Transcript Lecture7_(2003) Attitude similarity and attraction

Social Psychology
Lecture 7
Attitudinal similarity and interpersonal attraction
(2003)
Jane Clarbour
Room PS/B007 email: jc129
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
+
Mum
Dad
Elements
Old
+
Best
friend
Sister
+
Self
Annoying
-
+
Attractive
+
+
+
Young
+
-
Tutor
Elements
Happy
Clever
Brother
-
+
miserable
Pleasant to
be with
+
Ugly
+
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?
Results
Bogus Stranger paradigm
Significantly more attracted to a
person with similar attitudes
• Significant effect for the proportion of similar
attitudes
• The effect is linear
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)
12
10
Attractive photos
8
6
Unattractive
photos
4
2
0
Similar
Dissimilar
Control
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
similarityattraction as
dissimilarityrepulsion
– 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
-If
- Perhaps we are not
attracted to those that
are similar to us, but
instead we actually
dislike people who
are dissimilar to
ourselves
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…
% of participants wanting to
wait with others
Desire to affiliate among low and
high anxious individuals
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
High Anxiety
Low Anxiety
With other
Alone
Not in Exp
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 skill

practice
–Sexual experience
Similarity and physical
attraction
Inference
of Qualities
–Culture base
Attractive
people get...
–More money
–Less lonely/more popular
–Social skill

practice
–Sexual experience