Families and Couples (UCLA)

Lecture 6

Course Home

Thomas Bradbury: Okay, why don't we get started if we could? Good afternoon, uh, it's nice to see you all again. Today we're going to be talking about attraction in close relationships and how it is that, uh, two people who, uh, begin their lives as, uh, complete strangers to one another can, uh, end up in, uh, committed partnerships. How, how is it that those two people get together in a relationship, uh, as opposed to any two others. Uh, and before we get started, I want to make two announcements. The first one is that I will, uh, have office hours, I had office hours today, uh, from 1 o'clock till 3 o'clock and I will again next Friday as well, 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock, and my office is 22-63-C, 2-2-6-3-C, Fran's Hall. Um, that is in the middle building, not the old building, or the tower building, but the middle building. Uh, and it's on the second floor and I face out this way toward the fountain, okay? So come see me on Friday, uh, and, uh I will be there at 1 o'clock and, uh, I think you already know Lisa's office hours, those are in the syllabus. And if you have any questions, uh, for especially that are, uh, details of the reader you need a little clarification with, it can be handled by e-mail. Those would be the best directed toward Lisa, but if you want to come and talk to me, please do that, please come and talk to me. It is actually my job to come and, to talk to you. So, I, uh, enjoy talking to you, and I hope you will, uh, take that opportunity to do so. The other announcement I want to make is about a talk, uh, it will be given by, uh, Scott Coltrane, who is actually the Dean at the College or Arts and Sciences at the University of Oregon. He's also a distinguished sociologist who has spent, uh, a lot of time doing very good research on father involvement. Uh, he used to be at the University of, uh, California-Riverside, he's since moved to Oregon. He will be giving a talk on father involvement, economic stress, and family rituals in Mexican-American and European-American families. This will be held Wednesday, April 22nd, from twelve o'clock to two o'clock in, uh. 3-52 Haines Hall. So, if you have any interest in, uh, sociology of families, or Hispanic families, or the development of adolescents, especially within the context of, uh, families, I would encourage you to attend. Again, that is Wednesday, April 22nd, uh, 12 to 2 in, uh, 3-52 Haines Hall. Okay, any questions for me? As we move forward, any questions for me? Okay, very good. Well, today, as I mentioned we're going to be talking about attraction. And I would like ask, uh, some of you in the audience to think about a long-term committed partnership that you are either currently in, or have been in in the past. And think about how it was you met your partner. How did you meet your partner? And now I want to, I want you to raise your hands, if you're willing, to share that information with us. Just tell, how did you meet your partner?

Student 1: In this classroom.

Thomas Bradbury: In this very classroom, right over there. How long ago was that?

Student 1: Uh, some time like fall of last year.

Thomas Bradbury: Just last fall? So take me through the moment. So here, where were you sitting?

Student 1: Uh.

Thomas Bradbury: When you first met him.

Student 1: Well he was sitting there, and I sat next to him.

Thomas Bradbury: Very nice. Right over here. Uh huh, you were right next to him?

Student 1: Yeah it was like really weird.

Thomas Bradbury: Okay, and how's it going? How's it going?

Student 1: Pretty good. He complimented my backpack, so...

Thomas Bradbury: Uh huh. So he, really, that's all it took?

Student 1: Well, at first I just wanted to see him and...
Thomas Bradbury: And did you sit next to him for a reason, or you were just really, innocently looking for a seat? He wasn't like a cute guy that you saw in the previous class? You didn't really notice. See guys hate hearing that. Guys really hate hearing that. But, um, so you're still in this relationship? Very nice.

Student 1: We're getting married.

Thomas Bradbury: You're getting married! Oh, my gosh, when?

Student 1: May 30th.

Thomas Bradbury: May 30th.

Thomas Bradbury: Another victory for psychology. What, what class was it?

Student 1: 100B

Thomas Bradbury: 100B, there it is. That's lovely. How, now, who can top that? Right here. Where did you meet, uh, your partner?

Student 2: My 10th grade English class.

Thomas Bradbury: Your 10th grade English class, you met you current partner, former partner?

Student 2: Current

Thomas Bradbury: Current partner in, uh, how big was your school?

Student 2: It was, our graduating class was almost a thousand.

Thomas Bradbury: Wow, oh my gosh, so he was in your English class? In the 10th grade. And, tell, take us through the moments like, what happened?

Student 2: Well, actually we didn’t start dating until I was in Grade 11...because I was kind of creeped out by him.

Thomas Bradbury: You were, at first you were creeped out by him? Uh huh, was he like a goth guy or he didn't bathe enough, or...

Student 2: No, he was just a little too nerdy.

Thomas Bradbury: A little too nerdy. Uh huh. But then he became a lovable nerd. Uh huh, uh huh. Wow.

Student 2: That, uh, actually our anniversary is next. month. It'll be six years.

Thomas Bradbury: Six years, my goodness, so you're about to graduate?

Student 2: Yes

Thomas Bradbury: Wow, congratulations. Wow, that's wonderful. Right here, yeah.

Student 3: My story is a little embarrassing, but…

Thomas Bradbury: Even better. I won't share it with anybody. Not the people on YouTube, not the people on Bruincast. Nobody, just you and me.

Student 3: I met my boyfriend in 3rd grade. I didn't like him back then because he picked his nose. And we had to sit together.

Thomas Bradbury: Oh!

Student 3: Both are families are friends and, uh, then we started dating in 11th grade.

Thomas Bradbury: Wow, so it took you eight years to get past, past that habit?

Student 3: He didn’t do it all eight years. I had to sit next to him and watch him eat what he picked from his nose.

Thomas Bradbury: Oh, goodness. That was mostly 3rd grade, right?

Student 3: Yeah.

Thomas Bradbury: Yeah, just wanted to be sure about that. How else did, uh, you meet your, your beaus?

Student 4: Uh, my most current relationship, we're no longer together, but we met at work.

Thomas Bradbury: Uh huh.

Student 4: Uh, we worked together for probably a year and three months before he, he said that I grew on him. And we were good friends and we weren’t trying to make a big thing of it.

Thomas Bradbury: You were good friends, so you wanted to preserve that?

Student 4: I found out that I got accepted into UCLA, he learned that I was leaving, then he started avoiding me… and then the relationship dissolved.

Thomas Bradbury: Uh huh. Long distance is hard, long distance is rough. How big was the workplace, what kind of job was it?

Student 4: There weren’t that many employees, it was a small, family-owned business.

Thomas Bradbury: Oh, I see, uh huh, uh huh. And you worked the same hours, different hours?

Student 4: Um…like, three days out of the week, we’d work together.

Thomas Bradbury: Uh huh, right. How did other people meet? Yeah.

Student 5: At a party.

Thomas Bradbury: At a party? Uh huh. And, uh, tell me about the party.

Student 5: Uh, I thought it was a pretty good party. It was outdoors.

Thomas Bradbury: Uh huh. Uh huh. Outdoor party.

Student 5: And my boyfriend was just about to leave and our eyes locked so I walked up to him from a group of people... so he didn’t leave.

Thomas Bradbury: Wow, and you stopped him in his tracks?

Student 5: Yes...so he says.

Thomas Bradbury: Wow. Uh huh, very nice. Uh huh. Right here? Yeah.

Student 6: It’s not my story, but it’s my sister’s story.

Thomas Bradbury: This is whose story?

Student 6: My twin sister's.

Thomas Bradbury: Your twin sister. Oh, very nice.

Student 6: And she met her boyfriend in Holland

Thomas Bradbury: In Holland? Uh huh.

Student 6: She was out at a party and pointed him out and her friends set them up on a date and they’ve been together ever since.

Thomas Bradbury: Wow. So what was the spark, did your sister tell you?

Student 6: She thought he was really hot.

Thomas Bradbury: So, he's just really good looking?

Student 6: Well, at first yeah. Then she got to know him and he’s a great guy.

Thomas Bradbury: So that started, that was the spark, and then, there was more to it than that? Because sometimes there's a spark and then you say, eh, you know, really cute but, eh, you know, maybe then you learn he picks his nose and you want to, you want to steer, steer clear of that. One last story, whose, whose, we started with the best story, we started with the, the marriage. But, uh, another story. Who met their partner where? Yeah, up in the back there.

Student 7: At a softball game.

Thomas Bradbury: You were at a softball game?

Student 7: No, we were playing in a softball game.

Thomas Bradbury: Oh, you were, you were on the same team?

Student 7: Yeah.

Thomas Bradbury: Uh huh. From, it was a work-related team?

Student 7: Unintelligible

Thomas Bradbury: Uh huh, was, is he good at softball?

Student 7: Well, yeah.

Thomas Bradbury: Uh huh. Uh huh. And then what happened?

Student 7: Well, then I wanted everyone to get together for pizza and beer, I was trying…

Thomas Bradbury: So you were sort of the organizer of, uh, was there, was there, uh, subtle motives that you wanted to get next to this guy? Or uh...

Student 7: No. I guess, uh, I wasn’t interested in him? But he was the only one who would go out to get the beer with me. I didn’t really drink beer and so I got to be pretty comfortable…

Thomas Bradbury: Uh huh. Uh huh. Wow, what made it comfortable?

Student 7: I don’t know, he was just really funny? Unintelligible

Thomas Bradbury: Uh huh. Like right away, seven years. Wow. And so you, you, uh, you were both on the team but you didn't know him so well, but you did work together?

Student 7: Yeah, he worked out of LA, I was at a different branch.

Thomas Bradbury: Oh, I see, same company, different offices. Wow, okay. Well now we know, now we know how to find a partner. And it is to get on a softball team, or to take a class at UCLA, or to, uh, sit next to somebody in third grade, who picks his nose. Our question is, and you've sort of already filled in a lot of the interesting details. How is it that two people end up as mates? How is it that two people end up in a relationship for seven years, or about to get married, or six years. How is it that people end up in long-term committed partnerships even though they start off as two complete strangers? How does that happen? What are, what's the sequence of events? The psychology of human intimacy has to explain that. And we have some good clues, and you've certainly provided some of the, uh, illustrations of those clues. How is it that you move from being two complete strangers, to being kind of mutually attracted to one another and being potential partners. And then you get to know each other a little bit and the, the, now the pyramid kind of scales in a little bit. How do you become mutually attracted acquaintances, so now you know each other, you're acquaintances, you're more than just, uh, potential partners. Not only have you seen each other at the party, and caught your partner’s eye, but you've sort of talked to one another and you've gotten to know one another. And then you say, you know, there's something here, there's a spark here, there's something special. I want to, I want to deepen this involvement somehow. And then, lo and behold, you somehow become long-term, committed partners in a relationship. Okay, that's our question. That's the question we have try to approximate answering today. And we are going to look in three different domains. We're going to look in three different domains. The first one is the, the nearness, proximity, closeness, physical closeness to your partner. Just, being near them, right? It's hard to have a relationship if you don't have, at the very start, some sort of contact. It's possible through the internet to generate that kind of contact but, uh, lots of times it starts just by seeing another person, just by being near them. You're in a certain kind of situation and you're near them, uh, physically. Okay, proximity in situation, we'll talk a little bit about that. Then we'll talk about, uh, individual characteristics, and we'll talk about, uh, personality traits, like, he just seemed nice. I just liked him. He just seemed really hot. That was, uh, her twin sister, he just seemed to look really good. Uh, but it wasn't just that he looked good. Right, that's important, it's a good way to get things started. But it's not just in that case. Uh, how long did you say your sister had been with that guy?

Student 6: Um, two years.

Thomas Bradbury: Two years now. But there is something more. When they talked, when people talk, there is a connection, right? so we have to look in all three of these domains. How they, how they come to be in the same ballpark, as it were. How they come to be in the same class. How they, uh, then, uh, see one another and kind of get attracted to one another. And then, what is it about the conversations, what is it about the disclosures that people make that bring them together a little bit? So we're going to take these three different domains, as the places where we're going to look for our answers, and it is also going to be, uh, kind of the order that we follow, uh, in answering our question. So let's start with familiarity and proximity. Familiarity and proximity. We tend, in psychology generally, we, we know a lot of research, really sort of based on what we think of as basic research. If you're doing a research project and you show people circles of a certain color, and triangles of a certain color, and you show them more circles than triangles, and then you wait a while, and then you say, "Which one did you like more?" They'll say, "I don't know but I kind of liked the circles." We like things that are familiar, right? The mere exposure effect is, uh, is very powerful. We tend to like things that we see over and over. This is the power of advertising, unfortunately, and why people invest so much in advertising. They want you to get familiar with a product, right? This is research done by a guy named Robert Zajonc at the University of Michigan, a long time ago. We like something the more we see it. And this is true, uh, within relationships as well. If you see somebody a lot, and you see them in lots of different, different situations. Uh, it reduces the, the likelihood that they're going to be any kind of threat to you, okay? It makes us, uh, it increases the chances that we're going to interact with that person. And it gives us information that will allow us to make a decision about whether we should move forward or not, all right? So you, so you want to have frequent contact. And you want to become familiar and you want to become proximal to another person, and this promotes familiarity. We like things that we are, we're familiar with, okay? We can also create proximity online, of course. So, uh, it's interesting that, uh, have any of you met a long-term partner online without ever seeing their picture, like without ever actually seeing them? Just exchanging e-mail? Has that happened to any of you? We can do that, anybody? We can get to know people that way. Yeah.

Student 8: Well I have a friend who met his girlfriend who he is now with… she lived in Oregon. And we were surprised that he actually went for a family vacation to go to visit her.

Thomas Bradbury: Wow, just recently?

Student 8: Oh, well this was like uh, last year.

Thomas Bradbury: Oh, uh huh. Uh huh. Wow, so do, do you know much about how it progressed? Like how it, how it got started?

Student 8: Uh well… well I think the way it started was he went into a chat room and they just kept doing private messages to one another.

Thomas Bradbury: Uh huh. Do you know at what point that they disclosed their pictures? I guess, uh, on Facebook you can see that pretty quickly.

Student 8: Um, no, I’m not sure.

Thomas Bradbury: Uh huh. But it, but, uh, after the visit, they, they really ended up liking each other. Uh huh, yeah, yeah. So we can, uh, create familiarity, like, uh, just, uh, through regular e-mail contact. In fact, lots of times you can have more familiarity with someone who lives really far away than you can with a person who lives in, uh, in your dorm, right? Because technology now gives us all kinds of access to other people and in fact you can do a lot of, uh, you can learn a lot about something, somebody with them knowing about it. By checking them out on Facebook, and seeing who they’re friends with, right? Yeah.

Student 9: Uh, I was going to say that my friend, she met her boyfriend through messaging him out on craigslist. She was looking for Lakers tickets…

Thomas Bradbury: Uh huh. She was buying Lakers tickets. Uh huh.

Student 9: So after that they met off craigslist and I guess a couple days later when he came to pick up the tickets from her they started to like each other and a couple days later, they got together.

Thomas Bradbury: Wow, wow, interesting. Uh huh. Was she a real, uh, basketball fan, or not so much? She was just unloading some tickets.

Student 9: I don’t really know. She was just like, going through like, some thing and she didn’t want to go to the game, I guess.

Thomas Bradbury: Wow, so you got to be out there circulating, huh. Even if it's, uh, the internet that kind of gets you to a real interaction or whether the interaction happens entirely over the internet and then you eventually, uh, because of the distance, you eventually get to meet up with people. I mean, there, this is the, the, you know, a dramatic difference in how people think about relationships is all of the online matching services that you probably know people who have, uh, found, met somebody else really far away. My, my wife and I got to this Saturday's farmer's market at Santa Monica, um, for really good vegetables and fruit. By the way, you should eat a lot of fruit and vegetables, just a reminder. You know, you get to college and you eat some bad food, just eat some fruits and vegetables, I'm here to tell you that. So anyway, we're getting our fruits and vegetables and we get our strawberries from this one woman and the women says, whom my wife knows pretty well through this, uh, through this stand, she says, "Oh, by the way, I'm moving to Montana next week." "Montana?" "Yeah, I met this guy through match.com," or one of the, one of the websites, "and I'm just, you know, seems like it's going to work." That, that didn't used to happen. That never used to happen. It used to be, you know, we're old family friends, that's how, you know, my parents know his parents, they actually went to school together, and that's how we met. So this is new, uh, and, but, but the basic idea is that you exchange information, you, you sort of establish a familiarity with one another, uh, that you didn't previously have. That becomes, uh, an important prerequisite for moving forward. Okay, here's a famous study by, uh, Leon Festinger and Stanley Schachter, uh, of, um, a housing, uh, this is a dorm in, uh, at the University of Michigan as it turns out. And, uh, if you've taken a social psychology course, you know the punch line to this study, which is that, uh, even though people, uh, in the, um, apartments on, um, either side of this building, really live very close to one another. The people who are side by side, who are especially close, are much more likely to, uh, become friends and have, uh, have relationships, friendships, than people who live just a few doors down, right? So in my own neighborhood I know the guy next to me and the people across the street way better than I know the people who are even two houses down, right? It's pretty extraordinary that a lot of our social interactions, uh, and the frequency with which we see somebody, that is to say, the familiarity, determines the likelihood that we're going to interact with them and that we're going to become friends with them. They become familiar, they're not so much of a threat. We see them doing lots of different things, they don't seem like they're crazy people and everything works out. Yeah.

Student 10: I’ve noticed that study is from the 1950s, have there been other studies similar to this?

Thomas Bradbury: Uh, I don't know of any, though I do know some studies in the '80's of, uh, that were, um, where, in the old days, I'm not sure if this was true of, uh, when you were in elementary school, but you always were assigned seats according to your last name. So you'd always sit next to the, you know, you'd sit behind the kid who had the, almost the same last name as you. And so, uh, studies then showed that three years later, the people who you're hanging out with were the ones who, maybe, I don't know about the, you know, the third grader who, uh, who has unpleasant habits, but, uh, the, um, the people who are, uh, most, closer to you, and who had the same last name as you, uh, tend to be the ones you hang around with more. So, uh, there's a little bit of more recent evidence, but it's hard to refute this, this basic claim. And lots of times researchers, uh, look to do research in new areas rather than replicate older findings. So, proximity matters. Another thing that matters in the situational constraints around the formation of our relationships is misattributed arousal. How many of you have had a chance to watch the videotape that goes with this chapter in the book? A couple of you. Okay. This, uh, this video is good because it, uh, it will give you the background for the study I'm about to present to you which was a classic study, uh, done in psychology, in social psychology, uh, by, uh, Art Aron, and in fact the great thing about it is it's Art Aron himself telling the story about the study so I strongly encourage you to have a look at that video clip, uh, when you get a minute. And I think the link for the videos is in your, uh, in your reader, in the syllabus part of the reader. Well, here's the, uh, Stanley Schachter and Jerome Singer, 1962, a long time ago, uh, proposed this theory, and they said that what really happens when we, uh, when we, uh, experience emotion, is that we get physiologically aroused, and then we sort of label the arousal based on the cues around us, okay? That's the, uh, two-factor theory of emotion. And when we apply this idea to attraction, we speculate that someone who's aroused, for reasons that are unrelated to the person that they're near. So, for example, someone who they just played softball with, for example. They attribute their arousal to that person. They say, "Wow, I'm kind of jazzed-up here. I wonder if it's because that guy is really attractive." Right, and so we misattribute the arousal to a target, like we look for a way of explaining, "Why am I feeling this way?" And we hook up there our arousal to the, uh, the presence of some other person, and that becomes a way that we are attracted to another person. So, here's the classic study by, uh, Dutton and Aron, 1974. Uh, outside of Vancouver there is a, uh, a place where there's a huge gorge. I've been there, I can't remember the name of the place.

Student 11: Capilano

Thomas: Say again? Capilano, is that it? Yeah, Capilano, what is it? Suspension bridge. Have you been on it? Have any, have any of you been on this huge bridge, Capilano Suspension bridge, any of you? Well, at least you saw the movie from last class. So, there's this huge bridge, it's really, really scary. And it goes for, maybe, 2 or 300 yards. And, uh, your, you have places to put your hands, to hold on to as you walk through this. It's a plank bridge, it's sways back and forth. If you're at all afraid of heights this will make you really scared, you can see the water rushing underneath it, and you're way high above it, a couple of hundred feet above it maybe. And you get revved up walking across this. Well, in this particular study, the researchers wanted to test this two-factor model as it applies to attraction. And they put a very attractive young woman in the middle of that bridge, and she had a clipboard. And she said, "You know, we're doing a study of, uh, of creativity in natural places. I was wondering if you would just take a minute to, um, you know, write a paragraph about something creative that, uh, you know, you might be experiencing right now. And, uh, would you be willing to do that. And, uh, there's this very attractive women in the middle of a bridge, they weren't going to admit that they were scared, so they stopped, and they wrote a paragraph about what was going on and what they were thinking about. And then she said, "If you'd like to learn the results of this study, here's my telephone number. Here's my, just call me later. Here's my telephone number." And, uh, the bar on the right, high, scary bridge bar, 50% of the men did that, okay. There was also more sexual content in their descriptions. Another group, the control group of men, were approached on a teeny-tiny little bridge. Just like six feet long, and you could see the water, it was a tiny, little creek. It was in the same park, it was, it's actually a couple, uh, just a short walk up the, uh, up the gorge. And it little different rivulet that goes into the bigger river, uh, downstream. And did the exact same procedure, and only 12% of those men called back later to get the telephone. Exact same procedure, but one was much more physiologically, physiologically arousing, okay? So the idea being is that we kind of get revved up and then we label it somehow, and we think, oh, it's probably that person that I'm standing here talking to. That why I find her attractive, okay? A friend of mine tried this, uh, with a girl that he wanted to have a relationship with. He went to San Francisco, and he said, "I'll get her," you know, they were friends, they had known each other and they were going to visit other friends that they knew in San Francisco. Got on the cable car, this is his plan. I'll get on a cable car and we'll go around that one corner where you feel like you're going to fly right off the cable car. You, you've ever been on the corner, you know that one? It's down near the, it's down near the wharf, I think. It's been a while since I've been there. And it's going great, this guy is, he's got the outside seat, right, and he's got the seat where if you go around the corner you on the outside edge, not on the inside. So he's got it all planned out, he's sitting right next to her, and they're both sort of screaming, and they're having a blast, and they, they get off and they're going to go to Ghirardelli Square and have a big, uh, big milkshake. And he said, "So, what'd you think?" And she said, "Did you see that guy sitting next to me? He was really cute." Just cause you've got somebody physically aroused, it doesn't mean you're going to be the one who gets the, uh, the attention. No, he tried, at least he was a scientist about it. Okay, so physiological arousal matters. Attraction get us, when we think about, uh, being attracted to another person, we do think about physiological arousal and the labeling that, of that arousal as sort of an interpersonal experience, even if that's not exactly the source of the arousal itself. All right, now I want to talk about individual's characteristics. Their physical appearance, their personality, and their similarities. When, when, uh, online dating services, uh, create the images on the screen, you know, the thing that you see when you, uh, try to meet somebody online, and you put in your profile, and you're seeing what matches come up. One of the hardest things for them to do is to get them to do anything else than look at the pictures of the people they're matched with, right? So they, uh, they do research and they see, okay, if we put up the descriptions of people first, you know, do people like that? And they'll skim them but then they really want to see the picture. What we really want to see if how, who is this person? Tell me that first, then I'll read the description, right? And so they have a real problem. Like, if they don't have enough physically attractive people in their data set, in their, their entire pool of people who have submitted profiles, you end up with a lot of disgruntled customers, right? And then you end up, if, if all the attractive people, the really, the people who are really photogenic get pulled off, then you've got a lot of, a lot of people within your, within your pool of participants who are not getting matched up and they get frustrated, and then they don't continue their subscriptions, and the companies don't make their money. So attraction, the physical appearance of a potential partner, is very, very powerful. And, uh, they, they worry constantly, I know, from talking to somebody who does this for a living, they worry constantly about, when do you show somebody the picture, or how do you show somebody the picture? How do you contextualize the picture around some other information? Because it's such a powerful stimulus for us when we think about connecting up and finding a mate. So let's talk about physical appearance. We want to be with somebody who is physically attractive. This is true regardless of how attractive we are. It's true, regardless of our own gender. And it's true of the likelihood that we will be rejected by that person. We are attracted to other people because we think, probably for evolved reasons, that someone who is attractive has other desirable features, right? So think about it. Most, you know, if we're honest with ourselves, most of us see somebody who is attractive and say, "Wow, I wouldn't mind being with that person." Right, that's true. But why is that? That's not really rational. That's not really a sensible strategy for finding a mate, and yet it is the strategy, it, it, it at least catches our attention. Physical attention, physical, uh, physical appearance really catches our attention. We assume that beautiful people possess other desirable traits and we want to be in the presence of people who have desirable traits. This is going to be a message that you'll see throughout the presentation today, that what we want is to be in a situation where we feel rewarded. Recall from a lecture a week ago when I talked about social exchange theory, we think about rewards, and we think about costs, right? Think about rewards and we think about costs. And we, when we think about outcomes, we evaluate rewards in relations, in relation to costs, right? One of the rewards in a relationship is, uh, the physical appearance of your partner. We experience that as rewarding, and we imbue that with meaning, uh, that goes well beyond that actual, those physical attributes. Now, of course, physical appearances change with the passing of time. The, um, and, uh, most of us, we as, uh, human beings, hedonic human beings, human being who orient toward pleasurable, and away from displeasurable stimuli, uh, adapt to positive things. So, uh, the, um, reasons why you find yourself attracted to a partner, uh, physical reasons, often change as your relationship grows. Like, okay, yeah, he's really attractive, but, you know, he's annoying, he's really a nuisance, I just don't like him. And, uh, if you've ever listened to the comedian Chris Rock who is, uh, really, really vulgar. And really, really funny. He says, "Show me a guy who's in a relationship with a really attractive woman, for any significant length of time, and I'll show you a guy who's pretty sick of having sex with her." It doesn't matter what you look like, right, you have to keep your relationship alive. So there's interactional processes that go, that come up downstream that we absolutely have to address. Because we adapt out to positive, physical features, right? It's nice to be in a relationship with somebody who's really attractive. But in ten years they might not be that attractive, and you get used to it. But physical appearance, as least as we get started, is pretty powerful and there are some good reasons for that. Okay, someone had a question, any questions. Okay, so what is attractive? Above the neck, what do find attractive in another person? By the way, if you went to CNN yesterday, which is my son's homepage and I was using his computer, there was a, there was a, uh, an appearance on "Oprah" of someone talking about the physical features of, uh, what makes a, uh, a face attractive. Do you know whose face is really, really, really attractive? What's that? Go ahead, say it.

Student 12: I said Oprah.

Thomas Bradbury: Oprah. I love Oprah. Oprah is a force of nature, I think, um, she could be an alien, that woman is just so amazing. Uh, Halle Berry, is like apparently one of the most attractive women when you look at these special, physical features. Anyway, I pulled up some other really attractive people here. Uh, Angelina Jolie, uh, below her is Brad Pitt, Michelle Pfeiffer, Cary Grant, George Clooney and, uh, Jennifer Aniston. Oh, by the way, that is her buttock in the back, you see that, I don't know if you. The guys already saw that, I know, I'm pointing that out just for the women. Um, so, so here I am, putting together the slides for this lecture, right? And my wife comes in, and she sees me surfing the net, looking for really attractive women, some of whom, who have, exposed buttocks. I said, "Honey, it's really just for a lecture," and she believed me, until I started looking for really, really attractive men. Then, she started to get a little worried at that point. So, we know, uh, from lots of research now, what people find attractive in others. In female faces, uh, we like large eyes, small noses, like Michelle Pfeiffer's nose right there, uh, prominent cheekbones, narrow cheeks, high eyebrows, large pupils, like Angeline Jolie, and look at the lips on Angelina Jolie, amazing, full lips and a nice, um, really, and, uh, a big smile, right? In men, we like large eyes, like George Clooney there and Cary Grant in the bottom right, uh, prominent cheekbones, a large chin, uh, although Brad Pitt's chin is not especially large, George Clooney's certainly is, and Cary Grant's is. And a big smile. Okay, we, we can pretty much quantify the characteristics of what's desirable in a face. What's interesting is, um, someone did a study and they said, uh, it turns out if you aggregate lots of people's faces, and you create average faces, that they tend to be more attractive than individual faces. Let me show you this. So here are, uh, four, um, composites on the left of four, of, uh, the same person basically, a female face, and a male face here on the right side. And I'm not sure if you can see it so well. It's not as big as, uh, it might be. But you can see that the upper left, in both pairs of, uh, the, uh, pictures, um, the sets of pictures, there is, uh, the four face composite. Can you guys see that, on the upper left? And then they take eight faces and they smoosh them together with this computer software. And then they take, uh, sixteen faces, and smoosh them together. And then they take 32 faces, like they would just take a bunch of you folks and smoosh you all together. And most people think that, and then they do it for guys, separately as well. Most people, and here on the bottom left, I have shown the attractiveness ratings of these faces. And this is on the, uh, on the, uh, Y-axis, up and down. There you see the level of attractiveness and higher, higher numbers mean higher levels of attractiveness. And lower numbers, obviously, mean less attractive, as a function of how many faces got smooshed together, okay? I don't know if you can see, the upper left compared to, say, the bottom left. But she looks, in a scary way she kind of looks like Britney Spears. Am I, am I the only one that sees that? But you can, okay, you can see that as well, good. Uh, that was unintentional, by the way. Uh, so most people think that the person on the upper left, is way more attractive than the person on the bottom right. For men and women, do you see that? Upper left, you see the woman on the upper left? She's less attractive, yes, exactly, that's the point. Compared to the woman on the bottom right. Or the woman directly below her, you see the two pictures on the left? Okay, the one on top is just four faces, smooshed together. The one on the bottom, right below her, that's sixteen faces smooshed together. The one on the bottom looks a little more attractive, don't you think? Same thing over on the right side, it's not quite as, well, actually, even if you look at the two men on, the men, the male pictures on the right side. You see an eight-face composite there, and then 32 faces. Most people tend to see the, this, the, uh, the one with more faces merged, as more attractive. That's kind of freaky, isn't it? So why do we equate attraction with average faces? Well, before I answer that, I just wanted to tell you that, you should go and tell your really attractive friends that they just look average. Um, but symmetry, we kind of get tuned into symmetry. Like, if you look at these other faces, the ones of the, uh, the famous movie stars that I showed you. There's a high degree of symmetry in those faces. It's not just those physical features, but a lot of symmetry. You can see that especially, I think, in, uh, Michelle Pfeiffer and George Clooney. See that? There's great symmetry in those faces. Why is that? People think that that might suggest that, genetically, you're somehow superior. And the idea that, we, we have to move, as, as you leave this class today, I want you to think, not in terms of individual bits that promote attraction, but one principle which is, we want to be around, uh, people who, in one way or another, seem rewarding and, uh, do not seem threatening. That's sort of the overall rule, in fact, it's a pretty good rule for having a good relationship. But, in, at least when it comes to who you pick, we think about, uh, orienting towards someone who is secure, or will promote security for us, or that will bring us resources that are, uh, likely to be, uh, desirable in some way. And that allow us to damp down or decrease, or minimize any risks or threats or, uh, detractions from our resources, okay? And so the idea, as yet untested, is that symmetry might suggest, uh, superior genes. And, um, here's a, here's the extreme version of that. Uh, many of you may not find this guy especially attractive, the dramatically asymmetric man. Okay, what happens below the neck. Well, interestingly enough, um, though the facial, uh, the facial features are generally thought of as, uh, universal. People in, uh, all over the world are going to see, uh, to judge beauty in similar ways, for men and for women. There are more cultural specific preferences for what is attractive physically. But there are some good rules and they tend to orient, not around whether someone is especially skinny or especially fat. Uh, in fact, do you know, does anybody know who that is in the upper right? Twiggy, somebody said Twiggy? Who knew that, how did you know that?

Student 13: Just guessed.

Thomas Bradbury: All those modeling books you were looking at in, uh, fourth grade. What's that?

Student 13: She’s on America’s Next Top Model.

Thomas Bradbury: Is she really? Oh, wow. So she, uh, she revived her career. She was a very, very famous model in the sixties. Is she still really skinny, by the way?

Student 13: Uh, not that much but still skinny.

Thomas Bradbury: Not so much. But she's kept her proportions, that, that's actually what really matters. Uh, because what matters, what we do find as, uh, especially critical are the, uh, relative proportions regardless of their size. So, the research seems to show that a waist to hip ratio of 0.7 is judged to ideal by most people, okay. So that means that, uh, when you look at some, a female's waist, it is 70% of their hips, okay, and that, when you, you can expand that and contract that, and change the overall size, and make it bigger of smaller, and that seems to be the rule, that seems to be the proportion that matters. A shoulder to hip ration of 1.4 to men is judged as ideal. So for men, for women it is this way, for men it is this way. Uh huh, and, uh, that means that, uh, if you look at a man's, uh, hips that the, the most desirable feature is to have someone whose, uh, shoulders are 1.4 times as big as that, right? Which I think was true on the previous picture, but only on one side. Um, so these are independent of weight, like I said, and they tend be true, this tends to be true across cultures. Like if you do a study in, uh, New Guinea, or Borneo, or India, or South America, or Canada, this tends to be a rule that orients people toward what they see as attractive, for men and for women. And again, these are, uh, cues, by now you know the answer, these are cues to resources that we want to have. And for men, that is a cue to maturity and, uh, strength. And for women, that is assumed to be a cue for fertility. And if you remember the evolutionary model, that should ring true for you, that this is really, those would be, uh, capacities that a man would have, that a woman would find desirable, and a woman would have, uh, that a man would find desirable. Yes.

Student 14: Do you expect sort of sex differences based on the overall weight placed on physical attractiveness. For example, if there's a really attractive guy who's honestly signaling that they're kind of poor, whereas a normal looking man dressed like, dressed in a suit giving honest signals of being very wealthy...would that maybe sway factors a little?

Thomas Bradbury: Wow, um, I, I seem to remember a study about this and I can't quite pull up. Does anybody remember a study like that? Do you know a study like that? I, uh, I think the answer is, uh, that, uh, physical attractiveness is more important, um, to men picking women than women is to men. Is, but that's not your question, really.

Student 14: Sort of.

Thomas Bradbury: Sort of. Um, but there was a study. Oh, boy, it was, I just remember, uh, I read too many studies. Um, it was about, uh, you know, taking a taxi driver who was really nice, but sort of unattractive, uh, as compared to a really attractive guy who was a banker, who, uh, was, uh, not very nice, and most women still took the guy who looked really nice. Uh, I'll try to track down that reference for you. Um, but let's turn from physical attractiveness, above and below the waist, to, uh, personality. We are certainly attracted to people with, uh, certain kinds of, uh, personalities. Uh, especially when we think about long-term commitments, when we think about shorter-term commitments, uh, our mating strategies can change, and they're less oriented toward the resources that are likely to have, uh, relevance for longer spans of time. So most of us, no surprise, would rather be with someone who is sincere rather than insincere, so that they're trustworthy. Uh, someone who is, uh, more intelligent than not. Someone who is warm rather than cold. And, um, someone who is preferred as, uh, are preferred as mates over people who are selfish, rude, obnoxious, and deceptive. No surprise, because those are not rewarding kinds of features of people to be around, right? And we don't want to be deceived, and we want to be taken care of in our relationships. Um, interestingly enough, though, um, most of us do not find a perfect person, a flawless person as attractive as someone who has some minor flaws in their character, right? It's uh, it's a little bit, and again, why might that be? Probably because that's a little bit threatening. Right, like dating the, the quarterback, who's the superstar, who's always great, and everything's always working great for him, that's sort of threatening. Wouldn't it great is if he had all those characteristics but, uh, you know, had some other foible, like he had some funny comic book collection or something. I don't know, some, some little quirk that you said, "Wow, now he's human. Now, I can relate to him," right? "Okay, now I can relate to him. He's still got a paper route, eh, that's not right." Yeah.

Student 15: Is that because we’re afraid that they may have too many other options?

Thomas Bradbury: That's another reason is, uh, mate-poaching. Evolutionary theorists talk a lot about mate-poaching and, uh, the likelihood that your mate will be stolen from you. And so, uh, at least in the shorter term, I don't think that's a huge issue, but for longer term committed partnerships. But, I think most of us really try to maximize our outcomes, we really try to, you know, get the most attractive and desirable mate we can and then defend our turf, as opposed to, uh, you know, trying to defend our turf before we choose people. So, I think it has more to do with, uh, wanting to be around someone who, um, has some, uh, imperfections, some lovable, kooky, quirky flaws. Uh, this is my sense. Um, modesty also valued. Um, and again we see, uh, a situation where we want to surround ourselves with benefits and avoid costs. Similarities, so this is the third dimension of, uh, the individuals, but now we're not talking about a dimension of, uh, of the individual, but a dimension of the individual in relation to ourselves, right? So remember we've been, I've been trying to outline three distinct spheres of influence on the attraction process that push people up this pyramid toward, uh, stable, committed partnerships. And, uh, we started talking about proximity and situations, and now we're talking about, um, characteristics of the individuals, but here we make a slight shift towards those individuals who, uh, towards, uh, characteristics of us in relation to another person. It's not just whether somebody is physical attractive, physically attractive, it's not just whether somebody has a desirable personality, but it's how we match up with them. And, um, similarity turns out to be a pretty powerful force, uh, in the, uh, in the attraction process. And, uh, you already know the reason why, but here are the specifics. Uh, being with someone who is similar to us will validate our self-worth. Like, "Oh, you see that way things I do, I, I get it. That's better." It, uh, allows us to avoid a lot of conflict. That's, uh, a punishment that we would rather avoid, so, if you do disagree with somebody because, when I asked you for some examples of who, who you got connected up with into a committed partnership, some of the examples were, I really love this person right away. But others were, you know, I kind of didn't like him for a while. And partly, you know, we, uh, we, some of it might be because we're really young and we don't want to get into relationships, uh, some of it might be that you don't, you haven't quite figured that person out, like the nerd, and then you realize, well, he doesn't, he's not really all that open and sharing but, once you get to know him, he's an amazing person, right? So that becomes a very rewarding experience, uh, once you get to know somebody. But, um, as you go through that process, um, judgments about similarity, and whether there's going to be friction, and how you get to know that person, uh, become quite powerful. And so, uh, not only does a similar person validate our own self-worth, it, uh, makes it really easy for us to have shared activities, so you don't have to negotiate a lot about what it is you'd like to do. Uh, it increases your own confidence and self-esteem because you feel better about who you are as a person knowing that there's somebody else like you, who likes you as well. It enhances your communication, lots of times you don't really have to, uh, find a lot of new things to talk from if you’re from a similar socio-economic status, or if you're from a, um, if you're from a similar, you're in a similar work environment. So, once you, it turns out once you've made a choice to be in a certain kind of environment, whether it's a school situation, whether it's UCLA, whether it's in this classroom taking Psych 100B, not only are you physically proximate to another person, but you're similar in lots of different ways. You're similar in lots of different ways. Uh, so all of a sudden, you are, uh, somebody, on average, I mean, there will be the times when you happen to find yourself in Holland and you see some guy who's really attractive, and you might get really excited by the differences. But, ultimately, those differences are typically on the surface. You know, it's really unusual to see someone who's a, like an arch-conservative in a relationship, a really good relationship with someone who's really, really politically liberal. Usually, there has to be a common ground, a shared view of the world, and that's a similarity that proves to be very powerful. So, part of that is because it enhances the communication within the dyad, and it also increases the chances that if you sort of know what you're getting yourself into, it knows you're going to, you know you're going to be liked in return, right? Do any, are any of you, question right here.

Student 16: Yeah um, well, when you mentioned like, I’m thinking like isn’t there some times when there are couples where one person is really outspoken versus one person who’s really more passive and not as outspoken but they match better as people and they talk about themselves.

Thomas Bradbury: There are, um, what's tricky about thinking about attraction in relationships is that they are so multi-dimensional. So that, uh, they might really not be all that pleased with the fact that they both talk a lot and they have to compete for the floor when they talk with one another. But there might be a lot of other domains in which, uh, they, um, they, uh, find similarity and, uh, maybe what they really do like is the high level of energy that each one of them possesses. So, the, um, you know it's, um, the studies of attraction, while, uh, I think that they're really informative and I think they're well laid out in your reader, uh, often underrepresent the complexity of the process involved in really meeting somebody. And part of that complexity, part of the difficulty of doing this kind of research is in recognizing how inherently complex people are. And that's actually why dating services, the online matching services, uh, are so popular, because usually, when you fill out a questionnaire for one of these companies, you're reporting on a lot of dimensions, right? And they're trying to see how similar you are, that's sort of, one the big ticket items, that's one of the leading ways that they try to match people is, who are you similar to, and are there any kind of rule-outs that, um, that you have indicated in your profile that, uh, the other person doesn't possess, right? So there are some things like, are you a smoker or not? And some people say, I will absolutely not be in a relationship with a smoker. Right, they'll usually say that, and then, these companies will say okay, all the smokers, they're not in your pool, these are all non-smokers, and then that becomes how you match, right? But there are times in the, uh, in the free market, in the open market when you say, when you, I would ask you today, "Do you want a, do you want to be in a relationship with a smoker?" You say, "No, I don't want to be in a relationship with a smoker. Why would I?" And then you see this person who's really attractive, and they're really interesting, and they're a lot like you, and then you say, "Oh, so she smokes, you know. Yeah, I can change that. Or we can deal with that." Right, so, um, people are amazingly complicated, the, uh, matching process is amazingly complicated. And the online services go very far, but they really operate, for the most part, not exclusively, on, uh, on a, uh, similarities sort of matching. But we do know that the kinds of things that you say you prefer, are not always what ends up predicting whether you like somebody. Uh, that's the article that Eli, that's the paper by Eli Finkel that is cited, uh, in the reader. So, uh, where was I going with that? Um, oh, the, uh, this is really well articulated in the video, Art Aron, A-R-O-N, is his last name, talks about how, what you really want is someone who is, um, very, very similar to you, on the dimensions that matter to you. Like religiosity, or political beliefs, or orientation toward having children. Whatever it is that's important to you, you kind of look for that. You know, you're looking for someone who's ready to settle down, you're looking for someone who's absolutely not ready to settle down. You're looking for someone who likes to go to church, you're looking for someone who likes to go to your church. You're looking for somebody who absolutely doesn't believe in God, right? That, that might be the priority. And once you find that, once you find the similar dimensions, then you say, I'm open to some differences after that, right? Cause that would spice up my life. So once we've got that first line of defense covered, once I've got a person who, you know, pick one, is really interested in travel, and that's how they want to live their life, or really interested in settling down, or really interested in raising dogs, or really interested in raising kids, or really is going to let me watch basketball a lot. Um, once you've sort of solved the big ticket items, then you're free to pick a lot of the smaller ticket items. So, you talk about communication, and level of engagement in communication, well, it depends on where that is in your hierarchy, and it depends on whether you match on it or not. If it's low in your hierarchy and you've got other, a lot of other really good similarities, well, you'll be willing to tolerate somebody who talks a lot when you're trying to talk, right, if you've got the big ticket items taken care of. So that's an interesting aspect of, uh, how we match up with people. I'm not sure how well that comes in, in the, uh, in the online matching services, how much you weight those. Uh, it's been a while since I, uh, I had, I went through that once to consult on a project for somebody, and I don't remember if, I think e-harmony, for example, has 32 dimensions of compatibility or something. I don't remember if you're asked to indicate the top five of them or not but it would, it would make sense that you would. Uh, okay, so similarity, here's a picture of a man and a woman, uh, and the poignancy of this picture obviously is that they're highly similar, they're reading the exact same book, and of course their trains are likely to be going in the opposite direction. Uh, here's a guy who says, "My preference is for someone who's afraid of closeness, just like me." It's actually kind of funny you'd think, well, maybe that wouldn't be so good for a relationship, if you had two individuals who really both liked their distance, but it actually might be quite a good way to think about having a relationship, is talking about the level of intensity, the level of engagement, uh, how close two people really do want to be, and how they're going to negotiate, uh, that, that closeness. The, the interesting part though is that, one of the, uh, one of the most powerful experiences, and sometimes one of the most difficult experiences in relationships is not just going into the matching service and have that taken care of you, taken care of for you. Like, you know, I, finally, I found somebody who's equally, uh, interested in not being terribly close. Um, so that solved, we both agree and we don't have to talk about that. But one of the most powerful experiences you have in a relationship is having that exact conversation, right? Have, "You know, we've spent some time together, we've been going out for a while, and I sort of notice that you like being left alone a lot. Uh, that's, I don't like that, I'm more of an engager. I want to hang around together, I want to spend a lot of our time together, doing stuff together. Uh, and so you discover that and you have the harder conversation and, in the process, sometimes you learn a lot about yourself from that conversation. So, uh, so this guy is sort of, um, because he's afraid of, uh, closeness, he is losing the opportunity to get closer and to have a conversation that would allow him, and another person to say, "You know what, closeness is hard for me, but I wonder if we might, sort of, be similar in that and work together to figure out a way to stay close in a way that makes both of use happy." But the conversation about closeness is almost as important as the closeness itself. So, and, by the way, that guy looks like Bill Gates and I just can't get it out of my head. Okay, now we move into our third domain. The most, I believe, the most important domain. Because, you can be near somebody, and you can have a lot of contact with somebody and be very familiar with them, and they can have an okay personality, they're even sort of likeable, but if the sparks don't fly when you talk, if the dyadic interaction between the two of you doesn't engage you, doesn't make you feel good, doesn't really help you to see the rewards that you're looking for, when you're in the business of selecting a mate, then that relation, relationship may stall as it progresses up the, uh, up the ladder. Okay, so we have to ask, when you look at dyadic interaction do the sparks really fly? And this is the study by Eli Finkel at Northwestern University, that I, uh, mentioned to you and that is outlined in the reader and he found surprisingly, that what we say we want in an ideal mate does not predict which potential, uh, mate, there's a typo there, we actually desire and pursue, okay? What we say we want is not exactly what we end up with, okay? We're not all that good about predicting what we end up with. And partly it's because other people are amazingly complex, and we see some things and we say, "You know, I hadn't really thought about that, but I really like that. I kind of like that." Or, "I hadn't really thought about someone like that before but, now that I see it, I kind of don't like it." Right, so you have to engage with another person and you have to have a conversation with another person beyond just learning about the superficialities of their personality, beyond just being in the same room with them or in the same class with them, you have to find something you like about them. For example, what did you like, when you talked to your, uh, your husband-to-be, what was that like, what was, what were the conversations like? Were they awkward and stilted or?

Student 1: He's really like, open. He’s pretty outgoing and warm.

Thomas Bradbury: He's outgoing, he's warm, he's open, and when you talk with him, what's it like? Like, right when like, while that class was still going on. Like what was that like?

Student 1: Um…what like, the rest of that first day?

Thomas Bradbury: Eh, you know, in the next couple of months. Like the first conversations when you were kind of starting to get to know each other.

Student 1: Um…

Thomas Bradbury: Was he funny? Did he keep to himself or did he, uh huh.

Student 1: No, no. He was really funny and he was like, uh, he was really charming.

Thomas Bradbury: He was charming, uh huh, even beyond the backpack comment. Like he, he built on that.

Student 1: Yeah, not like that annoying, like, trying to be charming way. Like it was just his personality.

Thomas Bradbury: He wasn't stilted, like he wasn't trying to impress you, he was, he was being sincere and genuine. And when you talked like, what, what were you, may I ask, what was your first date?

Student 1: Uh, we went to dinner.

Thomas Bradbury: You went to dinner. And what, was that like hard to talk, or did you get a lot of things, a lot of shared things to talk about? And, uh, are you from a similar background? Small town, big city, rural community?

Student 1: Yeah. Uh… kind of. Yeah, in a weird way. A lot of differences, but…

Thomas Bradbury: Same, is, uh, same size families?

Student 1: Yeah, I guess.

Thomas Bradbury: So what happens is you get in the same room, and you say, "Wow, this guy seems nice, he even complimented me on my backpack. And then, we kind of got to talking, and it kind of flowed, right? If you'd had an experience with a, with a person when you're in a relationship, lots of times, the conversation just kind of flows, it's not hard, you don't have to force it, and that feels good, right? That feels really good. When you just sort of hit it off, right, you just start talking. Okay, well, we know that, uh, we don't always know exactly what it is we're looking for when we're selecting a partner. It's because, people are so extraordinarily complicated. And we might have a schema for what we might expect and want and desire, but then a real, complicated, three-dimensional person comes up and we have to make a new judgment, right? We don't really have a perfect schema for the person who's in front of you. So, we adjust it, and we don't always know. And, more importantly, they're doing the same thing, right? By the way, have you talked with your husband-to-be about what it was that he found attractive in you? Many, many features, but which one really jumped out for him?

Student 1: Uh… he kind of said the same thing, just like how open and out there I am, most of the time.

Thomas Bradbury: You've got to be willing to share stuff, right? You've got to be willing to share something of yourself to give the other person a hook to sort of figure out who you are, and what you're about and what's in it for them, right? So, we know for example that monozygotic twins, twins that are, grow with the, uh, the same, uh, genetic material, monozygotic, one egg, are much more, are very similar, uh, to one another, and far more similar to one another than two twins who are dizygotic, who are in, uh, different eggs, right, dizygotic. We know that they are, uh, monozygotic twins are very similar. By the way, are you a monozygotic twin or dizygotic? Monozygotic, so you and your sister, look like, you look the same.

Student 6: Yeah

Thomas Bradbury: Yeah, driver's licenses, you swap them and stuff? Yeah, have you tried going after this guy yet?

Student 6: No, I would never, ever.

Thomas Bradbury: I was just kidding. But if you said yes, I would have been ecstatic cause it would have been a great story. Um, so, uh, so they're very similar. So, uh, you and your sister very similar in many different ways, far more so than, uh, dizygotic twins, two dizygotic twins, except in the mates that you prefer. It's because there's two people who have to engage in this dance. Like, do you, are the, if I might be so bold to ask, are you attracted to the same kinds of guys that your monozygotic twin is attracted to?

Student 6: Completely opposite

Thomas Bradbury: Completely opposite! There it is, and how, opposite in what, in what way?

Student 6: Um, well, I kind of like the taller, thin guys with leather jackets.

Thomas Bradbury: Oh, uh huh? You like the guys with the motorcycle jackets. As if that's like the defining criterion for a bad boy, right? Like a motorcycle jacket. "Stay away from those kids with motor jackets, motorcycle jackets." Um, so mate preferences are dyadic processes. Monozygotic twins, really similar in lots of different ways, uh, especially compared to dizygotic twins, but they don't differ in terms of mate selection, and that's because there's two people, and they're negotiating this process, right? They're negotiating what, here, is that something I like about you, is this a situation I like being in? What's our conversation like, how's this going, right, because there's a whole other part to the process. If you, are you similar to your sister in other, other ways? Like, like preferences for clothes, and, how you do in school?

Student 6: Yeah.

Thomas Bradbury: Does she go to UCLA? Wow. So they even prefer to go to the same school. You don't get a discount for that, there's not like a twin discount, is there?

Student 6: No, she got a scholarship, though.

Thomas Bradbury: Oh, she got a scholarship. You can claim it as you own, I think. So you, you can be similar in lots of different ways, but now you got another person who enters the equation, and they're choosing you, and you're choosing them. It has to be a dyadic process, right? It has to be a dyadic exchange. And so, uh, so let's talk, let's talk a little bit about that. There's some really interesting research on this, really interesting. Before I get to that, I want to tell you about reciprocal liking. We like people who like us. So now we're talking about the dynamic exchange of emotion, and sentiment, and information about ourselves. We like people who like us, and when couples retrospect on why they got together, one of the things that they remember is, "You know, he kind of was attracted to me too. And he liked me, and I liked him, and we sort of knew it, we didn't actually come out and say it, but we kind of knew that we liked each other." It doesn't always happen that way, but at least there's usually not a huge turn off from the very start. We like people who are not uniformly positive, but who we perceive to be discriminating in who they like, right? So if you are, if you meet up with somebody who's friendly toward everybody. You might of had this experience, like you're just coming to college for the first time, and you meet somebody and there's somebody who seems really friendly to you, right? And it feels good, it's like, "Wow, this guy really likes me. I kind of like this. He's giving me a lot of attention." And then some other woman comes along, and he does the exact same thing to her, and you go, "Oh, he's just a friendly guy. I get it, I get it wasn't me, it wasn't us, he's just a friendly guy." Right, so it's hard to read that kind of person, so we prefer to have somebody who's a little more, uh, low-key, and then we gradually learn, in fact there's research showing that, um, we tend to like people who are a little big neutral at first, and then we see the contrast in their emotional state, oh, they've changed, in a way that shows that they're more positive around us, now I can attribute that to my relationship with that person. Okay, so being more discriminating, uh, is, uh, like a nice signal. It's like, oh, there's something special about me. I want to be in a relationship with someone who things I'm special. Right, so, if you watch the video, that I've been telling you about. You'll see a young woman, formerly a UCLA student, in fact, virtually all of the people in the videos that you'll be watching are UCLA students. And she says, "You know, sometimes when I'm at a party." Who, which one of you have seen the video? Did you see this one? Uh, "Sometimes when I'm at a party and there's a guy I like, and I see him over here, I'll, I'll see him, I will, uh, turn down a bunch of other guys and make sure he sees that." Right, "I want him to know that I'm a discriminating person and that, when he comes to ask me, then I'll say yes." Right, "I don't want to be seen as a kind of women who just says yes to everybody. And, in fact, I want to present him with the direct evidence that shows, I am going to turn other people down and save myself, preserve myself for the guy I really like." We like people who start out more neutral, I said that, being liked is highly validating, it opens the door to future interaction and the possibility of another relationship. Right, we want to be in a relationship with someone who values who we are as a person, and then we want to negotiate that so that we enable another person to feel the same way in that relationship with us, okay? All right, here is Carl Grammar, a, uh, scientist in Vienna and, much to my shock, he was on the 'Oprah' website yesterday. I, I don't know how, I think he's studying, uh, a new kind of, he's doing a new kind of research on attraction. But he has done a lot of research, um, and he's interested in taking videotapes of strangers talking to one another, and then seeing who it is, uh, which pairings of people end up, uh, involved in relationships that continue, okay? So take two strangers, put them in a room, and then say, well, did you guys like each other? What is the chances of you guys, uh, going out on a date together? Would you like to have this person's telephone number, etc., right? So he, what he, the important point is that he's looking at the actual transactions, the actual conversations that two people have, right? And he videotapes them, and, basically, he's had a lot of trouble figuring out what works. He's had a lot of trouble figuring out what works, and he does these really amazing, frame by frame analyses of how people move in relation to one another, and he finds out that there's not much evidence, when you directly observe people, in the mirroring and the synchronization. So, it's not like, I move forward and then she moves backwards, and then she moves forward and I move backwards. And then we have this sort of really intricate dance. That doesn't work, that's not how it works. And it's not even that they're gazing at one another a lot, it's not even that they're like staring at each other or looking at each other, or talking in a certain pattern. And it's not even that they, um, talk more, right? It's not just that you, uh, have, uh, more total volume of conversation, but that you have more back and forth exchanges. This is the one finding that emerges from this really intricate, detailed literature. The one thing that seems to jump out is that, what matters is that it's an easy to go back and forth. Right there's just an ease, there's just a comfort, like, you say one thing, I've got a reaction. Your reaction builds on my reaction. And we sort of create this wonderful conversation. Right, we sort of get to know each other and we laugh, and we tease each other a little bit, we support each other, we sort of know how to talk. Right, and if you've been in a relationship, that's sort of emerged, chances are pretty good that, early on, the conversation felt easy. The conversation didn't feel so stilted. It was like, you were ready to talk, they were ready to listen, and when they talked, you listened, and there's a really nice back and forth. So, what has to happen? It's not, it's not the only thing that has to happen. But as far as we can tell, interpersonally, what has to happen is there has to be an exchange of information between two people who happen, either have or create some kind of proximity to one another, who sort of like the other person, or at least haven't found a reason to dislike the other person. They haven't found a reason to say, wow, this person is really dissimilar from me, right? So they've made it through the first stage. There's a proximity, there's a similarity and a, sort of an attraction to this individual as an individual. And then, there's something new, there's something new. Some, there's some connection that you form, and there's some esoteric little thing that this person happens to know about or, you go to their Facebook page and you read about this band that you thought only you knew about and this person knows about that. What are the chances that that would be true? Right, and then you have this little special experience that you can talk about. And that not only joins you, but separates you from other people, right? And that feels very special. And then you've got a person who, it doesn't take a lot of effort to have, uh, conversations with them. It becomes easy, it flows, it's natural, it's comfortable. It feels like this is the kind of person that, if you were to have a relationship with, it wouldn't be so hard, it would feel good. So, we have to move to a dyadic level of analysis. Do the situations matter? Of course they matter. Does the partner's personality matter? Of course, we, we reject people all the time on the basis of their personality. But once you've made it through those two gates, you have to enter the next gate, which is having a capacity to talk to one another, to listen to one another, and to open up opportunities, boundless opportunities, to get to know each other, and to share your feelings with one another. And then, then, then, then, then we learn about the other person as an individual, right? Who are you as a person? We've made it through these important stages but now I want to know who you are as a person. We're going to talk about exactly that issue in our next few classes. Who are you as a person and how do we bind together. So, I will look forward to seeing you on Wednesday and I hope you have a great weekend.