A Critical Evaluation of The Psychology of the Internet

Humans are social being, and over the course of time we have developed many new ways in which to interact with one another. The study of human behavior and interaction has been of interest to many psychologists. Yet despite all that has been accomplished in this field, there is still much to learn, especially with the rapid advance of technology and constant creation of new means of communication. The addition of the internet into our social lives over the past two decades has extended this realm even more, almost to the point of being overwhelming. Although much of what we know about human behavior carries over to our online activities, the Internet also introduces several different features of interaction and thus entirely new areas of study, and all within a sphere almost too recent for much research. Patricia Wallace, a pioneer in the study of this field, wrote The Psychology of the Internet, which “examines how we behave when we act and interact online, and why the characteristics of the medium can affect our behavior in surprising, and sometimes troubling, ways (p. xiii). In writing this book, Wallace hopes to “explore the psychological impact of the online world on our behavior, and show how the medium itself can influence the way we act in surprising ways” (p. 12). She also hopes to “suggest ways we can all use this knowledge to improve the psychological climate of the Internet” (p. 12). As groundbreaking research for those involved in both psychology and the Internet, Wallace’s book offers us a glimpse into this fascinating, new world. In the beginning of her book, Wallace offers seven environments that can be found online. They are 1.) the World Wide Web- which has uses ranging from library to reference manual to phonebook, 2.) email- a form of communication similar to postal mail or telegraphs, 3.) asynchronous discussion forum- newsgroups or “ongoing conferences” where members can posts their thoughts and read or reply to others thoughts at any time, 4.)synchronous chats- chatrooms or instant messenger services, where members can “chat” with each other in real-time, 5.) MUD- online games, fantasy worlds and virtual realities, 6.) metaworlds- graphical, multi-user, highly-imaginative worlds, 7.) interactive video and voice- ability to see someone and/or hear their voice over the Internet. Together, these environments help make the internet a type of “global village”, where people of any gender, race, location or background can interact and “dwell” together. (pp. 5-8) In Chapter two, Wallace explains that your online persona is how you come across to people while interacting over the Internet (p. 14). Warm or cold are two ways to describe the degree of kindness or politeness in someone, but these are predominantly measured by nonverbal cues. Because most of the interaction that takes place over the Internet involves very little nonverbal, it makes warmth or coldness difficult to distinguish. Our personalities are also somewhat obscured; since studies show what we type is not always what we would say in person (p. 17). Fortunately, by allowing users to express some degree of nonverbal language, additions to the online world such as emoticons, sounds and lexicons are helping to “thaw the icy environment” we find online (p. 18). Social psychologists Susan Fiske and Shelley Taylor came up with the term cognitive miser to describe how Internet users are interested in “conserving energy and reducing cognitive load” (p. 19). In other words, to avoid being overwhelmed with information, we rely heavily on just a few cues of another’s personality. One example of this online is the email address. The domain you use for your email can be just as powerful as way you choose to express yourself to the left of the @ sign. Whereas a jwineberg@yale.edu might command some respect in the academic field, you might find customerservice@dell.com more helpful in assessing your current computer problem, and you would probably not ask momof3@homemaker.org where the best clubs in town are (p. 20). In fact, Wallace asserts that we are all “naïve scientist” who attempt to form impressions of others the simplest and fastest way possible, which usually involves stereotyping and often leads to error. We are typically victims of confirmation bias, which is the desire to go with our original impression and ignore opposing evidence while seeking out confirming evidence, which is even easier to do with a tangible internet chat conversation (p. 26). Homepages are one way that Internet users can create an impression of themselves for others easy access. Although homepages “allow us to experiment with our online self-presentations,” they also encourage a greater focus on oneself and what psychologist David Elkind refers to as the imaginary audience, during which there is an inflated “sense that others are watching us with interest” (p. 34). The Internet provides a way to represent oneself to the whole world with ease, and it is therefore just as simple to misrepresent oneself. Chapter three discusses this area. Wallace states, “The characteristics of the online world trigger a wide assortment of role plays, deceptions, half-truths, and exaggerations, partly because anonymity and the absence of visual auditory cues allows them, and at the same time insulate us from the consequences” (p. 39). Because the Internet offers the novelty of toying with our own identities, issues such as gender swapping and age altering are very common. The Internet is a lawless world, and without nonverbal cues it is even more difficult to spot deceit. Wallace does offer that the words of truthful subjects are “more likely to be complete, direct, relevant, clear, and personalized” while those who are being deceitful are more likely to evasive and indirect (pp. 52-53). Because it is so difficult to distinguish between true or false online, we are likely to use stereotypes online more often than in the real world (p. 54). With the ability to meet so many individuals in one place and to easily look up those with the same interests and hobbies as us, it is no surprise that online groups have flourished over the past several years. Chapter four explores group dynamics online. There are two types of groups online: those involving individuals who already know each other and are just staying in touch and those formed to draw people together with common interests who have not yet met and who might never meet in real life (p. 58). In either type of group, conformity is very common, as members of each group begin to have more influence over one another. Studies show that because of the absence of physical presence and the possibility of anonymity, members of online groups are less likely to conform than in real life (p. 61). Yet, despite this deficiency, “customs and conventions have emerged, and tightly knit and successful groups flourish on the Internet” (p. 61). This is due to new strategies that were formed to create the accord that is so valuable in groups. One example of Internet conformity is email. Even with its many possibilities, most people use email informally, and it is often loaded with abbreviations, simplified spellings, punctuation errors and deviations, ungrammatical sentences and asterisks, all of which are not only accepted but even preferred (pp. 62-63). It is difficult to say just exactly how one should behave on the Internet, especially since it consists of communities from every different cultural background and social standing. Therefore, if someone every does breach these unspoken rules, the chastisement is generally much more public than in the real world, and is usually followed by the offender either conforming or leaving the group (p. 68). Many online groups have also employed a “moderator,” usually an unpaid volunteer who can act as a calming influence and help resolve disagreements (p. 70). Moderators are necessary because most groups expect new members to conform to the group’s standards. Because of this, polarization is much more common online, and the moderate voice is extremely rare. When groups talk things out they tend to polarize to one end, and the Internet is full of instances where group members are talking (p. 74). Because groups and choices of topics are almost infinite on the Internet, biased discussions tend to ensue, which lead to polarization, then to extremism, and group members usually end up with inflated perceptions of their own rightness (p. 79). Because online groups are so biased, members are not likely to show dissent or encourage debate (p. 82). Although dissenters “feel more liberated to express their views online than off… unfortunately, their online remarks have less influence on the rest of the group” (p. 82). On the Internet, disagreeing can be done with fewer risks, especially if done anonymously, and therefore others might not pay as much attention to those who do attempt to oppose an idea. No pain, no gain. But one of the advantages to group discourse online is the lack of production blocking, in which, since only one person can talk at the same time, group members who are busy listening do not have time to think of their own ideas. With the advantage of online chats and the ability to refer to another chatter’s contributions only when it is convenient, production blocking is less likely to occur online (p. 84). Of course, with the rise of Internet groups comes the rise of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Chapter five discusses the inner workings of online groups. Minimal group phenomenon is “the tendency of people to identify with a group and favor its members, despite the arbitrariness and absurdity of the criteria for group membership” (p. 92). For most people, just simply being in a group is enough to create loyalty, regardless of how much the group members really have in common. Studies show that “we tend to perceive people who share our interests, whom we like, as more similar to us than they actually are” (p. 101). Because status cues are less visible on the Internet, group members are more likely to feel that other members are all on the same level as themselves, even when this is not likely to be the case (p. 101). Although it would seem that Internet groups have advantages over real life groups that allow members to get along better, there are still cases of flaming and fighting online. Chapter six analyzes the psychology of aggression on the Internet. First, it is interesting to note that there are higher levels of name-calling, swearing and insults online than in face-to-face encounters, but it is also important to realize that this type of behavior is more common in some areas of the Internet rather than in others (p. 111). This is mainly due to the environment. The Internet, especially in its earliest forms, provides many causes for aggression. Humans value their time, and difficulties making connection with the server, slow connections and loss of connection (especially in the middle of an email or conversation) are likely causes for aggression. Lag is the time it takes during chatting for whatever a chatter has typed to appear in the message box (p. 114). Internet chatters are most content when lag time is about 2 to 3 seconds but when it is at 8 or 9 seconds they easily get frustrated (p. 114). This is why the average message is about 6 words. Because synchronous chat is most similar to face-to-face conversation, rather than typing an entire paragraph at a time and waiting long stretches for them to appear, chatters prefer to enter a few words at a time, creating faster conversation (p. 115). But when we are frustrated, we tend to fall into the negative affect where “our ability to dispassionately reflect on the events around us declines, and we become more likely to lean toward a negative interpretation of stimuli that under other circumstances we might view as neutral (p. 116). In addition to frustrations created by the environment, the Internet also contains instances of flaming or fighting. “According to surveys, the most provocative kinds of insults are the ones in which someone appears to be attacking our character, competence, or physical appearance (p. 117). But these instances are probably not as common as some are led to believe. “One study revealed that flaming was more common in group forums than in private email” (p. 121). With flaming also comes the reproach or the retaliation. Because of the ability to remain anonymous on the Internet, aggressive behavior is even more likely than in real life (p. 125). With email, it is extremely simple and cheap to cause problems for someone, with the additional advantage of being far away (p. 126). Framing is a feature of flaming that allows one to quote from a sender’s remarks by simply cutting and pasting from the original message (p. 127), allowing one to present a very capable argument. Studies have shown that behaving aggressively usually increases one’s aggressive tendencies (p. 129). Because it is so much easier to behave aggressively online, those who do so are more likely to continue to do so, which could be why many find the Internet to be a hostile environment.Despite the presence of conflict and aggression, the Internet is also a place for liking and love, which is discussed in Chapter seven. Usually, two people meet in a group setting where they discover “something special” between them. They start backchanneling, or communicating by email, exchanging information, photographs, maybe phone calls and eventually real life visits. But some Internet relationships do not make it this far; they stay online and may never interfere with one’s real life (pp. 133-134). Contrary to popular belief, Internet friendships can be just as deep and meaningful as those made face-to-face. But it also takes longer to form a relationship online “because the cues you are using are limited” (p. 135). Although Internet relationships are very similar to those formed in real life, there is one considerable difference. Usually within real-life social circles, your friends are also your friend’s friends; but online, very few people introduce their online friends to any of their real-life friends or relatives (p. 136).Since many people meet begin a relationship online without having ever seen one another, it is interesting to discover what attracts them to someone online. Very often, we rely on physical attractiveness to form our judgments about another, but on the Internet “beauty’s power is restrained” (p. 138). Proximity is another reason why people become attracted to each other. Online, rather than physical proximity, we have intersection frequency, or “how often you run into that other person online” (p. 139). In order for that to occur, one must be an active participant in newsgroups and chats. One survey “demonstrated that Internet wallflowers are less likely to establish personal relationships than those who actively participate” (p. 140). Studies have also proven that similarity is attractive. Wallace says, “The law of attraction predicts liking from the proportion of shared attitudes, not the total number (p. 141). This is a good reason for attraction on the Internet, since many online groups tend to focus on only one area of discussion, and it is difficult and time consuming to attempt to learn where another person stands on other issues, there is a greater amount of perceived similarity (p. 141). A fourth cause of attraction is reciprocity of liking, we like those who like us. But on the Internet it is more difficult to show that you like someone. The most important method of communicating liking towards others online is by paying attention- responding to their message, agreeing with them or supporting their views and using their name (p. 145). Once past the attraction stage, self-disclosure is how two people get to know one another better. There is a tendency for people to disclose more on the Internet. Joseph Walther describes this as hyperpersonal. “You sit at a computer screen feeling relatively anonymous, distant, and physically safe, and you sometimes feel closer to the people on the other side of your screen whom you have never seen than to the people in the next room” (p. 151). When sitting at a computer, you can concentrate more on yourself, and you do not have to worry about how you look or what you are wearing (p. 151). The Internet is not only a place to form new relationships but also to maintain old ones, especially those made in real life. The Internet is especially useful in preserving long distance relationships because it provides easy and convenient ways to communicate (p. 152). It also provides a means of virtual passion and cyber sex. Wallace states, “The characteristics of the Internet make it attractive as a place to fantasize about sexual adventures and even act them out at the keyboard from a safe distance” (p. 154). This type of communication is very controversial, and it is very difficult to research what causes this phenomenon and the possible lasting effects (p. 154-155). Either way you take them, relationships formed on the Internet are vulnerable- “people may disclose too much, too soon, and they may idealize and fantasize in unrealistic ways” (p. 155). One of the more controversial aspects of the Internet is the amount of readily available pornography. Chapter eight is on the psychological aspects of Internet pornography. Psychologists have trouble agreeing on whether pornography is harmful or beneficial, but studies have shown that “men who viewed extremely attractive centerfolds and watched passionate, consensual sex in videos become somewhat less enthusiastic about the attractiveness of their own real-life partners” (p. 162). The long-term effects of pornography are still uncertain, particularly if it contains episodes of aggression (p. 163). A study by Donnerstien (1980) has shown that men who were exposed to aggressive films were influenced in their behavior toward women (p. 164). But the real concern in this area is the protection of children. With the difficulty of passing appropriate legislature, “the responsibility of protecting minors is now mainly in the hands of parents, teachers, and librarians who can choose to install various kinds of software to filter objectionable materials, restrict access to particular sites, and even stop a child from transmitting certain kinds of information, such as a home telephone number” (p. 168). Wallace makes four speculations concerning the psychological aspects of pornography. First, Internet pornography will probably be used in the same way that other pornography has been. Second, Internet pornography is more widely distributed and accessible to a greater number of people than other forms of pornography. Third, because of the online environment, people may feel at more liberty to explore and indulge in different aspects of online behavior. Finally, it is possible that increased exposure to pornography via the Internet will produce familiarity and therefore people will soon tire of this trend. (pp. 169-170). With the popularity of the Internet increasing, along with the amount of information and service available, it is no surprise that people are spending more and more of their time online. Chapter nine explores the Internet as a time sink. Kraut et. al (1998) “suggest that increased Internet use is not necessarily beneficial to one’s well being or social involvement” (p. 172). It was also found that as people spent more time online they spent less time communicating with their family and those in their real-life social circles. The more one used the Internet, the more likely they were to feel lonely and depressed (p. 172). It has even been speculated that there could be an Internet addiction disorder, or IAD (p. 172). One reason for this is the amount of control and independence that is available to Internet users. They have the ability to access whatever they want, whenever they want it (p. 175). Another cause could be the “heightened sense of influence over the distant worlds of politics, commerce, and entertainment” (p. 175). With increased access to domains that would never be available offline and would normally be out of our power to do so, Internet users are spending more time online and less in the real world (p. 177). Another reason why so many feel compelled to spend more time online is the amount of rewards they receive when doing so. Rewards can be social environments and “recognition and attention from unknown and potentially idealized others” in an environment where you can control how your persona comes across to others (p. 183). However, studies have shown that most Internet users who consider themselves “dependent” are new to the online world, and the majority of those that did not feel “dependent” on the Internet had been online for at least a year (p. 187). Because we are constantly hearing about instances of violence and aggression on the Internet, many do not think acts of kindness on the Internet occur as often as they do. Chapter ten is dedicated to revealing altruism on the net. While the psychological environment of the Internet seems to promote meanness and aggression, it also encourages kindness. Internet users are very willing to provide information and assistance to others. There are also a number of support forums available online that offer advice or just a listening ear to anyone who might be struggling with a particular issue (p. 191). Wallace states, “… men tend to leap into the fray in an emergency in which physical action and superior strength are a plus, but women tend to help more when nurturing and emotional support are called for” (p. 199). Therefore, on the Internet men are more likely to provide technical assistance while women are more likely to be involved in online support groups (pp. 199-200). One advantage those seeking help have with the Internet is that it is much simpler to find and communicate with someone experiencing the same problem online than it is in real life (p. 201). By connecting people with all sorts of needs from all over the world the chances of finding someone to connect with on certain issues are much greater online. Often individuals prefer to discuss their problems with a computer or even a stranger rather than someone they know (pp. 203, 205). And obviously the issue of anonymity allows those dealing with embarrassing or illegal issues to be more open in their discussions (p. 206). And so, despite the number of disturbing instances that occur on the Internet, there are also a great number of acts of kindness and altruism.Gender also has its role on the Internet, which is the topic of Chapter eleven. Studies have shown that, on average, men are more aggressive, competitive, dominant and task oriented while most women are relational, empathetic and sensitive to others emotions and feelings (p. 209). It is important to remember that not all men and women fall into these categories, but the majority does. But on the Internet, the cues associate with gender are much more vague. For instance, because women tend to be more emotional, we expect that they would use more emoticons in their online conversations. Witmer and Katzman (1997) found that women do use graphic accent more than men, but neither use them very often. What was more surprising was that women were more likely to send proportionally more flames and challenges than men, even though they do not post as much (p. 215). Savicki et. al (1996) also did a study of online posts and found that “the groups with a higher percentage of men also contained posts with more calls to action” and the groups with more women have “posts with more self-disclosure” and “more attempts at tension prevention and reduction” (p. 218).Online communication between men and women may also pose some problems. According to Wallace, “In an environment in which contention can flare up so quickly, where it is so easy to misinterpret people’s remarks, where anonymity and physical distance provide protection from counterattack, online harassment is more likely” (p. 227). Also, because it is so simple to conceal one’s identity online, offenders are much more difficult to trace and stop (p. 227). Although currently the Internet is a male dominated frontier, there are an increasing number of women online. With this increase, gender differences are becoming more noticeable, but despite the differences between the Internet and the real-world, most gender stereotypes carry over from one to the other.
One of the most surprising findings of recent studies mentioned in The Psychology of the Internet is how similar, in social terms, this “alternate universe” is to our real-world. Although there are many substantial differences, such as the option of anonymity or the ability to swap genders, ages and occupations, many issues in social behavior, such as impression formation, group dynamics, attraction, aggression, altruism and gender stereotyping carry over from one world to the other. I found it quite ironic that while writing this paper, the Internet in our flat went down. For two entire days we were without connection to our “virtual world” and the difference was worth noting. On the first morning of the “crash” the girls in my flat all sat around that table in the computer room, pretending to be reading or doing work, but really just hoping to kill some time before the net was back up again. After an hour or so most of us resigned to the fact that it wasn’t going to happen anytime soon, and by lunchtime everyone had left. I was alone to work on my paper and the only person in the house for the first time since arriving here. Despite the fact that the Internet was still down by evening, all my flatmates were forced to return to the house for dinner. And once again I noticed some new developments in our house. First, without the ability to sit and talk to those outside of our house via the Internet, we were obligated to visit with each other. Several of my flatmates just sat around and talked while doing work that night, and when I cam back in several hours later they were still there visiting, something I don’t recall ever happening before this event. In fact, my one roommate, who happens to have her own computer and Internet connection in her room, actually made an appearance outside of her room for once and we actually had a real conversation for quite a while. (This is the same roommate who often instant messages me while we are sitting in the same house.)In addition to not being able to communicate others outside of the house, our friends also were not able to contact us via the Internet. Therefore, our acquaintances here in Oxford who wanted to make plans for the evening had to either call or, even more incredible, actually come visit. This is the only time that I can remember people stopping with no other objective than to see what was going on. Finally, one girl couldn’t take it any longer, and asked me to walk down the road with her to see if we could check our email at our friend’s house. I really hesitated to stop by someone’s house without being invited, or at least instant messaging them to let them know ahead of time (these are the friend’s that never answer the phone, so that was also pointless). Personally, I was afraid that by knocking on the door of our neighbor’s we would possibly be interrupting them in their work, or perhaps the people in that house didn’t want to see anyone that night, maybe they just wanted to stay in and watch a movie. Why are we so much more comfortable sending someone an instant message or an email rather than calling or actually meeting with them face to face, especially, as in this case, when those people are our friend’s, with whom we spend a lot of time? Part of it may be having the appearance of an intruder or risking rejection. It we had been able to call our friends prior to stopping by, it might have been a little easier. This is because we feel safe with distance. If our friend’s had said they were busy and couldn’t see us that night, it would have been much easier to hear over the phone than be told in person while you’re standing in the doorway. Since this is the case, instant messaging or emailing, which is considered less intrusive, is even more enticing. When telephones first came out in the United Kingdom they were installed in the servant’s quarter, because it was considered rude to call without notice and those doing the calling did not want to intrude on anyone else’s time (p. 174). With the Internet, you don’t have to worry about that. Usually, if someone is on Instant Messager it is to communicate with others, and if they are not around or don’t want to talk they can always leave or put up an “away message.” Because of this, and the informal nature of most Internet communication, it is preferable to simply leave a message, rather than call or stop by someone’s house. That way, you’re giving the other person some control, and if they want to get back to you and let you know it’s okay to stop by to borrow their computer, they can let you know at a time that is convenient for them. For some people, especially those like myself, the Internet provides a revolutionary means of communication. Every time I go online I have the opportunity to talk to people that I would have never called, much less went to visit. But this also poses a problem, because it is so easy (and less risky) to contact others from the safety of our computer chairs, many people are less likely to leave the comfort of their own homes. Home visits are becoming scarcer and, in the most severe cases, some people have all but abandoned their real-world relationships for those they have online.Without the ability to leave messages for our friends, or at least read their “away messages” to know where they were or what they were doing, my roommate and I did end up walking down the road to visit our friends, going out for the evening and even meeting up with some of our other acquaintances. Our day without Internet taught us that even without our usual means of communication it is still possible, although not always as convenient, to meet up with friends and make plans. But for some, like my flatmate, this is not enough. Upon returning home and finding that the network was still down she declared she had “no reason to live” and was going to bed. And she did, hours earlier than I’ve ever seen her do.In analyzing our dependence, or obsession, with the Internet I wonder what our grandparents would say. It is interesting to note that even though the Internet is fairly new (most of my friends and I have only been “online” for the past 5 or 6 years), we have come to rely on it very heavily. Sometimes, usually after discovering that I have spent several hours online, I try to remember what I did with my time before I had the Internet. I agree with Wallace when she speculates that Internet addiction is often a “newbie disease” (p. 186). I certainly do not spend nearly as much time online as I did when I was first connected. But for some people IAD may be an ongoing problem, even after the novelty has long worn away. For some people, like my flatmate, a life without the Internet could just as well be a life not worth living. Although this may be taking things a bit far, Internet dependency is very real, in the same sense that we can’t imagine a world without telephones or cars. But it is not something that should be ignored, nor should many cases be taken too seriously. The Internet is, as Clifford Stoll says in Silicon Snake Oil, “an unreal universe, a soluble tissue of nothingness. While the Internet beckons brightly, seductively flashing an icon of knowledge-as-power, this nonplace lures us to surrender our time on earth. A poor substitute it is, this virtual reality where frustration is legion and where – in the holy names of Education and Progress – important aspects of human interactions are relentlessly devalued” (p. 233). As a means of informal communication and information sharing, the Internet has proven to be extremely valuable, but when it becomes an alternate society or a means of indulging in fantastic behavior, it is best to return to the real world.

Wallace, Patricia. The Psychology of the Internet. Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Rules of Attraction

Everyone is involved in relationships, whether it is at home, work, school or in the neighborhood. Some relationships, such as family, are a matter of chance, but many other relationships, like friends and lovers, are the result of choice. Attraction is what compels us to choose whether or not to continue a relationship with a new acquaintance. Why is attraction not random? What is it about the others that surround us that lead us to either desire or spurn a further acquaintance? It is a common understanding that following an attraction, there are certain regulations that govern the quality and sustainability of a relationship, but it is just as important to understand the events and conditions leading up to a relationship – the rules of attraction. Most scholars would agree that attractiveness is based on, or on variations of, four characteristics: physical attractiveness, proximity, similarity and reciprocity.
First, it is important to emphasize that attraction may not always lead towards an actual relationship, therefore the rules of attraction should be viewed as only that, and not as an indication of the quality or stability of a relationship. Attraction may be what spurs us to form an attachment, but it is certainly not what sustains one, especially when the rules of attraction are not so very stable themselves- beauty is fleeting, people move or change occupations, and humans are apt to find new interests and ways to bide their time. It is also interesting to note that not all causes were equal. In a study by Aron et al. (1989) it was found that factors such as reciprocity of liking and physical attractiveness were more likely to lead to a romantic relationship, whereas factors such as similarity and proximity tended to lead towards a friendship (Sprecher, p. 288). Depending on the type and function of the future relationship, some rules of attraction may be more important than others.
The first, and no doubt the most obvious, cause for attraction is physical attractiveness. In most cases it is the first indication we have of someone’s character, and it is almost always subjective. Although many are reluctant to admit to relying on so superficial a level, it has been well established that everyone appreciates a beautiful person. Physical attractiveness may be a reasonable basis for initial attraction, but it is rarely used as a means to determine the stability of further acquaintance (Sprecher, p. 298). In other words, once involved in a relationship, individuals are less likely to base their satisfaction in the relationship on physical appearance, even if it was the means of drawing them together. It is also fairly well known that physical attraction carries far more weight for men than it does for women, who tend to prefer to focus on attitudes, values and personality (Sprecher, p. 297). While men are apt to be drawn to a beautiful, young woman, women are more likely to go for an established, honorable man.
Not only does the importance of physical attractiveness vary by gender, but also by culture. There are some universal standards of physical attractiveness, according to Ford and Beach (1951) such as cleanliness and a healthy complexion (Sabini, p. 463). But there are also some differences, even within the same country. For instance, Singh and Luis (1995) found that white American women tend to value slimness, whereas black American women do not think obesity is unattractive (Brehm, p. 76). Separate cultures not only have standards for beauty, but also for what beauty signifies in another person. Although most cultures would agree with the “what is good is beautiful” concept, they may not agree on just what is good. For example, Berscheid and Reis found that in North America, people “perceived attractive persons to be high in potency while Koreans did not, and Koreans perceived attractive people to be higher in integrity and concern for others but North Americans did not” (Gilbert et. al, p. 208).
Proximity is another factor in the case for attraction. Humans feel comfortable with what is familiar and tend to be attracted to those they see frequently rather than those that they rarely come in to contact with. The closer we are to someone physically, the more likely it is that there will be an attraction. Zajonc (1968) came up with the “mere exposure” hypothesis which states that the more we are exposed to an object the more attractive it becomes (Berscheid, Reis, p. 205). Like physical attractiveness, proximity is also most useful in drawing two people together, rather than in maintaining that relationship (Sprecher, p. 298). Anyone with old high school friends, or who has experienced moving or changing jobs, knows this to be true. Although it is very helpful in forming a friendship, proximity is not necessary in order to continue that relationship, especially with improved means of communication and travel.
Not only are humans attracted to others with whom they are familiar, but also to those with similar attitudes, beliefs and interests. According to Carol Werner and Pat Parmelee, "It is commonly believed that attitude similarity serves as the strongest foundation for lasting friendship" (p. 62). But just as similarity leads one to be attracted to another, so does dissimilarity cause one to appear unattractive. Hinde says, “…a number of studies (mostly conducted in the USA) have shown that married couples or chosen partners tend to come from similar backgrounds; to have similar physical characteristics; or to have or to perceive each other similar cognitive abilities, attitudes, values, and personality traits” (p. 115). In the same way, we tend not to be attracted to those whose backgrounds, characteristics or attitudes are different from our own. This is because similarity is rewarding. It has been found (Byrne, 1971; Clore, 1977; Clore & Byrne, 1974) that similarity in attitude is reinforcing because it provides confirmation of the subject’s actions or opinions (Hinde, p. 129). Being with someone who is similar to us helps us to feel good about ourselves, both physically and emotionally, and helps to confirm what we believe.
Finally, the more someone likes us the more we like them. Reciprocity of feelings is a means of attraction. Just simply knowing that someone is interested in us will often spur us to get to know them better. Berscheid states, “Individuals generally view others who like them as potential sources of help and unlikely sources of harm (p. 206). And in already formed acquaintances, it is obvious that knowing that someone likes you is a good reason to continue the friendship. At the risk of sounding vain, this principle is similar to the previous one- attraction based on similar beliefs and interests. Clearly, given that one is content with oneself, it should naturally be found attractive when someone is attracted to you. Therefore, it can be deduced that we are attracted to those who reciprocate our attraction because it shows an agreement in tastes and beliefs, which humans find reinforcing.
While riding the bus one day, I noticed a magazine lying on the seat across the aisle, I picked it up to flip through and ironically came across the article: “The Seven Laws of Attraction: Why the chemistry between you is more important than you think.” After having spent several days studying the scholarly point of view, I thought it would be interesting to read how a popular magazine, aimed at modern women and consisting mainly of articles on fashion, beauty and men, would present this subject. Dismissing “stupid cupid” and claiming it is biology that dictates our initial romantic feelings, Flic Everett and Red magazine cite seven “scientific facts” that influence attraction. Those already acquainted with this subject will not be surprised to find proximity and similarity (of both attitudes, backgrounds and “love stories” or notions of romance) on the list, but I find it rather odd that physical attraction did not make the seven, especially for a magazine that only pictures the most beautiful on every other page. I can only assume that the author thought it either too obvious or overdone, or felt that readers would be offended to learn that their attraction is based on merely the physical, a fact many individuals would rather not admit. The article also introduced several new factors, such as a “compatible birth order”- saying the best match is a first-born female and a youngest male, “the perfect height ratio”- which for women is a man whose ratio to yours is 1:1.09, and most interestingly if “he looks like your mom.” Apparently, “we tend to be instinctively attracted to people who look like the first person we bonded with as a child,” which is typically the mother. It would certainly be interesting to further investigate these “scientific facts” but one thing Everett and the social psychologists do agree on is that opposites do not attract.
And this is precisely the area that I struggle to agree with the professionals on. Be it elementary science lessons on magnetism or the influence of pop-culture, such as Paula Abdul’s song “Opposites Attract,” I have always that it was so… until recently. Anthony Giddens, author of The Transformation of Intimacy, describes intimacy as when, “The other, by being who he or she is, answers a lack which the individual does not even necessarily recognize – until the love relation is initiated. And this lack is directly to do with self-identity: in some sense, the flawed individual is made whole” (Giddens, p. 45). So the question is, “How much opposition is healthy?” A lack of attraction in couples is attributed to “being too different” just as much as it is caused by “being too much alike.” Giddens is not saying that a person who likes hard rock music should be with someone who likes classical piano. What he is saying is that, through intimacy, one person can become stronger by coupling himself/herself with someone whose strengths may be in the other’s weak areas and vice versa. Intimacy is not two halves attempting to create a whole, but it is about two completely individual beings that come together and produce a strong pair. The concept of attraction is not necessarily the combination of two opposing viewpoints but of one person discovering characteristics he/she might lack in another. Perfect intimacy, I believe, is found in a balance of shared backgrounds, attitudes and interests and a perceived compensation of each member’s weaknesses.
Although there are many factors that influence our decision to further a new acquaintance, the four main ones are physical attractiveness, proximity, similarity and reciprocity. Each of these plays a different role in determining attractiveness and the stability of a relationship. It is also important to note that these characteristics, particularly that of physical attractiveness, vary by gender and culture. It should also be stated that although these “rules of attraction” have been developed through extensive research and scientific study, relationships are as unique as the individuals that make them up, and therefore it is impossible to put all relationships, and how they are formed, into the neat little categories discussed above.

Berscheid, Ellen. “Attraction and Close Relationships.” Chap. 22. The Handbook of Social Psycholgoy, Vol. II. 4th ed. 1998.
Everett, Flic. “The 7 Laws of Attraction.” Red. November 2004. pp. 123-124.
Giddens, Anthony. The Transformation of Intimacy.
Hinde, Robert. Relationships: A Dialectical Perspective. (1997).
Sabini, John. Social Psychology. 2nd ed. (1995).
Sprecher, Susan. Insiders perspectives on reasons for attraction to a close other. Social Psychology Quaterly, 1998. Vol. 61, No. 4, 287-300.
Werner, Carol and Parmelee, Pat. Similarity of Activitiy Preferences Among Friends: Those who play together stay together. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1979. Vol. 42, No. 1, 62-66.

Rewards and Costs of Social Relationships

Humans are inherently selfish. We want the best deal we can get. And that goes for buying goods in the marketplace as well as in our friendships. Whether we are willing to admit it or not, rewards and costs play a significant role in the stability of our social relationships. Or more specifically, the balance of rewards and costs have a substantial impact on the continued existence of our relationships.
If a reward is anything positive incurred, and a cost is anything negative, then the outcome of our relationships is equivalent to the rewards of a relationship minus its costs. Most would assume that a good relationship would be one where the rewards exceed the costs, but this is not necessarily true. Steve Duck claims that over-benefiting from a relationship can be just as destructive as under-benefiting (Friends for Life, pp. 110). Those who are receiving more out of a relationship than they are putting into it may begin to feel guilty or awkward. Duck says, “When a relationship is not fair for both partners, it hits the rocks extremely hard …” (pp. 107). Clearly, a balance is key to the success of a relationship.
But a balance of rewards and costs does not mean each partner receives equal rewards and pays equal costs. Equity, in the social sense, is much more related to the Marxism concept of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In other words, as Adams says (1965) equity “exists when each person’s benefits from being in a group – his outputs relative to his inputs – are equal to every other person’s outputs relative to their inputs” (Sabini, p. 404). It is important to understand that equity is not equality. For example, when my friends and I got out for dinner, the equal thing to do would be to split the bill among the number dining, but the equitable thing to do would be for each person to pay the amount that his/her meal cost. It makes perfect sense that that I would not be willing to pay the equivalent of a steak dinner if I only ate a plate of breadsticks, but it is not something so easily considered in social relationships. Often we expect our friend or partner to do their equal share of the work, when really we are the ones benefiting the most. When I first moved in to our flat, I became discouraged because one girl never bothered to do the dishes, then I realized that she never used dishes, she always eats out or munches on crackers right out of the package. Therefore, it would not have been fair for me to expect her wash as many dishes as the rest of us.
This concept of fairness, or “returning good for good” is universal. All cultures see this form of social exchange as necessary (Brown, p. 54). Although the theory is common, the goods themselves may differ. Whereas in America we pay $20.00 for a shirt, in some countries one might exchange a few chickens for a top. In the Western world, costs and rewards may be more influential than in other countries. For instance, if someone feels that they are not receiving adequate rewards for the amount of costs of a relationship, one option is to simply get out. In other cultures, commitment carries more weight than equity. That is why some cultures do not have divorce. So although the exchange theory is felt throughout the world, it is not always carried out in the same way.
Prior to my arrival in England, I worked for six weeks as a waitress, mostly because I needed the money, but also because I felt that every girl should waitress at some point in her life. Before this occupation, I had always been somewhat annoyed with the whole tipping process. Why couldn’t the employer just pay servers a substantial amount and save us all from having to calculate the appropriate percent, or from the inconvenience of forgetting to include the tip in our mental assessment of an eating-out budget? Now, after having put my time in as a dining-servant (because that’s pretty much what we are), my ideas have altered. With the knowledge of an immediate reward of tips in the back of every waitress’ mind, they are, in most cases, more likely to serve with a smile and are more willing to accommodate the customer in any way possible. This experience taught me the true value of a customer.
Waitressing is a unique occupation in that, rather than your boss or employer assessing your work ethic and adjusting your wages accordingly, the customers evaluate your service, and the amount of money you make at the end of each night is directly dependent on how much you put in to your job. A waitress-customer relationship is clearly a good example of one based on costs and rewards. But restaurants and shops are not the only place where this plays a major role. In analyzing costs and rewards, friendships or romantic relationships may not be the first to come to mind, but they are very likely the most impacted by this type of social exchange.
Costs and rewards have their place even in the very beginning stages of friendship. Brehm states, “We are attracted to those whose presence is rewarding” (p. 68). But they also influence our decision to remain in a relationship or to go in search of another. Because humans are inherently selfish and always searching for the best possible deal, it is typically not unusual for someone to leave a good relationship for another one simply because it is better. That is not to say that one was discontent with the former relationship, but only that the alternative posed a much greater incentive. As Brehm also said, “People don’t divorce when they get unhappy; they divorce when their prospects … seem brighter elsewhere” (p. 161). With this in mind, Buunk (1987) suggests that in addition to high satisfaction and a low perceived quality of alternatives, the size of investment in the relationship is also an important factor to consider in commitment (Hewstone, p. 396).
One would assume that a person involved in a relationship where the costs far outweighed the goals, in an unhappy relationship, would soon leave. The closer one becomes to another, the more shared ideas and activities that exist between them, the more there is invested in the relationship. Investments are what tie individuals together, such as “investing time and energy, by making sacrifices, by developing mutual friends, by developing shared memories, and by engaging in activities, hobbies and possessions that are integrated in the relationship” (Hewstone, p. 396). The higher the level of investments in a relationship, the greater the commitment. Although this is usually regarded as a positive aspect of relationships, investments can have their drawbacks. One area of controversy in the study of relationships is how much investment should be allowed to influence commitment. Just as investments may be the means of keeping the nuclear family intact, they also play a large role in keeping unhealthy relationships together. For instance, women in abusive relationships are more likely to return to their partner, despite the abuse, simply because they have so much invested in the relationship.
It is easily understood that costs and rewards have a significant place in society. Humans want the greatest reward at the least cost in areas ranging from shopping and everyday business exchanges to intimate relationships. But the fact that there needs to be a balance, and an equitable balance at that, is often overlooked. In order for a relationship to be successful, each partner needs to be receiving an adequate reward in proportion to what they are putting into the relationship. Finally, it is not enough to consider only the amount of satisfaction and number of alternatives in assessing the quality of commitment, but one must also consider the value of investments when considering whether to continue with or terminate a relationship.

Brehm, Sharon. Intimate Relationships. Third edition. 2002.
Brown, Roger. Social Psychology: The Second Edition. 1986.
Hewstone, Mile. Introduction To Social Psychology. Third edition. 2001.
Duck, Steve. Friends for Life. The Harvester Press Limited: Sussex. 1983.
Sabini, John. Social Psychology. 1992.

Does research on friendship formation help us to understand close long-term relationships and vice versa?

In the study of relationships there are significant links between the formation of friendships and long-term relationships. Just as the creation of the foundation of a building can have long-term effects on the structure itself, so do the beginning stages of a friendship provide the groundwork for the future of that relationship. But that is not to say that a friendship’s beginning is always determinate of its outcome. The formation of a friendship is not a perfect indication of the future of that relationship, but studying the formation of friendships is an excellent way to better understand the friendships themselves. According to Hinde, “There is considerable evidence that the viability of friendships … is predictable quite early on” (pp. 467). And a description of the primacy effect draws similar conclusions. According to Brehm, information we receive about another person early on carries “special weight” in our general, lasting impression of them (pp. 96). Many would agree that first impressions play a considerable role in the formation of friendships, and thus the likelihood of their continuance. There are several factors to consider when developing first impressions.
Typically, the first step in any relationship is attraction. But Hewstone and Stroebe emphasize “the fact that attraction does not necessarily lead to friendship, but that friendship implies more, i.e., an interdependent relationship that includes a willingness to coordinate actions and to take the interests of the other into account” (pp. 381). In other words, attraction does not guarantee that the friendship will develop, but it is certainly a very good indication. There are several other factors that influence the outcome of an attraction. One is the environment (Hewstone, pp. 381). The simple fact that two individuals are sharing in one another’s presence increases their chances of forming a friendship. Brehm would also include convenience and familiarity in her assessment of proximity (pp. 690). The closer one is to another, and the greater number of meetings and amount of time one spends with another, enhance the likelihood of a friendship. A study done in Israel led to the development of similar conclusions. In dormitories that had private restrooms there was very low interaction among the students, whereas in dormitories where the restroom facilities are shared, the interaction was much greater, and more friendships were formed (Hewstone, pp. 381). I have found this to be true in my own university situation. Although the newer halls have nicer dorm rooms and private baths, the sense of community is much more pronounced in the older residence halls, where students must share toilets, showers and sinks. The newer residence halls at my home college also have a fire safety feature that causes dorm room doors to automatically shut if not propped open, which leads to many a hall of closed doors. The older residence hall doors can automatically stay open. Because of the increased visibility and interaction, more friendships are formed on these types of halls, and resident assistants like them because they are renowned for having good community. Halls with good community increase the probability of friendships being made on those halls, which are likely to last even after the students have moved out of those residence halls.
In addition to propinquity, similarity of attitudes is also a cause of friendship. We are often attracted to those who have similar attitudes, beliefs, standards, interests, situations, etc. in life. “According to social comparison theory, when comparing our opinions on new issues, we might benefit more from talking to others who hold the same attitudes as we do than from talking to others who hold quite different views” (Hewstone, pp. 383). Of course, there are those challenge-seekers who prefer to form relationships with those whose attitudes differ from their own in order to be made stronger. Or there are many individuals who prefer someone who will compliment, rather than mirror, oneself. For instance, in a study down by Dryer and Horowitz, dominant individuals were found to be “most satisfied interacting with individuals who were instructed to play a submissive role” and vice versa (Hewstone, pp. 385). This type of relationship is often found in the marriage context.
One of the best examples of propinquity and similarity in the formation of friendships that I have seen recently was among our group of Americans who came to Oxford to study this semester. Even though most of the 150 of us had never met before, friendships were formed rather quickly. This had to do with the fact that a.) we saw each other every day, nearly all day and b.) we were all American students who were being forced to cope with living in a foreign land. Even though many of the students in the group would not have attempted to form a friendship with the same people had we all been back at home, these two factors led to many intense, quickly-forming relationships. Intense because many felt it was necessary support for survival and quickly-forming because the only other option was isolation. Hewstone states, “We are social beings, and the presence of others, especially when they provide us with social support, can be crucially important when we are faced with adversity such as stress and illness” (pp. 371). In this case, our adversity was dealing with a culture and social norms much different than our own. The stress of “fitting in” forced many of the students to form friendships so as to avoid relying on the support of strangers. Although there have been many positive results of these friendships, one quandary is the hindrance it puts on the probability of the American students making friends with the British students. Because, after two weeks, most have settled in and formed their stable attachments, it is less likely for them to reach out to those who are new to their world.
Friendships are very difficult to define, because they vary according to different cultures. In the Western world, friendships are much more relaxed, “in other societies … friendship is institutionalized, and may be marked by ritual (e.g. blood brotherhoods) and require even more lasting commitment” (Hinde, pp. 412). Many cultures have much more rigid contexts for the formation of friendships. Friendships not only vary across cultures, but also across time. Because of the continuously changing nature of friendship, it is extremely complicated to form one general definition. One thing that is clear about friendship across cultures and time is its mutuality. All friendships require the support of both individuals involved.
In the West, it should be noted that most relationships are not entities, but processes “in continuous creation through dialectical relations with other levels of social complexity” (Hinde, pp. 477). Relationships require hard work and motivation for success. Recognizing relationships as continual processes increases the importance of first-impressions during the formation stages of friendships and the impact they can have on long-term relationships.

Why we still read Jane Austen in 2004

“It is a truth universally acknowledged” that Jane Austen was a great novelist, but she did not always command such respect. During the years of her writing, Austen often had difficulty getting her works published; two of her novels and several of her short works were published posthumously. Although her stories were certainly read then, they became even more popular long after her death. Now, over 200 years later, Jane Austen is a name familiar in almost every household. Her books have found their way into college classrooms and high school curriculums. Each one of her novels can be found on film, some even have several different renditions. So why do we continue to love Jane Austen in 2004? It is Austen’s timeless themes that continue to draw readers to her stories centuries after her books were first published. Although we no longer wear petticoats, have servants to light the fire each morning or travel by carriage, some things are the same in 2004 as they were in 1804.
One of Austen’s themes that we still deal with today is reason versus the passions. Even though the Enlightenment and the Romantic periods have long passed, humans will forever be struggling to control their emotions and live rationally. Like Marianne, many young girls hearts are led astray only to return wounded, yet wiser. Many young women can relate to Marianne’s pain over losing her first love and to Elinor’s conscience as she learns to exercise her reasoning and good judgment in situations that are nearly out of her control. Bombarded by television and film, and with access to the lives of movie stars and famous musicians, Austen’s readers are also aware of the trials of being led by their imaginations, like Catherine Morland, and the dangers that are involved with attempting to make life something more than it really is. Austen helps remind us that reality is where we all really want to live and of the fulfillment that can be found in leading a rational life. But there should be a balance. As one of Austen’s most beloved heroines, Elizabeth Bennet is also a character that contemporary readers can relate to. Like Elizabeth, many of us have been guilty of forming hasty judgments and relying too much on what we believe is good sense but what is better described as prejudice. Although we do not want to completely rely on our emotions, being too rational or misusing our reasonability might cause us to miss how we really feel.
Friendships and families similar to those of Austen’s characters are also alive and well today. Like Elizabeth Bennet or the Dashwood sisters, we are often embarrassed by our relations. Just about everyone will admit to having either a crazy aunt or a wayward cousin; and many youth are hesitant to bring their friends home to meet their parents. But also like Austen’s characters, even though we might disagree with our relatives or find some of them odd, we should still respect them and value their position in the family as a whole. Mrs. Dashwood seems to contribute more to her daughters’ sufferings than she does to alleviate them, but both girls remain loving and dutiful daughters. Mr. and Mrs. Bennet are often the cause of great humiliation to Jane and Elizabeth, almost costing the girls their marriages, but neither daughter fails to include them in weighty decisions or to seek their approval. Austen readers can also relate to the bond between sisters in her novels or the friendships her characters share. Like Elizabeth, many today have a Charlotte Lucas, a friend who we love and cherish despite her seemingly foolish decision; and like the Dashwood sisters or Anne Elliot, we also have acquaintances that we would prefer not to spend time with but do anyway, whether it is because it is our duty or because of mutual friends. Jane Austen reminds us that no matter how agreeable or disagreeable we find our family or friends, it would be difficult to live without them.
Jane Austen’s greatest theme, and the one that is most surprisingly still common today, is that of love and marriage. Relationships today are much different than they were 200 years ago, as are the lives of those that form them. Austen’s stories are about a young woman’s quest for a man who can love her unconditionally and provide for her safety and happiness, and they also tell of the trials and difficulties that arise from such a search. Today, the means of procuring such a match have altered greatly, but the underlying principles remain the same. Although men like Wickham or Willoughby may have their pleasure for a season, it’s the Darcy’s and the Brandon’s of this world that young girls are really searching for. Despite the ease with which modern society falls in and out of relationships, despite the increase of pre-marital sex and despite the rise of the divorce rate, young women are still looking for the lifelong love and stability that the heroines of Austen’s novels discover by the end of their stories.
Although much of Jane Austen’s stories may seem too traditional or outdated, her principles and themes are very contemporary. Centuries after the Enlightenment, young people continue to seek knowledge and wisdom, and they are still learning to control their passions and submit to sound judgment. Two hundred years after Austen’s novels were written, families and friendships still play an important role in our lives. Although, at times, they may be incredibly embarrassing, completely infuriating or totally useless, like Austen’s characters we still love them and appreciate what they do for us. Most importantly, even though love and romance have undergone extensive transformation over the past several centuries, their underlying principles remain the same. Despite what modern society or academic authorities try to tell us today, young men and women of 2004 are no different then those of 1804- they still long for a the perfect match of mind and heart and the love and stability inherent of this beautiful union of marriage.

Parents and Parenting in Sense and Sensibility

In reading Jane Austen’s works, it soon becomes apparent that the parents of her heroines are either dead, such as Emma’s and Anne’s mothers or the Dashwood sister’s father; absent for much of the time, such as Sir Walter Eliot or Catherine’s Uncle Bertram; or very silly or incompetent, such as Mrs. Bennet or Mr. Woodhouse. In fact, it is not only the parents, but the majority of the adults in her novels that are portrayed in this way. Austen’s main characters are often independent and self-governed, they rely very little on parental guidance. If a child should happen to emulate one of her parents, it usually ends in disaster, such as Mrs. Bennet allowing Lydia to indulge in flirtatious behavior and follow the military around like she used to when she was Lydia’s age, or Mrs. Morland helping fuel her daughters love for Gothic-romance novels. In several of Austen’s novels, it is the daughter who directs her parents- Elizabeth attempts to dissuade her father from allowing Lydia to travel with the military and Anne helps her father to organize his finances. Sense and Sensibility is an Austen novel where the reader can see the danger of faulty parenting and over-indulgence. It also shows a daughter who is forced to sometimes act in her mother’s place and is often the one who makes the important decisions.
The opening of Sense and Sensibility offers the reader sketches of the two heroines and their mother. We are immediately aware of the disparity between Elinor and Marianne and where their mother tends to lean. Elinor has “a strength of understanding and coolness of judgment” and even though she is only nineteen, she is qualified to be the counselor of her mother (p. 24). Mrs. Dashwood is said to have a very eager mind, which usually leads to imprudence, but it is Elinor who counteracts that and brings order and control to the Dashwood family (p. 24). Like her mother and sister, Elinor is affectionate and possesses strong feelings, but unlike her mother and sister, she knows how to govern them (p. 24). In describing Marianne, Austen is also describing her Mrs. Dashwood, whom Marianne takes after. Both are “eager in everything;” both their “sorrows and joys have no moderation,” and despite being “generous, amiable, interesting” neither are very prudent (p. 24). It soon becomes clear that it is Elinor’s wisdom and good judgment that carries the family.
It is Elinor who is concerned with her sister’s sensibility, where “by Mrs. Dashwood it [is] valued and cherished” (p. 24). Because Mrs. Dashwood and her middle child are so much alike, they often encourage “each other … in the violence of their affection” (p. 24). Elinor, too, is afflicted by her father’s death, but “she could exert herself.” It is Elinor who takes over the household duties, such as receiving her family and giving them proper attention and finding a suitable living for them once they leave Norland. And it is Elinor who tries to encourage her mother to do the same. Almost immediately upon opening the book, the reader understands that Mrs. Dashwood is not to be considered a model mother, and Elinor is the one who will act as this figure.
As the story continues, the reader becomes aware of the amount of influence Mrs. Dashwood has on her middle daughter. Early in the novel, Mrs. Dashwood tells Elinor that she “can feel no sentiment of approbation inferior to love” (p. 32), and as Marianne can feel no emotion but in excess, she is the same way. Because they are so similar, Mrs. Dashwood is unable to restrain the feelings and behavior in Marianne that, in the future, nearly cause her death. Once Marianne had met Willoughby, she “abhorred all concealment where no real disgrace could attend unreserved; and to aim at the restraint of sentiments which were not in themselves illaudable appeared to her not merely an unnecessary effort but a disgraceful subjection of reason to commonplace and mistaken notions” (p. 61). Mrs. Dashwood responds by entering “into all their feelings with a warmth which left her no inclination for checking this excessive display of them” (p. 61). In fact, “whatever Marianne was desirous of, her mother would be eager to promote” (p. 137). Had Mrs. Dashwood not been blinded by her own sentiments and had she attempted to exercise parental control over her daughters behavior, especially towards Willoughby, the entire family might have been saved from a lot of pain.
Sense and Sensibility is often considered a novel of the education of a young woman, the story of Marianne Dashwood becoming an adult, but Marianne is not the only character who learns a difficult lesson, her mother is also forced to endure the same education. Once Marianne recovers from her illness her mother realizes that, “Marianne was restored to her from a danger in which, as she now began to feel, her own mistaken judgment in encouraging the unfortunate attachment to Willoughby had contributed to place her” (p. 280). But the reader should not suppose that Mrs. Dashwood has undergone too considerable an alteration, only a few paragraphs later Elinor finds that her mother can still employ her active imagination, which often makes everything more delightful than it is in reality (p. 281). Her first object, to see her daughters well married, is still present in her mind. Although we are never sure if Mrs. Dashwood becomes as sensible as Marianne does by the end of the story, considering the similarity of their minds, it is certain that Marianne’s mother was affected to some degree by her daughter’s distress and brush with death.
Like many other mothers of her time, Mrs. Dashwood is concerned with her daughters future, specifically that they marry well. But unlike other mothers, she is not interested in her future sons-in-law’s fortune or situation, for Edward “it was enough for her that he appeared to be amiable, that he loved her daughter, and that Elinor returned the partiality” (p. 31). And even though Mrs. Dashwood and her eldest daughter differ considerably, she truly believes in Elinor’s merit and wishes for everyone else to recognize her virtues too (p. 31). Despite their disagreements, Elinor shows the same respect towards her mother. When Mrs. Jennings invites the girls to London, she is unwilling to leave her mother until she is persuaded by her to do so. She also refrains from making decisions until after she has sought her mother’s counsel, such as when Marianne wishes to leave London and return home. Even though Marianne would rather go home to Barton, when her mother suggests that she stay in London she willingly submits (p. 184). Although their mother may not always display the best judgment or control over her feelings, her daughters still treat her with respect, value her opinion and appreciate her counsel.
Jane Austen’s stories tend to focus on a young woman who undergoes various trials and experiences before blossoming into a respectable adult. It is interesting that none of her heroines have the advantage of exemplary parents who can offer needed guidance, especially during the most crucial times of their daughter’s development. Like other parents in Jane Austen’s novels, Mrs. Dashwood can offer little assistance to either of her daughters as they experience the trials of love. In fact, Marianne’s mother often only adds to her distress, by encouraging her to indulge in the very sentiments that cause her to suffer even further. Despite the fact that Mrs. Dashwood is the older, more experienced adult she, too, must undergo the same difficult education as her daughters and learn the same life lessons with them. Elinor must often play the role of parent, but her and Marianne still show the same love and respect towards Mrs. Dashwood that she deserves as a mother.

Was Jane Austen a Feminist?

Prior to the beginning of the nineteenth century, it was believed that women were inferior to men both physically and intellectually. Entrapped by law, tradition and religion, women were forced into a position of subjection. Unable to own property, conduct business or vote, women had no other choice than to rely on those who could, their human counterparts- men. The close of the eighteenth century and the French Revolution brought about a rise in the demand for women’s liberty and equality, which carried through the following centuries, even until the present. Feminism was the term given to this “movement for the political, social and educational equality of women with men” (encyclopedia.com), and during this time we can begin to see evidence of these revolutionary ideas in women’s writings.
During this period, Jane Austen wrote her six main novels that focus on the same theme: love and marriage, particularly among women. It is no surprise then that Austen’s views on feminism have come in to question. Scholars and critics alike have argued that Austen was indeed a feminist, her writings offer clear proof, while others just as adamantly oppose such accusations, saying that Austen was a moralist and a conservative. In order to determine Austen’s stance on this subject, one must take a close look at her novels, such as Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, along with other novels and women writers of that time. Feminism has come a long way since the 1800s, and therefore it is also necessary to gain an understanding of what aspects of this movement were present during the time period Austen wrote in, and how these developments might have affected her writing. In this case, one of the best authors to compare Austen with is Mary Wollstonecraft. Considered by many as a founder of feminism, Wollstonecraft also wrote during the late eighteenth, and quite possibly influenced Austen and her writings.
In her essay, “A Vindication of the Rights of Women,” Wollstonecraft creates her case for the mistreatment of females and offers suggestions for the liberation of her sex. One theme that both Wollstonecraft and Austen share is that of marriage. Austen’s stories are all quite similar, starting with young females who, having become adults, are in want of a husband, and ending with the marriage of the young lady and the man whom she has finally procured. Wollstonecraft views marriage differently. She acknowledges that women “spend many of the first years of their lives in acquiring a smattering of accomplishments; meanwhile strength of body and mind are sacrificed to libertine notions of beauty, to the desire of establishing themselves – the only way women can rise in the world, - by marriage” (p. 86). While Austen’s novels tend to epitomize marriage as a happy ending to the trials of youth, Wollstonecraft feels that many women waste their time in preparing for an institution that will only increase their oppression.
In Jane Austen and the War of Ideas, Marilyn Butler explains the importance of emotion in novels when she says, “All agree that the stress on feeling rather than on reason, and on fine sensation rather than on activity, hold particular dangers for women, since, by encouraging passivity, it leads easily to submission (p. 43). Wollstonecraft would agree, as she says in “Thoughts on the Education of Daughters”, “Feeling is ridiculous when affected, and even when felt, ought not to be displayed” (p. 30). When thinking of Austen’s “feeling” characters, Marianne Dashwood is the first to come to mind. By the end of Sense and Sensibility, the reader understands that to allow oneself to be led by one’s emotions and feelings only leads to destruction. Like Marianne, we learn to behave like Elinor, who is able to exert herself to act rationally in spite of what she feels. Although Elinor behaves in a manner nearly opposite of the sentimental Marianne, she is certainly not considered a feminist character. Even though both Austen and Wollstonecraft do not believe that women should allow themselves to be overcome with emotion, Wollstonecraft sees it as a means of liberating women from an oppressed lifestyle of wrong education, whereas Austen views the rational life as what is natural and how women have been meant to behave all their lives.
As the most forward and independent of Austen’s heroines, Elizabeth Bennet is often cited as being a feminist character. In fact, Deborah Kaplan ventures to say, “Elizabeth’s outrageous unconventionality which, judged by the standards set in conduct books and in conservative fiction, constantly verges not merely on impertinence but on impropriety” (p. 185) and claims that Elizabeth plays a dominating role in which “she refuses the silence and subordination marked out for women” (p. 186). But can we say that Elizabeth is rebelling against the confines of her society, or only acting in accordance with her distinctive personality? Marilyn Butler states, “Elizabeth prides herself on her individualism and trusts her perceptions, never recognizing that her judgments are really grounded in her feelings” (p. 209). If this is the case, then Elizabeth is behaving no differently from Lydia, who also bases her actions on her emotions. Wollstonecraft condemns women when “their thoughts turn on things calculated to excite emotion and feeling, when they should reason, their conduct is unstable, and their opinions wavering – not the wavering produced by deliberation or progressive views, but by contradicting emotions” (p. 97). Women such as this, women like Lydia, end up in “a mixture of madness and folly” when “the passions [are] thus pampered, whilst the judgment is left unformed” (p. 98). Thus, the difference between Elizabeth and Lydia, the disparity that allows one to gain the advantage over the other, is Elizabeth’s acquired ability to reason. It would seem once again that Elizabeth is a child of Wollstonecraft’s ideas, but it must also be understood that Elizabeth did not become rational until after she was humbled by Darcy, and once rational she still chooses to marry him. Since Elizabeth readily attributes her new abilities to her future husband, even claiming to be “the happiest creature in the world” (p. 319) despite her impending marriage and life of submission, it would be difficult to consider her a feminist.
Although Elizabeth is not considered a conventional female for her period, in time she learns to value Darcy and, like Catherine in Northanger Abbey, to learn from her husband-to-be. But unlike we see in Northanger Abbey, Elizabeth and Darcy learn from each other, and even share a mutual esteem for one another. Like Wollstonecraft says in “Thoughts on the Education of Daughters,” “Love, unsupported by esteem, must soon expire, or lead to depravity; as, on the contrary, when a worthy person is the object, it is the greatest incentive to improvement, and has the best effect on manners and temper” (p. 35). Even Mr. Bennet shows an understanding for his daughter when he says, “I know you could neither be happy nor respectable, unless you truly esteemed your husband, unless you looked up to him as a superior. Your lively talents would place you in the greatest danger in an unequal marriage (p. 314). According to Mr. Bennet, and in turn Austen, an “equal” marriage, or a good one, means a wife must submit to her husband. And yet Austen also believes that it is important for both husband and wife to respect one another’s ideas and opinions, but we do not see Elizabeth attempting to dominate as she did earlier in the novel. She has now learned to submit to and come under the leadership of her husband, while still gaining his love and respect.
Unlike Wollstonecraft, Austen believes that marriage is the fulfillment of many a young girl’s destiny. Gilbert and Gubar “concede that, as a prudent gesture of apparent submission, Austen ends each novel with the heroine’s symbolic choice of a hero plainly destined to be the dominant partner in the marriage, while the heroine remains confined in the home” (Butler, p. xxx). Submission seems to be another theme in Austen’s novels. Wollstonecraft feels that “when education has been neglected, the mind improves itself, if it has leisure for reflection, and experience to reflect on; but how can this happen when [women] are forced to act before they have had time to think, or find that they are unhappily married” (“Thoughts on the …”, p. 36). Wollstonecraft believes in learning on one’s own and on women not being forced against their will, while conservative novelists, “stressed the importance of submitting to the guidance of a wise elderly mentor rather than to the example of books, or, worst of all, to the dictates of passion” (Butler, p. 95). Although Austen’s novels do not usually contain “a wise elderly mentor,” she is an advocate of discipline and self-denial, and her characters are apt to submit to someone of higher understanding, typically the men they end up marrying.
As Tony Tanner says in Jane Austen, many of her heroines “manifest a ‘spirit of independence’ when subject to varying degrees of coercion or persuasion” (p. 33), but that is not to say that they are rebelling against society, rather Tanner compares Austen with Hannah Moore when she “asserts that the best kind of woman is ‘one who can reason and reflect, and feel and judge and discourse, and discriminate’, and that the most important quality or ability in a woman is the power to direct ‘the faculties of the understanding … and all the qualities of the heart, to keep their proper places and due bounds, to observe their just proportions and maintain their right station, relation, order and dependency’” (p. 34). Although Austen’s women are able to be rational and govern their own lives, they are also willing to submit to the social standards of propriety and womanly duty.
In comparing Austen and Wollstonecraft, it is clear that both authors think in a similar manner, and that their works have some overlapping ideas; but it is also important to note a major difference between these two women authors. While Austen may exemplify the oppression of women that Wollstonecraft is fighting against, she does not offer a resolution. Wollstonecraft is acting against society, while Austen is only portraying it. Austen’s heroines may reveal the sense of entrapment that Wollstonecraft discusses, and may even show somewhat of a rebellion against those standards of society, but in the end they find a happy existence within those principles- in marriage. We may find Austen’s novels useful in supporting Wollstonecraft’s, and other early feminist’s, ideas, but there is one thing lacking. Although Austen and Wollstonecraft have similar ideas, the main difference, the one that makes Austen not a feminist, is her unwillingness to actively oppose the institutions that many feminists find oppressive, or to pose a solution to what Wollstonecraft would refer to as the “oppression of women.”


Butler, Marilyn. Jane Austen and the War of Ideas. 1987.
Kaplan, Deborah. Jane Austen Among Women. 1992.
Tanner, Tony. Jane Austen. 1986.
Todd, Jane. A Wollstonecraft Anthology. 1989.