relationships
  • East Asians seek less social support in times of stress b/c of concerns about damaging existing relationships
  • Study 1: Can cultural differences in self-disclosure by explained by relational mobility?
    • Measured tendency to self-disclose (e.g., “how likely would you be to tell your friend your biggest secret”)
    • Subjective closeness
    • Relational mobility (e.g., “They [i.e., people in my immediate society] have many chances to get to know other people”)
    • Significant interactions:
      • Americans > Japanese to disclose
      • Disclose to close friend > family member
      • Women > men to disclose
    • Relational mobility (+)corr. w/ self-disclosure to friend but not family member for JP+USA
  • Study 2: Japanese Students
    • Measured tendency to self-disclose
    • Motivation to engage in self-disclosure to strengthen relationship (e.g., “Telling others about my problems is a good way to strengthen relationships with others”)
    • Personal relational mobility: number of new friends/acquaintances
    • Motivation to strengthen relationship > personal relational mobility → self-disclosure to friend


Rothbaum et al. (2000) [6]

(hint: relationship paths)

  • Suggested that there are different paths relationships take across the lifespan across cultures, specifically Japanese vs. USA
  • Argued that these results could perhaps be generalized to collectivistic vs. individualistic cultures overall
  • Reunion vs. Union: apart/near mother vs. close to mother at all times
  • Personal Preferences vs. Others’ Expectations: favourites vs. guidelines
  • Transferability vs. Stability: see peers as more important than parents, romantic relationships, etc. vs. rules, peers + romance not as important
  • Trust vs. Assurance: romantic relationships based on developing trust, loyalty, needs of marital dyad vs. role-prescribed behaviours, social networks, pragmatics + family are important


To what extent should marriage be about love vs. pragmatics? [8]

  • Cultures that are more economically stable + individualistic → love is prerequisite for marriage + should end if love is gone
    • Predicted lower birth rates + higher divorce rates
    • Low SES + collectivistic → higher birth rates, lower divorce rates
  • 1967 survey: 65% of men but only 24% of women said they wouldn’t marry someone they didn’t love
  • Marrying someone because you love them is quite a new concept + uncommon in the context of all marriages that have occurred throughout human history
  • While men in arranged marriages are just as or more satisfied vs. non-arranged marriages, women are usually less satisfied
    • Less love initially → more love later on
    • Lots of love initially → less love later on as you start to fizzle out and compare to what once was


Goode (1959) [3]

(hint: extended family)

  • Romantic love becomes more important in cultures as strength of extended family ties becomes weaker
  • More obligations → less choice about who to marry
  • Less social pressure to stay together → need another glue to keep together


Benjanyan, Marshall, Ferenczi [9]

(hint: India/USA marriages)

  • Indian and American Ps perceptions of how their marriages would play out
  • Measured: gender role ideology; collectivism (e.g., I would do what would please my family, even if I detested that activity”); anticipated future difficulties in marriage (e.g. childcare, sharing family work, career advancement)
  • Would these differ based on culture?
  • Gender role ideology → (+)corr. w/ anticipated future difficulties
    • And didn't predict romantic beliefs, contrary to expectation
    • Recognize differences between male+females, predicting anticipated future difficulties
  • Collectivism → (+)corr. w/ romantic beliefs + anticipated future difficulties
    • Maybe b/c desire for romantic beliefs which are not as adopted in society is related to wanting to subvert the culture they identify with
    • Collectivism related to the previous finding as well