1. Social Psychology Lecture 7 Attitudinal similarity and interpersonal attraction Jane Clarbour Room PS/B007 email: jc129

2. 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.

3. 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?

4. 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

5. Variations of Bogus Stranger paradigm Comparison of effects using: Variations of stimulus –Attitude scales –Tape recordings –Colour film Used free conversation Variation of groups

6. 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

7. 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…

8. Desire to affiliate among low and high anxious individuals

9. 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 SimilarDifferentDoesn’t apply ?

10. Construal of triads Tools to measure elements State in which way 2 elements differ from 3 rd Similarity MeCPA.N. Other Contrasts academic  arty Down to earth  pretentious Yourself / Friend / Someone don’t know well

11. Repertory Grid + Elements MumDadBest friend SisterBrotherTutorSelf - Elements Old ++ - Young Happy +-+ miserable Annoying -++ Pleasant to be with Attractive ++ - Ugly Clever - + + Not very bright

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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)

15. Predicting friendship formation Attitude similarity as predictor or cause? New entry 1 st 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)

16. Female Ss – same academic subject 2 nd 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

17. 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

18. Theories of similarity-attraction Why should similar others be attractive? 2 types of theories: 1.Cognitive theories 2.Reinforcement theories

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. Rosenbaum’s experimental design 2 x 3 Between Ss factorial design Photos pre-rated for attractiveness Photo + attitude similarity Photo + attitude dissimilarity Control (photo only) Attractive photo Unattractive photo

24. 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 10.849.2811.1510.43 Unattractive photo 8.936.728.257.97 M9.898.009.70

25. Interpersonal attraction ratings (likeability)

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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)

29. 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

30. 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…?

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. Reading for current lecture Drigotas (1993) –Similarity revisited: A comparison of similarity-attraction versus dissimilarity- repulsion, BJSP, 32, 365 – 377 Rosenbaum (1986) –The repulsion hypothesis: on the nondevelopment of relationships. JPSP, 51, 1156 – 1166)

36. 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