Page 176 - Demo

174Chapter 10to better understand the underlying mechanisms in attraction, or more generally, pair bonding. Specifically, we reviewed the effect of inter-individualcoordination (IIC), an umbrella term encompassing synchrony and mimicry,for pair-bonding, maintenance, and offspring rearing based on a comparativeframework. We suggested how IIC can be used to quantify the pair-bondstrength, thus extending the pair-bonding hypothesis. The pair-bonding hypothesis suggests that pair-bond strength enhances a couple’s reproductivesuccess. In our framework, this can be quantified by examining differences inIIC and reproductive success between couples. Furthermore, IIC might beused as a threshold in the initial courting phases, so only couples with highcoordination are formed. Crucially, we illustrated how a comparative framework might be useful in examining the effect of IIC on pair bond formation,maintenance, and offspring rearing.In Chapter 9 (Figure 1; purple arrow), I focused on testing our ideathat inter-individual coordination can be used to quantify the strength ofthe bond between two individuals. To this end, I examined whether mimicryfacilitates pair-bond formation. Specifically, using videos obtained from aspeed-dating study, I obtained metrics regarding expressions indicating attraction for each dater in couples where both daters indicated they wouldlike to go on another date with their partner and in couples where bothdaters indicated that they would not like to go on another date with theirpartner. As expected, based on the pair-bond hypothesis described above,I found that people mimicked coy smiles more when they were attracted totheir partner than when they were not. These findings align with previous research illustrating that mimicry facilitates the formation of romanticbonds (Lakin et al., 2003; Hess & Fischer, 2014). Furthermore, these findings support the pair-bonding hypothesis (Roth, Samara, Tan, et al., 2021;Rasmussen, 1981), which suggests that mimicry and synchrony can be usedto quantify the pair-bond strength.Theoretical implicationsThe findings of my studies converge on three points: (1) attraction modulates attention; (2) attraction influences how we evaluate others dependingon our sex; and (3) attraction facilitates the formation of romantic bonds,which rely on IIC.It is well-known that evolutionary-relevant stimuli should capture attention (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992), and, as my studies show that attractivefaces capture attention, they suggest that attractive faces constitute suchan evolutionary-relevant stimulus. Attractive faces are thought to captureattention because they signal potential mates, and this is an important evolutionary adaptation for reproducing and passing on one’s genes. Crucially,previous research has demonstrated that people attend more to attractivewere more reliable in detecting attraction when the people presented in thevideos were attracted to their partner. To examine whether this differencewas due to the emotional expressions of the daters, I coded the emotionalexpressions of the daters in the 9-second videos for flirting cues (e.g., coysmiles) and examined whether they differed between daters that were interested in their partner or not. Our results suggested that subtle expressionsindicating attraction differed depending on whether daters were interestedin their partner. This finding combined with the ability of the participantsto detect attraction when the daters were interested in their partner, mightindicate that subtle expressions of attraction are detectable and can be usedin decision-making. However, an alternative explanation could be that participants were biased due to the dating context and tended to indicate thatthe daters were interested in their partner more often than not. Overall, thefindings of these experiments show that, in contrast with previous studies(Place et al., 2009), detecting attraction might not be as straightforward as,for example, detecting basic emotions.In Chapter 7 (Figure 1; green and blue arrow), I focused on sex differences in the sexual overperception bias. To this end, we commented on thework of Lee et al. (2020). In their speed-dating study, the authors foundthat projection of own interest, self-rated attractiveness, and sociosexual orientation mediated the relationship between sex and sexual overperception.They interpreted these findings as evidence that there are no sex differencesin sexual overperception. Therefore, they argued that the explanation proposed by the Error Management Theory (EMT; Haselton, 2003; Haselton &Buss, 2000), that sexual overperception is adaptive for men as it increasesthe chances of reproduction, is incorrect. In our commentary, we proposedthat their interpretation relies on a proximate level to disprove an explanation on the ultimate level, based on the ”proximate-ultimate distinction” byTinbergen (1963). In short, we explain that if, for example, we discoveredthat male birds sing because of an increase in testosterone levels, it wouldnot contradict the simultaneous explanation that male birds sing as a meansof courtship. Similarly, the fact that men tend to project their own interestmore onto their partners, does not contradict the fact that this projectioncould serve as a mechanism to enhance their chances of attracting additionalpartners. Furthermore, the effects described by Lee et al. (2020) describe aperfect mediation between sex and overperception by means of the projection of own interest. Lee et al. (2020) interpret this as evidence that sex,therefore, is not informative or relevant in the model. On the contrary, inour interpretation, the projection of own interest is the mechanism by whichthe effect is manifested. Since the projection of own interest is more likelyto occur in men, sex is still an important factor in the theoretical model. Finally, we proposed that EMT would benefit by incorporating the proximatemechanisms described in Lee et al. (2020).In Chapter 8 (Figure 1; purple arrow), we took a comparative approach faces and that they are more likely to remember and recognize them (Langlois, Roggman, & Musselman, 1994). In my work, I show that attraction modulates attention at a very early stage of visual processing. Onefactor that may contribute to the attractiveness of a face is facial symmetry. Indeed, symmetry is often seen as a sign of good health and geneticquality, and research has shown that people find symmetrical faces moreattractive (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999). However, the findings of thisdissertation suggest that symmetry may not be as important as previouslythought. The attraction between two individuals might be much more idiosyncratic, meaning it cannot be captured by what is generally (on average)rated as attractive. Furthermore, real, unmanipulated faces are more ecologically valid, and they provide more information about what people mightencounter in everyday life. Therefore, we extended the original methodology by extending it to real-life interactions. Specifically, we used as stimulithe (non-manipulated) faces of opposite-sex participants in a speed-datingparadigm, meaning that participants were rating people that they wouldlater meet and deciding whether they would like to go on another date.This allowed us also to incorporate individual attractiveness ratings as wellas dating choices when decoding attentional dwell, and we found that thesemodulate attention, whereas manipulated symmetric faces did not. To thebest of my knowledge, this study is the first to examine whether the biasesfound in a laboratory attentional task would match what we find in a real-lifeecologically valid speed-dating paradigm, which can have several practicalimplications. These implications are described in the Methodological considerations and future directions section below. For now, the question remainswhich features, then, are deemed attractive by people, and future studiesshould incorporate subjective attractive ratings to further model individualrater differences.Attraction not only modulates our early attention but, crucially, alsoinfluences social cognition and how we perceive others’ emotional states.Specifically, attraction influences our approach motivation, increasing thelikelihood that we will try to increase our proximity towards others. Chapters 4, 6, and 8 focus on the sexual overperception bias and illustrate that(a) independent of the underlying emotional state, men are more likely toperceive ambivalent cues in women as sexual arousal when they find thewoman attractive; (b) men are more likely to overinterpret attraction fromwomen when they themselves are interested in them in a real-life speeddating paradigm. However, men are able to read women’s interest whenthey are not interested. This suggests that the sexual overperception biasis very specific, it seems to manifest when men are interested in a potentialpartner and not in other circumstances. Finally, (c) the likely mechanismunderlying the sexual overperception bias is the projection of one’s own interest in a partner. This projection could be included as a mechanism inthe Error Management Theory (Haselton, 2003), which suggests that thewere more reliable in detecting attraction when the people presented in thevideos were attracted to their partner. To examine whether this differencewas due to the emotional expressions of the daters, I coded the emotionalexpressions of the daters in the 9-second videos for flirting cues (e.g., coysmiles) and examined whether they differed between daters that were interested in their partner or not. Our results suggested that subtle expressionsindicating attraction differed depending on whether daters were interestedin their partner. This finding combined with the ability of the participantsto detect attraction when the daters were interested in their partner, mightindicate that subtle expressions of attraction are detectable and can be usedin decision-making. However, an alternative explanation could be that participants were biased due to the dating context and tended to indicate thatthe daters were interested in their partner more often than not. Overall, thefindings of these experiments show that, in contrast with previous studies(Place et al., 2009), detecting attraction might not be as straightforward as,for example, detecting basic emotions.In Chapter 7 (Figure 1; green and blue arrow), I focused on sex differences in the sexual overperception bias. To this end, we commented on thework of Lee et al. (2020). In their speed-dating study, the authors foundthat projection of own interest, self-rated attractiveness, and sociosexual orientation mediated the relationship between sex and sexual overperception.They interpreted these findings as evidence that there are no sex differencesin sexual overperception. Therefore, they argued that the explanation proposed by the Error Management Theory (EMT; Haselton, 2003; Haselton &Buss, 2000), that sexual overperception is adaptive for men as it increasesthe chances of reproduction, is incorrect. In our commentary, we proposedthat their interpretation relies on a proximate level to disprove an explanation on the ultimate level, based on the ”proximate-ultimate distinction” byTinbergen (1963). In short, we explain that if, for example, we discoveredthat male birds sing because of an increase in testosterone levels, it wouldnot contradict the simultaneous explanation that male birds sing as a meansof courtship. Similarly, the fact that men tend to project their own interestmore onto their partners, does not contradict the fact that this projectioncould serve as a mechanism to enhance their chances of attracting additionalpartners. Furthermore, the effects described by Lee et al. (2020) describe aperfect mediation between sex and overperception by means of the projection of own interest. Lee et al. (2020) interpret this as evidence that sex,therefore, is not informative or relevant in the model. On the contrary, inour interpretation, the projection of own interest is the mechanism by whichthe effect is manifested. Since the projection of own interest is more likelyto occur in men, sex is still an important factor in the theoretical model. Finally, we proposed that EMT would benefit by incorporating the proximatemechanisms described in Lee et al. (2020).In Chapter 8 (Figure 1; purple arrow), we took a comparative approachIliana Samara 17x24.indd 174 08-04-2024 16:37