social psychology lecture 7 attitudinal similarity and interpersonal attraction jane clarbour room...
TRANSCRIPT
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