User:BillyBlueJay/sandbox

Increased Attraction through Proximity
As more and more relationships become long distance with the advent of technology, research suggests that while similarities are an important factor for a strong interpersonal relationship, proximity is also large factor in liking someone. Not only do we place ourselves closer to those we like, we also begin liking those who are close to us. The more we see and interact with someone, the more we will begin to likely they will be our friends or romantic partners. Proximity leads to attraction because of the concept of familiarity, specifically though the mere exposure effect only if the initial attitude towards the stimuli is not negative. , ,

From multiple studies, it is shown that the number of interactions will increase attraction and result in deeper relationships. By constantly interacting with them and seeing their face, we become more familiar with them, leading to greater liking. We are more attracted to people we recognize than people who are strangers. One study found that those who were more familiar with a place typically had more positive attitudes and favorable impressions. This familiarity concept is consistent with other existing research on the effect of familiarity in the social interactions of children. By observing 50-minute sessions of standardized play among different children, it was seen that with a familiar peer, social play was more frequent. In effect, the social and cognitive level of play was higher. In the unfamiliar condition with a peer from another center, the children engaged in nonsocial activities such as solitary play or merely observance. On the other hand, when playing with a child more familiar to them, play was not only more dramatic with a make-believe role but social interaction was also higher. By interacting with someone more familiar, the children were able to have a more complex, socially active, and cognitively advanced experience. Frequency of interaction is essential to attraction from proximal relationships. Recent research suggest that liking is enhanced not by the negative or positive context of the stimuli, but the frequency of this stimuli. This study concluded that tasting a bad drink, a negative context, still allows people to have a positive relationship as they are more exposed to the person they interact with. Even when the encounters were unpleasant, the mere exposure effect overcame the situational factors.

In direct relation to the effects of familiarity, the mere exposure effect plays a large role in our attraction even when unintentional because it states that the more often we are exposed to a stimulus, the more we are likely to be attracted to it. There is a large amount of evidence of the mere exposure effect not only towards other people, but also to products. The results of a study show that mere exposure to a brand name frequently encourages people to have a more favorable attitude toward the product even when the initial exposure has been forgotten. Specifically, the study shows that even unintentional exposure contributes to the mere exposure effect. This influence is automatic, engaging memory access, implicit memory formation, and perceptual construction. It was found that the more exposed a brand is, even incidentally, will increase liking because the consumer is more familiar with the product. Thus, even passing a student in the hallway everyday will positively affect your attraction to the person because the number of exposures will increase familiarity.

However, it is important to note that the mere exposure effect does not work for stimuli that are initially regarded negatively. For example, a study shows that even as people became more familiar with nursing homes with those who had a previous negative perception of them, there was a stronger association of the nursing home as institutional and not homelike. Increased exposure to an initially unfavorable place enhances these negative evaluations. Furthermore, if the contexts that interaction occurs are frequently negative, it will multiply the negative attitude as a study on mere exposure suggests. In this study, even as the number of exposure to the pictures increased, the results revealed that the negative evaluations increased as the "bad" picture of the black man in a negative setting was viewed. Initial impressions are magnified as the number of interactions increase.Thus, the more often we are exposed to a person, place, or object with an initial negative attitude, the more likely we will not be attracted to the stimulus.

We can conclude that the more often we are exposed to another person through proximity, we become more familiar and attracted to the person. The mere exposure effect plays a large role in multiplying the feelings of attraction as the subject is more exposed to the stimulus. These encounters do not need to be made in a positive context nor intentionally as shown in the previous studies mentioned. , However, the initial attitude toward the stimulus must be positive because the mere exposure effect enhances those initial attitudes. Through proximity, we become more familiar and attracted to people we have interacted with on multiple occasions.

(from User:Afternoondreamer/sandbox)

The Founding of Attachment Theory in Infants
Attachment Theory stemmed from the three volume work, Attachment and Loss, written by John Bowlby who explored the dimensions of attachment, separation, and loss. In Attachment and Loss, Bowlby presented a full understanding of available research to illustrate patterns of attachment from the start of life to death. Levy et al. described attachment theory as a set of ways that a person could relate to an intimate caregiver or attachment figure. Examples of intimate caregivers included parents, therapists, and romantic partners. Attachment theory highlighted different styles of attachment and how each style used the caregiver as a secure base and safe haven that allowed a person to freely explore the world, mentally or physically, but return to for comfort and protection in times of distress.

Ainsworth et al. used Bowlby’s ideas about attachment to explore the relationship between infants and their mothers in an experiment titled “The Strange Situation”. The investigators observed the effects of a mother leaving her one year child alone in a room with a stranger. The authors learned about the infant’s attachment by seeing how the child acts when the mother was absent and how the child treated the mother upon her return. Ainsworth et al. described three different attachment styles they saw in the infants: securely attached, anxiously attached, or avoidant. Before the mother left, the infants actively explored the room and used the mother as a “home base”. Secure and anxiously attached children became easily distressed once the mother left the room and the child was alone with the stranger. The avoidant children were not distressed like secure or anxious children. When the mother returned from her absence, the securely attached infants returned to the same behavior as before. Anxiously attached infants stopped exploring the room and stayed near the mother. Infants who were avoidant turned away from their mother and often favored the stranger more. Attachment theory offered the ability to find underlying dynamics in love between adults. Hazan and Shaver used attachment theory as a framework to explore romantic relationships in adults of all ages. Within their study they found that adults fell into the same attachment categories in romantic relationships that the infants identified as in Ainsworth’s study. Within relationships, they found that ~60% of people were secure in attachment, ~25% were avoidant, and ~15% were anxious. These percentages were the same as Ainsworth’s findings within his study of infant behavior.

(from User:Ajc01036/sandbox)

Attachment Theory with Interpersonal Relationships and Love
Meyer and Pilkonis outlined that there were two main ways to identify the attachment style of an adult. The first way was through the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) that examined a person’s past and current relationships. The interview provided clues about their attachment style as they narrated their own experiences. The second way was through a brief questionnaire that measured the participant’s mental model of themself and their mental model of other people. Those with an unstable view of self were anxious in their attachment style while those with an unstable view of others were avoidant in attachment. If the participant was stable in both of those categories then they were secure in attachment. Bowlby later developed ideas to how one gained an unstable view of the self or of others. The view of the self was distorted by personal experiences of failure and rejection. The person became afraid of further failure and lost confidence in their own abilities. This caused the person to avoid taking risks in relationships such as becoming vulnerable with their partner. The avoidant attachment style developed from experiences with the helpfulness of others. If the person learned that others are not going to come when needed or be helpful when present, the person lost trust with others. Hazan and Shaver found that attachment styles are being constantly shaped by experiences and continue to change with age.

Both the AAI and self reporting questionnaire used ideas established by Hazan and Shaver to formulate how people would act in relationships. Secure attachment characterized the foundations of love to be trust, friendship, and positive emotions. Securely attached people often believed in enduring love, where they viewed both others and themselves as likable and trustworthy. Anxiously attached individuals saw love as a preoccupying and painful experience to go through. Avoidant individuals relied on passion to fuel their love, but since passion fades with time they did not believe love was enduring or that they needed a long relationship to be happy. Both anxious and avoidant individuals then tended to fall in love often but had difficulty finding a sense of “true love” that secure individuals had in relationships.

(from User:Ajc01036/sandbox)

Smells, Human Pheromones and Their Effects on Interpersonal Attraction
Progression of studies of pheromones and scents on human attraction are ongoing and have produced conflicting results. Further studies will continue to describe the interaction of conscious and subconscious olfactory cues and their effects on how attractive we think a person may be.

Advertisements subject us to an affirmative attitude that pheromones and good smells can lead to attraction of the opposite sex. This illusionary and non-valid conclusion is seen in advertisements for products such as deodorants, cologne, and perfume which claim to include pheromones that supposedly will make us more attractive to the opposite sex, however this is not necessarily so.

Recently, it has been shown that the human body still maintains a working a Vomeronasal organ, which is not simply a vestigial tag-along to one’s development. This portion of the olfactory bulb is sensitive to gonadotropins, which are responsible for a variety of hormones that are released from both the hypothalamus and pituitary gland. The Vomeronasal organ binds the odorant and through synaptic activation solicits the hypothalamus to secrete hormones such as Luteinizing Hormone and Follicle Stimulating Hormone. In females, the release of these hormones are associated with stimulation of egg release during ovulation. In males, they increase spermatogenesis and testosterone levels. People who are diagnosed with Kallmons syndrome have an underdeveloped olfactory bulb and concurrently underdeveloped gonads The importance of this does not necessarily show causation, but there is a correlation between a normal olfactory bulb and properly developed gonads.

Another plausible causation of pheromones is the Vandenburgh effect. This is the effect of adolescent girls in step-fathered homes reaching puberty faster than those who are still exposed to their genetic father in the typical nuclear family. Again, this has only been shown through correlation and does not directly imply that pheromones are responsible for reaching puberty earlier.

The aforementioned is indicative to humans subconsciously detecting signals put out from the opposite sex, but how does this lead to pheromones and smells actually altering the interpersonal attraction status of a person? Olfaction is the only sense that makes its neurological path through our limbic system. Our limbic system plays a large role in our emotional responses and memories. This is the reason that a distinct smell can quickly conjure up memories that have not been recalled for many years. Viewed through a classical conditioning lens; positive experiences that occur during the emittance of a certain scent can increases the likelihood to see a new person during the occurrence of that smell in a more positive light or even of them possessing a more favorable personality. Of course, the opposite is also true; conditioning to a smell that repeatedly occurred during unfavorable circumstances can lead to a near immediate repulsion to a person latter possessing, or emitting it.

The specifics of pheromones and interpersonal attraction revolves around Major Histocompatibility Complexes (MHCs). These polymorphic genes play a role in our immune system and its development of new antibodies which are able to target and destroy foreign particles, and invasive diseases. The polymorphic genes allow antibodies to be produced in a random pattern which can eventually lead to increased attraction of immune cells to antigens present on the foreign body, and increased survival chances. Matings between two people with different MHCs leads to a more comprehensive immune system for the child and increased chances for survival. Although further elucidation is needed, it is known that MHCs are tied to odorants of androgen based pheromones which are released from apocrine glands, which themselves are concentrated in the armpits. In one study, females rated strips of material laced with MHCs that were dissimilar to their own as being more pleasant. However the opposite is true for pregnant females, whom rate strips of material laced with MHCs that are more similar to their own as being more pleasant.

This can be explained evolutionarily as women may be more attracted to men outside of their own lineage for copulation and fertilization. Later on, the same woman,now pregnant, may be more attracted to her family so that she is nearest to those who have the greatest genetic interest in the positive outcome of her birthing a child.

Overall, more studies are needed to further clarify the role of smells and pheromones on attraction. Humans are primarily a visual animal and smells and pheromones may play secondary or tertiary roles to more salient stimuli. Also, many of the studies conducted lacked mundane realism as they were conducted in lab settings, or were confounded by using different people, which inherently have different visual appeal to the opposite sex. The symptoms of current studies make them less generalizable and only provide correlational data.

(from User:Always learning1/sandbox)

User:Babybluejay/sandbox
Based on the Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating by David M. Buss and David P. Schmitt, mating strategies have evolved over time between both men and women. One major factor is humans have evolved distinct psychological means that address adaptive problems encountered by ancestors. Natural and sexual selection are responsible for the evolution. Natural selection is the biological that Darwin and Wallace discovered; these evolutionary factors helped humans survive. The theory suggests that people are predisposed to be afraid of things to help them survive, this is referred to as fear conditioning. Sexual selection is an evolution of preference by one sex for characteristics in individuals of the attracted sex. One evolutionary psychological mean prompts both short-term and long-term mate seeking strategies through physical attraction and social status. This theory shows similarities and differences in the qualities and characteristics that are desired by different types of men and women. A study looked at homosexual and heterosexual men and women to see if they both have a desire in dating someone that is attractive and has high social status power. Both homosexual and heterosexual women rated social status as the more important value over physical attractiveness. Homosexual and heterosexual men rated physical attractiveness higher than the women. They measured this by giving men and women pictures of the sex they are attracted to and labeling them with a higher or lower social status. This proves that no matter the sexual orientation, attraction and social status is important when looking for a partner. However, since both men and women have different mating strategies, their views of attractive characteristics are different.

As predicted by the Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating proposed by Buss and Schmitt, men significantly value characteristics such as: good looking, physically attractive, promiscuous, sex appeal, and sexually experienced in both short-term and long-term mates. This was tested by having participants rate on a scale of one to seven how important each characteristic is in both short-term and long-term mates. In another study by Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick and Larsen they studied different regions within the United States to see if they appear different in the values they place on a marriage partner. Samples from Texas appeared different from samples in other regions placing a greater value on chastity, good financial prospects, social status, and a similar religious background. It was found that a majority off all men found younger women more attractive. This is because youthful women have higher fertility rates, which gives men a greater likelihood of having reproductive success with younger women than with older woman. Since men desire a high reproductive success rate, having a long-term mate will confine that success rate. Therefore, they pursue more short-term relationships with women because having a mate for a prolonged period of time will hinder their success rate. It is known that men pursue short-term mating more often and frequently then women, who are more interested in long-term mates.

Sexual Strategies Theory predicts that women are more likely then men to look for a long-term mate and be more selective when it comes to finding a mate. This is because they are also interested in his recourses. Women seeking a long-term mate will select men on the parental investment they are willing and capable of providing. Women that are looking for long-term relations with a man are inclined to find a man’s value of resources desirable; this can make him look more attractive as a mate. This was shown in a study where women interacted with three different men “owned” three different cars representing upper, middle, and lower classes and would ask a woman on the sidewalk for her phone number. The results trended in the direction of the research hypothesis that high social status would get the most numbers while low social status got the least. This trend shows that there is a tendency for women to be more interested in and/or attracted to men with greater resources. However, women are not only interested in a man’s resources but also his physical appearance.

Sexual Strategies Theory predicted that physical attractiveness is presented as a priority in women among short-term and long-term mating contexts. However, it is more of a priority in short-term mates with their benefits being attractive offspring. This theory predicts that because where women do not get to secure the man’s resources, as is the typical circumstance in long-term relationships, they may get to secure better genes, which are passed to her offspring, by mating with physically attractive men in short-term circumstances.

Beautification or career achievement can be excessive when one’s trying to increase their desirability as a long-term mate. When it comes to selecting a single mate, those with more to offer have more choices and bargaining power than do those with less to offer. Married men in the Li, Bailey, Kenrick and Linsenmeier study openly said that in their single years, when they could be with very attractive women, usually these women did not have a college degree or lacked in something else. Later, when they were looking for a long-term relationship, the men reduced their high requirements on attractiveness and ended up marrying well-rounded mates. When it comes to choosing a single mate there are trade-off factors. This is because it is important for both men and women in short-term and long-term relations to have a physically attractive mate, and it is more important to women to have a mate with resources.

(from User:Babybluejay/sandbox)'

The Role of Attachment Styles in the Dissolution of Relationships
Attachment style an individual has plays a role in determining the way in which a person reacts to and copes with the dissolution of a relationship. Cognitive appraisals of one's own emotion at the time of a romantic break up determines how they perceive the break up and determines coping strategies. Coping resources are the mental resources one has are to be used when one is experience a great amount of stress. Finally, people hold love schemas or models of what to expect from a love relationship depending on their personality and timing of coping, which changes the reaction of the individual to the break up. Different attachment styles (secure, anxious, and avoidant) each have their own common strategy for coping with the break up of a relationship that involve both cognitive appraisals and love schemas at the advent of a break up.

People with a secure attachment style, typically characterized as being independent and comfortable with closeness and intimacy, use a strategy of open and empathic communication. Securely attached partners will be likely to use preventive coping meaning they will use the coping resources that they have at the initial dissolution of the relationship to better manage emotions as the adjust to the end of the relationship Preventive resources of coping with the emotions associated with the stress of a break-up are confidence in ability, self-direction, financial and physical resources prior to the break-up, which secure people tend to posses. The love schema of secure attachment is having independence but also being close with their partner. Secure men and women tend to engage in less physiological dampening or the use of drugs and alcohol.

People with an avoidant attachment style suppress their attachment and emphasize their self-reliance. They are less likely to engage with their former partner, stay clear of reminders of them, and more often engage in non-social coping methods such as drinking or drugs. People with this type of attachment style have love schemas that are the most uncomfortable with closeness to and independence from their partner. Avoidant people best make use of combative strategies are best used when adjusting to the end of a relationship because they often do not have the preventative measures of coping. Combative coping resources are best at reducing tension and problem solving, after the initial emotions of a break up have passed.

People with an anxious attachment style will be the most distressed about the loss of a partner, especially if they were the more emotionally involved person in the relationship. Anxiously attached people often use a coercive strategy where they make both demands and rebuke their former partner as well as using flirtation to restore the relationship or gain attention from their former partner. This ambivalence can be exemplified when they both yearn for their former partner and are angry about being abandoned by their former partner.

(from User:Belizwill354/sandbox)

Similarities and Difference Between Relationship Dissolution in Homosexual and Heterosexual Couples
When considering important elements of a relationship many people forget about the final stage of a relationship, the end. There are many similarities and differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, and why these relationships end. Some of the primary contributors of relationship dissolution include, a lack of physical attraction, decrease in commitment, and relationship longevity. The following section will explain how each of these factors relates to the dissolution of both, heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Attraction is one of the primary reasons for relationship longevity. There are multiple factors that determine the level of attraction in a relationship. Research most heavily focuses on the importance of commitment in a relationship. A change in commitment is generally associated with a change in attraction. Moreover, when relationship satisfaction is high, people are less likely to end their relationship. High satisfaction generally means that there is some level of attraction between people, which in turn drives commitment to the relationship. Levinger states that there are two aspects of commitment associated with relationships. The first aspect of commitment, emphasizes bringing partners together in a relationship, while the second aspect emphasizes deterring partners from leaving. If a couple is high in commitment, they may also be high in attraction, and therefore less likely to end their relationship. Research studying homosexual and heterosexual relationships finds that both types of relationships have the same level of commitment. In addition to understanding commitment, it is important to understand other contributing factors that may lead a couple to end their relationship. Research has found that individuals in homosexual and heterosexual relationships generally have the same relationships goals, because they both strive to achieve the same rewards. Research states that there are certain rules that need to be followed in a relationship, and if these rules are broken this could lead to acceptable grounds for termination of a relationship. These rules include: Personal autonomy/freedom, similarities, mutual support, honesty/openness, loyalty/good faith, time together, sharing resources and efforts and a sense of something between them. Research indicates that these factors are more important in a relationship than the sexual orientation of the partners in the relationship. Therefore, regardless of type of relationship, homosexual and heterosexual couples want and need similar things in their relationships to maintain them.

Although commitment and relationship goals are necessary for relationship satisfaction, physical attraction is also an important factor, specifically physical attraction to one's partner. Heterosexual males typically regard physical attractiveness of a woman as an important signal for the success of a relationship, whereas women find men's economic achievement as an attractive force. Thus, men and women may have different motivations for ending a relationship, just as they have different characteristics they find attractive in others. Physical attraction seems to be an important factor that may influence the dissolution of a relationship when related to a current partner.

While it is important to understand factors that aide in relationship dissolution, it is also important to understand what prevents couples from dissolving their relationships. Research states that relationship longevity is generally associated with a marriage lasting more than 1-2 years. The longer a couple stays married to someone, the lower the probability the couple will get a divorce. Most research regarding heterosexual relationships is rooted in the idea of marriage. In contrast, research regarding homosexual relationships focuses primarily on dating relationships rather than marriage, presumably because of the historic restrictions on homosexual marriage. As a result, research on why couples choose to end a relationship has often been based on married heterosexual couples but on dating homosexual couples. Longstanding couples generally overcome difficult obstacles throughout their relationships, and have more investments in their relationships, which may deter them from ending a relationship. These investments can range from children to financial assets. In contrast, gay males and lesbian women, who were cohabiting, typically have a higher break up rate than married couples. This difference can be explained, at least in part, by the lower rates of marriage among homosexual couples due to historic legal restrictions. If we take marriage into account, research shows that homosexual and heterosexual couples do not have statistically different rates of break ups. These findings suggest that newer relationships, which may not have experienced certain difficulties, are at greater risk for relationship dissolution than long, established relationships.

(from User:Bluejay94/sandbox)

Major Factors that Enhance the Degree of Interpersonal Attraction
Most researches regarding interpersonal attraction generally emphasize not only on similarity, but also on proximity and familiarity among people. Friendships and interpersonal attraction develop when people meet one another for the first time, and gradually continue to interact with each other over time. According to the results from several research experiments, proximity (physical distance) and mere exposure (repeated contact that leads to familiarity) tend to increase the rate of likability and interpersonal attraction.

Attraction is the core of interpersonal relationships. It explains how people feel positively amongst each other, leading to positive relationship between them. One of the major factors that contribute to the increase in attraction is the physical distance between two people. people tend to have greater attraction for and keep close proximity to a person of opposite sex with similar attitudes than to one with dissimilar attitudes. Furthermore, when people share most of the time together in close distance, they feel more attached and more connected with each other. Batool offers reasons why proximity might be effective in increasing interpersonal attractiveness. He stated that close proximity to another person includes a small practical distance and opportunity for continued interaction, which can considerable enhance the possibility of attraction. Environment setting also matters in determining proximity. Phenomenal distance for example, is the way the distance between two persons is perceived appears to depend upon the number of others who intervene. For instance, in a rural area, persons living a half-mile away may be considered neighbors, while in a city, those living one hundred feet away may not be. Accessibility is one essential part of understanding proximity in increasing attraction. It is easy for roommates to interact without each encounter being an occasion. Their relationship, almost certainly not the optimal combination of personalities, is nonetheless attractive for its easy accessibility.

In addition to the level of proximity in effecting the degree of attraction between people, there are other factors that determine whether interpersonal attraction increases or not. Research has found that mere exposure (repeated contact builds familiarity) increases interpersonal attraction. Zajonc et al stated that we tend to build familiarity with a person or a stimulus, because novelty is commonly associated with uncertainty and with conflict; it is more likely to produce negative than positive affect. Experiment on the effects of mere exposure and attitudinal similarity on self-disclosure, subjects were willing to disclose significantly more items and more intimate items to the most frequently seen other. Furthermore, there was a strong evidence in the nonparametric analyses of increased liking for the person exposed more often and subjects showed a preference for affiliating with the person seen the most. Mere exposure can also be understood from a reward-cost position, in that high frequency of mere exposure can have reinforcement effects under certain conditions. Mere exposure affects similarity as well as attraction. An experiment by Reis showed that women who attended more class sessions earned significantly higher attractiveness scores, and the students believed that they would be more likely to befriend those women, enjoy spending time with them, and cooperate on class projects because they are more likely to see them in class sessions than women who attend to only few class sessions.

(from User:ChosephChocifer/sandbox)

Similarity and Interpersonal Attraction
The attitude/similarity theory suggests that people are attracted to and like those who are more similar than dissimilar to themselves. This topic has been studied by researching attitude and belief similarity. In an early study, results show a positive correlation between attitude and belief similarity and attraction. This result has been shown to be true in numerous studies as well. Thus, to further this research, a continuation study manipulated the prestige of the stranger by either their occupation or military rank to see if the prestige would affect attraction. Interestingly, the results show no significant interaction. However, when the situation was ambiguous and prestige of the stranger was the main source of information, then prestige did matter. Furthermore, there have been several examples to conclude that people like others like themselves. There are three mediators of the attitude similarity-attraction theory. One is affect, which is induced by awareness of similarity. In this view, similar attitudes induce positive feelings while dissimilar attitudes produce negative feelings. The second is inferred attraction from similarity or dissimilarity of attitudes. In this view, similar attitudes lead the participants to believe that the stranger would be attracted toward them, while dissimilar ones lead to rejection. Thus, it is a matter of reciprocation. The third mediator is cognitive evaluation of the stranger’s quality as a person. Simply, cognitive evaluation is what you are consciously aware and think of people, and is very important in the attitude/similarity theory.

Interestingly, attitude and belief similarity does not just refer to adults. In an experiment done with Chinese children aging from 7-11 years. The results showed that interpersonal attraction increased with attitude similarity, just as it does in adults. Children learn many things early in life on an operant conditioning system, which means they are given rewards and punishments for their behavior. Even though most people think of giving a child a reward or punishment due to their behavior, adults are reinforced and punished as well in similar ways that adults are. Similar attitudes are directly rewarding for the person, so we tend to like the person more. In fact, we are more attractive to those people who are similar to ourselves because they validate our own self worth and we assume that people who disagree with us have negative personality traits. Attitudinal agreement from another provides positively reinforcing social validation for one's attitudinal positions leading to greater attraction Interestingly, in another study by Byrne and Blaylock, they found only a moderate degree of similarity in the attitudes of married couples. However, when the couple was asked, separately, to predict their spouse's attitudes, the similarity scores were much higher. Therefore, this study shows that it may be the perceived similarity that is important to relationships, not the actual degree of similarity. Furthermore, results from previous research suggests that we tend to like those who like us.

Another reason why people are more attracted to people who share similar beliefs as themselves is because fewer conflicts arise when people share the same beliefs, values and morals as another person. Normally, a person's belies and values are an important part of who they are as a person. Therefore, sharing common beliefs and values with another person lessens the likelihood of conflicts arising about aspects of a person's life that are important to them. In regards to similar beliefs and values, it has been shown that sharing a common goal lessens conflicts in relationships, and thus, leading to greater attraction as well Goal orientation is similar to one's beliefs and values, because both have to do with important aspects of the a person that are essential to who they are as a person.

(from User:CinderellaAriel12/sandbox)

Physical Attractiveness and What It Means in Politics and the Workplace
Physical attractiveness is “the degree to which a person’s physical features are considered aesthetically pleasing or beautiful”. Within the world we live, it is a leading factor to what influences us to believe what people in power say. As a whole, we look to those who are attractive because in some sense, their physical appearance makes them more credible. This is most prevalent in the world of politics. Not only does the appearance of a person influence our voting personality, but it also leads into the average workplace and who employers hire.

Within the world of politics, voting for who we think should be the leader of our free world or our county has a lot to do with the candidate’s appearance and their physical attractiveness. The more attractive a candidate is, the more likely the population views them as knowledgeable and persuasive – even though a lot of can be misinformed.

The Halo Effect is very prevalent within this category. It allows our evaluations of others to be thought of as a reflection of our inability to see the difference between the actual characteristics of the candidate at hand. A lot of the time, this leads to errors that occur automatically below the level of conscious information we process. Within the context of attractiveness, the audience seems to be most attracted to the candidates who are baby-faced. The familiarity and attractiveness of their “character-based inferences” exert onto the candidates’ chances of winning votes with the public.

Women within the world of politics are mainly scrutinized by the way they look and have their looks compared to what they deliver on the platform of politics. They are judged by what they wear, their makeup, as well as their physicality. Ultimately, women are more subjected to criticism when it comes to being in the world of politics and attractiveness more so than their men counterparts. On the other hand, men if one is slightly more attracted than their opponent, they are more likely to win the popular vote.

As concluded, the political world is a den for society to get caught up in the aesthetics of a person rather than listening to what they actually have to offer information wise. This leads into how the same topic – physical attractiveness – can affect the workplace as well.

The consideration of physical attractiveness comes a lot from the entry-level positions. This is the time when hiring managers are sizing up the individuals who will represent their company. Anything from attire to their communication skills are all being refined to the very end (Subhani, 2016). Within two separate articles, the reader was informed one thing – the more attractive you are, the better chance you have of landing the job. Even though Human Resources and the hiring managers will not say this, the studies show that if you are an attractive individual, you will be highly considerable to the employer – even if the role does not require interacting with the public (Farnen, 2016).

These findings suggest that our society is run by the thought of individuals basing their important decisions on the physical aesthetics of someone higher up. In the world of politics, we see that the more attractive person gets their voice heard and has the most followers. In the world of business and work, we see that hiring managers tend to hire those who they think will demonstrate their company in a positive light - based on their looks.

(from User:Cwilsonbahun/sandbox)

Choosing Friends and Physical Attractiveness
Much research has been dedicated to the different aspects regarding physical attractiveness people look at when choosing friends. Studies have shown that a person's level of attractiveness is significantly associated with other's expectations of kindness, intelligence, ability to get along with, and other factors that are attractive in a friendship. When finding friends, the more attractive they are, the more people see them as likable and approachable. Physical attractiveness, along with other lesser variables, is found to be the most important factor when determining good friendship qualities. Studies have also found that the more similarities a friendship has, whether romantic or platonic, in terms of physical attractiveness, plays a role in how friendships are chosen .In terms of platonic friendships, men are much pickier at choosing friends based on attractiveness due to the matching hypothesis ; matching for attractiveness among male dyads was homogenous, but not among women. For pairs of friends, there were variations among correlations were found but were explained by gender of dyad: the matching effect was obtained only with men.

(from User:ELA75808/sandbox)

Long-Term:
Much research regarding the length of relationships pays special attention to the variable of physical attractiveness. Initial attraction is important, but in order to remain satisfied in a long-term marriage or consummate relationship, physical attraction is key. Similar to friendships, the self-ratings of attractiveness are similar among couples. Attractiveness matters when choosing a potentially long-term partner ; the overwhelming majority of couples choose a partner who has the same, or nearly the same, self-rating of attractiveness. In essence, those who have a similar level of attractiveness have more probability of staying together for a long-term relationship. If a couple does not match on the self-rated attractiveness, then they more likely than not matched on the objective scale of attractiveness. Men who are interested in a long-term partner tend to give priority to the attractiveness to his partner's face, as opposed to the body. Direct tests indicated that partner physical attractiveness played a larger role in predicting the men’s satisfaction than predicting women’s satisfaction.

Short-Term:
An overwhelming amount of studies have shown that physical attractiveness, especially initial attraction, is the most important factor when discussing short-term relationships. Gender seems to create the largest deciding factor on whether or not a relationship will be short-term or long-term. Evolutionary theories show that men place physical attractiveness higher than women do. Men who are evaluating a potential short-term partner give higher priority to information gained from her body, relative to her face, than men evaluating a potential long-term partner. Similarly, men, but not women, have a condition-dependent proclivity to prioritize bodily cues in short-term mating contexts. However, the level of attractiveness makes a large difference. Attractiveness ratings--particularly bodily attractiveness ratings -- are significantly related to a person's mating behavior .For women, those who perceive themselves as "more attractive than average" and how are objectively rate as more attracted than average are more likely to look for short-term relationships.

(from User:ELA75808/sandbox)

The Deterioration and Deterrents in Ending Relationships
The quality of the relationship is determined through various factors. The level of quality a relationship reaches is equated in the outcome and success of a lasting relationship. Many factors, however, reduce the quality and increase the deterioration of a relationship. Even in a low quality relationship, there are still many deterrents that ensure its continuation.

Relationships
Relationships vary from intimate, physically intimate, close, and personal; heterosexual or homosexual. Acquaintances, friendships, partners, to lovers, a relationship can take many forms. Ranging from commitment to the relationship to the alternatives a person has, there are many reasons relationships succeed or fail. As social creatures, humans are drawn to these relationships. It is in our nature to be social.

With a romantic relationship comes physical intimacy. It is interesting that according to a study by Pamela C Regan of California State University, people believed that if you do not have a sexual desire with a partner, you do not have passionate love. Specifically, young adults associate being in love with sexual desire. Sexual activity is a development stage within a relationship and the later in the relationship, the more acceptable to sexual activity becomes. As a development state in the relationship, it plays a factor in the quality of the relationship and decreases the likelihood of deterioration.

Deterioration
Perfectionism is setting the standards for oneself or others so high they are unrealistic. The deterioration of relationships has been researched to oftentimes begin with one or both of the partners wanting a perfect relationship, partner, or self. This has been found to correlate with serious issues including depression. This intrapersonal outcome has interpersonal consequences. This leads to problems within the relationship, reducing its quality.

The ability of a couple to positively cope due to external or internal stressors heavily affects the likelihood of deterioration or lack thereof. Personalities of the individuals affect the experience of the relationship, the perception the individuals have of each other, and how a couple may handle different situations and life events.

Couples within relationships also find it difficult to express their emotions. Author of Protecting Your Personal Relationships, McCleary, phrases it as, "As with any other refuge when it comes to our personal relationships. After many years of such habits, we are unable to feel, listen, or speak subjectively when appropriate." In order to hold onto an intimate relationship, couples must subject themselves to clearly expressing feelings, values, and wants. The deterioration of a relationship can form through a lack of communication or failure to communicate effectively.

Deterrents
Deterrents of leaving a relationship encompass aspects such as unattractive alternatives, children and family, and religious morals. Personal need, dependence, and commitment are just a few of the reasons people stay in relationships. These are due to companionship and intimacy features of relationships. Commitment seems to be the biggest factor in why couples stay together. Lawrence A. Kurdek, Wright State University, looked at many research studies and models of different theorists and researchers. He found there are many ways to define and conceptualize commitment within the relationship model. He specifically looked at four different models:

First Model (Stanley and Markman 1992): There are two factors to this commitment: personal dedication and constraint commitment. Simply put, personal dedication is internal justification and constraint commitment is external justification for being in the relationship.

Second Model (Johnson, Caughlin, and Huston 1999): There are three pieces/experiences to commitment: personal (want), structural (external pressures), and moral (obligation) commitment.

Third Model (Adams and Jones 1997): This model is based on marriage and has three components: commitment to spouse, commitment to marriage, and entrapment.

Fourth Model (Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew 1998): Level of satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size.

These models add another important measuring tool to the outcome of a relationship and that is relationship satisfaction. According to Kurdek, the best model presented above is the fourth model by Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew because it accounts for the variables within commitment. Both the quality of the relationship and the satisfaction that results from the two individuals are critical determinants of the ending of a relationship.

(from User:For.my.information/sandbox)

Gender Differences on Perceived Attractiveness in Interpersonal Relationships
As a large component of human interaction and a basis for much of human behavior, interpersonal relationships are among one of the most important necessities for human beings--evolutionarily, we are predisposed to seek out interpersonal relationships as they can "provide a bounty of benefits linked directly or indirectly to reproduction" and the survival of our genes. Building relationships with others creates the potential for friendships, alliances, romantic relationships, and other networks by which people are able to fully thrive. When debating whether or not to form a relationship, humans look for aspects such as the accumulation of resources, cooperation, kin relations, potential, intelligence, and physical attractiveness. Physical attractiveness is the first quality that we notice in individuals (often on a subconscious level, and beginning at an early age ) as physical attractiveness gives cues to health as well as potential reproductive capability. Yet, while physical attractiveness is a universal factor in its importance for forming relationships, disparities in perceived attractiveness between men and women do exist and can lead to wholly different outcomes in the development of interpersonal relationships of any kind.

(from User:Has84474/sandbox)

Gender Differences
Object of desire self-consciousness (ODSC)--the attitude that others view one as sexually desirable and attractive, rather than viewing oneself as attractive based on self-perception--is one route by which gender differences in perceived attractiveness can be explored. ODSC creates romantic and/or sexual scripts that drive reactions and responses--for example, "a woman who experiences ODSC when an attractive man gazes at her attentively. Her ODSC activates a series of responses related to romance and sexuality, including a hair-flip, an (unconscious) sign that she finds his attention flattering and is potentially interested in romantic/sexual activities." Research has found that women are more likely than men to perceive their attractiveness in an "object of desire self-consciousness" (ODSC) fashion. This finding could have strong implications for women's sociosexual functioning, but further research needs to be performed to explore this.

Research tracking eye movement can also be used to support the assertion that women are perceived as and perceive themselves as objects of self-desire consciousness. While looking at Facebook profiles of both men and women, both genders of participants concentrated their eye movements on the profile pictures of women, gauging the physical attractiveness, while the descriptions of male profiles were looked at longer by participants. This suggests that the physical appearance of women in their profile pictures is more important for initial judgment, while the descriptions on male profiles are more important for initial judgment.

Another route by which gender differences in perceptions of attractiveness can be assessed is the comparison of self-reported or observed "desirable" characteristics in a potential relationship partner. Men prefer traits in women that signify health and fertility, physically apparent through waist-to-hip ratio and "youthful features such as full lips, lustrous hair, large eyes, and smooth skin" while women show an "evolved preference for men’s resources and associated traits such as social status and ambition to ensure". Social status, while not usually thought of as a primary factor in physical attractiveness, can strongly impact perceptions for both genders. When participants were asked to rank the physical attractiveness of male and female models, there were no significant differences in perceived attractiveness between models that were similar in their level of attractiveness. When asked to evaluate the social standings of the models, men pictured with other men and women pictured alone were perceived to have the highest status. However, the status of any given female model pictured with a male model was constrained by the status of the male. This suggests that status doesn't directly lead to a high perception of attractiveness in men, but status is more readily attributed to men than women. In addition, these findings suggest that women may prefer potential partners with high social status so that they can also attain high social status, as their status is restricted by the men they are involved with.

Conclusively, for men, women who appear young, healthy, and fertile will be the most physically attractive. In contrast, women will find men with greater social status and ambition to be the most attractive, even over more physically attractive men without these more important qualities. Women also tend to think of themselves as objects of self-desire, dependent on feedback from others for an estimation of their attractiveness, while men are able to self-perceive themselves as attractive or not.

(from User:Has84474/sandbox)

Social Equity and Exchange Theory
Social exchange is the idea that one feels that they are receiving something from their relationship, while equity focuses on how much someone is giving and how much their partner returns. For the purpose of social exchange and equity research, the “dyad,” or two-person partnership in a relationship, is the primary focus, as most research has been done on this pairing as opposed to other relationships models. Social Exchange and Equity are equally important characteristics of virtually all levels of relationships, ranging from friendship and dating to marriage.

Research indicates that interdependence and relational maintenance are important baseline characteristics that lead to exchange and equity in relationships. Essentially, it makes more sense that one would view their partner equally if they are both dependent on each other. Likewise, these partners are far more likely to engage in behaviors to preserve a relationship if they are in a relationship where both are viewed and treated as equals.

An interesting caveat to social exchange is that instead of seeking out maximum rewards for a minimum cost, or “the best deal,” people generally prefer to choose actions that will reward them and lead to a better relationship, and often overlook costs in the process. This distinguishes social exchange from other types, such as economic or material exchange.

In two studies on dating and how each person viewed their respective relationship standings, college students were assigned a questionnaire, where they detailed information on their dating lives and the seeming availability of potential opposite-sex partners on campus. Ultimately, two theories defined their conclusions; the first conclusion is that relationship inequity correlates with how committed someone is to the relationship. The second conclusion is that in most relationships, if somebody is satisfied they will be less likely to indicate desirable alternative partners for a relationship. If someone is not treated as an equal, then it is very unlikely that both partners will be satisfied and invested in continuing the relationship. Likewise, the “grass is greener on the other side” metaphor arises when someone is not satisfied with their relationship, thus suggesting that there would be more satisfaction in breaking up or finding another relationship.

When conducting a longitudinal study on romantic couples, professors at Illinois State University examined just how important equity was for determining the commitment, satisfaction, and stability of their relationships. Specifically, they focused on the role equity played against a number of other variables, like how the couples viewed alternatives to their present situation and how much time had been put into it. The results showed that if a partner felt that they were not benefiting enough from their relationship, it was associated with a higher chance to break up and overall dissatisfaction with the relationship. It is important to note that these findings only apply to general relationship inequity; if there is occasional inequity it does not determine a long-term change in the relationship quality. The most evidence, and therefore the most reliable conclusion from the study, was that the more satisfied and committed someone was to their partner, the more equal they felt in their relationship.

Social exchange theory and equity theory have not only been used to understand the development and maintenance of relationships, but also to understand and predict relationship difficulties and breakups. When predicting a breakup, the least important indicators from this research were whether the man felt he was under benefiting or was getting enough rewards. This evidence does not indicate causation, nor is it a comprehensive explanation for breakups or relationship dissatisfaction. It is, however, some useful background information when exploring factors that predict relationship longevity and commitment.

(from User:Human Capital 2016/sandbox)

Effects of proximity on interpersonal attraction (Also known as the propinquity effect)
In the field of social psychology, proximity is considered one of the key factors to forming interpersonal attraction with strangers. The greater the proximity to a stranger, the higher the chance that both of them will form an interpersonal relationship, be it platonic or romantic.

On the Propinquity effect on romantic relationships in the office
Studies show that because of the close proximity in the workplace, most co-workers begin a relationship with each other. Factors of interpersonal attraction like love, emotion, and social exchange are amplified by close proximity. 80 percent of U.S. employees self-report social-sexual experiences on the job with other co-workers. These experiences range from fun-loving flings to passionate love and romance.

On the Propinquity effect on friendships in college housing
A psychology study measured the level of friendship maintained among students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and found that the closer the proximity the students lived to each other in the housing complex of MIT, the stronger they reported their friendship to their fellow students. The opposite effect was also observed to be true: The farther away students lived from each other in the housing complex, the weaker they reported their friendships to their fellow students.

Dear John Letters and the Propinquity effect on Long Distance Relationships
A "Dear John Letter" was a term coined by American soldiers during World War II to reference the large amounts of letters sent by wives and girlfriends of American troops currently stationed overseas that contained the message that the wife or girlfriend had found intimacy with somebody else and that they were subsequently ending their relationship. "Dear John Letters" are a historical example of the challenges of maintaining a loving relationship when close proximity is not an option.

With the advances of technology, Long Distance Relationships have become easier to sustain but still require more effort and communication then a standard relationship.

The Mere-Exposure Effect
The mere-exposure effect is a psychological habit in where people naturally like and feel more comfortable around people or objects that they have had repeated exposure to.

Increased propinquity (being close to another person)  will often lead to an increase in attraction to that person and to an increased exposure to an object will often lead to an increase in attraction to that particular object. This is due to factors such as increased familiarity and predictability of the person or object which makes us more relaxed and generally happier. The mere-exposure effect can be completely subconscious and we can grow attracted to a person or object without consciously knowing why.

(from User:Ihatesnow402/sandbox)

User:Jay4312/sandbox
While many studies have shown that having under benefiting or over benefitting positions in a relationship lead to negative emotions in said relationship, there are some differences in how these negative motions appear in males and females. Males typically experience only purely anger resulting from under benefitting relationships while women report more negative emotions in addition to anger such as sadness, frustration and depression. This corresponds with prior information showing women tend to respond to conflict with self-blame and depression while men become angry. In addition, in a relationship with an over benefitting position, the negative emotion of guilt is not the same for both genders as would be expected. While men in an over benefitted position were likely to feel guilty women in the same position were no more likely to experience guilt than any other women. This could be due to the relation of what over benefitting means for each gender. For men it usually meant they were receiving more emotional support while women received more material support. Overall results from research would show that there might be little negative emotions related to over benefitting from a relationship, especially for women, but equitable relationships have the most positive outcomes according to couples. It has also been theorized and exhibited that people only perceive situations as equitable if they think they are getting what they should out of them in any relationships. For example in business relationships women may have historically thought they were being treated fairly by employers because they expected anywhere they went to be paid less then men, or that women expected to have to have different roles than men and thus had completely different tasks and still found the relationships equitable. A relationship may not satisfy the literal or traditional understanding of equity but still evoke the feeling of equity. It is completely relegated to to individuals perception of their relationship along with their cultural conceptions of equity as to whether or not they experience negative or positive emotions regarding perceived equity.

Equity theory, along with much of psychology, has long been dominated by theories and research, which exclusively looked at white Western subjects. Western psychologists tried to make general theories applying to human interactions based upon their research despite the fact that they only had limited sample diversity and cultural representation. This was common critique throughout all of psychology continuing up until today due to much of the research being focused in western countries, often with many Caucasian participants. Concepts of what is fair and equitable have varied widely across time and cultures. Concepts of equity in relationships have been shown to vary among cultures and regions. Differences are observed largely when comparing ideas of equity in the relationships of individuals in largely individualistic, largely westernized, cultures, versus those in collectivistic cultures. Those in individualistic cultures found their relationships more rewarding if the perceived equity of the relationship was high. Meanwhile, those in collectivist cultures reported higher satisfaction when in relationships where the perceived equity was low more than a relationship high in equity, but only when the individual was the one benefiting from the low equity relationship. There is no conclusive evidence as to why this occurs, but theories point to the rates of financial and social independence of groups within the culture as likely contributors. Marriage in Jamaica, where part of the referenced study was conducted, is usually based around biological in-groups rather than romantic pairings so fairness in a marriage is not as important as equity in ones biological family. Previous research has indicated higher feelings of guilt in a less equitable relationship among Westerners than among Non-Western Cultures.

(from User:Jay4312/sandbox)

Attraction Principles in New Perspectives
The similarity effect is among the most well-established findings in reference to interpersonal attraction. Attraction and mating preference studies have focused primarily on one principle of attraction at a time while measuring its effects within a controlled environment. Some of the most well-known attraction principles may not have the consistent predictive abilities as previously lead to believe.

However, one study mainly focused on the role of the self-expansion model in interpersonal attraction. The self-expansion model states that there is a fundamental motivation within people to expand the self to increase our probability to reach future and potential goals. This expansion can be done through the formation and maintenance of close relations with others, which helps us to retain the benefits of their resources, perspectives, and identities. In order to examine the extent at which the self-expansion model plays in interpersonal attraction, this study manipulated expectation of a likely relationship and similarity of interest (activities) of a same gender confederate, who posed as a stranger. The study measured liking for the confederate. The way one seeks to expand oneself can vary based on the certainty or uncertainty of the development of a relationship with that person. There is value to forming lasting relationships with both similar and dissimilar persons. However, the study showed with men, a relationship with a dissimilar or a similar seems more advantageous under the specified circumstances of either a relationship being highly likely or the possibility of a relationship uncertain. A similar study by Goldstein and Rosenfeld (1969) stated that those tested with a standard personality test and demonstrated a low "need for approval" or who were assessed as low on "fear of rejection" found similarity to be of less importance.

The similarity principle has shown, in the past, that people are attracted to those with similar attitudes and to an extent similar personality traits for reasons such as validating their self-concept and creating a sense of familiarity. Reciprocity was demonstrated most significantly when it was applied to two specific individuals compared to when it was observed in a general sense. Beauty has shown that physical attractiveness is an accurate indicator of initial attraction. Research previously showed that security has been correlated to the attachment theories and stated that most people are attracted to secure partners over avoidant and anxious. This study looks at all these previously well researched principles of attraction but in a realistic environment that was outside of the laboratory, giving the participants the actual opportunity to form real relationships. The setting for the experiment was a speed-dating atmosphere that could help to observe initial attraction in a more life-like situation under a more long-term context due to the participants choosing to take part in it with hopes of finding a life partner.

Within the study, the researchers focused on reports of the participant’s own characteristics, the characteristics of their partner, and the relationship between the two partners. All three of these components contributed greatly to the variance in attraction. The researchers collected significant correlational differences across sexes with only five partner characteristics: age, neuroticism, extroversion, negative affect, and avoidance. Partner characteristics were more accurate in predicting attraction for men as opposed for women. More so, the strongest predictor of initial attraction was physical attractiveness for both sexes equally. The correlation was strong and positive, indicating that our spontaneous behavior may not always line up with our rational, conscious mind in the instance of mate preference. In order for the reciprocity principle to have a strong effect, an individual needed to be aware of their partner’s feelings, suggesting this principle happens at a more conscious level. There was no strong evidence dyadic reciprocal liking between the pair when the individual was unaware of how their partner felt towards them. Similarly, another study testing potential mediators to interpersonal attraction discovered that inferred attraction, which is comparable to reciprocity, indeed had the potential to intervene with the attitude similarity-attraction link. Furthermore, similarity did not carry much weight in the prediction of initial attraction within this real-life context.

(from User:Jmutt18/sandbox)

Secure attachment
Secure attachment is one of the three attachment styles measured using the Strange situation task developed by Mary Ainsworth. In the original task, securely attached infants were distressed when their mother left the room, but displayed happy behaviors when she returned. One longitudinal study conducted over a 20-year period suggests that these attachment styles may persist throughout adulthood and identified 72% of participants who were categorized using the same attachment style as they were given in infancy. Given the idea that many individuals maintain the same attachment style through adulthood, social psychologists can use this information to gather information about the types of characteristics of romantic relationships that relate to a specific attachment style.

Social psychology research supports the idea that variance in attachment styles correlates with different behaviors in romantic relationships. When asked to think about their romantic experiences, individuals identified as securely attached reported that their previous romantic experiences were happy, trusting, and friendly. These same participants had higher opinions of themselves compared to other attachment styles, but saw the same positive qualities reflected in potential romantic partners. The more likely an individual is secure within themselves, the more likely there are to be secure in their romantic relationships as well. This idea is reflected in research which discovered that people who were more open to closeness to others (i.e. more securely attached) had greater feelings of self-worth. These findings suggest that love is not only a social process, but that biological processes play a role in formation of romantic relationships.

Additional research has been conducted with couples currently in romantic relationships. In a study of 144 dating couples, securely attached individuals were much more likely to be dating someone who experienced a greater amount of positive emotions and were likewise more secure. In general, these securely attached individuals experienced increased levels of positive emotions and decreased levels of negative emotions in their romantic relationships.

Securely attached individuals may also express their love in different ways compared to others. In one research study which examined the relationship between attachment styles and several different scales of love, the secure attachment style correlated positively to the Eros style of love, also known as romantic or "passionate" love. Yet another similar study found that more securely attached individuals were more likely to be categorized as having friendship-based (Storge), logical (Pragma), or game-playing love. Additionally, these individuals displayed more prevalence of selfless love, or Agape. Secure attachment was also positively related to intimacy and commitment on Sternberg's triangular theory of love. The study also looked at correlations to the Relationship Rating Form (RRF) developed by Keith Davis and based on Sternberg's theory. A positive correlation was identified between secure individuals and viability, caring, satisfaction, and intimacy, as well as a negative relationship to conflict

The same characteristics appear in longer and more permanent relationships. In a study of married couples, pairs in which both members of the relationship were securely attached were less likely to be depressed compared to other couples in the sample. These so-called "dual-secure" couples reported close attachments to others and more social integration. They also reported increased satisfaction and decreased ambivalence in their marriages compared to couples who were mismatched in attachment styles with their partner.

Attachment style may also play a role in the termination of romantic relationships. One study which interviewed couples in college discovered in a follow-up interview that when these romantic relationships ended, those individuals classified as secure did not report significant levels of distress after the breakup. Secure individuals were also more likely to blame their partner for the breakup and were more willing to see their former partner again, indicating that relationships tended to end more on good terms.

(from User:Jschmaus/sandbox)

What makes you so irresistibly compelling to one-another?
Every day, your mind creates thousands of judgments and decisions about other individuals around you; this occurs so many times that these judgments often go unnoticed. Whether you are crossing a street, tipping your pizza delivery guy, or opening a door for someone, your mind is constantly judging another's physical features. There are many theories that explain this occurrence. One of the more general theory is that all forms of intelligent creatures dating way back past the stone ages had some type of judgement towards another specimen. Species instinctively create judgments of one-another in order to either prevent harm to itself or to reproduce. Oftentimes, these decisions are based on the physical features of another animal in order to determine whether or not the specimen is right to make contact with. Likewise, humans also create judgments instinctively to determine possible interaction and reproduction with another. However in virtue of the previous theory, these sequence of events can be further explained psychologically as physical attraction. Physical attractiveness is an anomaly where judgments are created based on another's physical features like complexion, face, physique etc. . This phenomenon is seen in both genders and it appears throughout all ages in life from infants to the elderly. At the beginning of life, babies scan surrounding faces and gravitate towards the individuals who appear more attractive, just as the elderly do many years afterward. There are many methods to explain how Physical attraction occurs, the top two are methods are Halo effects and Snap judgments.

The Halo effect is a phenomenon that occurs when good characteristics standout over the bad characteristics. Cognitively, we rate people, based on impressions of observation or interaction, which influences our judgement about their qualities, instead of judging before we discover what it is to really know about them. For example, celebrities are seen as kind, charismatic superheroes' because that is what they portray to be, however, their true characteristics are often diminished and not recognized. A study done by researchers examined the effects and strength of the Halo effect in the field of physical attractiveness. Due to the halo effect, it is was previously thought that people are more likely to rate another individual on an "attractive" basis -based on favorable aspects like personality, features, and characteristics- over a person who is deemed as less attractive. This experiment consisted of volunteers who were presented with slides of different individuals who then had to rate the slides based on attractiveness and personality. The results of the study showed that sexiness, femininity/masculinity, and liking showed a strong relationship to attractiveness. The significance of this finding illustrates that the world's populations are very prone to making these instantaneous unconscious judgments of sexiness, femininity/masculinity, and liking for both female and male genders instead of personality or true characteristics of an individual. Therefore, further enhancing the theory that the Halo effect, is based from visual ques and not internal qualities.

The next explanation to why physical attraction occurs is Snap judgments. Just like the Halo effect, Snap judgments are also stimulated by visual ques of another person. For instance, imagine you were anxiously waiting outside a room, waiting for your name to be called in for an interview for that job that you always wanted. The main thoughts that are running through your mind are "how do I look?" or "am I sweating too much?" or "is my tie straight?". These thoughts are due to the fear of making a bad first impression to the interviewer. It takes only a few second for someone to make a bad impression about another person, an automatic judgement based from even the smallest of details. A study was created to further explain the phenomena of snap judgments produced by an interviewer during a interview session. In this experiment, the interviewer was given a blank graphing chart with a horizontal line in the middle. Before the subject came into the room for the interview, the interviewer charted his feelings; above the horizontal line was positive feelings whereas below the horizontal line was negative feelings. After the first plot was made, the subject was then allowed into the room; the interviewer then created another point on the chart at the exact moment when he realizes that his feelings change on a timely fashion. At the end of the study, the two plots on the chart created by the interviewer were analyzed, the time-lapsed between the shift in feelings illustrated not only the shifts of emotion but also the time it took from the moment the subject entered the room. This understanding of time and shift exhibits the notion that snap judgement are stimulated from visual observation of another person.

Halo effects and Snap judgments occur all the time, in situations other than celebrities and interviews, these judgement could be made when a child is picking teammates for a pick-up basketball games in the park, or also when a person like you is choosing an employee in a store to ask for help. The concept of physical attraction largely relies on visual stimulation of another in order to effectively determine the interpersonal relationship between persons.

(from User:Jwilson808xo/sandbox)

Similarity and Interpersonal Attraction
Much research has been done examining the effects of attitudinal similarity on attraction. There has been inconsistencies in regard to the topic of the similarity and attraction. Some research has looked at how complimentary attitudes affect attraction rather than similar attitutdes, which would contradict the findings between similarity and interpersonal attraction. Also, some research has been done on attitudinal similarity and nothing has been found, but research completed on the actual similarity-attraction effect has often suggested a correlation, ﬁnding that participants are more likely to become attracted to a stranger with whom they share many common attitudes than to one with whom they share few. This research has been dubbed the "Law of Attraction", which was originally stated as "attraction toward X is a positive linear function of the proportion of positive reinforcements received from X ". This linear function carried over and was used to look at attitudinal similarities and attraction, which successfully found an existing correlation in many completed studies. In an experiment conducted by Donn Byrne and collaborators, they measured how attracted participants were to other participants based on a survey recording their knowledge, beliefs, and values. They manipulated the level of similarity experienced between an actual participant and a stranger by first having the participant take the assessment themselves, then some time later having each participant come back and rate the responses of a stranger on the Interpersonal Judgment Scale (six 7-point rating scales). This scale is set to measure “the stranger's intelligence, knowledge of current events, morality, and adjustment and…how much they would like the person and… [if] they would enjoy working with him ". The responses seen by the participant were actually responses filled out by a researcher, which they manipulated to have either a .20, .60, or .80 similarity correlation with the participant. The findings from the study provided evidence that as the correlation of similarity increased so did the ratings from Interpersonal Judgement Scale, indicating a higher attraction level. Consistent with previous research, this study exemplifies that when attitudinal similarity has been manipulated between each subject and a stranger, a linear relationship has continuously been found between proportion of similar attitudes and attraction.

Although there has been much previous research covering similarity and interpersonal attraction, researchers have taken it even further to differentiate levels of attraction found from perceived versus actual similarity. The difference between the two types of similarity has to due with how similar someone actually is to another person (actual similarity) or how similar someone perceives that someone else is to them (perceived similarity). Much research has been done examining the different factors of actual and perceived similarity that influenced interpersonal attraction. In order to have a better understanding of what influences each, it is important to understand how each term is defined.

(from User:Kbrown1396/sandbox)

Actual vs. Perceived Similarity
Actual similarity in regards to interpersonal attraction is when shared attributes exist between two individuals. A procedure called the phantom-other technique has been developed to further and better understand the link between similarity and interpersonal attraction. Research has been done using the phantom-other technique and has steadily show that people show higher levels of interpersonal attraction towards others who have actual similar views, rather than others with dissimilar views. Going further into the link between similarity and attraction, research has explained the relationship through people’s need for a consistent view of the world (known as effectance motive) and how when other’s agree with how we already view the world that reinforces and supports the thoughts they already have and produces positive feelings which translate into attraction for the other. The exact opposite is produced if people disagree or contradict one’s view of the world, this will produce negative feelings which will translate into a reduction of attraction.

Perceived similarity in regards to interpersonal attraction is when it is perceived by the observer that shared attributes exist between two individuals. Going back to Byrne’s idea of effectance motive, people’s need for consistency can just as easily be confirmed if they just believe that another believes the same thing that they do. The impact that perceived similarity has on interpersonal attraction can be thought to be attributed to cognitive biases and techniques that enhance and maintain self-esteem. One specific cognitive bias that has been believed to effect the relationship between perceived similarities rand interpersonal attraction is the false consensus bias. In regard to attraction and similarity, it would employ the idea that people who are attracted to each other are supposed to be similar, which causes people to perceive the people they are attracted to as more similar to themselves.

Findings from a meta-analysis from Horton, Kirchner, and Montoya were steady with accepted knowledge of similarities influence on interpersonal attraction. Similarity had a large effect in the studies conducted. Although, the relationship that was found between actual similarity and attraction was much lower after a short interaction. If comparing to perceived similarity, perceived similarity showed a strong correlation in the same studies as actual similarity, but also in short-interaction scenarios. These findings can conclude that both actual and perceived similarity produces attraction.

(from User:Kbrown1396/sandbox)

User:Khm23183/sandbox
Recently within the world of social psychology there has been an increase of interest among attachment styles and their connection to the six styles of love. Most psychologists are looking at the longitudinal behavioral effects of early childhood to adolescence and adulthood. Behavioral psychologist Mary Ainsworth developed the techniques known as the Strange Situation Classification (SSC) to empirically view the possible variations of attachment styles between children (Ainsworth & Bell, 1978). Results indicated four variations of attachment styles; secure, avoidant, ambivalent, disorganized. Each of these attachment styles has defining characteristics. A majority of children, within Ainsworth’s pool of participants, showed a secure attachment style, while children with avoidant attachment styles were the second most frequent style. The other two, ambivalent and disorganized attachment styles, are estimated to be parallel in their levels of frequency.

With behavioral psychology the theory is that the cognitive processes will adapt/ change over time due to external stimuli. Psychologists are becoming more interested in the effects that attachment styles have on relationships. More recently there has been research indicating whether one’s attachment style might affect their attachment style to another individual, during adulthood (Feeny & Noller 1990). Along with the results that Ainsworth provided from her study the probability of participants with a secure attachment the couples from Jeffry Simpson’s study of attachment styles in a relationship. The results of his work reveal that the couples with a secure attachment are interdependent, committed, trusting, and satisfied more than any of the other styles of attachment. (Simpson, 1990) The other attachment styles (avoidant, ambivalent, disorganized) show low frequencies of positive attitudes and emotions, while emitting more negative in the relationship. With a repeated measures design this study permitted the evaluation of the relationships over an extended period of time. There is also inquiry whether the work of Sigmund Freud may or may not factor into attachment styles (Albershiem  & Merrick). The influences that early childhood experiences have an individual, the similarities of close relationships between infancy and adulthood, and the complexity of an infant’s emotional, cognitive, and social life. (Albersheim & Merrick). This was study was conducted on a smaller sample size, resulting with lower external validity, however proves to be an indictor of the direction in which attachment styles affect relationships in adulthood.

Many believe the phrase “opposites attract” which isn’t partially true. Research has indicated that those in a relationship and the spouses indicate altering attachment styles the relationship has no affect at all (Volling, Notaro & Larsen, 1998). In fact those in relationships and were classified with secure attachment sought those also with secure attachment styles. However, this seeking for similarity only exists for secure attachment, for it is rare that an individual with ambivalent or avoidant attachment styles would also seek a relationship with an individual with a similar attachment style (Volling, Notaro & Larsen, 1998).

For those with an attachment style other than secure it is factual that they will encounter a more difficult time than others to establish a relationship. Those with an avoidant attachment style typically exhibits an emotionally distance from others, lacking the intimacy within a relationship. According to Sternberg’s triangular theory with the lack of intimacy (assuming the individuals posses the other two components, passion and commitment) their relationship would be that of fatuous love (Stenberg, 1986).

Overall within the four attachment styles the main three, secure, avoidant, ambivalent, all have their own characteristics that play into the possibility of a relationship and the type of relationship it might be.

References

Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Volling, B. L., Notaro, P. C., & Larsen, J. J.. (1998). Adult Attachment Styles: Relations with Emotional Well-Being, Marriage, and Parenting. Family Relations, 47(4), 355–367.

Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 281-291.

Simpson, Jeffry A. "Influence of Attachment Styles on Romantic Relationships." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59.5 (1990): 971-80. Web.

Sternberg, R. (n.d.). Triangular Conceptualization of "Love" PsycEXTRA Dataset. Web.

Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 94-109.

Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment Security in Infancy and Early Adulthood: A Twenty-Year Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 71(3), 684-689.

(from User:Khm23183/sandbox) Note: The references don't actually match the citations

Facial preferences
When determining attractiveness in a potential mate, humans have a tendency to focus on faces. Facial attractiveness is determined by two main factors: facial symmetry and perceived health. A symmetrical face and a clear complexion have been shown to produce a positive correlation with health ratings. Humans are likely to perceive symmetrical faces as attractive due to the fact that various illnesses and birth defects can cause asymmetry, as well as producing faces that deviate further from the standard species norm. People with faces higher in symmetry tend to be rated higher on attractiveness scales and engage in more sexual behavior with more sexual partners. In addition, they are seen as more viable mating partners who will produce offspring that are more fit and viable. For males, facial masculinity as another important factor in attractiveness ratings due to its correlations with positive development and immunity.

Although these ideas are believed to be biologically based, there was some concern regarding their validity because the majority of the studies were conducted in Western cultures. To remedy this, studies on facial symmetry preferences were conducted in China and Japan to determine whether the preferences were universal. Faces were manipulated using digital software to be more or less symmetrical, and created "perfect" faces by mirroring one side of the face to make perfect symmetry. Japanese participants rated the perfectly symmetrical faces as higher in attractiveness. This shows that there is likely a biological basis for these preferences, as they do exist outside of the Western hemisphere.

Social context
Social context can affect how attractive a person seems to another. For example, alcohol consumption has been shown to correlate with risky sexual behavior, leading researchers to test whether alcohol had an effect on attractiveness. Participants in the experiment were shown photos of the same person before drinking, after moderate alcohol consumption, and after high alcohol consumption. The participants rated people who had consumed a moderate amount of alcohol (equivalent to around 250 ml of wine) as the most attractive. However, there was no similar effect for people who had consumed higher amounts of alcohol. This suggests that mildly intoxicated people appear more attractive to the viewer than those who are sober or drunk.

In addition, the people with whom a person appears may affect ratings of attractiveness and economic status. A study presented participants with photos of a man alone, a woman alone, and the man and woman in either same-sex or mixed groups. Men and women presented alone had similar scores on attractiveness and economic status, while men in groups had the highest status ratings. Women presented alone had the highest status ratings in the female condition. The study found that when women were presented alongside men, the ratings of their status were based on the status of the men-- they were constrained by the perceptions of the man they were with. This shows that the context of others affects perceptions of individual people.

Effects of attractiveness
Perceptions of attractiveness have more effects than sexual selection alone. Attractiveness is often correlated with positive personality, health, and intelligence ratings by others.

A study aimed to measure the effects of attractiveness on ratings based on the Big Five personality traits model of personality. Participants rated digitally manipulated faces that were in varying states of symmetry on 5 personality factor scales: conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness, and extraversion. They found that asymmetrical faces were given lower scores on conscientiousness and extraversion scales, but received higher scores on the neuroticism scales. This indicates a correlation between facial asymmetry and negative personality traits.

In addition, facial symmetry is perceived as a good indicator of physical and mental health. One study aimed to test their predictions that more symmetrical faces would be rated as higher in attractiveness and positive personality traits than less symmetrical faces. In addition, they tested the hypothesis that people with symmetrical faces would be perceived as healthier. The researchers showed university students 20 various female faces with different levels of symmetry. Faces with high symmetry were rated healthier and more attractive, and the people were described as more self-confident, social, and other positive personality attributes. Less symmetrical faces had higher ratings of anxiety, showing that facial symmetry has a positive correlation with attractiveness, health, and personality ratings.

Viewers' impressions of other desirable traits such as intelligence can affect impressions of attractiveness. This effect tends to be seen more prominently in people with high intelligence, and it is this highly intelligent population that feeds most into the intelligence-attractiveness Halo effect. One study showed participants 48 photos of children and asked them to rate each child on attractiveness and intelligence scales. At the end of the rating task, the participants took an intelligence test. Participants who scored higher on the intelligence test showed a stronger correlation between attractiveness and intelligence ratings than those who scored lower. This raises concerns that more attractive students may have higher expectations and more pressure to achieve while the opposite effect would be problematic for less attractive students.

(from User:Madalineeck/sandbox)

Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love
Love is an extremely broad topic that has numerous subtopics within in it. Sternberg’s Theory of Love works as an important facilitator when delving into such an open topic. Sternberg’s Theory of Love summarizes love into three components that can be used to form a triangle. The way this triangle is set up is with intimacy located at the top vertex, commitment as the right hand vertex, and passion at the left hand vertex. Intimacy is described as feelings of closeness, “bondedness,” as well as connectedness. These components essentially give love it’s warm feeling while in a relationship.

Intimacy in a relationship can be seen as the emotional investment each partner has in one another. The component of passion is effectively the driver that arouses sexual desires, romance, and physical attraction. In addition, there are five components that are taken into account that define the level of intimacy in a relationship. Those five components are commitment, affective (emotional) intimacy, cognitive intimacy, physical intimacy, and mutuality. These components are normally found in a reciprocal (but not symmetrical) relationship.

Passion leads to different forms of arousal in a loving relationship. It can also be noted that passion in a relationship can be taken from the motivational involvement each person has. Passion in a relationship is healthy but usually begins to die as things become more long-term. Michel Reynaud and his colleagues investigated the correlation between passionate love and love addiction and how these two components could lead to an addictive relationship. Love as passion is described as the “Honey Moon Phase” which equates to getting high on love. Passionate love begins with sexual pleasure when each partner engages in repeated sexual intercourse which then leads to each individual craving for an excess of this pleasure. This feeling is understood to be outstanding and becomes the primary interest of both partners. Although this craving for sexual pleasure begins to die as a relationship moves forward, some individuals can experience an addiction to such sexual desire which is almost as similar as a substance addiction and can lead to more serious issues.

Commitment has two aspects to it, short term and long term. In the short term, commitment is when someone decides to love someone else while in the long term, that love is maintained during the entirety of the relationship. Commitment is derived from the cognitive decision to commit to a relationship. Also, commitment can be understood in a multidimensional construct which has three important components. These consist of the affective component described as psychological attachment, the cognitive component understood to be the long-term orientation with regards to the relationship, and the conative component which is the persistence to continue the relationship. In research conducted, it was shown that individuals in healthy relationships expressed these three components the most. It was also shown that the component of long-term orientation played the greatest role in whether or not a relationship would be ongoing or not. This is because long-term orientation influenced the amount of persistence individuals had in continuing their relationship.

Love is described as a complex whole while these three components partition it. However, it is important not to lose understanding by analyzing the parts and not focusing on the whole.

The three components of love also tend to fluctuate in stability in relationship with each other. For instance, in closer relationships, intimacy and commitment tend to have more stability while the passion component is unpredictable. Other categories these components tend to fluctuate in is typical importance in short and long-term relationships, commonality across loving relationships, psychophysiological involvement, and susceptibility to conscious awareness.

(from User:MattSeikel/sandbox)

Exchange and Communal Relationships
Communal relationships are classified as ones in which the giving of a benefit is appropriate when it is given in response to a need. This is different from an exchange relationship in which the giving of a benefit in response to the receipt of a benefit is appropriate. Depending on what type of relationship a person is in will likely show the appropriateness of the benefiting action. A key concept of communal vs. exchange relationships is the idea of "keeping score". In exchange relationships, both partners are looking to keep score of the benefits or equity given in the relationship. In exchange relationships, when there is an imbalance in this equity the person caught on the short end feels angry or depressed while the person on the long end tends to feel guilty. In communal relationships, neither partner is looking to keep score of the benefits or equity. The effect of giving benefits can have both a positive and negative effect depending on the relationship type. An example of each type of relationship will help make this clear. If two people are in an exchange relationship, one person may give a benefit to the other in response to a benefit given to them in the past. In this case, the benefit given in response to the benefit given in the past is appropriate. In the future, this will lead to higher liking in the exchange relationship and lower liking in the communal relationship. However, in a communal relationship, this would be inappropriate. But if the scenario changes and a benefit is given to fill a need instead of being done in response to a previous benefit given, then it is appropriate in a communal relationship and is inappropriate in an exchange relationship. This results in higher liking in the communal relationship and lower liking in the exchange relationships. Sometimes, simply requesting a benefit in a relationship is enough to change the affection in a relationship. In an exchange relationship, the giving of a benefit creates a debt for the other person to return. In an exchange relationship, a person may request a benefit before or after they have received a benefit. In a situation where a person requests a benefit after initial aid is given, liking is likely to be higher than when a person requests a benefit before no aid is initially given. Similarly, if no request is made after initial aid is given, the person who gave the initial aid will experience less liking than they would if there was no initial aid given. But in a communal relationship, some things change. If initial aid is given and the giver of the aid requests aid in return, liking is likely to go down in this scenario. But, if aid is given and no request for aid is made, liking will be very high.

Another important aspect to differentiate between in exchange and communal relationships is how people seeking each relationship will act when an opportunity to reciprocate in kind is available or unavailable. When there is no opportunity the other person to reciprocate in kind, keeping track of the other person's needs will be greater in a communal relationship than in an exchange relationship. This means that in a communal relationship keeping track of the other person's needs is more important when there is no opportunity for the other to reciprocate in kind. In communal relationships, people do not want to do something just because the other person can reciprocate it. In an exchange relationship, keeping track of the other person's needs will be greater when an opportunity for the other to reciprocate in kind exists than when it does not. This means that in exchange relationships, when the other person can reciprocate in kind, they are more likely to keep track of the other person's needs because they know the other person has the opportunity to reciprocate it. Lastly, if a communal relationship is desired, the presence of an opportunity for the other person to reciprocate in kind will not influence keeping track of the other person's needs. The idea here is that in communal relationships, whether or not there is an opportunity for the other person to reciprocate in kind will not affect how they keep track of the other person's needs.

There is a common misconception about partners in communal relationships. Often times, the definition of communal relationship assumes that partners are unconcerned with equity. But this is not the case. People in communal relationships still hope to obtain an equitable relationship, but they understand that in the long term, a sense of equity will fall into place. Understanding the differences in these two types of relationships and how they view benefits, equity, and need, whether in action, request or opportunity, is key in understanding the levels of liking in a relationship. Higher levels of liking often lead to higher levels of attraction.

(from User:Mnpackfn85/sandbox)

Infant attachment styles influence adult romantic relationships
Throughout human development, we grow and change as we physically and psychologically mature. Some things, including the ways we form interpersonal relationships, can stay constant over the lifespan. Attachment styles are the ways that infants bond with their mothers, and attachment theory says that the type attachment styles we have as an infant with our caregivers may impact future relationships with romantic partners. There are three primary attachment styles: Secure, which is characterized by infants who when distressed use the caregiver as a secure base, Avoidant, which is characterized by infants that avoid caregivers and are detached from caregivers when distressed, and Anxious/ambivalent, which is a mixture of styles in which the infant portrays anger towards the caregiver when upset.

Infants naturally gravitate towards one of these attachment styles, and there is evidence that these attachment styles stay with us as we age. Children in Ainsworth's Strange Situation experiment were recontacted 20 years later, and 72% of them maintained the same secure or insecure attachment style in early adulthood. Major life events such as divorce, life threatening illness of family member, and physical and sexual abuse were among factors from change in style.

Having different attachment styles influences us to seek out different romantic partners. In fact, it was found that those of similar attachment styles seek out and gravitate towards those of a similar style and emotional tone. In particular, those with secure attachments sought out securely attached individuals, and those anxiously attached did the same. Another study showed that among spouses raising children, the most common pairing was securely attached husband with securely attached wife. In interpersonal relationships, we typically look for those that are similar to ourselves, and this seems to be the case here.

Attachment styles change how we experience relationships. Relationships with two secure styles were found to have more trusting, stable relationships than those with two anxiously attached styles. This is because anxiously attached individuals exhibit ambivalence to their partner and thus develop more insecure, unstable relationships. Two secure spouses experience more shared love and shared interests, thus feel more social support from one another that dual-insecure marriages do not provide. Emotional tones of relationships are also related in that dual-secure couples display more positive emotions and anxiously attached show more negative emotions in their relationships. Another important aspect of a romantic relationship involves sex. Avoidantly attached individuals were more likely to engage in intimate behavior with their partners to reduce anxiety, increase intimacy/closeness, and increase status among peers than were secure individuals.

Finally, attachment styles impact how relationships end. As infants, the avoidant attachment style displayed less distress when a caregiver left, and this was also found to be true of individuals when a romantic relationship ends. Avoidantly attached men in particular exhibited less emotional distress upon a break up. Research on married couples focuses mainly on secure-secure attachment styles, mostly because these are the relationships that tend to last and thus make up the sample.

In conclusion, attachment styles impact how one experiences relationships as an infant, and how one experiences romantic interpersonal relationships, from choosing partners, to the experience of the relationship, to breaking up.

(from User:Psychologysydney/sandbox)

User:Seyer Lat/sandbox
Although love is intangible, the work of Zick Rubin made it possible to measure attraction between people. Rubin opens his report of the Measurement of Romantic Love with, “Love is generally regarded to be the deepest and most meaningful of sentiments.”,  He continues to explain that love, over time, has served as a bases for literature and art and explains the association between love and marriage in Western culture. Rubin gives credit to Heider (1958) to explain that “loving is merely intense liking,”, which is why experiments about romantic attraction always has a dependent variable on how much a person likes another. The first step Rubin took was developing a love scale, and from there he noticed that there are three major components of loving, which later lead to his relation of his upcoming concept of love to theories of different psychologists such as Sigmund Freud and Harry Harlow. Rubin then took his study to the laboratory, in which he observed the gazes between his subjects. In the end, he got the result he predicted: couples identified as a strong together couples (couples declared that they are in an intimate relationship) had multiple and lingering gazes, where as weak together couples resulted in the opposite. Rubin ends his study report with explaining that behavior in each person could play a part as to why they would look at the other person more or less. He concluded that his questionnaire results helped to draw a line between liking and loving. Rubin suggests that for further studies about romantic love relationships, one should consider the“nature of the interpersonal rewards exchanged between partners”, such as security or those of stimulation. He also suggests to take notice of a person’s patterns of sexual behavior, helping, and self-disclosure.

In the past, the social norm of love was always between a heterosexual couple. In recent years, acknowledgement and acceptance of homosexual couples have slowly integrated itself into the social norm as well. Lisa M. Diamond’s research started with a focus on love and the “implications regarding gender and sexual orientation”,. Diamond writes that psychologists have agreed that “regarding human sexuality is that women tend to place greater emphasis on relationships as a context for sexual feelings and behaviors than do men (Peplau, 2003).”. She then goes into detail of the neurochemical, oxytocin, that women release during sexual activity. As a result, she finds that women’s correlation of love and desire may be influenced by the release of the neurochemical. Diamond comes to the conclusion that women “sometimes develop same-sex desires as a result of falling in love with female friends (a phenomenon rarely documented among men) might be interpreted to indicate that oxytocin-mediated links between love and desire”, can make women disregard their sexual orientation and become homosexual. In total, the point she is getting across is: sexual orientation does not cap the ability to to love and desire others.

On the topic of love, Barry F. Moss and Andrew I. Schwebel explore varying views of the importance of intimacy within a relationship. First off, Moss and Schwebel define 4 levels of intimacy: mutual, positive cognitive closeness; mutual, positive affective closeness; mutual, positive physical closeness; and commitment. Positive cognitive closeness describes the process of revealing values to one another. The second stage, positive affective closeness, strong feelings start to develop based on the qualities learned from one another. The next stage is positive physical closeness where “individuals in romantic relationships are comfortable in close physical proximity [..] exhibit extended periods of mutual gaze […] and engage in deeper stages of tactile involvement (e.g., Rosenfeld, Kartus, & Ray, 1976)”,. Finally, the last step in an intimate relationship is commitment. Moss and Schwebel state, “The more commitment a person feels toward another, the more likely he or she is to focus affective and cognitive attention toward that other individual.”

(from User:Seyer Lat/sandbox)

Evolutionary Theory within Historical and Modern-day Interpersonal Attraction
One of the first things that a human notices about another human being are their physical features, and how attractive the person appears to be. How somebody judges an individual’s physical features deems whether or not they are considered attractive, which is one of the many fundamental aspects of interpersonal attraction. To recap, interpersonal attraction is the process of a relationship being created on the basis on some sort of physical or mental attraction. Typically, however, interpersonal attraction focuses on more than just physical attraction. However within this broader topic, there are evolutionary perspectives attempting to explain the process of interpersonal attraction over time-especially within romantic relationships. In the evolutionary theories, physical attraction is emphasized for numerous reasons.

Physical Attraction within Evolutionary Theory
According to multiples studies, physical attraction is typically a key aspect when it comes to initiating interest towards a relationship with another person. One of the biggest factors within this physical attraction is sexual attraction. As a species, humans are innately driven to want to pursue the continuation of the human race. Reproduction is what ensures that an individual’s genetics will continue to be passed on to the next generation. That being said, it is beneficial and crucial for humans, or any species for that matter, to have this drive- otherwise extinction could very well be a possibility.

Historically, there have been all sorts of theories that have supported this idea. One of the more prominent biological and psychological theories was Charles Darwin’s theory on sexual selection. His theory, in simplified terms, said that one will pick a mate based on the differences seen across the species. The subject with the most successfully reproductive features is the subject that is chosen as a mate. However, sometimes this process of understanding what determines reproductive success and attractiveness between mates is quite vague.

There are a few universal characteristics that seem to appear more attractive reproductively to humans. Youth, body physique, height, facial features, evidence of secondary sexual traits, good health, and status are just a few of the known features that attract potential mates. These traits exemplify the positive characteristics that could be passed on to offspring. However, it is important to note that men and women have slightly different perspectives when it comes to mating. Men typically aim to reproduce in a quantity sense, whereas women innately want quality over quantity. Simply put, men want to have many children and women want genetically successful offspring.

Differences in Male and Female's Reproductive Focuses
When looking for a mate, evolutionary theory states that positive traits are essential for successful reproduction. In order to identify partners that have these qualities, there are certain characteristics that are important. Because evolutionarily males are typically more interested in the quantity of their reproduction, it is in their best interest to look for a partner who can fulfill that ideal. For males, having a partner that is youthful is most important. Youth is associated with fertility. Alongside youth, perceived physical beauty is also important because it is associated with reproductive fitness.

In the world of evolutionary theory, it seems that women’s goals associated with reproduction and finding a mate are a little bit more complicated. In terms of being physically attractive, for females it appears that mates who are physically attractive have the best genetics that can be passed to offspring. However, there is also a pattern that the males with the best genetics systematically tend to be the least invested in the care of their offspring. That being said, status is more important evolutionarily than physical attractiveness to females. Status is associated with resources and investing time and energy into the offspring and their survival.

Evolutionary Theory and Physical Attraction Across Time and Cultures
Considering that physical attraction is so fundamental within attraction and reproduction, it becomes very evident that physical characteristics become important within a society. Across time and space, women and men have manipulated their physical features so they are deemed as more attractive within their society and mate-worthy. Depending on the times and culture, what is considered attractive depends on the resource availability. For example, weight. During times of famine within a society, somebody who has a higher body-fat content might be considered more attractive. This would indicate they have resources to survive and potentially have healthier and stronger offspring. In a society that has a plentiful amount of food, this characteristic would not be found to be as attractive.

Models and social learning within a society are also a major influence in what is perceived as attractive. With media today, a social standard exists regarding what is attractive and what is not. Over time, this becomes integrated into society. The standards are always changing depending on times and any given culture.

(from User:ShortKort/sandbox)