Initial Attraction Slides The Science of Spark
The Psychology of Initial Attraction
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY UNIT 4.1
Myth vs. Fact
"Opposites attract. We are naturally drawn to people who have different personalities and interests than our own."
MYTH
FACT
The Reality: Similarity Rules
Decades of research suggest that similarity is one of the strongest predictors of attraction. We like people who share our values, backgrounds, and even physical attractiveness levels.
Psychological Concept: The Matching Hypothesis
01. Proximity
The "Mere Exposure" Effect
Definition
Repeated exposure to a stimulus increases our liking for it. The more we see someone, the more attractive and safe they appear.
The MIT Dorm Study (1950)
Festinger et al. found that students were 10x more likely to be friends with their next-door neighbors than those living at the other end of the hall.
We bond with those
02. Physical Attractiveness
The Halo Effect
A cognitive bias where we assume that because a person is physically attractive, they also possess other positive traits like kindness, intelligence, and honesty.
Symmetry
Often perceived as a marker of health and genetic fitness.
"Average" Faces
Composite faces are often rated higher than individual ones (the Averageness Effect).
"What is beautiful is good."
03. Similarity
Birds of a feather flock together.
Why Similarity?
Validation: People like us reinforce our own beliefs.Predictability: We can better anticipate their behavior.Low Conflict: Shared values reduce friction.
Reciprocal Liking
One of the most powerful predictors of attraction is simply knowing that the other person likes us. It boosts self-esteem and creates a positive feedback loop.
Analyze the Spark
Applying the theories to real-world scenarios
CASE STUDY
"Maya and Sam work in different departments but take the same 8:15 AM elevator every morning. After three months of nodding hello, they finally grab coffee and discover they both volunteer at the same animal shelter."
Identify the Factors:
Which attraction variables are at play here?
Predict the Outcome:
How likely is this relationship to develop further?
Proximity
Mere Exposure
Similarity
Attraction Analyst Worksheet Attraction Analyst
Social Psychology Lab: Unit 4.1
Student Name:
Date:
Part 1: The Attraction Myth
"Opposites attract." We hear it in movies, books, and songs. Based on today's discussion and your knowledge of social psychology, explain why this common phrase is considered a myth by most psychologists. Use the concept of Similarity in your response.
Part 2: Coding the Connection
Analyze the following scenarios. Identify which primary psychological factor is driving the attraction in each case (Proximity, Physical Attractiveness/Halo Effect, or Similarity) and explain your reasoning.
Scenario A: The 8:00 AM Class
"Liam and Sarah sit next to each other in a semester-long Calculus course. By midterms, they have formed a close bond and started dating, despite having very different hobbies and backgrounds."
Primary Factor
Key Concept (e.g., Mere Exposure)
Scenario B: The Interview
"A hiring manager notes that an applicant is extremely well-groomed and physically striking. In his notes, he writes: 'Candidate seems very organized, articulate, and trustworthy,' even though the candidate spoke very little during the interview."
Primary Factor
Cognitive Bias Identified
Part 3: The Matching Hypothesis
Critical Thinking Prompt
The Matching Hypothesis states that people are attracted to those who are roughly equal to them in physical attractiveness. Why might a relationship where there is a significant 'attractiveness gap' face unique social or psychological pressures?
Part 4: Digital Attraction
Does the Mere Exposure Effect function differently in the age of social media and dating apps? How might seeing someone's profile multiple times influence attraction before you ever meet them in person?
Confidential Case Report // Psych-402
Mate Selection Slides The Ancestral Script
Evolutionary Perspectives on Mate Selection
PSYCHOLOGY UNIT 4.2
The Search for "Quality"
Class Prediction Challenge
If you polled 10,000 people across 37 different cultures, what would be the top three traits they look for in a long-term partner?
1
2
3
Universal Patterns?
Evolutionary psychology suggests our modern dating preferences are actually biological "echoes" of survival strategies used by our ancestors thousands of years ago.
Reproductive Strategies
Parental Investment Theory (Trivers, 1972)
Strategy A
Quantity over Quality
In some species, the strategy is to maximize reproductive opportunities. Offspring survive through sheer numbers.
Evolutionary Prediction: Men may favor multiple partners and place higher value on cues of "fertility" (youth/health).
Strategy B
Quality over Quantity
Investment in few offspring with high parental care. Survival depends on resources and protection.
Evolutionary Prediction: Women may favor fewer partners and place higher value on cues of "resource acquisition" (status/stability).
David Buss's Global Study
The Data
Study of 37 cultures across 6 continents and 5 islands.
Key Variable
"Mutual Attraction & Love" was the #1 trait across ALL cultures.
Male Preferences
Physical Attractiveness
Relative Youth
Cues of Health & Fertility
Female Preferences
Financial Capacity
Ambition & Social Status
Stability & Resourcefulness
The Nurture Argument
Is it DNA, or is it the Dollar?
The Social Structural Hypothesis
"If women have less access to resources and power in a society, they MUST prioritize a partner's wealth for survival. This isn't evolution—it's economics."
Eagly & Wood (1999)
Found that in more gender-equal societies, the preference gap for resources significantly narrows.
Modern Paradox
Does Tinder and Instagram amplify evolutionary biases or break them?
"If we are purely biological machines driven by ancestral scripts, is true 'free will' in love possible?"
NATURE
NURTURE
Global Mate Preferences Worksheet The Global Mate Search
Lab Report: Evolutionary Analysis
Researcher:
Date:
1. Analyzing the Buss (1989) Data
In his study of 37 cultures, David Buss found significant gender differences in mate preference. Review the findings discussed in class and answer the following:
A. Which trait was ranked as the #1 most important by both men and women across nearly all 37 cultures?
B. Explain the "Parental Investment Theory" logic behind why men typically place a higher value on physical attractiveness and youth than women do.
2. Cross-Cultural Comparisons
"In Culture X, there is a massive wealth gap and women are legally prohibited from owning property or working high-paying jobs. In Culture Y, gender equality is high, and women earn as much as men on average."
Based on the Sociocultural Critique (Eagly & Wood, 1999), predict how mate preferences regarding "financial prospects" would differ between these two cultures:
3. Nature vs. Nurture Battle
The Evolutionary Argument
Preferences are hardwired adaptations that maximized reproductive success over millions of years.
The Social Structural Argument
Preferences are flexible responses to modern economic and social power dynamics.
Which theory do you find more compelling in explaining modern human dating behavior? Support your answer with one piece of evidence from class or your own observations of social media/culture.
DNA Sequence Checked • Cultural Bias Analyzed • Internal Report
Love Geometry Slides The Geometry of Love
Sternberg’s Triangular Theory
PSYCHOLOGY UNIT 4.3
Can Love be Calculated?
"If you had to write a mathematical formula for love using only three variables, what would they be?"
X
Y
Z
=
Love
The Triad
Robert Sternberg (1986)
Intimacy
"The Emotional Component"
Feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness. The 'warm' side of the triangle.
Passion
"The Motivational Component"
Physical attraction, sexual consummation, and romantic drive. The 'hot' side of the triangle.
Commitment
"The Cognitive Component"
The decision to maintain the relationship over time. The 'cold' or rational side of the triangle.
The Seven Types of Love
Liking
Intimacy Only
Deep friendship without physical passion or long-term commitment.
Infatuation
Passion Only
"Love at first sight" driven by physical attraction alone.
Empty Love
Commitment Only
Relationships held together by decision only (often found in late-stage stagnated bonds).
Consummate Love
The Whole Triad
The complete form of love representing an ideal relationship.
Romantic Love
Intimacy + Passion
Companionate Love
Intimacy + Commitment
Fatuous Love
Passion + Commitment
The Shifting Triangle
Love is dynamic, not static.
Short-term Evolution
Romantic Love often transitions into Companionate Love as passion fades and commitment grows.
Long-term Maintenance
Relationships can cycle through types. A couple might move from Consummate to Companionate back to Consummate with effort.
Warning Signs
When Intimacy and Passion vanish, leaving only Commitment, the relationship enters the Empty Love phase.
Love Geometry Workshop Love Geometry Workshop
Sternberg's Taxonomy Lab
Analyst:
Date:
Variable Reference
INTIMACY
Emotional Closeness
PASSION
Physical Attraction
COMMITMENT
Decision to Stay
Part 1: Clinical Diagnosis
1
The "Roommates"
"Tom and Sarah have been married for 15 years. They share a deep emotional bond and tell each other everything. They are firmly committed to raising their children together and staying married. However, they haven't felt physical attraction or romantic sparks for several years."
Diagnosis (Love Type)
Components Present
2
The "Whirlwind"
"Leo and Mia met on vacation. Within 48 hours, they were intensely attracted to each other and decided to get 'married' at a local chapel. They know very little about each other's backgrounds or values."
Diagnosis (Love Type)
Components Present
Part 2: Relationship Evolution
Relationships are rarely static. Choose a famous couple (from a movie, TV show, or book) and analyze how their relationship shifted between two different phases of the story using Sternberg's model.
Phase 1: The Beginning
Describe the dynamic...
Love Type...
Phase 2: Later Stages
Critical Synthesis: What specific event or factor caused this transition?
Geometry of Emotion // Social Lab 03
Attachment Theory Slides The Blueprint of Bond
Attachment Styles in Adult Relationships
PSYCHOLOGY UNIT 4.4
The 25-Year Echo
The "Strange Situation"
Think back to Mary Ainsworth's experiment. An infant is left alone, then reunited with their caregiver.
Secure Anxious Avoidant
The Big Question
"How does that 12-month-old infant behave when they are 25 years old and having an argument with their romantic partner?"
Hazan & Shaver (1987)
Proposed that the same attachment system that governs infant-parent bonds also governs adult romantic relationships.
Secure Attachment
"I'm Okay, You're Okay"
Comfortable with intimacy; unafraid of abandonment. They view themselves as worthy of love and others as trustworthy.
Conflict
Open communication; seeks compromise; manages emotions well.
Trust
High levels of commitment and satisfaction.
Adult Manifestations:
Able to ask for help and provide support when needed.
Doesn't fear being alone but enjoys being close.
Maintains healthy boundaries.
Anxious-Preoccupied
"I'm Not Okay, You're My Everything"
Deeply desires closeness but often fears that others do not value them as much as they value others. Highly sensitive to relationship cues.
Hyper-activation
In conflict, they may become clingy, demanding, or constantly seek reassurance to soothe their anxiety about abandonment.
Adult Manifestations:
Over-analyzing text messages or subtle tone shifts.
Feeling incomplete without a partner.
Often described as "high maintenance" or emotionally intense.
Avoidant-Dismissive
"I'm Okay, I Don't Need You"
Values independence above all else. They often view intimacy as a threat to their autonomy and may "pull away" when things get too serious.
Deactivation
In conflict, they tend to shut down, withdraw, or use "distancing strategies" (like focusing on work or hobbies) to avoid emotional vulnerability.
Adult Manifestations:
Struggles to express deep emotions or vulnerability.
Keeps secrets or maintains "emotional distance."
Often viewed as "detached" or "cold" by partners.
The "Attachment Trap"
Predict the outcome: What happens when an Anxious person dates an Avoidant person?
Attachment Case Files Worksheet The Attachment Files
Adult Bonding Case Studies
Case Analyst:
Date:
Part 1: The Internal Working Model
Psychologists suggest that early caregiving creates a "mental blueprint" for how relationships work. Briefly explain how a child with an Inconsistent/Anxious caregiver might grow up to view themselves and their romantic partners in adulthood.
Part 2: Relationship Diagnostics
Case A: The Independence Seeker
"Marcus has been dating Elena for six months. Whenever Elena tries to talk about 'the future' or their deep feelings, Marcus becomes busy with work or jokes about how he 'needs his space.' He often feels suffocated when they spend more than two days in a row together."
Likely Attachment Style
Key Behavioral Marker
Case B: The Reassurance Seeker
"Chloe constantly checks her partner’s social media activity. If he doesn’t respond to a text within 20 minutes, she assumes he is angry or losing interest. She often asks, 'Do you really love me?' multiple times a day."
Likely Attachment Style
Key Behavioral Marker
Part 3: The Anxious-Avoidant Trap
Conflict Simulation
Imagine Marcus (Case A) and Chloe (Case B) are in a relationship. They are currently having an argument because Marcus stayed late at the office without calling.
A. How does Chloe (Anxious) react to this lack of communication?
Predict her behavioral response...
B. How does Marcus (Avoidant) react to Chloe's response?
Predict his counter-reaction...
Why is this cycle considered "self-reinforcing" and difficult to break?
Confidential Developmental History // Lab 04
Maintenance and Conflict Slides The Survival Kit
Maintenance and Conflict Resolution
PSYCHOLOGY UNIT 4.5
The Love Lab
90% Accuracy
"After watching a couple argue for just 5 minutes, John Gottman can predict with 90% accuracy whether they will be married or divorced in six years."
What is he looking for? It's not the topic of the fight—it's the way they fight.
?
Micro-expressions
Subtle facial cues of contempt or disgust.
?
Physiological Arousal
Heart rate and stress levels during conflict.
?
Repair Attempts
How couples try to de-escalate tension.
Social Exchange Theory
The Economic View of Romance
The Equation
REWARDS
(Love, Support, Financial Stability)
−
COSTS
(Arguments, Compromise, Stress)
=
OUTCOME
Comparison Level (CL)
What we THINK we deserve based on past experiences and media.
Comparison Level for Alt. (CLalt)
Our assessment of whether we could do better with someone else (or being alone).
The Four Horsemen
1. Criticism
Attacking your partner’s character or personality rather than a specific behavior.
"You always..." / "You never..."
2. Contempt
The #1 predictor of divorce.
Communicating disgust, mockery, or superiority. Sarcasm and eye-rolling.
3. Defensiveness
Victimizing yourself or making excuses to avoid taking responsibility.
"The problem isn't me, it's you."
4. Stonewalling
Withdrawing from the interaction, shutting down, and distancing oneself.
Silence / Ignoring
The Antidote: The 5:1 Ratio
Healthy relationships require at least five positive interactions for every single negative one during conflict.
Relationship Intervention
You are the psychologist. In our final workshop, you will analyze a couple's conflict and prescribe specific "antidotes" for the Four Horsemen.
Diagnose
Intervene
Restore Equity
Relationship Survival Toolkit Activity Relationship Survival Toolkit
Gottman Lab: Conflict Intervention
Lab Tech:
Session ID:
Part 1: The Relationship Ledger
According to Social Exchange Theory , we stay in relationships where rewards exceed costs. However, our Comparison Level (CL) and Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt) also play a role.
Scenario: The "Grass is Greener" Effect
Alex is in a stable, respectful relationship with Jordan. However, Alex recently got a promotion and is surrounded by successful, attractive single people. Alex's friends are all dating exciting new people. Alex starts to feel that their current relationship is "boring."
How has Alex's Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt) changed, and how might this affect the stability of their relationship with Jordan?
Part 2: Identifying the Horsemen
Read the dialogue snippets below. Identify which of the Four Horsemen is present and prescribe a Psychological Antidote (intervention strategy).
"I wouldn't have to yell if you weren't so incompetent at managing our schedule. It's not my fault we're late; it's because you're lazy."
Identify Horseman
Prescribe Antidote
"Oh, look who's finally home. I'm so glad you decided to join the rest of the family while I did all the work. You're such a great parent." (Followed by a heavy sigh and eye-roll).
Identify Horseman
Prescribe Antidote
Part 3: The 5:1 Intervention
Gottman found that stable couples have a 5:1 ratio of positive to negative interactions. List three specific, evidence-based behaviors a couple could implement to increase their positive interactions (The "Emotional Bank Account").
1
2
3
Diagnostic Complete • Survival Kit Authorized • Final Report 05
