Social Psychology Lecture 7

Jane ClarbourRoom PS/B007 email: jc129

Attitudinal similarity and interpersonal attraction

(2003)

Objectives• Give an account of experimental studies of

attitudinal similarity and interpersonal attraction.

• Show an understanding of Personal Construct Theory

• Demonstrate an understanding of what is meant by the ‘repulsion hypothesis’.

• Critically evaluate the role of both similarity and dissimilarity in interpersonal attraction.

4 Principles of Attraction

Familiarity

Similarity

Reciprocity of Attraction

Physical Appearance

Similarity & friendship choice

We tend to choose friends and lovers that are similar to us in:

-Looks

-Attitudes, beliefs & values

-Interests

-Personality

-The more similar that people’s activities and leisure time are, the more compatible they tend to be

Bases of Interpersonal Attraction

Similarity• Similarity of beliefs, values, and personal

characteristics• The more similar in beliefs, the higher the

ratings of attraction• The more dissimilar in beliefs, the higher the

dislike; represents threats, challenges one’s beliefs, and poses impediments to goals

Personal construct theory George Kelly (1955)

• ideographic approach– Social construction– Range of convenience– Bipolar constructs

• not necessarily opposites but divides reality into 3 elements

• Elements can be people, objects, or events

Similar Different Doesn’t apply

?

Construal of triads

• Tools to measure elements • State in which way 2 elements differ from 3rd

Similarity Me CP A.N. Other

Contrasts

academic arty

Down to earth

pretentious

Yourself / Friend / Someone don’t know well

Repertory Grid

+ Elements

Mum Dad Best friend

Sister Brother Tutor Self -Elements

Old + +      -   Young

Happy + - + miserable

Annoying     - + +     Pleasant to be with

Attractive     + +   -  Ugly

Clever -   +       + Not very bright

Ordinal relationship between constructs

• Constructs are hierarchical– Patterns of constructs – Construals are related in orderly manner– Consensual validation (Duck, 1973)

• We like people who construe things in much the same ways that we do

Comparison of Rep Grid and Personality tests (Duck, 1973)

• 2 groups of Ss were compared:– Those who were designated as pairs– Those who chose each other as friends (both

made same choice)

• Given the California Personality Inventory (CPI) and the Repertory Grid.

• Friends had significantly more similar constructs but were not more similar on CPI

Duck’s longitudinal studies

• Study 1: Males studying diverse courses– Complete rep grid on arrival– Very few friendships formed– Lack of construct similarity

• Study 2: Females studying same courses– Complete rep grid on arrival– Many more relationships formed– Enduring relationships shared many psychological

constructs

Duck’s conclusions

• Construct similarity is a predictor of friendship– Therefore a precursor not a consequence– But as changes after 6 months, this suggests that

at different stages of a relationship, different kinds of similarity may become important

• Filter theory– Filter out dissimilar others at early stage of

relationship

Attitudinal similarity & attraction

Byrne’s ‘bogus stranger’ paradigm• Ss fill out an attitude scale• Ss receive a scale from a ‘stranger’ same/diff

attitude to self• Rate the stranger on 7pt scale on a large

number of attributes that included:– Would they like this person?– Like working with them?

Significantly more attracted to a person with similar attitudes

• Significant effect for the proportion of similar attitudes

• The effect is linear

Results Bogus Stranger paradigm

The repulsion hypothesis

Rosenbaum (1986)

• Challenged earlier explanations-– Could just as easily reinterpret as

dissimilarity leads to not liking!– Byrne’s experiments didn’t have a proper

control group• i.e. earlier experiments should have had a ‘no

information relating to attitude’ control group

Rosenbaum’s replication of earlier experiments

• Ss were provided with photographs of a person [attractive/not attractive]

• In addition Ss were given information (or no information) about the other person’s attitudes– Photo plus attitudinal similarity– Photo plus attitudinal dissimilarity– Photo (without any information) - Control

Rosenbaum’s results

• Significant main effect for the attractiveness of the photos

• Significant main effect for attitude• No interaction

Photo + attitude

similarity

Photo + attitude

dissimilarity

Control (photo only)

Total Mean

Attractive photo 10.84 9.28 11.15 10.43

Unattractive photo

8.93 6.72 8.25 7.97

Total Mean 9.89 8.00 9.70

Interpersonal attraction ratings(likeability)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Similar Dissimilar Control

Attractive photos

Unattractivephotos

Summary of Rosenbaum’s research

• Significant main effect for attractiveness– Attractive group rated as more likeable

• Significant effect for attitude information– No difference in ratings of a strangers’ attractiveness when

told have similar attitudes to the stranger and just have a photo

– Similar Attitude and Photo Only (Controls) differed in ratings of interpersonal attractiveness to Dissimilar Attitude group

Provides evidence for repulsion-dissimilarity hypothesis, not similarity-attraction

Byrne’s response (Byrne, Clore & Smeaton (1986)

• A no-attitude control group is impossible– In absence of information people assume similarity – Is is possible to find similarity evidence that can’t

be reinterpreted as dissimilarity?

• Both similarity and dissimilarity may be important– Duck’s filter theory suggests

• First, filter out dissimilar others (friendship choice)• Second, select friends based on similarity

Similarity vs. Dissimilarity Drigotas (1993)

• Experimental comparison of the two explanations– Each S fills out a questionnaire– E gives S 5 completed questionnaires

• supposedly completed by other Ss – 2 similar and 3 different – 3 similar and 2 different

– S told to choose up to 5 people from other Ss for group activity (DV = group composition)

Drigotas’ results

• Tendency to include similar others AND to reject dissimilar others – Supports similarity effects (Byrne)– Also supports repulsion hypothesis (Rosenbaum)

• Difference in the order of selection– Similar others included earlier– Suggests stage model

• First, select similar others• Then, filter out dissimilar others

– This is in contrast to Duck’s filter theory

Summary (Smeaton et al., 1989)

• Evidence for both similarity and dissimilarity in interpersonal attraction– Can’t simply reinterpret

similarityattraction as dissimilarityrepulsion

– Similarity is important earlier in the process (Drigotas)

Theories of similarity-attraction

• Cognitive theories

• Reinforcement theories

• Economic theories

Cognitive theories

Cognitive consistency– Liking and agreement = consistent– Liking and disagreement = inconsistent

• Don’t like inconsistency • So, avoid those who disagree with us, but

like those who agree

Implications for self-concept

- Perhaps we are not attracted to those that are similar to us, but instead we actually dislike people who are dissimilar to ourselves

-If someone close to you does something well, but you perceive that as a threat to yourself, you are more likely to be repelled by that person

-Conversely, if that achievement does not affect you, you are more attracted to them

Need for Affiliation (O’Connor & Rosenblood, 1996)

• Individual differences in motivation to seek social contact– People with high need for affiliation place high

premium on social rewards– People with low need for affiliation place low

premium on social rewards

Need to affiliate

• Affiliation with anxious others (Schachter (1959)

• Half Ss told really painful (High Anx group)• Half Ss told not hurt at all (Low Anx group)

– Told 10 min delay, Ss could choose to wait either alone or with another Ss from the study

• Ss debriefed (no shocks given!!)– Told only measuring choice of High/low anx

groups…

Desire to affiliate among low and high anxious individuals

010203040506070

With other Alone Not in Exp

% o

f par

ticip

ants

wan

ting

to

wai

t with

oth

ers

High Anxiety

Low Anxiety

Reinforcement theories

Attitude similarity is rewarding- Confirms our views on the world

- Consensual validation

Attitude dissimilarity is punishing- Undermines our beliefs

- So, dislike people with dissimilar attitudes

Social Exchange Theory (Homans, 1958; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959)

Focus on interaction between people• Where rewards exceed costs

– People are attracted to those giving high rewards– Friendship based on maintenance of rewarding

relationships

• Where costs exceed rewards– Termination/avoidance of relationships where

costs exceed rewards

Equity theory and exchange

• The ratio of rewards-to-costs is equivalent to the perception of the partner’s rewards-to-cost ratio

• Knowledge of what they deserve from a relationship

• Function of cost and reward

• Dissatisfaction when the relationship becomes out of balance, resulting in negative affect

Implications of inequity

MALES

• Males report feeling:– hurt or resentful

• Low cost = guilt• Low reward = angry

FEMALES

• Females report feeling – sad or frustrated

• Low cost = angry• Low reward = depressed

Implications for social comparison

Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954)

• Need for confirmation of own view of the world and view of self

• Comparison of self against others helps to evaluate the self

• Used for:– Judgment and improvement of self– Friendship selection– Provide information concerning our emotions

Implications for social influence

• Speech Accommodation Theory was based on Byrne’s research on similarity (lecture 6)– Interpersonal attraction leads to convergence

A B

– From Rosenbaum’s perspective, accommodation = attempts not to be different, to avoid repelling others

Similarity and physical attraction

Inference of Qualities

–Culture base

Attractive people get...

–More money

–Less lonely/more popular

–Social skillpractice

–Sexual experience

Similarity and physical attraction

Inference of Qualities

–Culture base

Attractive people get...

–More money

–Less lonely/more popular

–Social skillpractice

–Sexual experience