Helping, attraction and love

Transcript

RyanTwo first-year graduate students are assigned desks right next to each other, by pure chance. Different hometowns, different research labs. Three years later, they're each other's closest friend.

SoheeAnd if you asked them why, they'd talk about humor and shared values. They probably wouldn't say, because our desks were next to each other.

RyanBut social psychology would put the desks near the top of the list. Welcome to EPPP Prep, the podcast. I'm Ryan.

SoheeI'm Sohee. Today, the warm side of social psychology: why people help, what draws them together, and the different shapes love can take. Plus how we communicate without words.

RyanLet's start with helping. The OpenStax psychology textbook defines prosocial behavior as voluntary behavior with the intent to help other people.

SoheeAnd altruism is people's desire to help others even if the costs outweigh the benefits of helping. People acting altruistically may disregard the personal costs.

RyanThe textbook's example is from the September 11 attacks. An employee in the first tower helped coworkers reach the exit stairwell, then went back into the burning building to help more of them, and lost his life.

SoheeSo why do people help? Some researchers suggest altruism operates on empathy. Empathy is the capacity to understand another person's perspective, to feel what they feel. Batson argued that an empathetic person makes an emotional connection and feels compelled to help.

RyanOthers argue that helping is always self-serving, because our egos are involved and we receive benefits from helping. That's the work of Cialdini and colleagues.

SoheeSelfless altruism versus egoism. And the textbook's honest answer is that it's hard to determine the true motivation experimentally, so the debate on whether pure altruism exists continues.

RyanOne nuance worth noting. People do feel good after helping. But some researchers argue that good feeling is a consequence of altruism, not its cause.

SoheeNow, forming relationships. What's the single most influential factor in who becomes your friend or partner?

RyanProximity. The people you have the most contact with. Decades of research show you're more likely to become friends with people in your dorm, your apartment building or your immediate neighborhood than people who live farther away.

SoheeWhich is our two graduate students. It's easier to form relationships with people you see often, because you get the chance to know them.

RyanSecond, similarity. We're more likely to become friends or partners with someone similar to us in background, attitudes and lifestyle. And the textbook is blunt about this: there is no evidence that opposites attract.

SoheeThat's a classic trap answer. Opposites attract sounds wise, but the research says similarity wins.

RyanThe technical term is homophily, the tendency to form networks, friendships, marriages and business relationships with people who are similar. And the textbook adds a cost: homophily limits our exposure to diversity, to people of different races, ethnicities, socioeconomic status and life situations.

SoheeThen, once relationships form, we want reciprocity, the give and take. We're more likely to like people who like us back.

RyanAnd self-disclosure, sharing personal information. We form more intimate connections with people to whom we disclose important things about ourselves.

SoheeNow attraction itself. People look for friends and partners who are physically attractive, though what counts as attractive is culturally influenced.

RyanThe textbook reports research suggesting some features are widely found attractive. Buss lists, in women, features like large eyes and high cheekbones, and in men, being tall with broad shoulders. And other studies find high facial and body symmetry attractive in both.

SoheeAnd social traits. Research by Regan and Berscheid found that attractive traits in potential female mates include warmth, affection and social skills, and in males, achievement, leadership qualities and job skills.

RyanThat's the knowledge statement's mate selection piece. But here's the twist. We don't just pursue the most attractive person possible.

SoheeThe matching hypothesis. People tend to pick someone they see as their equal in physical attractiveness and social desirability. We weigh a partner's attractiveness against our likelihood of success.

RyanAnd the textbook adds a self-perception wrinkle. If you think you're particularly unattractive, even if you aren't, you'll likely seek partners who are fairly unattractive. So your view of yourself helps set the match.

SoheeSo it's partly about how we see ourselves.

RyanAnd attractiveness spills over into other judgments. That's the halo effect, from the textbook's attribution section. Letting an overall impression color how we see someone's character, like assuming attractive people are more likely to be good people.

SoheeNow love. Robert Sternberg proposed three components. Intimacy, the sharing of details and intimate thoughts and emotions. Passion, the physical attraction, the flame in the fire. And commitment, standing by the person, in sickness and in health.

RyanAnd the combinations give different types of love. This is pure memorization, so let's go slowly.

SoheeAll three, intimacy, passion and commitment, is consummate love. Sternberg says a healthy relationship has all three.

RyanIntimacy alone is liking. Passion alone is infatuation. Commitment alone is empty love.

SoheeIntimacy plus commitment, without passion, is companionate love, which is characteristic of close friendships and family relationships. Passion plus intimacy, without commitment, is romantic love.

RyanAnd passion plus commitment, without intimacy, is fatuous love. The textbook's example is a long-term sexual love affair.

SoheePause and think. A couple married fifty years. They know each other's every thought, they'd never leave each other, but the physical spark faded long ago. Which type?

RyanIntimacy and commitment without passion. Companionate love.

SoheeAnd another. Two people who met three weeks ago, are wildly attracted to each other, and got engaged last weekend, but honestly don't know each other very well yet.

RyanPassion and commitment, without intimacy. Fatuous love.

SoheeNow, what keeps people in a relationship? Social exchange theory. We act as naive economists, keeping a tally of the costs and benefits of forming and maintaining a relationship.

RyanPeople prefer more benefits than costs, or nearly equal ones. Most people are dissatisfied when a relationship creates more costs than benefits. And typically only relationships where benefits outweigh costs are maintained.

SoheeFinally, communication, which the knowledge statement lists by name. The OpenStax organizational behavior textbook describes three types: oral, written, and nonverbal.

RyanManagers prefer oral communication for its efficiency and immediacy. But some prefer writing for important messages, like a change in company policy, where precise language and documentation matter.

SoheeThe textbook also describes interaction involvement, how engaged each person is in a conversation. It has three related dimensions: responsiveness, perceptiveness and attentiveness. If the listener is preoccupied, the message loses its effect.

RyanNonverbal communication is transferring information without speaking or writing. Body language and facial expressions can convey conscious or unconscious messages. Even office size and placement can signal importance.

SoheeAnd emotion is a big part of it. The psychology textbook says emotional expression includes both nonverbal and verbal behaviors. And culture shapes it through display rules, culturally specific standards for which displays of emotion are acceptable, and how often.

RyanFor example, research found people from the United States express negative emotions like fear, anger and disgust both alone and with others, while Japanese individuals did so only when alone.

SoheeYet despite different display rules, the ability to recognize and produce facial expressions of emotion appears to be universal. Even people blind from birth produce the same facial expressions.

RyanAnd there's substantial evidence for seven universal emotions, each with a distinct facial expression: happiness, surprise, sadness, fright, disgust, contempt and anger. That's from Ekman and Keltner.

SoheeSo the exam distinction: the expressions themselves look universal. When and where we show them is shaped by culture.

RyanAnd more broadly, how does the exam test this episode? Often with a scenario and a list of love types, or a question about the strongest predictor of friendship. Proximity is the answer people miss, because it sounds too simple.

SoheeAnother trap is choosing the idea that opposites attract. The textbook says there's no evidence for it. Similarity is the answer.

RyanLet's recap. Prosocial behavior is voluntary helping. Altruism helps even when costs outweigh benefits. Empathy may drive it, though some argue helping is always self-serving.

SoheeProximity is the strongest predictor of who we befriend. Similarity, not opposites. Reciprocity and self-disclosure deepen bonds. The matching hypothesis says we pair with equals.

RyanSternberg: intimacy, passion, commitment. All three is consummate. Intimacy plus commitment is companionate. Passion plus commitment is fatuous.

SoheeSocial exchange theory: we tally costs and benefits. And facial expressions look universal, while display rules are cultural.

RyanIf you're preparing with a study partner, you've got proximity, similarity and reciprocity all working for you. That's a good thing to lean on.

SoheeThanks for listening to EPPP Prep. Try some practice questions on relationships next.

Loading the read-along timings…