Page 178 - Demo

176Chapter 10ultimate function of the sexual overperception bias is to ensure that men donot miss mating opportunities.Previous literature has suggested that detecting attraction in othersmight be beneficial, as it allows us to create a network of potentially available partners (Simao & Todd, 2002). Indeed, people are able to detect abovechance whether people are interested in their partner (Place et al., 2009).In three studies, I showed that this effect might be more nuanced than initially thought. Even though people should have their own experiences withromantic interactions, meaning they have come across cues associated withattraction, such as facial expressions, they cannot extrapolate these experiences to others. As such, when confronted with expressions exchangedbetween other people that might or might not be interested in their partner, they fail to assess attraction correctly above chance level. This findingmight suggest that attraction might not be readily discernible from a prototypical facial expression or bodily posture. Another explanation couldbe that similar to other studies (Hall et al., 2015), people are not familiarwith flirting during first dates, as these instances are rare (Abbey, 1982),therefore they might not be able to accurately detect it. Crucially, one potential explanation is that people might be able to better detect attractionby assessing the inter-individual coordination of a couple, as in, how muchand how fluidly they mimic each other. A couple with high inter-individualcoordination may suggest a strong bond or ”chemistry” (Tickle-Degnen &Rosenthal, 1990). However, accurately assessing this property would requirethe presentation of both members of a couple together, rather than in separate videos, as was done in Experiment 1 of Chapter 8. In Chapter 8, Ifurther discuss the importance of a couple’s inter-individual coordination(IIC) as an indicator of attraction and the formation of a romantic bond.In Chapter 8, we review the literature on inter-individual coordinationand whether it can be used to assess whether a potential partner is suitablefor a romantic relationship. Previous models have suggested that coordination between people facilitates bond formation (e.g., Perper, 1985; Rasmussen, 1981). In our work, we suggested that the coordination of bothmotor and physiological responses is the mechanism supporting the bondformation, and maintenance, and likely enhances offspring rearing (Zeevi etal., 2022; Prochazkova et al., 2022); thus, it can be used as an index of bondstrength in a comparative framework. Crucially, I then examined the predictions generated by our model by investigating whether mimicry of subtlecues predicted dating outcomes in a real-life speed-dating setup (Chapter9). I found that mimicry of coy smiles, a smile associated with attraction,predicts a higher likelihood of people wanting to go on another date withtheir partner. We extend the model by Rasmussen (1981) by providing amechanism for the pair-bond strength, namely the IIC. Furthermore, wedemonstrate that mimicry, a sub-component of IIC, can indeed be used topredict the formation of a romantic bond.Methodological considerations and future directionsInvestigating how attention, social cognition, and IIC are modulated byattraction has illustrated that currently used experimental tasks, designs,and stimuli can provide first insights into the processes underlying attractionand dating choices. Future studies can build on this knowledge and improvethe methodological approach in several ways.Speed dating studies have been considered a reliable and cost-effective toacquire data on how people form romantic bonds (Finkel & Eastwick, 2008).Even though speed-dating studies are widely used (N. P. Li et al., 2013; Tidwell et al., 2013; Todd et al., 2007), they are usually combined with surveysrelating to the dating experience or personality questionnaires. However, as Ihave shown in the present thesis, the combination of experimental cognitivetasks with speed-dating studies and precise codings of couples’ behaviorsprovides a unique opportunity to investigate whether and the manner inwhich cognitive biases and nonverbal cues predict real-life dating decisions.Several studies have demonstrated the sexual overperception bias, andmultiple mechanisms have been proposed to underlie its emergence. Forexample, a few factors that have been proposed were sociosexual orientation,projection of one’s own interest to the partner, and self-rated attractiveness.Interestingly, in our work, we found that men who were interested in theirpartner were likely to over-perceive attraction in them. In contrast, men whowere disinterested in their partner exhibited a higher degree of accuracy indetecting whether their partner was interested in them. Women were notable to accurately detect whether their partner was interested in them or not,independent of how they felt about their partner. We suggested that thiseffect might be due to differences in physiological arousal between men andwomen, namely that men might experience physiological arousal faster thanwomen (Kukkonen et al., 2007), which consequently biases their decisionmaking when they are attracted to their partner. However, no studies to datehave examined the physiological underpinnings of the sexual overperceptionbias. I aim to investigate this in my future work, as this discrepancy mightprovide a physiological explanation for the sexual overperception bias.Regarding future directions, in our work, we suggested that IIC mightfacilitate bond formation and maintenance. Crucially, we showed that amimicry index could be used to quantify the pair-bond strength (Samara etal., in prep). Even though it is well-understood that coordination with apartner is beneficial for promoting a romantic bond, the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Different models and hypotheses have been proposedto explain the relationship between mimicry and social bonds. For example,recently, it was suggested that mimicry might facilitate the prediction ofothers’ behavior (e.g., Kret & Akyüz, 2022). Others have suggested thatultimate function of the sexual overperception bias is to ensure that men donot miss mating opportunities.Previous literature has suggested that detecting attraction in othersmight be beneficial, as it allows us to create a network of potentially available partners (Simao & Todd, 2002). Indeed, people are able to detect abovechance whether people are interested in their partner (Place et al., 2009).In three studies, I showed that this effect might be more nuanced than initially thought. Even though people should have their own experiences withromantic interactions, meaning they have come across cues associated withattraction, such as facial expressions, they cannot extrapolate these experiences to others. As such, when confronted with expressions exchangedbetween other people that might or might not be interested in their partner, they fail to assess attraction correctly above chance level. This findingmight suggest that attraction might not be readily discernible from a prototypical facial expression or bodily posture. Another explanation couldbe that similar to other studies (Hall et al., 2015), people are not familiarwith flirting during first dates, as these instances are rare (Abbey, 1982),therefore they might not be able to accurately detect it. Crucially, one potential explanation is that people might be able to better detect attractionby assessing the inter-individual coordination of a couple, as in, how muchand how fluidly they mimic each other. A couple with high inter-individualcoordination may suggest a strong bond or “chemistry” (Tickle-Degnen &Rosenthal, 1990). However, accurately assessing this property would requirethe presentation of both members of a couple together, rather than in separate videos, as was done in Experiment 1 of Chapter 8. In Chapter 8, Ifurther discuss the importance of a couple’s inter-individual coordination(IIC) as an indicator of attraction and the formation of a romantic bond.In Chapter 8, we review the literature on inter-individual coordinationand whether it can be used to assess whether a potential partner is suitablefor a romantic relationship. Previous models have suggested that coordination between people facilitates bond formation (e.g., Perper, 1985; Rasmussen, 1981). In our work, we suggested that the coordination of bothmotor and physiological responses is the mechanism supporting the bondformation, and maintenance, and likely enhances offspring rearing (Zeevi etal., 2022; Prochazkova et al., 2022); thus, it can be used as an index of bondstrength in a comparative framework. Crucially, I then examined the predictions generated by our model by investigating whether mimicry of subtlecues predicted dating outcomes in a real-life speed-dating setup (Chapter9). I found that mimicry of coy smiles, a smile associated with attraction,predicts a higher likelihood of people wanting to go on another date withtheir partner. We extend the model by Rasmussen (1981) by providing amechanism for the pair-bond strength, namely the IIC. Furthermore, wedemonstrate that mimicry, a sub-component of IIC, can indeed be used topredict the formation of a romantic bond.Iliana Samara 17x24.indd 176 08-04-2024 16:37