1. The Repulsion Hypothesis Caitlan Webster

2. Overview  Alternative Explanation for Newcomb’s (1961) Results  Methodological Flaws in Byrne’s (1971) Experiment  Experiment 1 (Modified Replication of Byrne)  Experiment 2 (Iowa Caucus Study)  Experiment 3 (Reinforcement-Affect Theory)  Discussion

3. Alternative Explanation for Newcomb’s Results

4. Newcomb’s (1961) results  Examined naturalistic development of interpersonal attraction in male housemates.  Found that pre-acquaintance similarity in attitudes predicted pair attraction on late but not on early acquaintance.  The difference in timing was expected on the basis of the presumption that it would take time to know other’s attitudes.

5. Newcomb’s (1961) results  An alternative explanation is that as the housemates got to know each other, they were increasingly repulsed by persons with dissimilar attitudes and values.  By the process of elimination, the housemates were left to be attracted to similar persons.

6.  It is possible that similarity leads to attraction and dissimilarity to repulsion.  However, it is also possible that dissimilarity leads to repulsion and similarity has no impact on attraction. Newcomb’s (1961) results

7. Flaws in Byrne’s Experiment

8. Byrne’s (1971) Experiment  Subjects responded to an attitude questionnaire.  Subjects are then provided with a fake copy of the same questionnaire and told it was completed by a stranger.  A linear relation supports the generalization that similarity leads to attraction and dissimilarity causes repulsion.

9. Byrne’s (1971) Experiment  However, an adequate control or baseline condition has never been included.  Needs to include a “no-attitudes” questionnaire condition.  Permits determination of the degree to which similarity enhances attraction, dissimilarity decreases attraction, or whether either one has any consequence at all.

10. Byrne’s (1971) Experiment  This “no-attitudes” condition was used in Byrne’s 1968 experiment, but was not treated as a control.  During the main experiment, participants were given photographs of an attractive or unattractive person and an attitude questionnaire that was either similar or dissimilar.

11. Byrne’s (1971) Experiment  This “no-attitudes” condition was used in Byrne’s 1968 experiment, but was not treated as a control.  In a preliminary experiment, photographs were provided without the questionnaire.  This could have been used as the “no- attitudes” condition.

12. Byrne’s (1971) Experiment  When the two conditions are combined, the results suggest that:  Information concerning similarity does not enhance attraction to both attractive and unattractive people.  Information concerning dissimilarity decreases attraction to both attractive and unattractive people.

13. Experiment 1: Modified Replication of Byrne

14. Experiment 1 Procedure  168 photographs from a yearbook were scaled for physical attractiveness.  The eight photographs that received the most extreme mean rating in each category representing sex and attractiveness were chosen for experimental use.

15. Experiment 1 Procedure  2 X 2 X 2 X 3 factorial design:  Sex of subject X Sex of photograph X Attractiveness X Attitude information (similarity, dissimilarity, no-attitude)  192 participants.  Previously completed attitude questionnaires.  Same-sex group sessions containing 3 to 12 subjects.

16. Experiment 1 Procedure  Subjects were provided with a photograph and a fake attitude questionnaire completed by the photographed person (except for the no-attitude condition).  Scales were adjusted to be similar on 10 issues and dissimilar on 2 issues, or similar on 2 issues and dissimilar on 10 issues.  Subjects evaluated the person on the Interpersonal Judgment Scales.

17. Experiment 1 Results  Attractive were rated higher than unattractive.  Similar and control did not significantly differ.  Dissimilar was different from other conditions.

18. Experiment 1 Discussion  The findings support the hypothesis that attitudinal dissimilarity leads to repulsion but similarity does not enhance attraction.  Unattractive people who had similar attitudes were not evaluated more positively than people whose attitudes were not presented.

19. Experiment 2: Iowa Caucus Study

20. Experiment 2 Procedure  Iowa Caucus Study:  Presumed that attitudinal information is embedded in political party affiliation.  Discovering a stranger is of the same party would lead to liking while discovering a stranger is of the opposite party would lead to disliking.

21. Experiment 2 Procedure  A card with a list of 8 traits describing a person were given to participants to evaluate.  A high-positive list of traits and a low- positive list of traits.  8 th word was either Democrat, Republican, or no party affiliation.  Cards were given at Democratic caucuses and a Republican rally.

22. Experiment 2 Procedure  2 X 2 X 3 design:  Traits X Party (Person) X Party (Participant)  309 participants.  240 Democrats, 69 Republicans.

23. Experiment 2 Results  Democrats were more attracted to very positive traits.  Republicans were equally attracted to either very positive or moderately positive traits.

24. Experiment 2 Results  Democrats were attracted equally to Democrats and controls.  Democrats were less attracted to Republicans.

25. Experiment 2 Results  Republicans were equally attracted to Republicans and controls.  Republicans were less attracted to Democrats.

26. Experiment 2 Discussion  Another study (Rosenbaum & Holtz, 1985) adapted the caucus study in the context of arbitrary group categorization.  Participants were randomly assigned as “Phis” or “Gammas”.

27. Experiment 2 Discussion  Participants were then given trait cards similar to the caucus study.  Some subjects’ cards contained either in- group or out-group labels, while others had no labels (control).

28. Experiment 2 Discussion  High-positive traits were not rated differently.  Moderately positive traits with in-group membership and no membership label were rated equally.  Moderately positive traits with out-group membership were rated more negatively.  Based on out-group derogation and not in-group favorability.

29. Experiment 3: Reinforcement- Affect Theory

30. Experiment 3 Procedure  Based on reinforcement-affect theory, occurrence of attitudinal similarity is a reinforcement and dissimilarity is a punishment.  Golightly & Byrne (1964) showed that attitude statements that were similar to or dissimilar from the subject’s attitude could be used to designate correct and incorrect responses and produce learning.

31. Experiment 3 Procedure  A replication was performed later using similar attitudes and neutral responses for correct and incorrect responses compared to neutral responses and dissimilar attitudes for correct and incorrect responses.  The neutral-dissimilar group showed learning while the similar-neutral group did not.

32. Experiment 3 Procedure  A follow-up experiment used similar statements and black cards, neutral statements and blank cards, or blank cards and dissimilar statements for correct and incorrect responses.  All three groups showed learning.  Theorized that neutral statements have reinforcing properties.

33. Experiment 3 Procedure  Stimulus cards were prepared with a circle and square that were black or white, large or small, and appeared on the left or right.  The characteristics were randomly varied.  The participants had to chose either the circle or the square as the correct response.  Half of the participants had “small” as the correct response while the other half had “large” as the correct response.

34. Experiment 3 Procedure  Feedback cards were:  A card containing a BXX nonsense syllable and a blank card for correct and incorrect responses.  A card containing a DXX nonsense syllable and a blank card for correct and incorrect responses.  A card containing a BXX nonsense syllable and a DXX nonsense syllable for correct and incorrect responses.

35. Experiment 3 Results  Significant increase in performance for BXX-neutral and DXX-neutral conditions.  No significant increase in performance for BXX-DXX condition.

36. Experiment 3 Discussion  Helson’s (1959,1964) adaptation level theory:  One’s own attitude serves as the adaptation level from which a stranger’s attraction is to be judged based on the stranger’s attitude.

37. Experiment 3 Discussion  Helson’s (1959,1964) adaptation level theory:  A similar stranger should be viewed at the neutral point, thereby commanding a neutral response.  A dissimilar stranger should be viewed as different from the neutral point, thereby commanding a negative response.

38. General Discussion

39.  Cases where similarity could lead to attraction:  Experience of similarity in the context of dissimilarity.  Experience of agreement.  Relatively new and important attitudes.

40. General Discussion  The experience of similarity in the context of dissimilarity has been shown to result in increased attraction responses above the level obtained in the absence of the dissimilarity context.  Similar strangers are rated as more attractive following presentation of an unattractive stranger than similar strangers not preceded by a dissimilar stranger.

41. General Discussion  The consistency theories:  Including cognitive dissonance theory.  The occurrence of inconsistency in each of these theories produces aversive states that cause motivation to reduce or eliminate them.

42. General Discussion  In the context of consistency theories, exposure to attitudinal similarity is a consistent event that lacks affective or motivational properties.  Explanation for no difference occurring in attraction between similar conditions and no- attitude conditions.

43. General Discussion  However, exposure to dissimilar attitudes causes the induction of inconsistency and an aversive state.  The presence of the aversive state leads to the repulsion of the person whose attitudes induced the negative state.  Repulsion leads to reduction in negative state.

44. Conclusion  Considerable events suggests that attitudinal dissimilarity leads to repulsion but similarity does not enhance attraction.