WEBVTT

00:12.320 --> 00:16.950
Professor Paul Bloom:
I'm delighted to introduce the

00:16.951 --> 00:21.341
first guest lecturer for this
Introduction to Psychology

00:21.344 --> 00:23.824
course, Dean Peter Salovey.

00:23.820 --> 00:26.070
Peter is an old friend and
colleague.

00:26.070 --> 00:29.560
Many of you--I think everybody
here knows of him through his

00:29.557 --> 00:31.387
role as Dean of Yale College.

00:31.390 --> 00:34.030
I'll just, in this context of
this introduction,

00:34.030 --> 00:36.110
mention two other things about
him.

00:36.110 --> 00:39.980
One is prior to being dean and
in fact, still as a dean,

00:39.976 --> 00:43.136
he's an active scientist and in
particular,

00:43.140 --> 00:47.480
a social psychologist actively
involved in studying health

00:47.482 --> 00:51.982
psychology, the proper use of
psychological methods to frame

00:51.976 --> 00:54.956
health messages,
and also is the founder and

00:54.960 --> 00:57.610
developer of the idea of
emotional intelligence,

00:57.610 --> 01:00.310
an idea he's done a huge amount
of research on.

01:00.310 --> 01:04.920
Secondly, Peter is or was an
active and extremely well-known

01:04.918 --> 01:06.948
teacher at Yale College.

01:06.950 --> 01:10.660
He taught at one point,
the largest course ever in Yale

01:10.659 --> 01:14.229
College – a course on
Psychology in Law which broke

01:14.230 --> 01:16.360
every record ever had here.

01:16.360 --> 01:18.370
And before that,
during that,

01:18.370 --> 01:21.670
and after that,
he was a legendary Introduction

01:21.673 --> 01:23.543
to Psychology teacher.

01:23.540 --> 01:26.370
And I think--and he had some
reason for why he was so

01:26.366 --> 01:29.406
legendary with his lecture today
on the topic of love.

01:29.410 --> 01:42.130


01:42.129 --> 01:43.919
[applause]
Dean Peter Salovey:

01:43.916 --> 01:44.856
Thanks very much.

01:44.860 --> 02:03.340


02:03.340 --> 02:05.120
Okay.
Thank you very much,

02:05.123 --> 02:08.273
Professor Bloom.
It really is a pleasure to come

02:08.274 --> 02:12.724
and lecture to you today on
Valentine's Day on the topic of

02:12.717 --> 02:15.837
love.
My main area of research is

02:15.843 --> 02:19.273
human emotion.
And love is an emotion.

02:19.270 --> 02:23.590
It's not one that I study
personally, at least not in the

02:23.592 --> 02:26.682
lab, and--but it is fun to talk
about.

02:26.680 --> 02:30.380
And it is a topic that lends
itself to many social

02:30.384 --> 02:32.354
psychological phenomena.

02:32.349 --> 02:35.009
It's also great to be able to
come in and guest lecture.

02:35.009 --> 02:39.459
One of the things I very much
miss since serving as dean is

02:39.464 --> 02:42.694
the opportunity to teach
Psychology 110.

02:42.690 --> 02:47.240
And although I love being dean,
I do miss teaching Introductory

02:47.243 --> 02:51.283
Psychology, the feeling of
exposing people to ideas that

02:51.282 --> 02:53.782
maybe you hadn't heard before.

02:53.780 --> 02:57.020
Well, I suspect some of the
ideas in this talk you'll have

02:57.015 --> 02:59.735
not heard before and for a
variety of reasons.

02:59.740 --> 03:02.690
A couple of the things you'll
notice is that some of the

03:02.689 --> 03:05.529
experiments I'll talk about
today are not the kinds of

03:05.531 --> 03:07.731
experiments that can be done
anymore.

03:07.729 --> 03:11.829
They're not considered
ethically acceptable but they

03:11.825 --> 03:16.235
were done in the ‘50s and
‘60s and early ‘70s when

03:16.241 --> 03:21.221
ethical standards were different
and so we can teach them.

03:21.220 --> 03:24.520
We just can't give you the same
experiences that some of the

03:24.523 --> 03:27.883
college students that we'll talk
about today in these studies

03:27.882 --> 03:31.002
had.
The other thing I will mention

03:31.001 --> 03:35.901
is that there is a certain
androcentric and heterosexual

03:35.899 --> 03:40.709
quality to much of the social
psychological research on

03:40.708 --> 03:43.858
romantic love.
You'll see that in the

03:43.858 --> 03:47.048
experiments.
Usually, the participants are

03:47.046 --> 03:51.856
men and usually the targets are
women in these experiments.

03:51.860 --> 03:55.190
I'm not endorsing this as the
only way to study love.

03:55.190 --> 03:58.840
It just happens to be the way
these experiments were done and

03:58.837 --> 04:02.057
so I mention this caution right
from the beginning.

04:02.060 --> 04:06.260
We'll have to think about--One
of the things you should think

04:06.263 --> 04:10.403
about is do you think these
experiments generalized to other

04:10.397 --> 04:12.777
kinds of dyadic relationships.

04:12.780 --> 04:17.670
And that's a question that I
think you can ask throughout

04:17.670 --> 04:19.620
this lecture.
Okay.

04:19.620 --> 04:21.260
So let's get started.

04:21.259 --> 04:28.259
And to start things off I think
what we need to do is consider a

04:28.256 --> 04:32.016
definition.
I'm going to define what love

04:32.016 --> 04:36.166
is but then most of the
experiments I'm going to talk

04:36.169 --> 04:41.199
about are really focused more on
attraction than love--who finds

04:41.201 --> 04:46.071
each other of romantic interest
that might then develop into a

04:46.073 --> 04:48.073
love relationship.

04:48.069 --> 04:50.139
But let's start with a
definition of love.

04:50.139 --> 04:53.869
And I'm going to pick a
definition from a former

04:53.869 --> 04:58.729
colleague, Robert Sternberg,
who is now the dean at Tufts

04:58.725 --> 05:03.675
University but was here on our
faculty at Yale for nearly

05:03.675 --> 05:05.615
thirty years or so.

05:05.620 --> 05:09.940
And he has a theory of love
that argues that it's made up of

05:09.937 --> 05:12.057
three components:
intimacy,

05:12.060 --> 05:16.350
passion, and commitment,
or what is sometimes called

05:16.349 --> 05:18.199
decision commitment.

05:18.199 --> 05:21.429
And these are relatively
straightforward.

05:21.430 --> 05:25.680
He argued that you don't have
love if you don't have all three

05:25.677 --> 05:27.067
of these elements.

05:27.069 --> 05:32.539
Intimacy is the feeling of
closeness, of connectedness with

05:32.543 --> 05:34.623
someone, of bonding.

05:34.620 --> 05:37.580
Operationally,
you could think of intimacy as

05:37.579 --> 05:40.879
you share secrets,
you share information with this

05:40.876 --> 05:44.236
person that you don't share with
anybody else.

05:44.240 --> 05:47.520
Okay.
That's really what intimacy is,

05:47.519 --> 05:51.509
the bond that comes from
sharing information that isn't

05:51.506 --> 05:54.826
shared with other--with many
other people.

05:54.830 --> 05:58.680
Second element is passion.

05:58.680 --> 06:01.860
Passion is what you think it is.

06:01.860 --> 06:07.210
Passion is the--we would say
the drive that leads to romance.

06:07.209 --> 06:11.419
You can think of it as physical
attraction or sex.

06:11.420 --> 06:18.800
And Sternberg argues that this
is a required component of a

06:18.796 --> 06:21.336
love relationship.

06:21.339 --> 06:24.559
It is not, however,
a required component of taking

06:24.559 --> 06:26.529
a shower in Calhoun College.

06:26.529 --> 06:31.189
[laughter]
The third element of love in

06:31.185 --> 06:38.655
Sternberg's theory is what he
calls decision or commitment,

06:38.660 --> 06:42.840
the decision that one is in a
love relationship,

06:42.840 --> 06:46.220
the willingness to label it as
such,

06:46.220 --> 06:50.410
and a commitment to maintain
that relationship at least for

06:50.410 --> 06:52.000
some period of time.

06:52.000 --> 06:55.730
Sternberg would argue it's not
love if you don't call it love

06:55.734 --> 06:58.724
and if you don't have some
desire to maintain the

06:58.721 --> 07:02.291
relationship.
So if you have all three of

07:02.287 --> 07:05.907
these, intimacy,
passion and commitment,

07:05.908 --> 07:09.528
in Sternberg's theory you have
love.

07:09.529 --> 07:14.579
Now what's interesting about
the theory is what do you have

07:14.582 --> 07:19.462
if you only have one out of
three or two out of three?

07:19.459 --> 07:23.359
What do you have and how is it
different if you have a

07:23.363 --> 07:25.503
different two out of three?

07:25.500 --> 07:29.810
These are--What's interesting
about this kind of theorizing is

07:29.813 --> 07:34.203
it give--it gives rise to many
different permutations that when

07:34.198 --> 07:38.508
you break them down and start to
look at them carefully can be

07:38.512 --> 07:40.212
quite interesting.

07:40.209 --> 07:44.669
So what I've done is I've taken
Sternberg's three elements of

07:44.667 --> 07:47.737
love, intimacy,
passion and commitment,

07:47.741 --> 07:52.071
and I've listed out the
different kinds of relationships

07:52.072 --> 07:57.372
one would have if you had zero,
one, two or three out of the

07:57.371 --> 08:01.031
three elements.
And I'm using names or types

08:01.034 --> 08:03.744
that Sternberg uses in his
theory.

08:03.740 --> 08:05.380
These are really from him.

08:05.379 --> 08:07.699
Some of these are pretty
obvious.

08:07.699 --> 08:10.909
If you don't have intimacy,
if you don't have passion,

08:10.905 --> 08:14.045
if you don't have commitment,
you don't have love.

08:14.050 --> 08:16.690
Sternberg calls this non-love.

08:16.690 --> 08:18.290
That's the technical term.

08:18.290 --> 08:20.930
And [laughs]
essentially what he's saying is

08:20.933 --> 08:24.993
the relationship you now have to
the person sitting next to you,

08:24.990 --> 08:28.510
presuming that you're sitting
next to a random person that you

08:28.512 --> 08:33.052
didn't know from your college,
is probably non-love.

08:33.049 --> 08:36.569
If it's something else,
we could talk about it at the

08:36.570 --> 08:40.700
end of the lecture or perhaps
when I get to it in a moment.

08:40.700 --> 08:43.600
Now let's start to add elements.

08:43.600 --> 08:45.760
Let's add intimacy.

08:45.759 --> 08:50.699
This is sharing secrets,
a feeling of closeness,

08:50.701 --> 08:53.331
connectedness,
bonding.

08:53.330 --> 08:56.630
Let's say we have that with
someone but we don't have

08:56.630 --> 08:58.850
passion, that is,
no sexual arousal,

08:58.852 --> 09:02.092
and no commitment to maintain
the relationship.

09:02.090 --> 09:05.190
This is liking.
Sternberg calls it liking.

09:05.190 --> 09:10.490
And liking is really what is
happening in most typical

09:10.485 --> 09:16.475
friendships, not your closest
friendship but friendships of a

09:16.481 --> 09:18.881
casual kind.
You feel close,

09:18.877 --> 09:22.067
you share certain information
with that person that you don't

09:22.066 --> 09:24.136
share with other--many other
people,

09:24.139 --> 09:27.399
but you're not physically
attracted and there's no

09:27.401 --> 09:30.801
particular commitment to
maintaining this for a long

09:30.795 --> 09:33.625
period of time.
Now, what if you're not

09:33.634 --> 09:37.404
intimate, you're not committed,
but you're passionate;

09:37.400 --> 09:39.630
you feel that sexual arousal.

09:39.629 --> 09:44.209
This is what Sternberg would
call infatuation.

09:44.210 --> 09:48.520
And that term probably works
for you too, infatuated love,

09:48.519 --> 09:51.089
and this is love at first
sight.

09:51.090 --> 09:54.950
"I don't know you,
we've never shared any secrets

09:54.949 --> 09:59.289
because I don't know you,
I'm not committed to defining

09:59.291 --> 10:02.311
this as anything,
I'm not committed to the future.

10:02.309 --> 10:03.899
In fact, I'm not thinking about
the future.

10:03.899 --> 10:06.899
I'm thinking about right now
but boy, am I attracted."

10:06.900 --> 10:10.170
Right.
That's infatuation and that's

10:10.174 --> 10:13.634
what Sternberg means by
infatuated love.

10:13.629 --> 10:18.219
The third kind of one-element
relationship is there's no

10:18.217 --> 10:20.717
intimacy, right,
no bonding,

10:20.720 --> 10:24.320
no closeness,
no secrets, no physical

10:24.320 --> 10:28.820
attraction, no sexual arousal,
but by gosh,

10:28.820 --> 10:32.000
we are going to maintain this
relationship,

10:32.001 --> 10:34.881
we are committed to it for all
time.

10:34.879 --> 10:37.749
Sternberg calls that "empty
love."

10:37.750 --> 10:39.720
Empty love is kind of
interesting.

10:39.720 --> 10:44.770
It's often the final stage of
long-term relationships that

10:44.771 --> 10:47.891
have gone bad.
"We don't share information

10:47.885 --> 10:50.895
with each other anymore so
there's no intimacy.

10:50.899 --> 10:55.869
We don't feel physically
attracted to each other anymore,

10:55.865 --> 11:00.115
there's no passion,
but we'd better stay together

11:00.121 --> 11:02.251
for the kids,
right?

11:02.250 --> 11:05.420
Or we've got to stay together
for appearance's sake or we'd

11:05.422 --> 11:08.322
better stay together because
financially it would be a

11:08.321 --> 11:11.711
disaster if we don't" or all of
the reasons other than intimacy

11:11.712 --> 11:14.832
and passion that people might
commit to each other.

11:14.830 --> 11:17.470
That's what Sternberg calls
empty love.

11:17.470 --> 11:22.640
Now what's interesting is in
societies where marriages are

11:22.637 --> 11:28.437
arranged this is often the first
stage of a love relationship.

11:28.440 --> 11:32.080
These two people who have maybe
never seen each other before,

11:32.076 --> 11:35.406
who have never shared secrets
so there's no intimacy,

11:35.409 --> 11:39.689
who have never--don't know if
they're physically attracted to

11:39.692 --> 11:43.972
each other or on their wedding
day revealed to each other and

11:43.974 --> 11:48.404
committed legally and sometimes
religiously to each other.

11:48.400 --> 11:50.820
Right?
The commitment is there but at

11:50.816 --> 11:53.296
that moment nothing else might
be there.

11:53.299 --> 11:58.239
What's interesting of course is
that such relationships don't

11:58.235 --> 12:03.415
seem to have any greater chance
of ending in divorce than people

12:03.418 --> 12:05.308
who marry for love.

12:05.309 --> 12:08.599
But there's a big confound,
there's a big problem in

12:08.597 --> 12:11.237
studies of those kind of
relationships.

12:11.240 --> 12:13.410
What might it be?

12:13.410 --> 12:16.240
Anybody.
What might be the problem in

12:16.237 --> 12:19.407
the statement I just made that
these kind of relationships are

12:19.411 --> 12:22.431
just as likely to survive as
people who marry for love?

12:22.430 --> 12:24.190
Yes.
Student:

12:24.187 --> 12:25.507
[inaudible]
Dean Peter Salovey:

12:25.513 --> 12:28.503
Yeah.
So they may occur;

12:28.500 --> 12:33.230
they're more likely to occur in
societies that frown on divorce.

12:33.230 --> 12:36.020
They make it very costly,
socially costly,

12:36.017 --> 12:39.687
to divorce, so then they stay
together for all kinds of

12:39.688 --> 12:42.338
reasons, not always such good
ones.

12:42.340 --> 12:45.470
All right.
Now who was it who sang the

12:45.465 --> 12:48.825
song "Two Out of Three Ain't
Bad"?

12:48.830 --> 12:50.520
Was that Meat Loaf?

12:50.520 --> 12:55.260
Who was it?
It was Meat Loaf.

12:55.260 --> 12:57.290
All right.
Professor Bloom says it was

12:57.290 --> 13:00.080
Meat Loaf.
It was Meat Loaf.

13:00.080 --> 13:04.680
You're all saying,
"there was a singer called Meat

13:04.679 --> 13:06.559
Loaf?"
Meat Loaf sang the song "Two

13:06.560 --> 13:07.570
Out of Three Ain't Bad."

13:07.570 --> 13:09.940
Let's see if two out of three
ain't bad.

13:09.940 --> 13:13.510
What if you have intimacy,
"we share secrets,

13:13.513 --> 13:17.903
passion, we feel physically
attracted to each other but

13:17.898 --> 13:21.388
we're not making any commitments
here."

13:21.389 --> 13:23.769
Sternberg calls that "romantic
love."

13:23.769 --> 13:28.069
This is physical attraction
with close bonding but no

13:28.066 --> 13:32.276
commitment, Romeo and Juliet
when they first met.

13:32.279 --> 13:34.929
This is often the way
relationships start:

13:34.931 --> 13:37.971
"We like each other,
I'm physically attracted to

13:37.970 --> 13:40.580
each other,
I--to you, I enjoy spending

13:40.584 --> 13:44.244
time with you but I'm not making
any long-term commitments.

13:44.240 --> 13:48.210
So I'm not even willing to use
the ‘L' word in describing

13:48.205 --> 13:49.705
what it is we have."

13:49.710 --> 13:52.290
Right?
Many of you might have been in

13:52.289 --> 13:53.949
relationships of this sort.

13:53.950 --> 13:55.880
That's romance.
That's romantic love.

13:55.879 --> 14:00.359
Now, what if you have intimacy,
"we share secrets with each

14:00.363 --> 14:05.163
other, but there's no particular
physical attraction but we are

14:05.156 --> 14:08.476
really committed to this
relationship."

14:08.480 --> 14:11.590
This is what Sternberg calls
"companionate love."

14:11.590 --> 14:13.590
This is your best friend.

14:13.590 --> 14:17.440
"We are committed to sharing
intimacy, to being friends

14:17.435 --> 14:21.065
forever," but physical
attraction is not part of the

14:21.068 --> 14:25.228
equation here.
This is sort of the--maybe the

14:25.234 --> 14:29.374
Greek ideal in relationships of
some kind.

14:29.370 --> 14:31.640
All right.
What if we have passion,

14:31.643 --> 14:34.863
"I'm sexually attracted to
you," but no intimacy.

14:34.860 --> 14:36.920
"I don't want to really know
that much about you,

14:36.919 --> 14:39.279
I don't want to really share
anything of me with you,

14:39.279 --> 14:42.829
but I am committed to
maintaining this physical

14:42.826 --> 14:45.676
attraction to you" [laughter]
Well,

14:45.679 --> 14:48.969
that's what Sternberg calls
"fatuous love."

14:48.970 --> 14:50.440
It's a whirlwind courtship.

14:50.440 --> 14:51.850
It's a Hollywood romance.

14:51.850 --> 14:54.400
It might lead to a shotgun
wedding.

14:54.399 --> 14:58.699
Maybe you find yourself in Las
Vegas and you get married for a

14:58.703 --> 15:02.873
day and a half and then realize
that this wasn't such a good

15:02.865 --> 15:04.805
idea.
And maybe your name is Britney

15:04.811 --> 15:05.731
and you're a singer.

15:05.730 --> 15:08.070
[laughter]
Well, anyway,

15:08.065 --> 15:10.295
you've got the idea.

15:10.300 --> 15:12.830
That's fatuous love.

15:12.830 --> 15:16.550
"We are basically committed to
each other for sex" but it's

15:16.552 --> 15:19.952
very hard to make those
relationships last a long time

15:19.954 --> 15:23.104
because we might not have
anything in common,

15:23.100 --> 15:25.180
we might not share anything
with each other,

15:25.175 --> 15:28.765
we might not trust each other,
we are not particularly bonded

15:28.773 --> 15:30.763
to each other.
On the other hand,

15:30.761 --> 15:32.901
if you have all three,
intimacy, passion,

15:32.898 --> 15:36.258
commitment, this is "consummate
love" according to Sternberg –

15:36.264 --> 15:40.804
complete love.
This is how he defines love.

15:40.800 --> 15:43.930
Okay.
So now you have a definition of

15:43.934 --> 15:46.174
love and you can now,
as a homework assignment,

15:46.169 --> 15:51.879
sit down tonight and make a
list of every person you know by

15:51.881 --> 15:57.501
the three elements of love and
just start putting the check

15:57.496 --> 16:04.076
marks in the boxes and tallying
up your personal love box score.

16:04.080 --> 16:05.990
And we don't want to collect
those.

16:05.990 --> 16:09.890
We don't even want to see those
but you can have fun with that.

16:09.889 --> 16:12.179
Then you can ask the other
people to do it too and you can

16:12.183 --> 16:13.233
compare with each other.

16:13.230 --> 16:15.700
[laughter]
And if you all survive this

16:15.696 --> 16:18.026
exercise you'll be better for
it.

16:18.029 --> 16:20.249
[laughter]
What doesn't kill you makes you

16:20.253 --> 16:22.283
stronger.
That's the idea behind that

16:22.280 --> 16:23.500
exercise.
All right.

16:23.500 --> 16:28.760
Now the social psychology of
love really has been a social

16:28.758 --> 16:31.248
psychology of attraction.

16:31.250 --> 16:35.210
What makes people find each
other attractive?

16:35.210 --> 16:37.510
What makes them want to be
intimate?

16:37.509 --> 16:40.879
What makes them physically
desirable to each other?

16:40.879 --> 16:45.709
What might lead to a
commitment, a decision to make a

16:45.713 --> 16:49.713
commitment to make the
relationship last?

16:49.710 --> 16:50.700
This is just so nice.

16:50.700 --> 16:53.740
I'm giving this lecture on love
and the two of you are holding

16:53.743 --> 16:55.243
hands here in the front row.

16:55.240 --> 16:59.780
It's really-- [laughter]
And-- [applause]

16:59.780 --> 17:04.890
All three elements present,
intimacy, passion,

17:04.888 --> 17:07.838
and-- [laughter]
Yeah.

17:07.840 --> 17:09.480
Okay.
[laughter] Good.

17:09.480 --> 17:13.180
Just checking.
[laughter] Okay.

17:13.180 --> 17:18.630
So what's interesting about the
social psychology of attraction

17:18.631 --> 17:22.061
is it has focused on seven
variables.

17:22.059 --> 17:26.319
And I've divided these into two
groups, the big three and the

17:26.324 --> 17:28.034
more interesting four.

17:28.029 --> 17:31.739
And I call them the big--The
big three are three variables

17:31.744 --> 17:35.784
that the effects are so powerful
that they almost don't need to

17:35.784 --> 17:37.874
be discussed in much detail.

17:37.869 --> 17:41.289
The more interesting four are
the ones I'm going to focus on

17:41.294 --> 17:44.834
in this lecture because they're
a bit more subtle and they may

17:44.834 --> 17:47.624
be things that you've never
heard of before.

17:47.619 --> 17:50.549
But let's quickly talk about
the big three.

17:50.549 --> 17:54.679
The way to understand the big
three is with the phrase "all

17:54.677 --> 17:56.667
other things being equal."

17:56.670 --> 18:02.100
All other things being equal,
people who find themselves in

18:02.097 --> 18:05.837
close spatial proximity to each
other,

18:05.839 --> 18:11.999
like sharing an armrest in a
lecture, will be more likely to

18:12.003 --> 18:18.483
be attracted to each other and
form a romantic relationship.

18:18.480 --> 18:20.800
Okay, all other things being
equal.

18:20.799 --> 18:24.059
Now this has been tested in
lots of interesting ways.

18:24.059 --> 18:27.239
Studies have been done in the
city of New York where you

18:27.236 --> 18:30.756
can--if you live in Manhattan
you can actually get a very nice

18:30.759 --> 18:34.109
metric of how far apart people
live from each other in city

18:34.109 --> 18:35.359
blocks.
Right?

18:35.359 --> 18:38.519
You have a nice grid pattern
and you can use a city block

18:38.517 --> 18:42.067
metric to add up the number of
blocks between people's doors.

18:42.069 --> 18:46.169
And people who live more
closely together are more likely

18:46.168 --> 18:50.118
to end up in romantic
relationships with each other.

18:50.120 --> 18:51.410
It seems kind of obvious.

18:51.410 --> 18:53.920
Right?
This even works on college

18:53.924 --> 18:56.384
campuses.
We can measure in feet the

18:56.378 --> 19:00.298
distance between the door to
your room and the door to every

19:00.300 --> 19:03.760
other room of a student on
campus and there will be a

19:03.756 --> 19:07.276
correlation between the
likelihood of--it's a negative

19:07.279 --> 19:10.799
correlation--the likelihood of
getting into a romantic

19:10.802 --> 19:14.862
relationship with a person and
the number of feet between your

19:14.857 --> 19:17.447
door and that person's door.

19:17.450 --> 19:20.920
The fewer feet,
the more likely a romantic

19:20.915 --> 19:24.715
relationship,
all other things being equal.

19:24.720 --> 19:27.680
Now, all other things being
equal is a big qualifier.

19:27.680 --> 19:30.970
Right?
But if we could statistically

19:30.966 --> 19:34.366
control for every other
variable, all I'd need to do is

19:34.366 --> 19:38.266
measure the distance from your
door to everybody else's door on

19:38.270 --> 19:42.050
campus and I could chart out
who's going to fall in love with

19:42.048 --> 19:43.998
whom on the Yale campus.

19:44.000 --> 19:53.140
Now, this idea in a way is--I
don't know.

19:53.140 --> 19:55.180
Maybe it's a little
counterintuitive.

19:55.180 --> 19:59.830
There is a kind of cultural
myth around the stranger,

19:59.829 --> 20:04.749
the person you don't know,
who you will--who you fall in

20:04.748 --> 20:07.788
love with.
And that is not likely to be

20:07.794 --> 20:10.554
the case if it's the person who
is nearby.

20:10.550 --> 20:14.060
Right?
And you'll see as we go through

20:14.063 --> 20:19.033
the other big--the other two
"big three" that there is a kind

20:19.026 --> 20:21.586
of repetition of this theme.

20:21.589 --> 20:24.359
It isn't the stranger you fall
in love with.

20:24.360 --> 20:25.790
All right.
Let's continue down.

20:25.790 --> 20:28.950
Similarity.
You've probably heard the

20:28.946 --> 20:33.246
phrase "Birds of a feather flock
together" and that's true when

20:33.252 --> 20:34.852
it comes to romance.

20:34.849 --> 20:39.019
On any dimension that
psychologists have measured in

20:39.023 --> 20:43.233
these kinds of studies,
when people are more similar

20:43.229 --> 20:47.239
they are more likely to find
each other attractive.

20:47.240 --> 20:51.430
This could be obvious things
like height or age but it also

20:51.433 --> 20:55.703
could be things like attitudes
toward capital punishment,

20:55.700 --> 20:58.670
preference for the Red Sox over
the Yankees.

20:58.670 --> 21:02.100
Right?
All of these are dimensions of

21:02.098 --> 21:04.368
similarity.
All things being equal,

21:04.368 --> 21:07.888
the more similar the more
likely you'll find each other

21:07.887 --> 21:11.787
attractive.
So, opposites don't really

21:11.786 --> 21:14.806
attract.
Birds of a feather may flock

21:14.813 --> 21:18.803
together but opposites don't
really attract each other.

21:18.799 --> 21:22.419
Now, usually at this point
somebody in the lecture hall

21:22.423 --> 21:26.553
raises their hand and says,
"Well, my boyfriend or my

21:26.548 --> 21:31.858
girlfriend and I are complete
opposites and how do you account

21:31.864 --> 21:34.424
for that,
Professor Salovey?"

21:34.420 --> 21:40.240
And I usually look at them and
I say, "Good luck."

21:40.240 --> 21:41.980
[laughter]
And of course all things might

21:41.978 --> 21:44.788
not be equal.
There may be other variables at

21:44.790 --> 21:48.830
play but, all things being
equal, similarity does not breed

21:48.833 --> 21:52.533
contempt.
Similarity breeds attraction.

21:52.530 --> 21:55.370
Okay?
Isn't it interesting?

21:55.369 --> 21:57.519
We have all of these common
sayings that contradict each

21:57.524 --> 22:00.404
other and then empirically,
some of them turn out to have

22:00.395 --> 22:02.965
more evidence supporting them
than others.

22:02.970 --> 22:04.520
So "opposites attract?"

22:04.520 --> 22:05.720
Not much evidence.

22:05.720 --> 22:07.600
"Similarity breeds contempt?"

22:07.600 --> 22:09.040
Not much evidence.

22:09.039 --> 22:11.179
"Birds of a feather flock
together?"

22:11.180 --> 22:13.560
Yeah, there's some evidence for
that anyway.

22:13.560 --> 22:15.320
Finally, familiarity.

22:15.319 --> 22:19.059
Familiarity--We tend to fall in
love with people in our

22:19.057 --> 22:22.377
environment with whom we are
already familiar.

22:22.380 --> 22:26.810
The idea that some enchanted
evening we will see a

22:26.809 --> 22:31.689
stranger--Where are The New Blue
when you need them?

22:31.690 --> 22:33.860
[laughter]
"Some enchanted evening you

22:33.864 --> 22:36.514
will see a stranger across a
crowded room."

22:36.510 --> 22:40.600
Right?
What musical is that from?

22:40.600 --> 22:42.310
"South Pacific."
Very good.

22:42.309 --> 22:44.919
You will see a stranger across
a crowded room.

22:44.920 --> 22:48.330
That's kind of a cultural myth.

22:48.329 --> 22:52.179
Of course it happens,
but much more common is

22:52.176 --> 22:56.366
somebody you already know,
somebody you have seen

22:56.373 --> 23:01.443
repetitively you suddenly find
attraction--attractive and a

23:01.444 --> 23:03.634
relationship forms.

23:03.630 --> 23:06.280
Okay?
So the big three:

23:06.280 --> 23:10.880
People who are similar to you,
people who are already familiar

23:10.875 --> 23:14.035
to you, people who are nearby in
space.

23:14.039 --> 23:17.399
These are the people,
all things being equal,

23:17.403 --> 23:19.853
that you will find attractive.

23:19.850 --> 23:23.150
Okay?
So those are the big three.

23:23.150 --> 23:24.720
Those are big main effects.

23:24.720 --> 23:29.440
Those are big,
easy to observe in various ways

23:29.437 --> 23:32.277
in the lab.
By the way, the familiarity

23:32.276 --> 23:34.186
idea doesn't just work for
people.

23:34.190 --> 23:38.700
I can show you words in a
language that you don't speak

23:38.702 --> 23:43.882
and I can flash those words to
you very quickly and I can later

23:43.883 --> 23:49.063
repeat some of those words and
mix in some new ones that you've

23:49.064 --> 23:54.104
never seen before and I can say,
"I don't know--I know you don't

23:54.095 --> 23:56.185
know what any of these words
mean.

23:56.190 --> 23:58.950
I know you can't read these
characters but just,

23:58.947 --> 24:01.757
if you had to tell me,
which ones do you like and

24:01.764 --> 24:05.524
which ones don't you like or how
much do you like each one?"

24:05.519 --> 24:08.079
The ones you will like are the
ones you saw earlier,

24:08.075 --> 24:10.325
the ones that you already have
familiarity.

24:10.329 --> 24:13.349
Even if you don't remember
having seen them,

24:13.345 --> 24:17.055
even if that familiarity was
generated with such quick

24:17.061 --> 24:20.501
exposures that you don't
remember even having seen

24:20.498 --> 24:25.018
anything,
you will get that familiarity

24:25.022 --> 24:26.552
effect.
Okay?

24:26.550 --> 24:31.380
Good.
The more interesting four.

24:31.380 --> 24:34.270
These are more interesting
because they're a little bit

24:34.274 --> 24:36.154
complicated, a little bit
subtle.

24:36.150 --> 24:39.640
Let's start with actually the
one that is my favorite.

24:39.640 --> 24:41.140
This is "competence."

24:41.140 --> 24:44.060
Think about other people in
your environment.

24:44.059 --> 24:48.079
Think about people who are
competent.

24:48.079 --> 24:50.999
Generally--And think about
people who are incompetent.

24:51.000 --> 24:54.710
Generally, we are more
attracted to people who seem

24:54.705 --> 24:58.285
competent to us.
Now, that isn't very

24:58.288 --> 25:01.928
interesting.
And it turns out that's not

25:01.933 --> 25:03.473
really the effect.

25:03.470 --> 25:06.790
Yes, we're more attracted to
people who are competent than

25:06.789 --> 25:09.879
people who we think are
incompetent but people who are

25:09.875 --> 25:12.645
super competent,
people who seem competent on

25:12.645 --> 25:15.225
all dimensions,
they're kind of threatening to

25:15.225 --> 25:17.315
us.
They don't make us feel so good

25:17.320 --> 25:19.820
about ourselves.
Right?

25:19.819 --> 25:24.419
They make us feel a bit
diminished by comparison.

25:24.420 --> 25:28.720
So, what we really like--The
kind of person we're really

25:28.722 --> 25:33.102
attracted to is the competent
individual who occasionally

25:33.103 --> 25:36.653
blunders.
And this is called the Pratfall

25:36.652 --> 25:41.802
Effect, that our liking for the
competent person grows when they

25:41.799 --> 25:44.969
make a mistake,
when they do something

25:44.966 --> 25:47.816
embarrassing,
when they have a failure

25:47.820 --> 25:49.970
experience.
Okay?

25:49.970 --> 25:52.710
You can see this with public
figures.

25:52.710 --> 25:56.910
Public figures who are viewed
as competent but who pratfall,

25:56.905 --> 26:00.245
who make a mistake,
sometimes they are even more

26:00.246 --> 26:02.376
popular after the mistake.

26:02.380 --> 26:07.670
Okay?
I think of Bill Clinton when he

26:07.673 --> 26:10.893
was President.
His popularity at the end of

26:10.887 --> 26:13.947
his term, despite what everyone
would agree, whether you like

26:13.947 --> 26:17.297
Bill Clinton or not,
was a big mistake with Monica

26:17.300 --> 26:21.060
Lewinsky, his popularity didn't
suffer very much.

26:21.059 --> 26:23.679
A lot of people in the media
would describe him,

26:23.677 --> 26:26.237
"Well, he's just--It just shows
he's human."

26:26.240 --> 26:29.990
He makes mistakes like the rest
of us, even though that was a

26:29.988 --> 26:31.298
pretty big mistake.

26:31.300 --> 26:32.980
Right?
And you could see this even

26:32.981 --> 26:33.961
with smaller pratfalls.

26:33.960 --> 26:37.940
Sometimes public figures are
liked even more after their

26:37.943 --> 26:40.743
pratfall.
Now, the classic experiment,

26:40.740 --> 26:44.380
the classic pratfall
experiment, is just a beautiful

26:44.382 --> 26:46.652
one to describe.
It's a work of art.

26:46.650 --> 26:49.170
So, let me tell you a little
bit about it.

26:49.170 --> 26:50.860
You're in this experiment.

26:50.859 --> 26:54.939
You're brought to the lab and
you're listening to a tape

26:54.936 --> 26:59.006
recording of interviews with
people who are described as

26:59.013 --> 27:03.533
possible representatives from
your college to appear on a quiz

27:03.534 --> 27:05.664
show.
The quiz show is called

27:05.659 --> 27:09.019
"College Bowl," which I don't
think is on anymore but was on

27:09.017 --> 27:10.437
when I was in college.

27:10.440 --> 27:13.310
And you're listening to
interviews with possible

27:13.311 --> 27:17.101
contestants from Yale who are
going to be on "College Bowl."

27:17.099 --> 27:20.239
You have to decide how
much--What you're told is you

27:20.241 --> 27:24.061
have to decide who should be
chosen to be on "College Bowl."

27:24.059 --> 27:26.329
And you listen to these
interviews.

27:26.329 --> 27:30.189
Now what's interesting is
there's two types of people,

27:30.186 --> 27:33.966
the nearly perfect person and
the mediocre person.

27:33.970 --> 27:38.980
The nearly perfect person
answered 92% of the questions

27:38.982 --> 27:44.462
correctly, admitted modestly to
being a member of the campus

27:44.459 --> 27:49.079
honor society,
was the editor of the yearbook,

27:49.075 --> 27:51.255
and ran varsity track.

27:51.259 --> 27:54.389
That's the nearly perfect
person.

27:54.390 --> 27:59.500
The mediocre person answers
only 30% of the questions

27:59.500 --> 28:04.610
correctly, admits that he has
only average grades,

28:04.609 --> 28:08.789
he worked on the yearbook as a
proofreader, and he tried out

28:08.793 --> 28:11.633
for the track team but didn't
make it.

28:11.630 --> 28:13.660
So, you see,
they're keeping a lot of the

28:13.664 --> 28:16.624
elements consistent but in one
case he's kind of an average

28:16.615 --> 28:19.205
performer and in the other case
nearly perfect.

28:19.210 --> 28:23.250
Now, which of these two people
do you find more attractive in

28:23.245 --> 28:24.855
listening to the tape?

28:24.859 --> 28:28.179
So, when they ask you questions
about which person should be on

28:28.179 --> 28:30.479
the quiz show,
people say the more competent

28:30.481 --> 28:32.731
person.
But they also ask questions

28:32.726 --> 28:35.666
like, "How attractive do you
find this person?"

28:35.670 --> 28:37.000
Now, you're only listening to
an audiotape.

28:37.000 --> 28:39.790
How attractive do you find this
person?

28:39.789 --> 28:43.189
And the results are pretty
obvious.

28:43.190 --> 28:46.990
The competent person is rated
as much more attractive,

28:46.991 --> 28:51.081
considerably more attractive,
than the mediocre person.

28:51.080 --> 28:54.080
Okay?
If this were the end of the

28:54.078 --> 28:56.198
story though,
it would be a kind of boring

28:56.202 --> 28:58.432
story and it's not the end of
the story.

28:58.430 --> 29:01.670
Now, what happens is half of
the participants in the

29:01.674 --> 29:05.494
experiment who have listened to
each of these tapes--You only

29:05.491 --> 29:07.401
get to listen to one tape.

29:07.400 --> 29:11.340
Half of them are assigned to
the blunder condition.

29:11.339 --> 29:15.199
And what happens in the blunder
condition is the tape continues

29:15.195 --> 29:18.175
and what you hear is the
clattering of dishes,

29:18.180 --> 29:22.870
a person saying--the person
saying, "Oh, my goodness.

29:22.869 --> 29:26.609
I've spilled coffee all over my
new suit."

29:26.610 --> 29:29.300
Okay?
That's the blunder.

29:29.300 --> 29:31.040
That's the pratfall.

29:31.039 --> 29:33.489
Now you're asked,
"Who do you find more

29:33.488 --> 29:36.138
attractive?"
And look what happens.

29:36.140 --> 29:41.410
Your rating of the
attractiveness of the competent

29:41.413 --> 29:44.323
person grows even higher.

29:44.319 --> 29:49.139
The competent person who
blunders, this is the person

29:49.141 --> 29:51.481
that I love.
Unfortunately,

29:51.479 --> 29:55.489
the mediocre person who
blunders, you now think is even

29:55.488 --> 29:58.228
more mediocre.
[laughter] Right?

29:58.230 --> 30:01.380
This is the sad irony in these
experiments.

30:01.380 --> 30:06.580
The effect works both ways so
the mediocre become even more

30:06.582 --> 30:10.262
lowered in your esteem,
in your regard.

30:10.259 --> 30:13.059
Now, I'll tell you a little
personal story about my coming

30:13.058 --> 30:15.118
to Yale that relates to this
experiment.

30:15.119 --> 30:18.189
This is one of the most famous
experiments in the history of

30:18.189 --> 30:19.229
social psychology.

30:19.230 --> 30:20.710
I wouldn't quite put it up
there.

30:20.710 --> 30:24.980
You'll hear maybe later about,
or maybe you've already about

30:24.978 --> 30:28.668
Milgram and maybe Asch
conformity and maybe Robber's

30:28.668 --> 30:30.438
Cave.
Those are even better known

30:30.444 --> 30:32.074
than this, but this is right up
there.

30:32.070 --> 30:33.810
This is a top five experiment.

30:33.809 --> 30:37.739
What--So--And it was done by
Elliot Aronson who has retired

30:37.742 --> 30:41.882
now, but for many years taught
at the University of California

30:41.879 --> 30:45.009
at Santa Cruz.
The name is not one that you

30:45.013 --> 30:46.843
need to know.
In any case,

30:46.837 --> 30:50.667
I came to Yale in 1981 as a
graduate student and I was

30:50.667 --> 30:54.927
looking for an adviser and I was
kind of interviewing with a

30:54.930 --> 30:59.050
faculty member at Yale at the
time named Judy Rodin.

30:59.049 --> 31:02.059
Some of you may know that name
because she went on later to

31:02.062 --> 31:05.022
become the President of the
University of Pennsylvania and

31:05.023 --> 31:07.883
now is the President of the
Rockefeller Foundation.

31:07.880 --> 31:12.250
But I was interviewing with her
and set up a meeting.

31:12.250 --> 31:15.590
And what I was trying to
persuade her in this meeting was

31:15.586 --> 31:18.736
to take me on as one of her
students, to let--to be my

31:18.744 --> 31:20.654
adviser.
And it's about my third or

31:20.649 --> 31:23.299
fourth week of graduate school
and I'm pretty nervous about

31:23.303 --> 31:25.623
this.
And she could be intimidating

31:25.617 --> 31:27.897
to a first-year graduate
student.

31:27.900 --> 31:32.170
And I remember I was holding
this mug of coffee and I was

31:32.166 --> 31:34.876
pleading with her,
trying to convince her to take

31:34.878 --> 31:36.378
me on as her student,
and I was saying,

31:36.383 --> 31:39.123
"Judy,
I'll get a lot done.

31:39.120 --> 31:40.540
I'll work really hard.

31:40.540 --> 31:42.710
I can analyze data.

31:42.710 --> 31:45.020
I can write."
And I'm talking about myself

31:45.021 --> 31:47.631
and I'm swinging--I'm using my
hands as I talk.

31:47.630 --> 31:49.970
I'm swinging this cup of coffee
around.

31:49.970 --> 31:53.490
And fairly soon into the
conversation I demonstrated some

31:53.490 --> 31:57.200
principle that you've probably
learned in your physics class

31:57.200 --> 32:00.910
having to do with an object at
rest remaining at rest unless

32:00.909 --> 32:02.669
acted upon by a force.

32:02.670 --> 32:07.600
Well, the object at rest was
the coffee in the cup and when I

32:07.596 --> 32:12.686
pulled the coffee cup out from
under the coffee it landed right

32:12.686 --> 32:17.776
on her desk and began--I watched
in slow motion as this wave of

32:17.776 --> 32:22.696
coffee just moved from my side
of the desk to her side of the

32:22.702 --> 32:25.432
desk.
She jumped up and jumped back

32:25.425 --> 32:28.905
and started moving papers around
and really was giving me this

32:28.906 --> 32:31.186
look like "Why don't you just
leave?"

32:31.190 --> 32:35.210
So, I was trying to save the
moment as best as I could,

32:35.212 --> 32:40.412
and I looked at her and I said,
"Judy, do you remember that old

32:40.412 --> 32:44.302
experiment that Elliot Aronson
did [laughter]

32:44.304 --> 32:46.254
on attractiveness?"

32:46.250 --> 32:49.140
[laughter]
She looked at me kind of out of

32:49.143 --> 32:52.743
the corner of her eye and I
said, "Well, that was my

32:52.743 --> 32:54.333
blunder.
[laughter]

32:54.326 --> 32:57.266
Now you're going to like me
even more."

32:57.269 --> 33:00.739
[laughter]
And she just shook her head and

33:00.743 --> 33:03.543
she said, "Peter,
Peter, Peter.

33:03.539 --> 33:08.909
You know that effect only works
if I think you're competent

33:08.907 --> 33:10.157
first."
[laughter]

33:10.163 --> 33:11.863
Anyway, that was my
introduction to Yale,

33:11.856 --> 33:12.996
graduate school at Yale.

33:13.000 --> 33:14.510
[laughter] All right.

33:14.510 --> 33:17.100
So blundering.
Only blunder if you're

33:17.102 --> 33:20.742
competent first and it will make
you more attractive.

33:20.740 --> 33:23.860
That is the Pratfall Effect.

33:23.859 --> 33:27.529
Let's move on and I'm going to
move a little bit quickly

33:27.525 --> 33:31.115
through all this because I want
to leave time for a few

33:31.124 --> 33:33.794
questions at the end of the
lecture.

33:33.789 --> 33:38.729
Let's talk about physical
attractiveness as number two of

33:38.730 --> 33:41.200
the more interesting four.

33:41.200 --> 33:46.780
Now physical attractiveness is
one that really bothers us.

33:46.779 --> 33:51.089
We don't like to believe that
physical attractiveness accounts

33:51.088 --> 33:52.428
for much in life.

33:52.430 --> 33:55.300
It seems unfair.
Except at the margins,

33:55.301 --> 33:58.761
there isn't much we can do
about physical attractiveness.

33:58.759 --> 34:02.719
And when we're not pictured in
The Rumpus it can really

34:02.724 --> 34:03.964
hurt.
[laughter]

34:03.960 --> 34:09.030
So, we all like to believe that
physical attractiveness matters.

34:09.030 --> 34:12.690
And the interesting thing is if
you do surveys of college

34:12.686 --> 34:17.386
students and you say to them,
"Rate how important different

34:17.388 --> 34:22.278
characteristics are in
relationships that you might be

34:22.282 --> 34:25.962
involved in,"
they will say that warmth is

34:25.963 --> 34:29.983
important, sensitivity is
important, intelligence is

34:29.976 --> 34:33.026
important,
compassion is important,

34:33.025 --> 34:37.745
a sense of humor is important,
and they'll say that looks

34:37.751 --> 34:39.441
aren't important.

34:39.440 --> 34:44.010
But if you measure all of those
things--Let's do it in a

34:44.013 --> 34:48.463
different order.
If you send everybody out on a

34:48.457 --> 34:53.857
blind date and then you look at,
after the blind date,

34:53.860 --> 34:57.390
how many of those people who
are matched up blindly actually

34:57.392 --> 35:01.602
go on a second date,
actually get together again,

35:01.601 --> 35:05.631
what predicts who gets together
again?

35:05.630 --> 35:08.080
Was it the rating of warmth?

35:08.080 --> 35:09.910
No.
Sensitivity?

35:09.910 --> 35:11.700
No.
Intelligence?

35:11.700 --> 35:13.720
No.
Compassion?

35:13.720 --> 35:15.560
No.
Sense of humor?

35:15.560 --> 35:19.440
No.
What was it?

35:19.440 --> 35:24.780
Looks.
So we believe that looks don't

35:24.782 --> 35:28.822
matter and unfortunately they
do.

35:28.820 --> 35:32.700
Now, the good news in all of
this is the studies that looked

35:32.704 --> 35:36.524
at physical attractiveness in
this way were just looking at

35:36.522 --> 35:39.882
what predicts a second date
after a first date.

35:39.880 --> 35:43.320
Obviously, what predicts a
long-term relationship are

35:43.315 --> 35:47.345
probably things less superficial
than looks, or at least other

35:47.345 --> 35:49.455
things in addition to looks.

35:49.460 --> 35:52.920
But it is a great predictor of
a second date.

35:52.920 --> 35:56.680
And college students year after
year say, "But it's not

35:56.683 --> 35:59.303
important."
And it's one of those classic

35:59.299 --> 36:02.839
disassociations between what we
think is unimportant and what

36:02.837 --> 36:05.547
empirically turns out to be more
important.

36:05.550 --> 36:07.320
Alright well,
there are very interesting

36:07.316 --> 36:09.986
studies that have been done with
physical attractiveness.

36:09.989 --> 36:15.539
At the University of Minnesota,
a computer algorithm paired

36:15.541 --> 36:18.301
people up.
It couldn't have been a very

36:18.300 --> 36:21.640
complicated algorithm because it
basically paired people up

36:21.635 --> 36:23.125
randomly on the campus.

36:23.130 --> 36:28.070
But the computer--but a lot of
data about all the students on

36:28.066 --> 36:33.166
campus were--was collected--were
collected and people were then

36:33.167 --> 36:36.867
randomly paired up and sent to
the dance.

36:36.869 --> 36:39.299
And then they were tracked over
time.

36:39.300 --> 36:42.280
And just as in the thought
experiment I just gave you,

36:42.280 --> 36:45.710
the University of Minnesota
students acted in the same way.

36:45.710 --> 36:50.120
If the computer--If they rated
their partner as attractive,

36:50.121 --> 36:54.231
the randomly assigned partner,
they were more likely to

36:54.228 --> 36:56.508
continue the relationship.

36:56.510 --> 36:59.900
Now it's interesting to ask,
"why?"

36:59.900 --> 37:04.190
And we have to start to look at
other experiments to try to get

37:04.192 --> 37:08.352
at what is it about physical
attractiveness that makes people

37:08.347 --> 37:10.837
want to pursue the relationship?

37:10.840 --> 37:15.300
And once again Elliot Aronson,
the person who did the blunder

37:15.297 --> 37:19.307
experiment, the "Pratfall"
experiment, he did some nice

37:19.309 --> 37:21.909
work on attractiveness as well.

37:21.909 --> 37:25.329
And in one experiment,
which many people know as the

37:25.330 --> 37:28.550
"Frizzy Wig" experiment,
he did the following.

37:28.550 --> 37:32.030
He invited a confederate,
a graduate student who was

37:32.033 --> 37:35.383
working with him in his
lab--Psychologists--Social

37:35.379 --> 37:39.479
psychologists always call people
who are in the employ of the

37:39.477 --> 37:41.797
experimenter "confederates."

37:41.800 --> 37:46.060
It doesn't mean that they grew
up south of the Mason-Dixon Line

37:46.063 --> 37:50.123
or wave a certain kind of flag
or--but the older term for it

37:50.120 --> 37:52.270
was "stooge."
They would say,

37:52.271 --> 37:55.741
"We hired a stooge to act in
the following role in the

37:55.738 --> 37:57.858
experiment."
But I think a certain

37:57.857 --> 38:01.157
generation of college students
thought stooges were only named

38:01.160 --> 38:03.430
Moe,
Larry, and Curly and so they

38:03.431 --> 38:06.201
started to use the phrase
"confederate."

38:06.199 --> 38:08.299
Now, they'll usually just say,
"We hired an actor."

38:08.300 --> 38:12.770
But anyway, the confederate
that they hired was a woman who

38:12.767 --> 38:17.617
was naturally attractive in most
people's view but they made her

38:17.621 --> 38:22.171
look either more attractive or
less attractive by giving her

38:22.166 --> 38:27.826
kind of frumpy clothes,
bad make-up, and a frizzy wig.

38:27.829 --> 38:30.979
And it was the frizzy wig that
everybody remembers from this

38:30.976 --> 38:33.106
experiment.
And what she does in the

38:33.110 --> 38:36.470
experiment is she poses as a
graduate student in clinical

38:36.469 --> 38:40.069
psychology who is interviewing
male participants – only men

38:40.070 --> 38:41.510
in this experiment.

38:41.510 --> 38:47.690
And at the end of the interview
she gives them her own personal

38:47.686 --> 38:51.966
clinical evaluation of their
personality.

38:51.970 --> 38:53.580
Okay?
So, that's all it is.

38:53.579 --> 38:54.999
They have this interview with
this woman.

38:55.000 --> 38:59.280
She's either made to look very
good or she's made to look kind

38:59.280 --> 39:02.930
of ugly with this frizzy wig and
they talk to her.

39:02.929 --> 39:06.269
She gives them an evaluation of
their personality.

39:06.269 --> 39:10.089
Half of the subjects receive a
favorable personality

39:10.087 --> 39:13.747
assessment.
Half of them receive a kind of

39:13.748 --> 39:15.898
unfavorable evaluation.

39:15.900 --> 39:17.840
How do they respond?

39:17.840 --> 39:22.930
Well, when she was made to look
attractive they were delighted

39:22.933 --> 39:27.613
when she gave them positive
feedback about themselves.

39:27.610 --> 39:32.610
When she was made to--When she
gave--When she was made to look

39:32.612 --> 39:36.962
attractive but gave them
unfavorable information about

39:36.959 --> 39:40.669
themselves,
they were really upset about it.

39:40.670 --> 39:45.580
When she was made to look
unattractive they didn't really

39:45.577 --> 39:49.167
care what kind of information
she gave.

39:49.170 --> 39:53.750
It didn't really matter whether
it was positive or not.

39:53.750 --> 39:55.960
It didn't really make any
difference.

39:55.960 --> 39:58.010
It was interesting.

39:58.010 --> 40:01.760
In the condition where she was
made to look attractive but gave

40:01.762 --> 40:05.582
you bad feedback about yourself,
often the subjects in that

40:05.581 --> 40:09.581
condition would look for an
opportunity to interact with her

40:09.578 --> 40:12.338
in the future,
obviously to try to prove that

40:12.337 --> 40:13.727
her evaluation was wrong.

40:13.730 --> 40:15.760
It mattered that much to them.

40:15.760 --> 40:19.640
So there's kind of this idea
that attractive people,

40:19.635 --> 40:22.595
their feedback to us has more
impact.

40:22.599 --> 40:26.209
I'm not saying this is fair,
I'm not saying it's rational,

40:26.212 --> 40:30.222
I'm not endorsing it,
but empirically-- excuse

40:30.218 --> 40:35.098
me--empirically we can see it,
that somehow the

40:35.102 --> 40:41.262
attractive--the feedback from
the attractive person matters

40:41.261 --> 40:43.721
more to us.
Okay.

40:43.719 --> 40:47.389
Number three of the more
interesting four.

40:47.390 --> 40:52.210
Gain, loss.
This is really a general idea

40:52.214 --> 40:57.584
in psychology that we are in a
way wired up to be more

40:57.576 --> 41:02.126
sensitive to change than to
steady states.

41:02.130 --> 41:04.810
And you could imagine why that
might be true.

41:04.809 --> 41:10.349
Change often signals danger or
opportunity and if we are

41:10.351 --> 41:15.991
especially tuned-in to change,
it helps us survive and it

41:15.994 --> 41:19.424
helps us pass along our genes.

41:19.420 --> 41:22.870
Okay?
So we're more sensitive to

41:22.867 --> 41:25.657
change.
How does that play out in love?

41:25.659 --> 41:31.879
Well, in love we are--what is
very powerful to us is not just

41:31.879 --> 41:36.439
that someone always is positive
toward us,

41:36.440 --> 41:38.740
"I love you,
I love you, I love you,

41:38.741 --> 41:40.781
I love you, I love --" Right?

41:40.780 --> 41:42.400
It wears out its welcome.

41:42.400 --> 41:48.190
What's more powerful is the
person who was not that positive

41:48.191 --> 41:52.511
to us but over time becomes more
positive.

41:52.510 --> 41:57.800
The first derivative of their
regard for us is positive.

41:57.800 --> 42:00.900
Okay?
Aronson calls this the "Gain

42:00.898 --> 42:03.768
Effect."
We are really attracted to

42:03.772 --> 42:08.932
people whose regard for us is
gaining momentum over time.

42:08.930 --> 42:12.410
Okay?
And even if over a period of

42:12.407 --> 42:16.647
time the average amount of their
regard is lower because they

42:16.645 --> 42:20.385
started lower and then got
higher than someone who was

42:20.389 --> 42:23.839
always high,
it's the ones who were first

42:23.840 --> 42:27.940
lower who then went up that
capture our attention.

42:27.940 --> 42:31.870
The first derivative is more
important than just the position

42:31.866 --> 42:35.266
of their regard for us,
getting better and better.

42:35.269 --> 42:39.449
Now, what's interesting is
there is also a loss effect.

42:39.449 --> 42:45.479
People who really hurt us are
not the people who have always

42:45.475 --> 42:49.515
been negative.
The person who every time they

42:49.515 --> 42:52.795
sees you hates you,
says they hate you and

42:52.803 --> 42:57.373
accompanies it with an obscene
gesture--after a while this

42:57.374 --> 42:59.544
person can't hurt you.

42:59.540 --> 43:02.940
Right?
There's a country song that

43:02.940 --> 43:07.960
Ricky Skaggs sings that has the
phrase in it "Nothing can hurt

43:07.956 --> 43:10.666
you like the person you love."

43:10.670 --> 43:14.030
That's what hurts,
the person who always was

43:14.034 --> 43:17.794
positive who now--whose regard
starts to fade.

43:17.790 --> 43:20.300
Oh.
You can only hurt the one you

43:20.298 --> 43:21.148
love.
Right?

43:21.150 --> 43:24.440
You can only hurt the one you
love because you are expecting

43:24.444 --> 43:26.794
positive feedback from the one
you love.

43:26.789 --> 43:31.229
And when that turns negative,
it's a blow.

43:31.230 --> 43:33.090
It's a blow to the solar plexus.

43:33.090 --> 43:36.300
Right?
So you can only hurt the one

43:36.298 --> 43:39.438
you can love but the one who
always loves you sometimes has

43:39.442 --> 43:41.722
trouble showing you that they
love you.

43:41.719 --> 43:46.089
The one who didn't really love
you that much but then starts to

43:46.089 --> 43:49.829
show you that they love you,
that person is a powerful

43:49.825 --> 43:52.005
influence on your behavior.

43:52.010 --> 43:56.560
Okay.
The last--Oops.

43:56.560 --> 43:59.920
Come back.
The last set of studies--Have

43:59.918 --> 44:04.218
you talked about Schacter,
Singer's "Emotions"?

44:04.220 --> 44:07.100
Okay.
So let me describe to you this

44:07.102 --> 44:12.142
phenomenon.
This is a phenomenon about the

44:12.135 --> 44:17.865
misattribution for the causes of
arousal.

44:17.869 --> 44:22.409
You feel physiologically
aroused but you're not

44:22.409 --> 44:26.949
completely sure why,
and you have to make up an

44:26.949 --> 44:29.219
explanation for it.

44:29.219 --> 44:33.469
I think what I want to do--And
sometimes that explanation is

44:33.472 --> 44:37.802
accurate, but the ones that are
interesting here are the ones

44:37.797 --> 44:41.977
where you misattribute the cause
of the arousal--you make a

44:41.978 --> 44:46.298
mistake and think it's love when
it might be due to something

44:46.302 --> 44:49.272
else.
So, let's do a thought

44:49.265 --> 44:52.485
experiment.
I'm a Yale college student,

44:52.485 --> 44:56.865
for the purposes of this
thought experiment and I live in

44:56.872 --> 45:02.202
Pierson because I need to walk a
great distance to Chapel Street,

45:02.199 --> 45:04.799
to the Starbuck's on Chapel
Street.

45:04.800 --> 45:07.630
And I have a friend who I don't
know that well,

45:07.632 --> 45:11.332
somebody who was sitting next
to me in class a few weeks in a

45:11.327 --> 45:14.627
row.
And I said, "Would you like to

45:14.628 --> 45:20.058
go see The New Blue in concert
and then get coffee after it

45:20.058 --> 45:24.238
Friday night?"
And she says to me, "Sure.

45:24.240 --> 45:26.080
I would do that."

45:26.079 --> 45:28.899
And so The New Blue concert
takes place in the

45:28.899 --> 45:32.849
Pierson-Davenport Theater in the
basement there – what used to

45:32.846 --> 45:36.416
be a squash court is now a
little theater – and we enjoy

45:36.417 --> 45:39.297
ourselves at the concert and
then I say,

45:39.300 --> 45:42.160
"Let's go to Starbuck's and get
a coffee."

45:42.159 --> 45:47.859
And so, we walk that distance
from Pierson College down to the

45:47.863 --> 45:51.053
York Street Gate,
over to Chapel Street,

45:51.048 --> 45:54.888
make the left on Chapel Street,
another block down to High,

45:54.890 --> 45:57.380
walk into the Starbuck's.

45:57.380 --> 46:01.550
And she says to me,
"You know, I'd better have a

46:01.551 --> 46:07.411
decaf because it's kind of late
and I want to be able to sleep."

46:07.410 --> 46:08.480
And I say, "That's fine.

46:08.480 --> 46:09.690
Whatever you want."

46:09.690 --> 46:12.850
She says, "Yeah.
So I'll have a decaf double

46:12.850 --> 46:16.200
espresso mocha skinny with a--"
What?

46:16.200 --> 46:18.230
What other dimensions are there?

46:18.230 --> 46:18.970
[laughter] Right?

46:18.969 --> 46:24.239
"A double espresso mocha skinny
frothed."

46:24.240 --> 46:25.040
[laughter] And I say, "Okay.

46:25.040 --> 46:27.040
Fine.
I'll have a coffee."

46:27.039 --> 46:29.519
[laughter]
And I go up there and I order

46:29.522 --> 46:32.682
the drinks.
"I'll have a small coffee

46:32.684 --> 46:38.294
please and a double espresso
mocha skinny frothed" except the

46:38.288 --> 46:40.808
barista makes a mistake.

46:40.809 --> 46:43.719
Did the word "barista" exist
before Starbuck's?

46:43.720 --> 46:46.130
[laughter] I don't think so.

46:46.130 --> 46:48.450
The barista makes a mistake.

46:48.449 --> 46:53.329
The barista uses caffeinated
coffee in the drink instead of

46:53.327 --> 46:57.277
decaf, doesn't tell anybody,
doesn't tell me.

46:57.280 --> 47:01.510
I don't see it.
I just come back with my black

47:01.506 --> 47:07.336
coffee and my double espresso
mocha latte skinny frothed,

47:07.342 --> 47:10.262
except it isn't espresso.

47:10.260 --> 47:14.110
It's got two shots of
caffeinated espresso.

47:14.110 --> 47:15.780
I'm sorry.
It isn't decaffeinated.

47:15.780 --> 47:19.490
It's got two shots of
caffeinated espresso in it.

47:19.489 --> 47:23.479
And I put it down on the table
and we're having this nice

47:23.475 --> 47:27.665
conversation and we're drinking
our beverages and it's about

47:27.673 --> 47:32.013
12:30/1:00 now and Starbuck's is
closing and it's time to walk

47:32.014 --> 47:35.664
back to Pierson.
And we're walking back to

47:35.656 --> 47:40.056
Pierson and we leave the
Starbuck's, we make a left on

47:40.058 --> 47:43.388
Chapel Street,
we're walking up to York,

47:43.394 --> 47:47.784
I'm getting a little sleepy,
but my friend looks at me and

47:47.784 --> 47:49.374
says,
"Huh.

47:49.370 --> 47:50.900
I feel a little funny."

47:50.900 --> 47:53.350
What's actually happening?

47:53.349 --> 47:58.029
Her heart is beating a little
faster, her palms are beginning

47:58.029 --> 48:03.019
to sweat, her breath is coming a
little shorter than it otherwise

48:03.020 --> 48:06.050
would.
"I don't know.

48:06.050 --> 48:08.640
Is it warm in here?"

48:08.639 --> 48:12.619
And she said,
"I don't think I've felt this

48:12.617 --> 48:15.077
way in a very long time.

48:15.080 --> 48:18.800
[laughter] "Gee.
It couldn't be the coffee.

48:18.800 --> 48:22.390
I ordered decaf.
What could this be?

48:22.390 --> 48:27.400
What.."
And she turns and she looks at

48:27.404 --> 48:30.804
me [laughter]
and she says,

48:30.796 --> 48:34.576
"What a day this has been.

48:34.580 --> 48:37.230
What a rare mood I'm in.

48:37.230 --> 48:40.600
Why, it's almost like being in
love."

48:40.599 --> 48:42.529
[laughter]
And it is almost like being in

48:42.531 --> 48:45.241
love except what it really is is
two shots of caffeinated

48:45.236 --> 48:47.696
espresso [laughter]
causing a rapid heart rate,

48:47.699 --> 48:51.389
an increase in respiration,
sweaty palms,

48:51.391 --> 48:56.371
but I don't realize--she
doesn't realize that's what it

48:56.374 --> 48:58.374
is.
She turns to the most

48:58.371 --> 49:02.111
salient--and this is the way
social psychologists would say

49:02.105 --> 49:05.895
it--turns to the most salient
object in her immediate social

49:05.903 --> 49:08.743
environment--that would be
me--and [laughter]

49:08.736 --> 49:10.406
says she's in love.

49:10.409 --> 49:13.399
That's the idea of
misattribution--aroused due to

49:13.404 --> 49:16.154
something else,
"don't know what that is."

49:16.150 --> 49:19.700
It's best if you don't know
what that is or even if you do

49:19.700 --> 49:22.730
mistakenly attribute it,
misattribute it,

49:22.729 --> 49:26.339
to physical attraction,
romance, intimacy,

49:26.340 --> 49:29.940
passion and commitment,
it's love.

49:29.940 --> 49:33.210
All right.
Now, I don't necessarily

49:33.209 --> 49:39.859
recommend that you do this
thought experiment in vivo this

49:39.857 --> 49:42.957
weekend,
although if you're lonely you

49:42.961 --> 49:45.101
might want to try it but
[laughter]

49:45.097 --> 49:48.677
we can go--we can take this
idea right--We can actually do

49:48.678 --> 49:50.058
research on this.

49:50.060 --> 49:51.560
We could take it into the lab.

49:51.559 --> 49:54.739
But before I tell you about lab
experiments let me tell you

49:54.744 --> 49:57.714
about the most famous field
experiment on this idea.

49:57.710 --> 50:00.490
We call this the "Rickety
Bridge" experiment.

50:00.489 --> 50:05.049
And there is a bridge at the
University of British Columbia

50:05.053 --> 50:09.153
that crosses a river that runs
through campus and the

50:09.145 --> 50:12.445
rickety--There's actually two
bridges.

50:12.449 --> 50:16.569
The rickety bridge is one
that's kind of a rope bridge.

50:16.570 --> 50:19.150
It's hundreds of feet above the
river.

50:19.150 --> 50:21.300
It sways in the breeze.

50:21.300 --> 50:23.180
It's only about three feet wide.

50:23.179 --> 50:26.149
You kind of hold on to it
carefully and you cross the

50:26.152 --> 50:27.942
river.
It's a pretty scary way to

50:27.939 --> 50:28.859
cross that river.

50:28.860 --> 50:30.950
Has anybody been--seen this
bridge?

50:30.950 --> 50:31.490
It's still there.

50:31.490 --> 50:32.910
Yes.
You know this bridge.

50:32.910 --> 50:35.200
Okay.
There's another way to cross

50:35.199 --> 50:38.159
the river.
It's on a low bridge near the

50:38.162 --> 50:41.262
water, solid wood planks,
nice and wide,

50:41.258 --> 50:45.858
hand railings made out of solid
wood, and you can cross the

50:45.862 --> 50:49.442
bridge that way.
So, what two investigators at

50:49.440 --> 50:52.870
the University of British
Columbia did is they simply

50:52.867 --> 50:57.877
positioned,
once again, an attractive actor

50:57.883 --> 51:03.433
or confederate on one side of
the bridge.

51:03.429 --> 51:10.079
She was a woman and she met men
crossing the bridge.

51:10.079 --> 51:13.819
And she would intercept them as
they came across the rickety

51:13.823 --> 51:17.393
bridge, or the low bridge,
and she would ask them a few

51:17.393 --> 51:20.983
questions and conclude with,
"Can you write me a story?

51:20.980 --> 51:24.570
You would help me out with my
experiment if you'd just write a

51:24.569 --> 51:26.099
little story right now."

51:26.099 --> 51:29.259
Then she would collect their
story and she would say,

51:29.264 --> 51:32.194
"If you have any questions
about this experiment,

51:32.185 --> 51:33.945
here is my phone number."

51:33.949 --> 51:35.889
Actually, this happens when
you're in experiments.

51:35.889 --> 51:37.849
You get the phone number of the
experimenter.

51:37.850 --> 51:40.900
What happens?
Well, the men,

51:40.901 --> 51:44.841
male students,
who cross the rickety bridge,

51:44.839 --> 51:50.149
they wrote these sexy stories
with interesting content,

51:50.150 --> 51:56.140
with kind of little bit ribald
themes.

51:56.139 --> 52:00.919
And the people on the solid
bridge, they just wrote pretty

52:00.923 --> 52:03.863
boring stories.
The people who crossed the

52:03.855 --> 52:07.325
rickety bridge were more likely
to call her up later and say,

52:07.328 --> 52:08.958
"Yeah.
I'd like to talk about that

52:08.963 --> 52:09.833
experiment I was in.

52:09.830 --> 52:11.750
Could we meet at the Starbuck's?

52:11.750 --> 52:13.580
[laughter]
You drink decaf,

52:13.576 --> 52:15.446
don't you?"
Right?

52:15.449 --> 52:19.969
And the people on the low
bridge were much less likely to

52:19.969 --> 52:22.089
call her up.
Okay?

52:22.090 --> 52:23.220
What was going on?

52:23.219 --> 52:26.669
Well, this was interpreted as
misattributed arousal.

52:26.670 --> 52:30.440
On the rickety bridge you're
swaying in the breeze hundreds

52:30.437 --> 52:33.877
of feet above the water,
the bridge seems unstable.

52:33.880 --> 52:34.720
Maybe you'll make it.

52:34.720 --> 52:36.640
Maybe you won't.
Your heart is beating,

52:36.643 --> 52:39.313
your palms are sweating,
you're breathing harder.

52:39.309 --> 52:42.759
You meet this person and she
seems more attractive because

52:42.755 --> 52:44.805
you're feeling all these things.

52:44.809 --> 52:47.979
And you attribute it to the
attraction.

52:47.980 --> 52:52.830
Now, there's a reason why this
study is bad science.

52:52.829 --> 52:56.909
There's a major flaw in this
study.

52:56.909 --> 53:01.809
The clue to the flaw is that
you can't even call this study

53:01.808 --> 53:04.788
an experiment.
What's the flaw?

53:04.790 --> 53:10.130
Anybody.
Yes.

53:10.130 --> 53:12.700
Student: The people who
would take the rickety bridge

53:12.702 --> 53:14.532
might be more likely to be more
[inaudible]

53:14.533 --> 53:16.843
Dean Peter Salovey:
People who take the rickety

53:16.844 --> 53:19.374
bridge might be the kind of
people who are more looking for

53:19.373 --> 53:21.993
adventure than the people who
take the solid bridge.

53:21.990 --> 53:24.460
Right.
Another way of saying it is

53:24.459 --> 53:28.349
there isn't random assignment of
the subjects to the two

53:28.350 --> 53:30.260
conditions in the study.

53:30.260 --> 53:33.190
That's no random assignment;
it's not an experiment.

53:33.190 --> 53:37.640
You--By not randomly assigning
people to these two conditions,

53:37.636 --> 53:41.566
you may be capturing just
individual differences in the

53:41.573 --> 53:45.023
kind of person who,
when there's a perfectly

53:45.022 --> 53:47.242
stable, safe,
low bridge, says,

53:47.237 --> 53:49.027
"Huh uh.
I won't want to go on that

53:49.028 --> 53:51.578
bridge.
I want to go on the bridge

53:51.584 --> 53:55.664
where I have to risk my life to
get to class."

53:55.659 --> 53:57.619
[laughter]
And then should it surprise us

53:57.624 --> 54:00.284
that that's the kind of person
who would call a perfect

54:00.275 --> 54:03.165
stranger on the telephone and
write a sexy story and give it

54:03.172 --> 54:04.392
to them?
[laughter] Right?

54:04.390 --> 54:05.430
We're not so surprised.

54:05.429 --> 54:09.499
So what we have to do,
of course, is take it in to the

54:09.500 --> 54:13.420
lab and do this in a more
systematic way with random

54:13.417 --> 54:16.617
assignment.
And this is how I'll want to

54:16.623 --> 54:20.613
finish up today.
We have until 2:45,3:45?

54:20.610 --> 54:21.810
Okay.
Great.

54:21.809 --> 54:25.069
I'll take about five more
minutes to finish up and that'll

54:25.073 --> 54:27.023
give us some time for questions.

54:27.019 --> 54:30.499
So how do you do this in the
lab?

54:30.500 --> 54:36.800
Well, you can bring people in
to the lab and I can present you

54:36.798 --> 54:42.678
with a confederate who--Let's
say you are all in condition

54:42.683 --> 54:45.413
one,
everybody on this side of the

54:45.414 --> 54:48.964
room, and I can say to all of
you, "Please wait here.

54:48.960 --> 54:53.730
We'll begin the experiment in a
moment.

54:53.730 --> 54:56.450
While you're waiting please
fill out this form."

54:56.449 --> 55:01.259
And the form includes how
attractive--how attracted you

55:01.260 --> 55:04.200
are to the experimenter,
to me.

55:04.199 --> 55:06.469
I can do the same thing over
here.

55:06.469 --> 55:10.939
I can give you the form and ask
you to rate how attractive you

55:10.935 --> 55:15.035
think I am and I can give you
the same instruction with a

55:15.035 --> 55:18.105
crucial difference:
"Please wait here.

55:18.110 --> 55:24.750
We will begin the painful shock
experiment in a moment.

55:24.750 --> 55:27.710
Please fill out these forms
while you wait."

55:27.710 --> 55:31.440
What happens?
The people who got the painful

55:31.436 --> 55:35.866
shock instruction are more
likely to find the confederate

55:35.871 --> 55:38.521
attractive.
[laughter] Why?

55:38.519 --> 55:41.379
While they're sitting there
thinking about painful shock

55:41.382 --> 55:43.362
it's making their heart beat
faster,

55:43.360 --> 55:47.730
it's making their palms sweat,
it's making them breathe harder

55:47.727 --> 55:50.367
maybe.
And even though it's fairly

55:50.365 --> 55:54.495
obvious what's doing that,
they still misattribute that

55:54.496 --> 55:57.706
arousal to "I must be falling in
love,"

55:57.710 --> 56:02.370
even with that obvious a--even
with that obvious an

56:02.366 --> 56:05.226
instruction.
You can do this in other ways.

56:05.230 --> 56:08.850
You can bring--Here is one of
my favorite ones.

56:08.850 --> 56:10.830
You bring people in the lab.

56:10.829 --> 56:13.349
We'll make them the control
group this time.

56:13.349 --> 56:16.379
We bring you in the--to the lab
and we say to this group of

56:16.384 --> 56:17.854
people, "Please wait here.

56:17.849 --> 56:20.079
We'll begin the experiment in a
moment.

56:20.079 --> 56:22.129
You can fill out these forms in
the meantime."

56:22.130 --> 56:25.510
The forms ask how attracted you
are to the experimenter.

56:25.510 --> 56:30.080
You're now in the experimental
group and I say,

56:30.075 --> 56:32.055
"Please wait here.

56:32.059 --> 56:33.979
We'll begin the experiment in a
moment.

56:33.980 --> 56:37.020
I'm going to ask you to fill
out some forms but first,

56:37.015 --> 56:39.015
to get ready for this
experiment,

56:39.019 --> 56:42.119
I'd like you to get on this
treadmill and run for ten

56:42.123 --> 56:45.283
minutes."
So you've run on the treadmill.

56:45.280 --> 56:46.730
You've just sat around.

56:46.730 --> 56:49.670
The people who've run on the
treadmill, even when that

56:49.667 --> 56:53.507
arousal is fairly obvious,
you've got--you--doing a little

56:53.508 --> 56:57.568
bit of aerobic exercise,
you still find the experimenter

56:57.567 --> 56:59.897
more attractive.
Okay?

56:59.900 --> 57:05.530
This is why the fourth floor of
Payne Whitney Gym is such a

57:05.525 --> 57:10.955
dangerous place [laughter]
and I urge you as your dean to

57:10.958 --> 57:13.478
be very careful there.

57:13.480 --> 57:16.040
[laughter] Okay?
It's that combination of

57:16.039 --> 57:18.899
aerobic exercise and spandex
[laughter]

57:18.904 --> 57:20.794
that leads to trouble.

57:20.790 --> 57:22.290
All right.
Now, here's the final

57:22.292 --> 57:24.342
experiment and I apologize for
this.

57:24.340 --> 57:31.400
It is a bit sexist in 2007
context, but let me explain.

57:31.400 --> 57:34.800
And we could never do this--and
one could never do this

57:34.799 --> 57:38.579
experiment today but let me go
through it with you and you'll

57:38.576 --> 57:41.406
apologize for its--some of its
qualities.

57:41.409 --> 57:45.659
In this experiment male
subjects were brought in to the

57:45.664 --> 57:49.604
lab and they were asked to look
at centerfolds from

57:49.603 --> 57:51.813
Playboy magazine.

57:51.809 --> 57:55.199
So, these are essentially
photographs of naked women.

57:55.199 --> 58:01.619
And they are wearing headphones
that amplify their heartbeat and

58:01.615 --> 58:07.515
they are asked among other
things how attracted are they to

58:07.521 --> 58:13.021
the centerfold photograph that
they're looking at.

58:13.019 --> 58:14.799
So, maybe--I don't remember how
many they look at.

58:14.800 --> 58:16.610
Maybe it's about 10.

58:16.610 --> 58:18.480
So, these slides are coming up.

58:18.480 --> 58:20.990
They've got the headphones on.

58:20.989 --> 58:26.579
The headphones are amplifying
their heartbeat and the slides

58:26.583 --> 58:32.273
are moving one after another for
a few seconds each slide and

58:32.272 --> 58:36.162
they're listening to their
heartbeat.

58:36.160 --> 58:42.780
Slide one.
Slide two.

58:42.780 --> 58:48.180
Slide three.
Slide four.

58:48.180 --> 58:55.300
Slide five.
Slide six.

58:55.300 --> 58:58.950
And then they're asked which
one did you find most

58:58.947 --> 59:02.667
attractive, which one are you
most attracted to?

59:02.670 --> 59:04.990
"Oh, slide five, absolutely.

59:04.989 --> 59:07.679
She's the woman I want to
marry."

59:07.680 --> 59:09.140
[laughter] Right?

59:09.139 --> 59:13.979
And what has happened is
they're using this bodily cue of

59:13.982 --> 59:18.652
their heartbeat to infer that
that's who they find more

59:18.652 --> 59:22.252
attractive.
Now, here is the twist.

59:22.250 --> 59:25.740
They're not actually listening
to their heartbeat.

59:25.739 --> 59:31.009
They're listening to a tape
recording of a heartbeat.

59:31.010 --> 59:35.190
And the experimenter is back
there with the speed knob

59:35.186 --> 59:38.416
[laughter]
and at random intervals he just

59:38.416 --> 59:41.796
speeds up the tape of their
heart [laughter]

59:41.804 --> 59:44.094
and then slows it down.

59:44.090 --> 59:49.410
And it doesn't matter which
slide he speeds up the tape of

59:49.407 --> 59:53.757
the heartbeat on,
that's the one the subject is

59:53.764 --> 59:58.404
more likely to think is the
person of their dreams,

59:58.400 --> 1:00:00.610
the person they're attracted to.

1:00:00.610 --> 1:00:04.780
So even you can misattribute
real arousal.

1:00:04.780 --> 1:00:09.760
You can even misattribute phony
arousal, arousal that isn't even

1:00:09.762 --> 1:00:11.662
coming from your body.

1:00:11.659 --> 1:00:16.139
It's just coming--It's just
being played to you randomly.

1:00:16.140 --> 1:00:18.310
You can even misattribute that.

1:00:18.310 --> 1:00:20.740
Okay.
I think these experiments are

1:00:20.736 --> 1:00:24.686
cute and I think there's an
interesting phenomenon there.

1:00:24.690 --> 1:00:28.180
And it says something,
in a way, about how easily we

1:00:28.184 --> 1:00:31.614
can be misled as to what things
in our environment,

1:00:31.609 --> 1:00:34.829
even things coming from our own
body, mean.

1:00:34.829 --> 1:00:38.549
But there's also some very
serious implications of this

1:00:38.547 --> 1:00:41.547
kind of work.
One of them has to do with

1:00:41.550 --> 1:00:42.990
domestic violence.

1:00:42.989 --> 1:00:46.929
So think about domestic
violence situations and why

1:00:46.934 --> 1:00:48.674
people stay in them.

1:00:48.670 --> 1:00:51.130
Why do people stay in
relationships that are violent?

1:00:51.130 --> 1:00:55.340
Now the number one reason,
and we have to acknowledge it

1:00:55.338 --> 1:00:58.628
up front, is usually
economically there's no

1:00:58.628 --> 1:01:02.988
alternative or people believe
there's no alternative.

1:01:02.989 --> 1:01:06.279
"I can't leave because if I
leave I'd be homeless.

1:01:06.280 --> 1:01:10.490
If I leave I will starve,
if my--if I leave my kids will

1:01:10.494 --> 1:01:13.794
starve or there'll be danger to
my kids."

1:01:13.789 --> 1:01:17.739
And that keeps people trapped
in abusive relationships

1:01:17.739 --> 1:01:21.839
but--And that's number one,
but what else might be going

1:01:21.838 --> 1:01:24.888
on?
Sometimes people don't realize

1:01:24.892 --> 1:01:30.302
that the relationship they're in
is abusive--it's psychologically

1:01:30.295 --> 1:01:32.485
or emotionally abusive.

1:01:32.489 --> 1:01:35.699
They get into these fights and
screaming matches and

1:01:35.702 --> 1:01:39.422
name-calling and such even if
it's not physical violence.

1:01:39.420 --> 1:01:45.250
And they feel a certain arousal
when that happens and they

1:01:45.249 --> 1:01:48.899
misattribute it.
"Well, he wouldn't be yelling

1:01:48.902 --> 1:01:51.592
and screaming at me if he didn't
love me."

1:01:51.590 --> 1:01:54.370
Right?
They misattribute that,

1:01:54.366 --> 1:01:57.846
what might be anger,
what might even be aggression

1:01:57.852 --> 1:02:00.842
and violence,
to an expression of love.

1:02:00.840 --> 1:02:06.680
I have a friend who's a social
psychologist who told me a story

1:02:06.677 --> 1:02:12.417
once that really made me very
nervous, although she's fine.

1:02:12.420 --> 1:02:16.390
She said, "When I was dating my
husband"--this is thirty years

1:02:16.388 --> 1:02:18.728
ago--"we were having a tough
time.

1:02:18.730 --> 1:02:21.650
We were in many,
many arguments--We got into

1:02:21.647 --> 1:02:25.717
many, many arguments and one
time something happened where he

1:02:25.718 --> 1:02:29.648
came up to my car in a parking
lot and he was yelling at me

1:02:29.653 --> 1:02:31.353
through the window.

1:02:31.349 --> 1:02:35.019
And I rolled up the window and
before you know it he had

1:02:35.016 --> 1:02:36.746
punched out the window."

1:02:36.750 --> 1:02:40.620
And yelling at her and punched
out the window.

1:02:40.620 --> 1:02:41.790
He didn't touch her.

1:02:41.789 --> 1:02:46.039
And he--she said to me,
"That's when I knew he really

1:02:46.039 --> 1:02:49.569
loved me."
And I thought that's scary and

1:02:49.571 --> 1:02:53.651
I--and, all joking aside,
that's scary but that's

1:02:53.653 --> 1:02:55.783
misattributed arousal.

1:02:55.780 --> 1:02:59.120
"I'm feeling--when he did that
I felt something and I assumed

1:02:59.120 --> 1:03:02.130
it was love.
What she was misattributing as

1:03:02.131 --> 1:03:05.701
love--Well, she was
misattributing his aggressive

1:03:05.702 --> 1:03:07.192
response as love.

1:03:07.190 --> 1:03:12.350
She was misattributing her own
fear as mutual attraction,

1:03:12.351 --> 1:03:14.841
as "And I must love him."

1:03:14.840 --> 1:03:19.610
So, although we joke about
these kinds of experiments,

1:03:19.614 --> 1:03:24.844
and they are fun to talk about
because they are unusual and

1:03:24.839 --> 1:03:26.849
cute,
there is also some serious

1:03:26.846 --> 1:03:29.696
implications of this kind of
work that one might think about.

1:03:29.699 --> 1:03:33.499
And you might think about other
possible implications as well.

1:03:33.500 --> 1:03:36.010
Okay.
Let me stop there and see what

1:03:36.011 --> 1:03:37.771
kinds of questions we might
have.

1:03:37.769 --> 1:03:39.429
[applause]
Dean Peter Salovey:

1:03:39.427 --> 1:03:39.977
Thank you.

1:03:39.980 --> 1:03:47.000


1:03:47.000 --> 1:03:48.270
Thanks very much.

1:03:48.270 --> 1:03:49.600
That's very kind of you.

1:03:49.599 --> 1:03:52.309
Because we are on tape I'll
repeat any questions that come

1:03:52.312 --> 1:03:53.852
in.
Yeah.

1:03:53.849 --> 1:04:06.799
Student: [inaudible]
Dean Peter Salovey:

1:04:06.804 --> 1:04:10.194
Right.
So the question is in

1:04:10.194 --> 1:04:14.294
experiments like the painful
shock experiment if you are told

1:04:14.293 --> 1:04:16.373
in advance,
like you all are,

1:04:16.369 --> 1:04:19.329
through a consent form or by
the experimenter,

1:04:19.332 --> 1:04:22.692
"This is an experiment
involving painful shock,"

1:04:22.690 --> 1:04:26.720
will you still rate the
experimenter as more attractive

1:04:26.719 --> 1:04:30.749
or will you not be able to
misattribute the arousal?

1:04:30.750 --> 1:04:33.740
It is true.
The more salient we make the

1:04:33.737 --> 1:04:37.267
source of the arousal,
the less likely you can get the

1:04:37.272 --> 1:04:40.372
effect.
If in my thought experiment I

1:04:40.366 --> 1:04:43.796
say to my friend,
"Well, I know why you're

1:04:43.796 --> 1:04:45.466
feeling that way.

1:04:45.469 --> 1:04:49.339
The reason why you're feeling
that way is ‘cause the barista

1:04:49.338 --> 1:04:52.888
made a mistake and gave you
caffeinated espresso when you

1:04:52.889 --> 1:04:55.869
asked for decaf or maybe you
just love me."

1:04:55.870 --> 1:04:58.120
Right.
The person is not likely to

1:04:58.116 --> 1:04:59.436
say, "Oh, I bet it's love."

1:04:59.440 --> 1:05:01.350
They're more likely to think
oh, caffeine,

1:05:01.353 --> 1:05:03.333
yeah.
That's the parsimonious

1:05:03.333 --> 1:05:04.703
explanation here."

1:05:04.700 --> 1:05:07.190
So it is true.
The more salient you make the

1:05:07.192 --> 1:05:09.962
cause of the arousal,
the less likely you'll get the

1:05:09.958 --> 1:05:13.208
effect but you can see even in
experiments where the cause of

1:05:13.213 --> 1:05:16.663
the arousal is somewhat obvious,
at least to us,

1:05:16.655 --> 1:05:20.765
you can still get a
misattribution effect.

1:05:20.770 --> 1:05:22.440
Other questions.
Yes.

1:05:22.440 --> 1:05:30.190
Student: [inaudible]
Dean Peter Salovey:

1:05:30.186 --> 1:05:33.446
Yeah.
So the question is are any of

1:05:33.446 --> 1:05:36.606
these factors,
particularly the big three,

1:05:36.607 --> 1:05:38.387
proximity,
familiarity,

1:05:38.388 --> 1:05:42.408
and similarity--Do they affect
the maintenance of relationships

1:05:42.413 --> 1:05:44.623
or just the initial attraction?

1:05:44.620 --> 1:05:46.080
It's interesting.

1:05:46.079 --> 1:05:50.299
My guess is they affect both
initial and maintenance over

1:05:50.296 --> 1:05:55.036
time but the literature mostly
focuses on initial attraction,

1:05:55.039 --> 1:05:58.409
much richer data on that
initial attraction and those

1:05:58.409 --> 1:06:01.589
initial stages of the
relationship in part because

1:06:01.585 --> 1:06:04.885
it's a little hard to follow
couples over time.

1:06:04.889 --> 1:06:09.619
Imagine the sort of
Heisenberg-esque problems we

1:06:09.617 --> 1:06:15.547
would get carefully following
romantic couples over time and

1:06:15.551 --> 1:06:22.091
interfering with them to ask
questions and make observations.

1:06:22.090 --> 1:06:25.290
It would be hard to let this
couple naturally--this

1:06:25.291 --> 1:06:27.341
relationship naturally unfold.

1:06:27.340 --> 1:06:30.110
So, we really get--So,
really the focus of many of

1:06:30.107 --> 1:06:32.647
these experiments is on initial
attraction.

1:06:32.650 --> 1:06:36.010
That's why I always say my
lecture is on love,

1:06:36.006 --> 1:06:38.986
the definition of terms is
about love,

1:06:38.989 --> 1:06:43.029
but the experiments really are
much more about attraction than

1:06:43.029 --> 1:06:45.629
about love.
Another question.

1:06:45.630 --> 1:06:47.370
Yes.
Student: Can someone

1:06:47.368 --> 1:06:48.948
feel consummate love for more
than one person?

1:06:48.950 --> 1:06:49.550
Dean Peter Salovey: Oh.

1:06:49.550 --> 1:06:53.340
Can someone feel consummate
love for more than one person?

1:06:53.340 --> 1:06:55.670
That's a very good question.

1:06:55.670 --> 1:06:58.410
It's actually a question that's
debated in the literature.

1:06:58.409 --> 1:07:01.989
I didn't get into it at all in
this experiment--in this

1:07:01.987 --> 1:07:05.297
lecture--but there's an
interesting debate going on

1:07:05.300 --> 1:07:09.080
about love and many other
emotions between people who take

1:07:09.077 --> 1:07:12.317
a kind of evolutionary
perspective on these states

1:07:12.324 --> 1:07:16.174
versus people who take what
might be called a more socially

1:07:16.167 --> 1:07:18.417
constructed perspective.

1:07:18.420 --> 1:07:22.070
And these aren't necessarily so
incompatible but the

1:07:22.066 --> 1:07:26.426
evolutionary perspective I think
would argue that you can feel

1:07:26.428 --> 1:07:30.858
that kind of love for more than
one person or at least it would

1:07:30.862 --> 1:07:34.722
facilitate the passing on of
your genetic material to a

1:07:34.723 --> 1:07:37.873
larger array of the next
generation.

1:07:37.869 --> 1:07:43.159
So I think the evolutionary
explanation is not a problem but

1:07:43.164 --> 1:07:48.014
we have constructed a world
where in most societies,

1:07:48.010 --> 1:07:52.790
except for very unusual
polygamist societies,

1:07:52.793 --> 1:07:58.233
the belief is that you can't
love more than one.

1:07:58.230 --> 1:08:01.680
Right.
And so you've got this tension

1:08:01.682 --> 1:08:05.702
between what might be
evolutionarily wired impulses

1:08:05.703 --> 1:08:09.973
and the kind of social
constraints that say this isn't

1:08:09.965 --> 1:08:12.055
good,
this isn't appropriate,

1:08:12.059 --> 1:08:15.019
this is taboo.
And my guess is the result is

1:08:15.016 --> 1:08:19.096
yes, you could but you're not
going to feel un-conflicted

1:08:19.102 --> 1:08:23.552
about it and it's because these
two are conflicting each other

1:08:23.554 --> 1:08:25.164
at the same time.

1:08:25.159 --> 1:08:28.099
How about one more question and
then we'll let you go?

1:08:28.100 --> 1:08:30.500
I'm sorry.
I saw him first.

1:08:30.500 --> 1:08:33.600
Student: Wouldn't
natural selection favor the

1:08:33.604 --> 1:08:37.074
people who learn all these
things and then practically try

1:08:37.074 --> 1:08:38.974
to apply them?
Dean Peter Salovey: So

1:08:38.967 --> 1:08:40.037
he's making the evolutionary
argument.

1:08:40.039 --> 1:08:43.849
Wouldn't natural selection
favor the people who take

1:08:43.848 --> 1:08:47.198
introductory psychology,
come to my Valentine's Day

1:08:47.204 --> 1:08:50.144
lecture, listen carefully to the
big three and the more

1:08:50.141 --> 1:08:52.881
interesting four,
and then go out there and put

1:08:52.875 --> 1:08:54.005
them into practice?

1:08:54.010 --> 1:08:57.820
It feels a little bit like
the--like we're trying to pass

1:08:57.815 --> 1:09:02.575
on an acquired characteristic,
which is a little bit counter

1:09:02.579 --> 1:09:07.219
to Darwinian theory but if
somehow you could design a

1:09:07.223 --> 1:09:11.603
proclivity for learning this
kind of material,

1:09:11.600 --> 1:09:14.490
evolution might indeed favor it.

1:09:14.490 --> 1:09:16.070
I can tell you this much.

1:09:16.069 --> 1:09:20.229
It would make the several
thousands social psychologists

1:09:20.234 --> 1:09:23.954
in this world very happy and
proud of their field,

1:09:23.945 --> 1:09:26.515
if that turned out to be true.

1:09:26.520 --> 1:09:27.030
Anyway, thank you all very much.

1:09:27.030 --> 1:09:31.340
Happy Valentine's Day!

1:09:31.340 --> 1:09:33.000
Thanks!