Transcript Lecture7

Social Psychology
Lecture 7
Attitudinal similarity and
interpersonal attraction
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.
Attitudinal Similarity & Attraction
(Byrne)
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
Variations of
Bogus Stranger paradigm
Comparison of effects using:
• Variations of stimulus
– Attitude scales
– Tape recordings
– Colour film
• Used free conversation
• Variation of groups
Conclusions
• Wide degree of generality in Byrne's
‘Bogus stranger’ results
– But a study of attraction between strangers
– Doesn’t look at existing relationships
– Doesn’t look at the role of personality
Affiliation with anxious others
Schachter (1959)
• When stressed, do we seek out
company of similar others?
• 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
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
• Ie. if teacher’s construals of inactive vs active in class are
close to introverted-extraverted, then likely to view active
child as extraverted.
– Laddering (Hinkle, 1965)
– 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
Perception of similarity
(Duck)
• Does perceived similarity influence
friendship choice?
– Ss in previous exp were asked to indicate if
they thought any of their friends had used
same constructs/elements
• Results showed that Ss perceptions were
accurate
• Errors were in overestimating similarity (over 93%
of errors)
Predicting friendship formation
Attitude similarity as predictor or cause?
• New entry 1st year male students of diverse
academic subjects in same halls of residence
– Longitudinal study:
• Complete rep grid on arrival at university, then watch
relationships form
• Very few relationships were formed
– But, striking lack of construct similarity
– (weakly supports hypothesis in negative sense)
Female Ss – same academic subject
2nd study: Female geography students
• Many more relationships were formed
– People who later became friends had significantly
more similar constructs
– Rep grid tested again 6 months later and
constructs divided into constructs relating to
psychological, role, and others
• Only psychological constructs were related to friendships
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
Theories of similarity-attraction
Why should similar others be
attractive?
•
2 types of theories:
1. Cognitive theories
2. Reinforcement 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
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
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 experimental design
• 2 x 3 Between Ss factorial design
• Photos pre-rated for attractiveness
Photo +
attitude
similarity
Attractive
photo
Unattractive
photo
Photo +
attitude
dissimilarity
Control
(photo only)
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)
M
Attractive
photo
10.84
9.28
11.15
10.43
Unattractive
photo
8.93
6.72
8.25
7.97
M
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)
So, WHY IS ATTITUDE SIMILARITY IMPORTANT…?
Implications for social comparison
(Festinger, 1954)
Social Comparison Theory
• 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
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
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
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
Reading for current lecture
• Drigotas (1993)
– Similarity revisited: A comparison of
similarity-attraction versus dissimilarityrepulsion, BJSP, 32, 365 – 377
• Rosenbaum (1986)
– The repulsion hypothesis: on the
nondevelopment of relationships. JPSP,
51, 1156 – 1166)
What next…?
Lecture 8: Theory of attitudes in relation
to behaviour
• Key reading:
– Ajzen & Madden (1986)
• Prediction of goal directed behaviour
– Bentler & Speckart (1979)
• Models of attitude-behaviour relations
– Manstead (1996)
• Attitudes and Behaviour
– Randall & Wolff (1994)
• The time interval in the intention-behaviour relationship