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!