Chapter 15 Exercises: Personality and Attraction

Exercise 15.1 — Your Big Five and Your Courtship Behavior (Individual Reflection)

Format: Written reflection, 400–500 words Time: 30–45 minutes

Take a free validated Big Five inventory (the IPIP-NEO is available at ipip.ori.org) and record your approximate scores on each dimension. Then respond to the following:

  1. Looking at your Extraversion score: does it match how you actually behave in courtship contexts? If you score lower on Extraversion, describe one specific instance in which that shaped how you expressed interest in someone (or didn't). If you score higher, describe how your approach style has affected someone else's comfort level.

  2. Looking at your Neuroticism score: can you identify a specific example where your emotional reactivity or stability (in either direction) affected a romantic or near-romantic interaction? Try to be honest rather than flattering.

  3. Looking at your Openness score: what kinds of traits in potential partners do you find yourself most drawn to? Does your Openness level show up in those preferences?

Note: Big Five scores are not diagnostic or predictive of individual outcomes — they describe tendencies across many situations. The point of this exercise is reflection on pattern, not prophecy.

Exercise 15.2 — Testing the Similarity Hypothesis (Pair or Small Group)

Format: Structured discussion + brief written analysis Time: 20–30 minutes in-class

With a partner (ideally someone you already know), compare your Big Five profiles (or your estimates, if you haven't taken a formal measure). Then:

  1. Identify one trait dimension where you are clearly similar and one where you are clearly different. In each case, discuss: has this dimension's similarity or difference ever shown up in how you interact?

  2. Discuss one actual relationship (romantic or close friendship) in your life and assess whether it reflects assortative mating/similarity on personality. What traits were similar? What were different?

  3. Write a 150-word individual reflection: does your experience support the assortative mating literature, or complicate it? Be specific.

Discussion prompt for class debrief: Did any pairs find evidence of genuine complementarity working well? What made it work, and does it challenge the research findings or fit within them?

Exercise 15.3 — The Dark Triad Discourse Analysis (Critical Reading)

Format: Close reading + written response, 300–400 words Time: 45–60 minutes (requires independent reading prior to class)

Find two sources discussing the dark triad and attraction: one from a peer-reviewed psychology journal (Google Scholar "dark triad short-term mating") and one from a popular source — a news article, a YouTube video, a blog post, or a forum discussion that references the research. Then answer:

  1. What claims does the popular source make about the research? Are they accurate? What is added, omitted, or distorted?

  2. How does the framing differ between the scientific and popular source? What values or assumptions appear in the popular source that are absent from the scientific one?

  3. Who is the implied audience of each source, and what are they being invited to do with this information?

Reflection question: What responsibility, if any, do researchers have for how their findings are used in public discourse? What responsibility do consumers of that discourse have?

Exercise 15.4 — Personality Change and Long-Term Relationships (Speculative Analysis)

Format: Written response, 300–350 words Time: 20–25 minutes

The chapter discusses the "maturity principle" — the documented tendency for Conscientiousness and Agreeableness to increase and Neuroticism to decrease across adulthood. It also notes that partners influence each other's personality development over time.

Consider a long-term relationship you are familiar with (your own, your parents', a family member's, a close friend's). Reflect on the following:

  1. Has either person in that relationship changed noticeably over the years in ways that fit the maturity principle? Describe specifically if possible.

  2. Has the relationship itself seemed to change either person's characteristic personality — making one or both more patient, more anxious, more open, more withdrawn? What do you think caused that change?

  3. Given that personality changes, what does this imply about the concept of "choosing the right person"? Is long-term compatibility more about the starting point or the trajectory?

Exercise 15.5 — Jordan's Analytical Trap (Creative Reflection)

Format: Short creative writing, 200–300 words Time: 20 minutes

Jordan uses sociological and psychological frameworks to analyze their own attraction in real time, which simultaneously illuminates and postpones the experience. This is not a Jordan-specific quirk — it is a recognizable pattern.

Write a brief scene (real or invented) in which intellectual self-awareness either: (a) helped you or someone you know navigate an attraction situation more thoughtfully, or (b) functioned as a way to avoid vulnerability while appearing to be engaging

The scene should be specific — a real or plausible moment, not an abstract claim. After the scene, write 2–3 sentences reflecting on what the moment reveals about the relationship between analytical self-awareness and emotional availability.

Exercise 15.6 — Cultural Context and Personality Preferences (Research Extension)

Format: Independent research + class discussion preparation Time: 30–45 minutes outside class

Using one non-WEIRD study on personality and partner preferences (try searching for studies conducted in Japan, Nigeria, India, or Brazil), summarize:

  1. What the study found
  2. How the findings compare to the Western literature reviewed in this chapter
  3. What methodological factors might explain any differences
  4. What the differences (or similarities) tell us about how culturally specific the standard personality-attraction findings are

Come prepared to share a 2-minute summary with the class.