Social Psychology Lecture 7

1. Social PsychologyLecture 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. 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

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 othersSchachter (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 theoryGeorge 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

10. Construal of triads • Tools to measure elements • State in which way 2 elements differ from 3rd Yourself / Friend / Someone don’t know well

11. Repertory Grid

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 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)

16. 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

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: • Cognitive theories • 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

24. Rosenbaum’s results • Significant main effect for the attractiveness of the photos • Significant main effect for attitude • No interaction

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. DissimilarityDrigotas (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