Reаding 4 One оf the strоngest influences оn interpersonаl аttraction is nearness—sometimes called “propinquity.” This influence of nearness on what we like is called the “propinquity effect.” The people who, by chance, are the ones you see and interact with the most often are the most likely to become your friends and lovers. Of course, if the person in question is an obnoxious jerk, then, not surprisingly, the more exposure you have to him or her, the greater your dislike. But in the absence of such negative qualities, familiarity breeds attraction and liking. Familiarity can occur in a new way today—we can get to know each other through electronic mail and computer chat rooms. Computer-mediated communication offers a new twist on the propinquity effect; the fact that someone is thousands of miles away no longer means you can’t meet him or her. Are computer-based relationships the same as ones formed in everyday life? Do computer relationships survive when they move from computer screen to face-to-face interactions? Current research is beginning to explore these questions. A good example of the propinquity effect is your college classroom. All semester long, you see the same people. Does this increase your liking for them? Two researchers tested this hypothesis by planting female research assistants in a large college classroom. The women did not interact with the professor or the other students; they just walked in and sat quietly in the first row, where everyone could see them. The women differed in how many classes they attended, from fifteen meetings down to the control condition of none. At the end of the semester, the students in the class were shown slides of the women, whom they rated on several measures of liking and attractiveness. Results showed that mere exposure had a definite effect on liking. Even though they had never interacted, the more often the students had seen the women in class, the better they liked them. Are we more attracted to people who are like us, or are we more attracted to people who are our opposites? Folk wisdom may suggest that “opposites attract,” but research evidence proves that it is similarity, not difference, that draws people together. For example, dozens of tightly controlled experiments have shown that if all you know about a person (whom you’ve never met) are his or her opinions on several issues, the more similar those opinions are to yours, the more you will like him or her. And what happens when you do meet? In a classic study, Theodore Newcomb randomly assigned male college students at the University of Michigan to be roommates in a particular dormitory at the start of the school year. Would similarity predict friendship formation? The answer was yes: Men became friends with those who were demographically similar (for example, shared a rural background), as well as with those who were similar in attitudes and values (for example, were also engineering majors or also held liberal political views). Why is similarity so important in attraction? There are at least two possibilities. First, people who are similar provide us with important social validation for our characteristics and beliefs—that is, they provide us with the feeling that we are right. Second, we make negative inferences about someone who disagrees with us on important issues. We suspect the individual’s opinion is indicative of the kind of person we have found in the past to be unpleasant, immoral, weak, or thoughtless. In short, disagreement on important attitudes leads to repulsion. The desire to be validated and the conclusions we draw about character both play a role in boosting the attractiveness of a like-minded person and diminishing the attractiveness of someone who is dissimilar. What is the relationship of the second part of the sentence below (after the first comma) to the first part? “Folk wisdom may suggest that ‘opposites attract,’ but research evidence proves that it is similarity, not difference, that draws people together.” (Paragraph 4) The second part
Reаd the selectiоn belоw. Then cаrefully cоnsider the question thаt follow and choose the best responses. Antibiotics should be prescribed with restraint and care. Why? Besides performing their intended function, they commonly disrupt the balances among bacterial populations that normally compete for resources in the mammalian intestines and of yeast cells in the vaginal canal. Such disruptions lead to secondary infections. Worse yet, antibiotics have been over-prescribed in the human population. Too frequently they have been used for simple infections that many individuals could have overcome successfully on their own. Disturbingly, antibiotics have lost their punch. Over time, they did destroy the most susceptible cells of target populations. But the antibiotics also encouraged the replacement of these susceptible cells by much more resistant cells. Millions of people around the world are now dying each year of tuberculosis, cholera, and other bacterial infections. Even vancomycin, held in reserve as “the antibiotic of last resort,” is no longer effective against certain pathogenic strains of bacteria. In 1996, the World Health Organization announced that, in the race for supremacy, pathogens are sprinting ahead. Since that time, WHO has continued to raise the alarm and make recommendations for actions that could slow the speed with which antibiotics are becoming ineffective. The primary purpose of this paragraph is to
Exаmine the fоllоwing dаtа: Planet Planet W Planet X Planet Y Planet Z Average Temperature 30оC 50oC 30oC 20oC Above are four planets and their average annual temperature. They are all equal distance from their sun. Which planet has the most carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?