Social Psychology Lecture 7

Attitudinal similarity and interpersonal attraction

Jane ClarbourRoom PS/B007 email: jc129

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.

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?

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

Variations of Bogus Stranger paradigm

Comparison of effects using:

• Variations of stimulus– Attitude scales– Tape recordings– Colour film

• Used free conversation

• Variation of groups

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

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…

Desire to affiliate among low and high anxious individuals

010203040506070

With other Alone Not in Exp

% o

f par

ticip

ants

wan

ting

to

wai

t with

oth

ers

High Anxiety

Low Anxiety

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

Similar Different Doesn’t apply

?

Construal of triads

• Tools to measure elements • State in which way 2 elements differ from 3rd

Similarity Me CP A.N. Other

Contrasts

academic arty

Down to earth

pretentious

Yourself / Friend / Someone don’t know well

Repertory Grid

+ Elements

Mum Dad Best friend

Sister Brother Tutor Self -Elements

Old + +      -   Young

Happy + - + miserable

Annoying     - + +     Pleasant to be with

Attractive     + +   -  Ugly

Clever -   +       + Not very bright

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

Theories of similarity-attraction

Why should similar others be attractive?

• 2 types of theories:

1. Cognitive theories

2. Reinforcement theories

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

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

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

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

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

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

10.84 9.28 11.15 10.43

Unattractive photo

8.93 6.72 8.25 7.97

M 9.89 8.00 9.70

Interpersonal attraction ratings(likeability)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Similar Dissimilar Control

Attractive photos

Unattractivephotos

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

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

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)

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

Summary (Smeaton et al., 1989)

• Evidence for both similarity and dissimilarity in interpersonal attraction– Can’t simply reinterpret similarityattraction as

dissimilarityrepulsion– Similarity is important earlier in the process

(Drigotas)

So, WHY IS ATTITUDE SIMILARITY IMPORTANT…?

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

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

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

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

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)

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