Social Psychology Lecture 7

1. Social PsychologyLecture 7 Attitudinal similarity and interpersonal attraction (2003) 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. 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 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

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

8. Repertory Grid

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. 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

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

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. 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)

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 • 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 - Perhaps we are not attracted to those that are similar to us, but instead we actually dislike people who are dissimilar to ourselves

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. 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 Implications of inequity

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