1. Social Psychology Lecture 7 Jane Clarbour Room PS/B007 email: jc129 Attitudinal similarity and interpersonal attraction (2003)

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. 4 Principles of Attraction Familiarity Similarity Reciprocity of Attraction Physical Appearance

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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 ?

7. 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

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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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?

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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 photo10.849.2811.1510.43 Unattractive photo 8.936.728.257.97 Total Mean9.898.009.70

18. Interpersonal attraction ratings (likeability)

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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)

22. 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

23. 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)

24. Theories of similarity-attraction Cognitive theories Reinforcement theories Economic theories

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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…

29. Desire to affiliate among low and high anxious individuals

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. Similarity and physical attraction Inference of Qualities – Culture base Attractive people get... – More money – Less lonely/more popular – Social skill practice – Sexual experience

37. Similarity and physical attraction Inference of Qualities – Culture base Attractive people get... – More money – Less lonely/more popular – Social skill practice – Sexual experience