THE EFFECTS OF DISAGREEMENT
STYLE ON ATTRACTION

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JOHN T. ‘BOURPOS
1975

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/C|RC/DateDue.p65‘p.15

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTS OF DISAGREEMENT STYLE
ON ATTRACTION

BY

John T. Bourpos

The reinforcement model of attraction (Byrne 1971)
theorizes that interpersonal disagreements are threatening
and consequently produce negative evaluations of the dis-
agreeing person. Numerous studies have demonstrated the
subjects' dislike for the disagreeing stranger. Few of
these studies have examined the stimulus eliciting the
negative evaluations. The present study explores the re-
lationship between disagreement style and attraction. It
was proposed that subjects exposed to a stranger who ex-
pressed disagreement in a placative manner would be more
positively evaluated than a stranger who expressed dis-
agreement in a combative manner.

The effects of attitudinal similarity/dissimilarity
and disagreement style were also studied in relation to
social-evaluative anxiety (SAD). It was hypothesized that
high SAD subjects would be less attracted to disagreeing
combative strangers than low SAD subjects and that high

and low SAD subjects would not differ in their respective

John T. Bourpos

attraction responses in the placative disagreement con-
dition.

One hundred and twenty undergraduates participated
in two experimental sessions. In the first session all
subjects completed an attitude questionnaire. Two weeks
later subjects were administered bogus protocols, pur-
portedly filled out by a stranger in another class. The
subjects were instructed to examine the strangers' re-
sponses and to make some judgements about him and complete
a questionnaire concerning their personal attitudes and
traits.

The experimental design involved manipulating
three levels of attitudinal information. Fictitious
attitude booklets were devised by the experimenter which
systematically agreed or disagreed with the subjects'
original responses. The control group did not receive
any attitudinal information. Two levels of disagreement
style were also manipulated. All subjects were exposed
to either a combative or placative style.

The data was analyzed by the methods of analysis
of variance, planned and post-hoc comparisons of the
means. The results revealed that subjects within the
disagreement condition produced higher attraction ratings
for the placative stranger than for the combative stranger.

The results did not support the second hypothesis, but

John T. Bourpos

the third proposition received confirmation. Interpre-
tations of the results were discussed in terms of dis-
agreement style enhancing or mitigating the threatening

effects of disagreement and in terms of Rokeach's concept

W‘
m.§§m~.'®§%\ixi

of opinionated language.

THE EFFECTS OF DISAGREEMENT STYLE

ON ATTRACTION

BY

John T. Bourpos

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1975

Dedication

To Dorothea

ii

AC KNOWLEDGMEN TS

My most profound appreciation is eXpressed to
Dr. Charles Johnson, committee chairman, not only for his
valuable assistance and guidance, but eSpecially for his
continual support. My thanks also to Drs. Henry Clay
Smith and Don Grummon for their helpful criticisms and

suggestions.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Factors Influencing Attraction . . . . . . 1
Review of the Similarity Attraction
Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Interpersonal Disagreement and
Attraction O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 10
Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

II 0 METHOD I O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 20
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

III . RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O 26
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . 35
APPENDIX 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 42
Attitude Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Evaluation Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Social Avoidance and Distress Scale . . . . . . . 49

LIST OF REFERENCES . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

iv

Table

1.

Figure

1.

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Mean Attraction Scores and Standard
Deviations of Disagreement Style
Toward Similar and Dissimilar Strangers

Summary of the Analysis of Variance for
the Attraction Scores . . . . . . . . .

Mean Attraction Scores and Standard
Deviations of Individuals Low and High
on Social Avoidance and Distress (SAD)
Toward Similar and Dissimilar Strangers
Expressing Placative and Combative Dis-
agreement Styles . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of the 2 X 3 X 2 Analysis of
Variance for the Attraction Scores . .

A Graphic Representation of the Style x
Group x Anxiety Interaction . . . . . .

Page

27

28

31

32

34

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade Byrne's reinforcement model of
attraction has produced cogent evidence supporting the
prOposition that people are more attracted to a stranger
who expressed views similar to their own and less attracted
to a stranger who expressed dissimilar views. Most of the
research on dissimilarity has focused on the effects of
disagreement on attraction and individual differences in
response to interpersonal disagreement. Little research
has investigated the various aspects of the stimulus that
evokes the negative evaluation of the disagreeing other.
The purpose of this study was to explore the manner in
which disagreement is expressed and its effect on attrac-
tion. It also had the aim of examining individual dif-
ferences in attraction as a function of dissimilarity and
expressive style.

Factors Influencing
Attraction

 

 

The idea that man is a social animal implies that
liking and being liked is an important factor in human
behavior. Personal experiences, observations of other

1

peOple and exposure to the media attests to the affects
that liking or disliking have for us. When people are
queried as to why they like or are attracted to one an-
other, the responses given frequently refer to the positive
qualities of the receiving individual(s). For example,
persons are liked because they are honest, considerate,
intelligent, etc. Responses such as these may be satis-
factory for some purposes; however, from a scientific per-
spective, they are unsatisfactory for the explanation of
factors involved in interpersonal attraction.

The area of interpersonal attraction has recently
received considerable attention in social and personality
research. Although many of the earlier investigations
were correlational, the majority of recent studies have
pursued an experimental approach (Byrne, 1971). Empirical
studies have yielded a wide range of factors influencing
interpersonal attraction.

x/Propinquity has been found to be an antecedent of
attraction. All other things being equal, Festinger,
Schachter and Back (1950), and Newcomb (1961) have shown
that peOple who are physically close in terms of seating
or housing arrangements are more likely to select each
other as friends than people who are at a more remote
physical distance. Physical appearance has been demon-
strated to influence attraction (Walster, Aronson,

Abrahams, and Rattman, 1966; Byrne, Ervin and Lamberth,

1970). Walster et_al. conducted a field study in which
students were randomly matched with each other and were
invited to what was described as a "computer dance." A
number of personality and intellectual measures were used
to predict couple compatibility. The results indicated
that the physical attractiveness of the date was the single
largest determinant of liking. Being liked is another
factor in attraction. People generally tend to like those
who like them (Aronson and Worchel, 1966; Backman and
Secord, 1959). In an experiment conducted by Aronson and
Worchel, subjects were introduced to a confederate who
either agreed or disagreed with them on a number of issues.
Following a brief discussion of the issues, subjects were
provided additional information which indicated whether the
confederate liked or disliked them. The results demon-
strated that regardless of similarity or dissimilarity, it
was the confederate's expressed liking which elicited a
positive evaluation and the confederate's expressed dis-
liking which produced a negative evaluation. The results
of research on the similarity of attitudes, values and
beliefs have also evinced a strong influence on attraction.
PeOple are more attracted to others who agree with them
and less attracted to those who disagree with them
(Newcomb, 1961; Byrne, 1961, 1969, 1971, 1973; Smith,
1958). Aronson (1969) further suggests other significant

variables affecting attraction. People tend to be

attracted to those: who have personality traits similar
[to their own; who possess a high degree of ability or
competency; who exhibit pleasant or agreeable behavior or
traits; and who complement our needs.

Review of Similarity
Attraction Literature

 

 

Although the variables given above do not exhaust
the factors involved in attraction, the current investi-
gation is primarily concerned with similarity-dissimilarity
effects on interpersonal attraction. A review of the
literature suggests that the similarity attraction relation-
ship has generated a significant amount of research (Byrne,
1973). The idea of an individual's attitudes influencing

I
the way in which others evaluate him and the intensity of
attraction does not originate with the advent/of scientific
investigations. Aristotle (translated 1932) suggests the
influence of similarity versus dissimilarity on attraction:

And they are friends who have come to regard

the same things as good and the same things as
evil, they who are friends of the same people,
and they who are enemies of the same people. . . .
We like those who resemble us, and are en-
gaged in the same pursuits . . . we like those
who desire the same things as we, if the case
is such that we and they can share the things
together . . . (pp. 103-105)

A number of early correlational studies demon-

strated support for the similarity relationship among

friends and marital partners (Richardson, 1939, 1940;

Schooley, 1936). Newcomb (1961) investigated friendship
formation of a group of male students at the University of
Michigan. One of the study findings was that attitudinal
similarity was a predictor of attraction.

A sizeable portion of the research has been gen-
erated within the context of Byrne's (1971) reinforcement
model of attraction. The model suggests that the evaluative
meaning of any stimulus is assumed to be a positive linear
function of the proportion of positive reinforcements
associated with it. The concept of reinforcement clearly
suggests a relationship between Byrne's paradigm and learn-
ing theory. However, Byrne (1971) contends that the model
is not conceptualized within the framework of any specific
current theory of learning and that the learning principles
adapted more closely coincide with the position of Thorn-
dike and Pavlov. Byrne explains the association theory by
prOposing:

that any stimulus with reinforcement properties
functions as an unconditional stimulus for an
implicit affective response which is assumed to
fall along a subjective continuum that is charac-
terized as pleasant-unpleasant. ‘The reinforce-
ment properties of stimuli are defined independ-
ently of the attraction situation in terms of the
empirical law of effect: the capacity to alter
reSponse probability. Any discriminable stimulus,
including a person, which is temporally associated
with the unconditioned stimulus can become a con-
ditioned stimulus capable of evoking the implicit
affective response. This implicit reSponse is
hypothesized to mediate evaluative responses to

the conditioned stimulus. Evaluating responses
include verbal assessments of the conditioned

stimulus, various types of choice behavior,
and approach and avoidance reactions (Byrne,
1973).

In effect then, positive and negative reinforce-
ments act as unconditioned stimuli which evoke implicit
affective reSponses. Additionally, any discriminable
stimulus associated with reinforcement also acquires the
capacity to evoke the affective responses, which in turn,
mediate evaluative and attraction responses. Byrne (1971)
cites an abundance of empirical evidence demonstrating that
agreeing and disagreeing attitude statements have, reSpec-
tively, positive and negative reinforcement properties.

The overall attraction towards another person is a
function of the relative number of rewards and punishments
associated with him. The specific formula employed by
Byrne and Rhamey (1965) prOposed a mathematical model
expressing how information, differently weighted, is
combined to influence attraction.

Z(PR.M)

Ax = m a: + k
E (PR.M) + 2 (NR.M')

 

According to the model, attraction toward a person
X, is a positive linear function of the sum of the weighted
positive information plus the sum of the weighted negative
information.

In short, the Byrne paradigm concentrates on the

etiological factors influencing an individual's being

attracted to another. First, he prOposes that we are.
attracted to people who are reinforcing.- He further
suggests that, with other variables held constant, the
behavior of another individual is positively reinforcing
to the degree that it is similar to one's own behavior.
Hence, peOple are likely to be attracted to similar others.
The classic 1961 study was Byrne's initial attempt
to test the prOposition that attitude similarity was a
causative factor effecting attraction. That investigation
provided the basic methodological paradigm for nearly all
of the subsequent attraction research. The experiment was
conducted in two different sessions. In the initial
session subjects were requested to complete an attitude
questionnaire. A couple of weeks later the subjects were
given attitude booklets purportedly filled out by a
stranger. The protocol was actually made up by the experi-
menter so as to be dissimilar or similar to that of the
real subject. After examining the attitude booklets, sub-
jects were then requested to complete an Interpersonal
Judgement Scale. The scores on the scale are utilized to
measure attraction. The instrument consists of six
seven-point Likert-type rating scales dealing with evalu-
ations of the other person's intelligence, knowledge of
current events, morality, and adjustment. The last two
items measure liking and willingness to work with the

bogus stranger. They are summed so as to yield an

attraction measure which ranges from 2 (most negative) to
14 (most positive) and has a split-half reliability of .85
(Byrne and Nelson, 1965). The results indicated that sub-
jects were more attracted to the stranger who expressed
views similar to their own and less attracted to the
stranger who expressed dissimilar views. People who ex-
pressed dissimilar views were evaluated as less intelligent,
less informed about current events, less moral and less well
adjusted than those people who expressed similar views.

Many variations within the Byrne paradigm have
been employed to extend the generality of the similarity-
attraction relationship. Although the method of presenting
the expressed attitudes of a stranger has typically been
by a paper and pencil format, the relationship between the
proportion of similar attitudes and attraction has been
attained with a variety of stimulus modes. The same linear
relationship has appeared when attitudinal information con-
cerning the target is transmitted via movies, tape record-
ings and mimeograph (Byrne and Clore, 1966); face-to-face
encounters involving a confederate, (Aronson and Worchel,
1966; Byrne and Griffitt, 1966); and in "real life“ set-
tings where individuals expressed their attitudes in a
face-to-face interaction (Brewer and Brewer, 1968).

The basic relationship has also been supported
across a variety of non-student populations. For example,

female clerical workers (Krauss, 1966); school children

from the fourth through the twelfth grades (Byrne and
Griffitt, 1966b); alcoholic and schizOphrenic hospital
patients and poorly educated individuals of low socio-
economic status such as members of Job Corps Training

w
Program (Byrne, Griffitt, Hudgins, and Reeves, 1969);
and the relationship has been supported in a cross cultural
investigation among Japanese, Indian, and Mexican students
(Byrne §£_31., 1971).

While a sizable portion of the paradigmatic re-
search has operationalized similarity-dissimilarity in
terms of the proportion of shared attitudes, research
utilizing non-attitudinal measures of similarity-
dissimilarity have also supported the basic relationship.
Fbr example, some research has demonstrated that attraction
is positively related to similarity of personality charac-
teristics such as repression-sensitization (Byrne, Griffitt
and Stefaniak, 1967; Byrne and Griffitt, 1969), self-esteem
(Hendrick, 1970). Marlowe-Crowne need for approval (Gold-
stein and Rosenfeld, 1969), self-concept (Griffitt, 1966;
Griffitt, 1969), and dominance-submissiveness (Palmer and
Byrne, 1970). Other dimensions that confirm the basic
relationship and further extend the generality of the
similarity-attraction effect are: intellectual ability
(Reagor and Clore, 1970), economic similarity-dissimilarity

(Byrne, Clore and Worchel, 1966), and the perceived social

10

desirability of the self and the target (Berscheid,

Walster and Walster, 1971).

Interpersonal Disagreement
and Attraction ‘

 

 

Within the confines of his paradigm, Byrne has
cogently demonstrated the powerful effects of similarity
on attraction. In addition to research concentrating on
the effects of similarity (which has been generated by
the reinforcement model of attraction) an increasing focus
has been placed on the influences of dissimilarity. One
aspect of dissimilarity, the area of interpersonal dis-
agreement, has recently been investigated (Byrne and Clore,
1967; Johnson, Gormly and Gormly, 1973; Johnson and Gormly,
1974; Gormly, 1971; Gormly, Gormly and Johnson, 1972;
Steiner, 1966, 1970; Byrne, Nelson and Reeves, 1966).
Consistent with the model, Byrne (1971) points out that
attitude disagreements Operate to evoke dislike for the
disagreeing stranger because dissimilarity is threatening.
Several studies lend some support to this position. I
Dickson and McGinnies (1966) reported that subjects who
were exposed to counter-attitudinal statements responded
with higher GSR's than when they were exposed to agreement
statements. Buckhout (1966) investigated the relationship
between changes in heart rate which occur during a dis-
agreement situation. The results indicated that subjects

experiencing disagreement demonstrated a significantly

11

higher elevated heart rate. Gormly (1971) compared sub-
jects for differences in skin conductance patterns as a
function of agreement and disagreement. These results
also showed a significantly higher arousal pattern for
subjects experiencing disagreement than when they experi-
enced agreement.
Drawing on the general framework of Festinger

(1954) and Newcomb (1961), Byrne contends that disagree-
ments function as negative reinforcements. Expression of
dissimilar attitudes serve as negative reinforcements be-
cause consensual invalidation frustrates an individual's
drive to be logical, consistent and accurate in inter-
preting the stimulus world. Similarity of attitudes on
the other hand serve as positive reinforcements because
the motive is satisfied via consensual validation. Con-
sensual validation-invalidation of the attitudes, beliefs
or values of an individual is the major source of reward
for the drive to be logical, consistent and accurate in
interpreting the stimulus world. More specifically, Byrne
has stated that:

Any time that another person indicates dis-

similarity between our two notions, it consti-

tutes a punishing interaction and thus one

element in forming a negative relationship.

Disagreement raises the unpleasant possibility

that we are to some degree stupid, uninformed,

immoral, or insane (1961, p. 713).

The rationale for this proposition has been ex-

plained in detail by Byrne and Clore (1967). The authors

12

contend that attitudes and attraction are mediated by
effectance motivation, which they describe as a learned
drive to be accurate in interpreting the stimulus world.
Disagreeing attitudinal material arouses the effectance
motive producing a dislike for the disagreeing other.

The notion that attitude disagreements evoke
negative affect and evaluation toward the disagreeing
stranger has been a frequently verified finding (Byrne,
1971). Furthermore Johnson §£_21. (1973) examined the
relationship of the effects of disagreements on self-
esteem. They had subjects complete an attitude survey
and a self-esteem measure. During a second session sub-
jects were exposed to attitude booklets of agreeing and
disagreeing strangers; they completed an attraction measure
and an alternate inventory of self-esteem. The results
indicated that subjects exposed to a disagreeing stranger
experienced a decrement in self-esteem. Furthermore,
decrements in self-esteem and intensity of dislike appar-
ently covary. Subjects expressing the greatest amount of
dislike for the disagreeing stranger also showed the
greatest reduction in self-esteem.

The effects of individual differences on the
relationship between disagreement and attraction have
also been investigated. Johnson and Gormly (1974)
reasoned that anxiety and social desirability are related

to selective perception. Highly anxious peOple may

l3

perceive a number of nondangerous events as threatening;
and, conversely, people at high levels of social desira-
bility or need for approval may deny seemingly dangerous
events as threatening. Johnson and Gormly hypothesized
that in an ambiguous situation where the stranger neither
consistently agreed or disagreed with the subject, high
anxiety subjects would recall more disagreement information,
while subjects high on social desirability would recall
more agreement information. Results supported both hypoth-
eses. Apparently in a neutral agreement-disagreement
situation, personality factors may influence attraction

by selective perception mechanisms.

Some reSearch has also demonstrated differences in
reSponse style to the threat of interpersonal disagreement.
Steiner (1966, 1970) proposed that an individual has four
separate ways of responding to interpersonal disagreement.
The four specified reactions to disagreement are: con-
formity to the other person's position, under-recall of
the extent of disagreement, rejection of the source of
disagreement and devaluation of the importance of dis-
agreement. These four styles to disagreement have been
demonstrated as rather consistent and independent modes
of responding (Gormly, Gormly and Johnson, 1972).

Physiological arousal patterns are also differ-
entially related to the four reSponse modes. Gormly

(1971) and Steiner (1966) reported that skin conductance

14

measures indicated that individuals employing under-recall
as a reSponse style had the highest arousal pattern. Sub-
jects using conformity were second, devaluation third, and
subjects who responded to disagreement by rejection.evinced

the lowest arousal pattern.

Present Study

 

The current review of the literature indicates that
most of the research on dissimilarity and attraction has
focused on the effects of disagreement on liking and indi-
vidual differences in response to interpersonal disagree-
ment. To date, however, there is little research exploring
the various aspects of the stimulus that produces the
negative evaluation of a disagreeing other. One aspect in
particular that may have bearing on the threatening effects
of disagreement, is the manner or expressive style in which
disagreement is conveyed. The focus of the present study
was primarily concerned with investigating the manner in
which disagreement style effects attraction.

Although there is little research directly explor-
ing the effects of disagreement style on attraction, one
may reason from personal observations and experiences with
interpersonal disagreements in formulating a hypothesis.
Everyday experience attests a priori to the fact that there
are many variables which serve to reduce the threatening

effects of disagreement. These, in turn, may influence

15

the liking or disliking of the disagreeing other, e.g.,

the kind of interaction whether it be marriage, friendship,
or stranger, the self-perception of the individual, his
ideals, the kind of information he receives about another,
the other's status, and the effects of the duration of the
relationship.

In addition, even in the above situations, the
manner in which disagreement is conveyed may be operating
to effect liking or disliking. A person who has a caustic,
aggressive or Opinionated expressive style to interpersonal
disagreement may be liked less than one who is "placative,"
"sensitively tactful," or casts his own position in a
humorous manner. The former disagreement style may be
more threatening to the other person.

Byrne (1971) contends that attitude disagreement
evokes dislike for the disagreeing stranger because dis-
similarity is threatening. However, it may be that the
dislike does not occur because of disagreement per se,
but rather it may, in part, be due to the manner in which
disagreement is conveyed.

In the typical attraction paradigm experiment,
the S is given no information on the stranger's expressive
style. In the face of the disagreement, the "safest"
stance may be to assume that the stranger is combative
and hence not likable. A person who may convey a combative

or threatening disagreement style is illustrated by the

16

following statements adopted from Rokeach (1954) in his
description of the characteristic manner in which the
dogmatic individual reSponds to disagreement: "Only a
simple minded fool would think that," "A person must be
pretty stupid to think . . ." (p. 201). Although Rokeach
does not explicitly state that dogmatic peOple express a
more combative or threatening disagreement style, im-
plicit in the language employed to express disagreement

is a combative or threatening overtone. Furthermore,
Rokeach contends that the use of Opinionated language
provides another person With two kinds of information.

The use of such language tells us the way in which the
person accepts,and rejects ideas or beliefs and the way

he accepts or rejects people depending on whether they
agree or disagree with him. In contrast, a person who
conveys disagreement in a placative or empathic manner may
be less threatening and combative. The expressive style
of the placative person may be illustrated by the following:
"Yes, I understand what you are saying and you have a good
point. Perhaps another way of looking at the same thing
would suggest . . .“ It is prOposed that disagreement

per se need not necessarily be threatening and the manner
in which it is conveyed may be another way of investi-
gating the effects of interpersonal disagreement on

attraction.

17

A study conducted by Hodges and Byrne (1971)
provides some indirect support for the effects of dis-
agreement style on attraction. The results suggested
that subjects were more attracted to people who expressed
their attitudinal disagreement in open-minded terms and
less attracted to people who expressed attitudinal dis-
agreement in dogmatic terms. Whether the effects were
due to the strength of the opinion or the combativeness
Of the disagreeing other was unclear. Accordingly, it was
hypothesized that people exposed to threatening disagree-
ment will be less attracted to the source than those ex-
posed to non-threatening disagreement.

Aside from the overall group effects in reSponse
to expressive style, the current study also examines indi-
vidual differences in the subject's responses to dis-
agreement and expressive style. Byrne (1971) reviewed
the research concerned with investigating individual dif-
ferences in interpersonal attraction and concluded that
the search for a significant relationship between per-
sonality variables and attraction responses has for the
most part yielded inconsistent and conflicting results.
According to Byrne, one of the most promising subject
variables that demonstrated a relationship to attraction
was social avoidance and distress (SAD).

Watson and Friend (1969) developed the scale for

measuring social avoidance and distress. The investigators

18

defined social avoidance as “avoiding being with, talking
(to, or escaping from others for any reason," and defined
social distress as "the reported experience of a negative
emotion, such as being upset, distressed, tense, or anxious,
in social interactions, or the reported lack Of negative
emotion, such as being calm, at ease or comfortable"
(p. 449).

In investigations employing the SAD scale, Smith
(1970, 1972) reasoned that a person high in social anxiety
may be seen as being strongly motivated to avoid social
disapproval. The reinforcement model suggests that agree-
ment and disagreement possess reinforcement properties
which affect attraction. Smith suggests that if similarity
and dissimilarity "possess acquired reinforcement proper-
ties related to approval and disapproval" (p. 23), then the
reinforcement properties of attitude.agreements and dis-
agreements would have a greater effect for peOple highly
motivated to avoid disapproval than those who are less
concerned about social disapproval. Accordingly, it was
proposed that high SAD individuals would be more attracted
to similar others and less attracted to dissimilar others
than low SAD individuals. The results revealed that high
SAD subjects demonstrated the greatest similarity attrac-
tion effect. However, significant differences were found
only in the disagreement condition. In other words, high

SAD individuals indicated a greater dislike with

19

disagreeing others than low SAD individuals. A study by
Gouaux, Lamberth, and Friedrich (1972) revealed similar
results confirming the findings of Smith.

The results of Smith's investigations and the
reasoning developed for the effects of disagreement styles
on attraction suggest that high and low SAD individuals
may differ in their attraction responses in the combative
disagreement condition and will not differ in the placative
disagreement condition.

In short, the following three hypotheses were de-

rived for evaluation in the present investigation:

I. Subjects will be more attracted to the
placative disagreeing stranger than to

the combative disagreeing stranger.

II. High SAD individuals will be less
attracted to disagreeing combative

strangers than low SAD individuals.

III. High and low SAD subjects will not
significantly differ in their re-
spective attraction responses to the

disagreeing placative stranger.

CHAPTER II

METHOD

Subjects

One hundred and twenty undergraduates enrolled in
an introductory psychology course at Michigan State Uni-
versity comprised the subject pool. There was roughly an
. equal number of females and males. Subjects volunteered
to participate in two experimental sessions described as
an investigation of how people form interpersonal judge-
ments based on a limited amount of information about an-

other perSon.

Measures

The Evaluative-Behavior Attraction Measure, E-BAM,’
(Gormly, Gormly and Johnson, 1971) was used to assess
attraction reSponses. The E-BAM has a reported internal
consistency reliability of .94. The measure was employed
as the dependent measure because it yields a wider range
Of attraction scores than the Interpersonal Judgement
Scale (Byrne, 1961). The E-BAM is comprised of three
polar adjective pairs: unpleasant-pleasant, familiar-
unfamiliar, and unfriendly—friendly. In addition there

20

21

are three social distance items which request the subject
to reSpond to the following: would-would not accept as a
roommate, would-would not accept as a member of my social
group, would-would not accept as an intimate friend.
Judgements are made on a six point scale ranging from very
positive to very negative evaluations.

Watson and Friend (1969) developed a social avoid-
ance and distress scale (SAD) consisting of twenty-eight
true-false items such as: I have no particular desire to
avoid peOple; I often want to get away from people; and I
find it easy to relax with other peOple. The internal
consistency reliability of the scale as computed by KR-20
was .94. The experimental groups consisted of subjects
from the upper third of the SAD distribution (scores above

12) and subjects from the lower third (scores below 5).

Procedure

 

Subjects were tested in two sessions. In the first
session subjects were given the following instructions:

For several years psychologists have been
interested in the scientific study of attitudes.
Experimental investigatiOns have looked at the
way attitudes are formed, the ways in which
attitudes change and the relationship between
attitudes and behavior. The first session of
this two part experiment is concerned with
gathering some information from you concerning
student attitudes on a number of issues.

On the following pages you will find a
series of attitude statements. For each state-
ment please check the response which best

22

expresses your opinion on that issue. Please
answer each statement as honestly as possible.
All information will be treated confidentially.
There are no right answers; we are interested
in yQE£_views. Please place the number that is
on the tOp of this face-sheet on all materials
that you complete in this experiment.

The questionnaire consisted of eighteen attitudes
selected from a forty-two item pool devised by Gormly
gE_31. (1971). The items were presented in a six point
scale format ranging from strongly pro to strongly con.
The attitude survey covered a number of tOpics such as
homosexuality, death penalty, birth control, and the ex-
pression of emotions.

The attitude booklets were collected and the sub-
jects dismissed until the following week. In the interim
a fictitious protocol was devised by the experimenter which
systematically agreed or disagreed with the subject's
responses from the original questionnaire.

Two levels of attitudinal information were manip-
ulated. The Agreement Condition consisted Of a booklet
which was similar to fifteen of the subject's original
responses. An agreement was defined as being one response
position removed from the subject's original record, but
always in general agreement on the same side of the issue,
pro or con. The Disagreement Condition consisted of a
protocol which was contrived to be in disagreement with

twelveLof the subject's reSponses on the original record.

Disagreements were defined as being three positions

23

removed from the subject's original responses on the six

__..—._1
‘«

point scale.
The following attitude statements selected from
the Attitude Survey (see Appendix A) will serve to illus-

trate the procedure:

Death Penalty (Check One)

I strongly feel that the death penalty
should not be used in any case.

I feel that the death penalty should
not be used in any case.

I feel that perhaps the death penalty
should be used in some cases.

I feel that the death penalty should
be used in some cases.

I strongly feel that the death penalty

should be used in some cases.
If the subject indicated he agreed with the statement,
"I strongly feel that the death penalty should not be
used in any case," the experimenter would mark the next
response Option for the Agreement Condition. In the Dis-
agreement Condition, the item "I feel that perhaps the
death penalty should be used in some cases" would be
marked.

In the second session of the experiment, subjects

were informed that they were to make judgements about an
anonymous person based on a limited amount Of information.

The following instructions were given:

24

Earlier in the quarter you filled out an
attitude survey dealing with 18 issues. One
purpose was to acquire knowledge about student
attitudes. The second part of this experiment
is to learn something about how a person can
form a judgement about another person just by
knowing a limited amount of information.

In another experiment during spring quarter,
information was collected from 200 students.
Some Of the information is presented inside each
booklet. The person you are to make judgements
about is Of the same sex and age as yourself and
will remain anonymous. Please read the informa-
tion about this person carefully, and try to form
an Opinion about them. When you have finished
examining this person's responses complete the
evaluation scale. When you have completed the
evaluation scale, please fill out the question-
naire concerning your personal attitudes and
traits. All information remains strictly confi-
dential.

Printed inside each bogus booklet was a short
hand-written self-descriptive profile of the anonymous
person's characteristic mode of responding to people who
hold contrary views. One profile was characterized as
combative; the other as placative. The profiles were
composed in a variety of handwriting styles and in a
variety of colors in several writing media, for example
fountain and ballpoint pens, pencils, etc.

Preceding each self-descriptive profile, the
following information was presented to the subject to
explain the inclusion of the profile in the test booklet:

In another experiment this person was re-

quested to write self-descriptive statements
concerning their characteristic mode of re-
Sponding to peOple who hold differing views

from their own. Please read carefully the
following self-descriptive profile.

25

Then either the handwritten self-descriptive
combative profile or the handwritten self-descriptive

placative profile was presented to each subject as follows:

Combative Stranger

 

In general I find myself to be a person who
has strong convictions. I Often am very anxious
to defend my position against any contrary position.
In fact, I usually become very irritated and
frequently lash out at others with statements like
"you're stupid," "you're an idiot." I hate to
admit this, but I often am intolerant of those
who hold contrary Opinions. I'm usually right.

Placative Stranger

 

I really try to listen to the other person's
position. If I don't understand what they are
saying I ask them to repeat or clarify their points
until I do understand. If someone disagrees with
me, I try to realize that there are other view-
points and make an attempt to be as open to dis-
agreements as I can. I like to discuss things out
reasonably and calmly in order to avoid unnecessary
conflict.

All treatment groups were presented with a bogus
attitude booklet, a self-descriptive profile, an attraction
measure, and the personality questionnaire. The control
group was exposed to the same format except they were not
presented with fictitious attitude booklets. At the end
Of the experimental sessions, subjects were debriefed

concerning the purpose of the research and dismissed.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

The major analysis consisted of a 2 X 3 analysis
Of variance with Disagreement Style and Group as the
factors. Disagreement Style referred to whether the
stranger responded to disagreement in a placative or com-
bative manner. The Group factor was comprised of three
levels of attitudinal information. Subjects received in-
formation about the stranger which either agreed (similar)
or disagreed (dissimilar) with them on the attitude survey,
while subjects in the control condition did not receive any
information concerning attitudinal similarity/dissimilarity.
A 2 X 3 X 2 analysis of variance was also performed on the
data with the third factor referring to high or low social
evaluative anxiety as measured by the SAD scale. Compari-
sons among the means were assessed by the t-statistic and
the Tukey test.

The mean attraction responses and standard de-
viations for the effects of disagreement style on attrac-
tion are presented in Table 1 for the six experimental
conditions. The scores for the attraction measures were
analyzed with a 2 X 3 factOrial analysis of variance. The

26

27

summary table for the results are presented in Table 2.
The analysis demonstrated a highly significant main effect
for disagreement style (F = 56.77, df = 1/114, p < .0001).
Attraction was more positive toward the placative stranger
(X = 26.56) than the combative stranger (X = 18.91). The
results show that when an individual is presented with
information that a stranger is intolerant of disagreeing
others, he is evaluated as less likable than a stranger
who is presented as more tolerant of disagreeing others.
In addition to the above finding, the analysis further
revealed a significant Group main effect (F = 4.04, df =
2/114, p < .02). The interaction F for Style and Group

was less than 1.

TABLE I

MEAN ATTRACTION SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
OF DISAGREEMENT STYLE
TOWARD SIMILAR AND DISSIMILAR STRANGERS

 

 

Attitudinal Information

 

 

Style Agree Disagree Control
.Placative x 27.40‘ 24.65 27.65 i = 26.56
s 5.40 4.84 6.25
Combative x 21.30 17.05 18.40 i = 18.91
s 5.70 4.70 6.27

 

x = 24.35 i = 20.85 i = 23.02

 

28

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF THE 2 X 3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
FOR THE ATTRACTION SCORES

 

 

 

 

Source SS DF MS F
Style (A) 1 1755.68 56.77***
Group (B) 2 124.91 4.04*
A X B 2 24.83
Error 114 30.93
*P .02
***P .0001

Analysis of the simple effects of Style in the
Disagreement Condition showed, as predicted, a statisti-

cally significant difference (t = 4.22, p < .05).

(114)
Subjects made higher evaluations of the disagreeing placa-
tive stranger (i = 24.65; S = 4.84) than the disagreeing
combative stranger (X = 17.05; S = 4.70). Apparently,
even though a stranger is depicted as dissimilar, attrac—
tion is higher if his interpersonal Style indicates
tolerance; and, conversely, attraction is lower if his
Style suggests intolerance for disagreeing others.

In order to further investigate the source of the
main effects, a Tukey test with significance set at the
.05 level was used to make further comparisons among the

means. The Tukey statistic provides a powerful and

appropriate test for post hoc comparisons when the N's

29

in each treatment level are equal. Within the Agreement
Condition, inspection of Table 1 indicates significantly
higher mean attraction reSponses for subjects exposed to
the placative stranger than subjects presented to the
combative stranger (q = 4.91, 6/114 df, p < .05). When
the stranger is presented as similar to the subject, the
results show he is disliked if his interpersonal style is
rejecting of dissimilar others. Differences between cell
means within the Control Condition were also noted. Sub-
jects in this condition received information only about
the stranger's disagreement style and did not receive
information relevant to attitudinal agreement or disagree-
ment. Again, the results indicate significantly higher
mean attraction responses for the placative stranger than
for the combative stranger (q = 7.70, 6/114 df, p < .05).
The results indicate that Disagreement Style differentially
influenced attraction. Evidently, whether a stranger is
presented as similar or dissimilar, he is less liked if
his interpersonal disagreement style is rejecting; on the
other hand, he is evaluated as more likable if his re-
sponse to disagreement is tolerant.

Another factor of interest in the current in-
vestigation was the Often demonstrated similarity attrac-
tion effect. A Tukey test was used to compare the means
between the agree, disagree and control groups. Con-

sistent with the results of previous research on the

30

effects of agreement/disagreement on attraction, agreement
evoked a significantly more positive response (X = 24.35)
than disagreement (x = 20.85, q = 4.02; 3/114 df, p z .05).
The evidence suggests that when people are depicted as
similar, they are better liked than those who are presented
as dissimilar. The magnitude of the mean attraction re-
sponse for the Control Group, which did not receive infor-
mation about the bogus stranger's degree of attitudinal
similarity/dissimilarity, fell between the other two groups.

It was hypothesized that personality factors would
also effect attraction. In particular, it was proposed
that people who were dichotomized into high and low social
evaluative anxiety would be differentially influenced by
interpersonal style in the Disagreement Condition. An
interest in the means and possible interactions among the
three factors led the experimenter to perform an analysis
of variance on the data. The means and standard deviations
of the attraction responses as a function of social eval-
uative anxiety group and disagreement style are presented
in Table 3. The data were analyzed by means of a 2 X 3 X 2
factorial analysis of variance and the summary table is
presented in Table 4. The results demonstrated a highly
significant main effect for Disagreement Style (F (1/67) =
41.83, p < .0001). Both low and high SAD subjects pro-
duced higher mean attraction scores for the placative

stranger.

31

TABLE 3

MEAN ATTRACTION SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
OF INDIVIDUALS LOW AND HIGH ON SOCIAL
AVOIDANCE AND DISTRESS (SAD) TOWARD
SIMILAR AND DISSIMILAR STRANGERS
EXPRESSING PLACATIVE AND COMBATIVE
DISAGREEMENT STYLES

 

 

Attitudinal Information

 

 

 

Style Agree Disagree Control
. 2 25.14 26.28 33.50
Placative S 5.37 4.89 2.12
N 7 7 2
Low SAD
2 22.00 15.71 16.33
Combative S 7.46 5.62 6.06
N 8 7 9
x 32.83 24.40 26.12
Placative S 1.94 1.82 8.27
N 6 5 8
High SAD
x 22.00 17.33 19.75
Combative S 3.50 3.79 6.02
N 9 3 8

 

32

TABLE 4

SUMMARY OF THE 2 X 3 X 2 ANALYSIS OF
VARIANCE OF THE ATTRACTION SCORES

 

 

 

Source SS DF MS F
Style (A) 1 1301.84 41.83***
Group (B) 2 139.49 4.48**
Anxiety (C) 1 45.92 -

A X B 2 12.61 -

A X C l 2.30 -

B X C 2 24.49 -

A X B X C 2 128.44 4.13*
Error 67 31.12

 

*** p < .0001
** p .01
*p<.02

A

A significant main effect for Group was observed
(F (2/67) = 4.48, p < .01). Attraction was found to be
more positive for the agreeing stranger than for the dis-
agreeing stranger. A significant three-way Style x Group
x Anxiety interaction was also noted (F (2/67) = 4.13,

p < .02).

A t statistic was used to test the second hypoth-
esis which proposed that, within the Disagreement Con-
dition, high SAD individuals would be less attracted
toward the combative stranger than low SAD individuals.
The differences between the means of the high SAD (X =

17.33; s = 3.79) and the low SAD (i = 5.71; s = 5.62)

33

subjects were not reliably significant. Thus the second
prediction was not supported. However, the third hypoth-
esis was confirmed. Low and high SAD subjects did not
significantly differ in their respective attraction re-
sponses in the Placative Disagreement Condition (t(67)
.56, p < .05). Thus within the dissimilar condition,
socially anxious and nonanxious people were not found to
significantly differ in their evaluations toward the
placative stranger.

A graphic representation Of the Style x Group x
Anxiety results are presented in Figure 1. The graph in-
dicates that the placative style induced a higher attrac-
tion response than the combative style for both low and
high SAD individuals in all group conditions. Inconsis-
tent with the results of previous research, high SAD sub-
jects were not more positive toward the placative stranger
than low SADs except in the Agreement Condition. With the
exception of the Agreement Condition, low SADs appeared
to be more favorable toward the placative stranger. Both
low and high SAD subjects were equally attracted toward
the combative agreeing stranger, while high SADs appeared
slightly more favorable toward the combative stranger in

the Disagreement and Control conditions.

34

coauomuoucH mumflxsm x dsouu x mamum

OQD mo coapmucommumom Ownmmuw «Ira musmflm

huoflxcfi
nmflm 30A

 

IIIIIIIII

®>HQM goo

IIIIIIIIIII

O>HHMOMHQ

ma
ma
om
mm
«N
mm
mm
om
mm
«m

 

ZOHBHQZOU mmmwdeQ

mumflxc¢
swam Boa

 

00 ma

APGQE ON

NN
ON
mm
mm
ANU om
666 mm

3. em

ZOHBHQZOU AOMBZOU.

 

cmoz
coauomupum

ammz
coauomupum

mumflxcm
nmflm 30A

 

 

O>Humnfioo_

ewe
do
om»

 

ZOHBHQZOU mmmwd

ma
ma
om
NN
vN
mm
mm

mm
vm

coma
coauomuuud

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

According to Byrne, disagreements are threatening
and consequently evoke a lower attraction reSponse than
agreements. The position taken by this investigation pro—
posed that the manner in which disagreements are expressed
may differentially influence attraction. The results
supported the hypothesis that when people disagree, a
placative disagreeing style would elicit a higher attrac-
tion response than a combative disagreeing style.

Although the results of this investigation do not
dispute Byrne's contention that disagreements elicit nega-
tive affect and are threatening, they do suggest that the
manner in which disagreements are expressed, differentially
influence the magnitude of attraction toward a disagreeing
other. Expressing disagreement in a placative manner
apparently serves to mitigate the implied threat while
expressing disagreement in a combative manner appears to
enhance the implied threat. The placative style diffuses
some of the negative reinforcement properties of disagree-
ment. Byrne's position suggests reduction of the implied
threat would lessen the negative affect and consequently de-

tmrease the magnitude of dislike for the disagreeing stranger.
35

’1

36

Another interpretation of the differential in-
hfluence of disagreement style on attraction may be dis-
cussed in terms of the language used by the disagreeing
lother and the effect language style has on attraction.
Rokeach (1960) suggests there may be a connection between
the use of opinionated language and the way we accept and
reject people and the way we accept and reject ideas.
He defines opinionated language as:

any statement that gives us two kinds of in-

,formation about the Speaker. First, it tells

us whether the speaker accepts or rejects a

particular idea or belief. Second, it tells

us whether the speaker accepts or rejects

people depending on whether they agree or dis-

agree with the idea (p. 46).

Rokeach also points out that the use of opinionated
language seems to be one of the characteristics associated
with the closed-minded individual, and the use of non-
opinionated language a trait of the Open-minded individual.
One implication of the use of Opinionated and non-
Opinionated language has for attraction is that peOple may
be more_attracted tO an individual who employs non-
Opinionated language and less attracted to a person using
Opinionated language. Opinionated language may Operate in
a threatening manner, arousing negative affect and con-
sequently evoke a lower evaluative response. A study that
lends some support to these speculations was conducted by

Rosenfeld and Nauman (1969). They investigated the effects

of dogmatism on the development of informal relationships

37

among dormitory residents. The results indicated that
non-dogmatic subjects received positive evaluations from
their peers, while dogmatic subjects received negative
evaluations.

The implications the above has for the current
study is viewed in terms of the Opinionated overtones of
the combative disagreement style. The subject was re-
ceiving information not only about another person's agree-
ment or disagreement of a particular idea or belief, but
also information about the way the stranger accepts or
rejects people depending on whether they agree or disagree
on Specified issues. The fact that the results did not
indicate any significant differences in attraction between
the agree and control groups further suggests that dis-
agreement style contributed an important element of infor-
mation in influencing attraction.

Conceivably the combative disagreement style
functions in a manner similar to Opinionated language.

The combative style conveys information that the disagree-
ing stranger will most likely reject the ideas or beliefs
of the subject. Further, and perhaps more importantly, it
conveys a high probability that the stranger would reject,
be intolerant, aggressive, and caustic toward people who
disagree with him. Disagreement as presented in Byrne's

attraction research may for some peOple imply the above

38

behaviors, but more likely it suggests the rejection of
.an idea or belief, not necessarily the rejection of a
person.

Conversely, the placative disagreement style
suggests that even though the stranger disagrees with the
subject over most issues, there is little evidence for the
subject to infer that the stranger behaves in a negative
manner by rejecting people or rejecting the ideas of others.
On the contrary the subject could reasonably anticipate a
positive interaction with the placative stranger discussing
their respective differences in a "civilized" and non-
threatening manner. The placative stranger suggests that
he deals with disagreement in a tolerant, rational manner
and makes an attempt to understand others.

Apparently the essential difference between the
placative and combative disagreement styles is the impli-
cation of the former that the stranger will neither reject
the subject because Of his ideas nor be intolerant of dis-
agreement. On the other hand, the combative style strongly
suggests rejection Of both contrary beliefs and those
people who disagree. Perhaps it is this essential dif—
ference which contributes to the differential effect of
the two respective styles on attraction.

In Sum, the results of this study can be viewed in
terms of supporting Bryne's contention that disagreements

are threatening. Within this framework, disagreement style

39

may be interpreted as either mitigating or intensifying
the implied threat.' An alternative explanation is sug-
gested within the framework of Rokeach's concept of
Opinionated language and the implication of the way one
accepts or rejects ideas or peOple depending on whether
they agree or disagree.

The interpretation of the effects of social evalu-
ative anxiety on attraction are confounded by the nature
of the triple interaction effects limiting discussion of
the main effects. Two other factors add confusion to any
reasonable assessment of the results. The N's per cell
were small and grossly disproportionate ranging from 2 to
9. Secondly, the variances were unequal, ranging from
3.31 to 68.39, thus violating the homogeneity of variance
assumption. Consequently, interpretation of these results
are confusing and weakly substantiated. However, within
the context of previous research by Smith (1970) and the
results of the current investigation of the effects of
disagreement style on attraction, it appears reasonable
that a person high in social-evaluative anxiety would be
more negative toward a combative disagreeing stranger and
more positive toward a placative disagreeing stranger
than a person low in social evaluative anxiety. Apparently
this speculation requires and awaits further empirical
investigation. It is suggested that "a more balanced

design" with a larger sample size and an equal number of

4O

Observations per cell be employed to test the merits of
the above proposition.

Although Byrne (1969) has demonstrated the
similarity attraction relationship to hold among a number
of different stiumulus modes, a fruitful avenue of investi-
gation may be to alter the paper and pencil format under-
taken in this investigation and utilize the method of
face-to-face encounter of the subject and confederate.

An experimental design which incorporates an interaction
between a subject and a disagreeing stranger allows the
Opportunity to investigate the effects of nonverbal cues
(physical appearance, facial expression, gestures, tonal
qualities of voice, etc.) and the exploration of a variety
of other positive and negative reinforcing components which
may Operate to increase or decrease the magnitude of threat
imposed by disagreement.

The nature Of the relationship may be a factor in
determining attraction. Disagreement may differentially
influence attraction between marital partners, friends or
strangers. Situational variables may also play a role in
influencing the magnitude of threat. The effects of dis-
agreement between two individuals might be different for
an innocuous social situation, a job interview or before
a group Of peOple. These are empirical problems and merit

further investigation.

41

A practical research consideration is to investi—
gate the most fruitful manner in expressing disagreement
so as to reduce the implied threat imposed by dissimilar
others. The methods employed for diffusing the heightened
negative reinforcement properties of interpersonal disagree-
ment could be adapted from the techniques currently invoked
in some empathy or sensitivity groups. Developing and
helping people to acquire skills of expressing disagreement
in a non-threatening manner may aid in providing inroads
into improving a variety of interpersonal relationships
and also foster a wider latitude Of acceptance for dis-
similar others. The manipulation employed in the current
investigation is but one approach in expressing disagree-
ment. Humorous, light, self-depreciatory remarks may con-
ceivably diffuse the negative reinforcement properties

implied by disagreement.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

ATTITUDE SURVEY

Grades (check one)

I am very much in favor of the university grading
system as it now exists.

I am in favor of the university grading system as

it now exists.

I am mildly in favor of the university grading system
as it now exists.

I am mildly Opposed to the university grading system
as it now exists.

I am Opposed to the university grading system as it
now exists.

I am very much Opposed to the university grading
system as it now exists.

 

 

Death Penalty (check one)

I strongly feel that the death penalty should not be
used in any case.

I feel that the death penalty should not be used in
any case.

I feel that perhaps the death penalty should not be
used in some cases.

I feel that perhaps the death penalty should be used
in some cases.

I feel that the death penalty should be used in some
cases.

I strongly feel that the death penalty should be used
in some cases.

Legalization of Marijuana (check one)

I strongly feel that smoking marijuana should be legal.

I feel that smoking marijuana should be legal.

I tend tO feel that marijuana smoking should be legal.

I tend to feel that marijuana smoking should not be

legal.

I feel that marijuana smoking should not be legal.

I strongly feel that marijuana smoking should not be
legal.

42

43

Professor and Student Needs (check one)

I feel that university professors are completely
indifferent to student needs.

I feel that university professors are indifferent to
student needs.

I feel that university professors are slightly in-
different to student needs.

I feel that university professors are slightly con-
cerned about student needs.

I feel that university professors are concerned about
student needs.

I feel that university professors are very much con-
cerned about student needs.

Fresh Air and Exercise (check one)

I strongly believe that fresh air and daily exercise
are not important.

I believe that fresh air and daily exercise are not
important.

I feel that probably fresh air and daily exercise are
not important.

I feel that probably fresh air and daily exercise are
important.

I believe that fresh air and daily exercise are im-
portant.

I strongly believe that fresh air and daily exercise
are important.

 

 

The Respect of Others (check one)

I strongly believe that people should strive for the
respect of others.
I believe that people should strive for the respect
of others.
I believe that perhaps peOple should strive for the
respect of others.
I believe that perhaps people should not strive for
the reSpect of others.
I believe that peOple should not strive for the
respect of others.
I strongly believe that people should not strive for
the respect of others.

 

 

Birth Control (check one)

I am very much in favor of most birth control tech-
niques.
I am in favor of most birth control techniques.

44

am mildly in favor of most birth control techniques.
am mildly opposed to most birth control techniques.
am Opposed to most birth control techniques.

am very much Opposed to most birth control techniques.

HHHH

 

Fear of the Future (check one)

I strongly believe that it is only natural for a
person to be fearful of the future.

I believe that it is only natural for a person to be
fearful of the future.

I believe that perhaps it is only natural for a person
to be fearful of the future.

I believe that perhaps it is not natural for a person
to be fearful of the future.

I believe that it is not natural for a person to be
fearful of the future.

I strongly believe that it is not natural for a person
to be fearful of the future.

Discipline of Children (check one)

I strongly believe that the father should discipline
the children in the family.

I believe that the father should discipline the
children in the family.

I feel that perhaps the father should discipline the
children in the family.

I feel that perhaps the mother should discipline the
children in the family.

I believe that the mother should discipline the children
in the family.

I strongly believe that the mother should discipline
the children in the family.

 

Religious Salvation (check one)

I strongly believe that religious salvation is man's
most important goal.

I believe that religious salvation is man's important
goal.

I feel that religious salvation is perhaps man's
most important goal.

I feel that religious salvation is perhaps not man's
most important goal.

I feel that religious salvation is not man's most
important goal.

I strongly believe that religious salvation is not
man's most important goal.

45

Integration in Public Schools (check one)

Racial integration in public schools is a mistake,
and I am very much against it.

Racial integration in public schools is a mistake,
and I am against it.

 

and I am mildly against it.
Racial integration in public schools is a good plan,
and I am mildly in favor Of it.

Racial integration in public schools is a good plan,
and I am in favor of it.
Racial integration in public schools is a good plan,
and I am very much in favor of it.

Racial integration in public schools is a mistake,

Sense of Accomplishment (check one)

A sense
A sense
A sense
A sense
A sense
A sense

 

 

Concern for

of
Of
of
of
of
of

Others (check one)

accomplishment
accomplishment
accomplishment
accomplishment
accomplishment
accomplishment

is
is
is
is
is
is

very important to me.
important to me.

slightly important to me.
slightly unimportant to me.
unimportant to me.

very unimportant to me.

I strongly feel that most peOple don't give a damn

for others.
I feel that
I feel that

others.

I feel that
I feel that

most people don't give a damn for others.
perhaps most peOple don't give a damn for

perhaps most peOple do care about others.
most peOple do care about others.
I strongly feel that most people do care about others.

Welfare Legislation (check one)

am very much Opposed to increased welfare legislation.

ation.

I
I am Opposed to increased welfare legislation.

I am mildly Opposed to increased welfare legislation.
I am mildly in favor of increased welfare legislation.
I am in favor of increased welfare legislation.

I am very much in favor of increased welfare legis-

1

Interracial Dating and Marriage (check one)

I would very much like to see interracial dating and
marriage an acceptable practice.

I would like to see interracial dating and marriage
an acceptable practice.

 

46

I would slightly like to see interracial dating and
marriage an acceptable practice.

I would slightly not like to see interracial dating
and marriage an acceptable practice.

I would not like to see interracial dating and
marriage an acceptable practice.

I would very much not like to see interracial dating
and marriage an acceptable practice.

American Way of Life (check one)

I strongly believe that the American way of life is A
not the best. '
I believe that the American way of life is not the

best.

I tend to feel that the American way of life is not

the best.

I tend to feel that the American way of life is the

best.

I believe that the American way of life is the best.

I strongly believe that the American way of life is

the best.

Expression of Emotions (check one)

I strongly believe that people should let their
emotions show in public.
I believe that people should let their emotions show
in public.
I mildly hold that people should let their emotions
show in public.
I mildly believe that people should not let their
emotions show in public.
I believe that people should not let their emotions
show in public.
I strongly believe that peOple should not let their
emotions show in public.

 

Homosexuality (check one)

I strongly believe that homosexuality is not morally
wrong.
I believe that homosexuality is not morally wrong.
I believe that perhaps homosexuality is not morally
wrong.
I believe that perhaps homosexuality is morally wrong.
I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.
I strongly believe that homosexuality is morally wrong.

 

 

 

47

>um> Saoumuooofi maunmflam mapnmflam maoumuopos >HO>
ousumEEH . . . . . . . musumz

 

>um> mamumumooe Sausmwam haunmflam mamumuopoe muo>
>HUCOHHMCD . . . . . . . %HUG0HH&

 

Suo> >HODOHOOOE maugmwam Sausmflam waopmuooofi wuo>
”Cg . u u u a - . HmSHU

 

>uo> Samumumpoa mauzmflam mapsmfiam waoumHOOOE muo>

 

 

 

 

HMHHAEmMCD . . . . . . . Hmflawsmm
>HO> SHODMHOOOE Saunmwam maugmflam SHODMHOOOE muo>

UHUOHfiHmz . p . . a a - wflnmum
>uo> haoumumoos hauamwam Mapsmwam maoumuooos mum>

UCOCflMCOU . . . a u a . QHSmQD
wuo> haoumuopofi.hapamwam haunmwam Sawumuopoe >uo>

ucmmmoamcb . . . . . . . ucmmmoam

.cowuwzucw Mao» “many on meuwm on non OO cam
.mmosm pmon “30> O>HO Op SHE .3OHOQ co>wm munofioumum cam mo>wuommom 0:» mo mayo»
ca confismxw umsfl m>mn 50> cOHumEHOMCH 0:» mo mammn on“ so comuom map oumu mmmmam

 

whammoz cOHuomuuud HOH>m£OmIO>HumsHm>m

48

UHDOB

DOC OHSOB

@Hso3

uoe eases

UHDOZ

no: cases

sampeeetme Samueumeoe mauemeam sapemeam sflmeeemeoe mampeeemoe

 

 

.msoum Hwfloom we no MoQEoE m mm comumm mflzu umoood

samueeemme sampeumeos. Sauemeem sauemeflm Samueumeos samueqemme

 

- a b a a -

 

.COmHom was» Saws xuoz

memueeemme samumemeos sapemeam mauameam samumuoeoe Samueewmme

 

- u a o a -

 

.OHMEEOOA 8 mm common wwnu ummoom

sameeeemme mamumuoeos Sesameam saunmwam sHoumumeos.sHmpeeemme

 

 

.050: m5 0» COmuom was» ouw>cH

Samuficwmoo maopmnmooa mahnmwaw maunmwam SHODMHOOOE SHOHHCAMOO

 

 

.OCOHHM ounfiwucfl cm mm comuum wasp umoooa

Samueeemoe samumumeos mauemham sauemeem samumumeoe samufleemoe

 

 

.GOmHOm mwnu mo moa>om xmd

no:
vasoz

UHDOB

uoc
pasoz

UHDOB

DOG

UHDOS

UHSOS

49

Social Avoidance and Distress Scale

 

Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal
attitudes and feelings. There are no "right" or "wrong"
answers. Please answer as honestly as possible what is
true Of you. Be sure to answer every item. To the left
blacken in the circle under "T" if the statement is true,
or the circle under "F" if the statement is false as it
pertains to you personally. All information will be kept
strictly confidential.

 

 

 

 

0 0 l. I feel relaxed even in unfamiliar social
situations.

0 0 2. I try to avoid situations which force me to
be very sociable.

0 0 3. It is easy for me to relax when I am with
strangers.

0 0 4. I have no particular desire to avoid peOple.

0 0 5. I Often find social occasions upsetting.

0 0 6. I usually feel calm and comfortable at social
occasions.

0 0 7. I am usually at ease when talking to someone
of the Opposite sex.

0 0 8. I try to avoid talking to peOple unless I
know them well.

0 0 9. If the chance comes to meet new people, I
Often take it.

0 0 10. I often feel nervous or tense in casual
get-togethers in which both sexes are present.

0 0 11. I am usually nervous with people unless I
know them well.

0 0 12. I usually feel relaxed when I am with a group
of people.

0 0 13. I Often want to get away from peOple.

0 0 14. I usually feel uncomfortable when I am in a
group Of peOple I don't know.

0 0 15. I usually feel relaxed when I meet someone
for the first time.

0 0 16. Being introduced to people makes me tense
and nervous.

0 0 17. Even though a room is full of strangers, I
may enter it anyway.

0 0 18. I would avoid walking up and joining a
large group of peOple.

0 0 19. When my superiors want to talk with me, I
talk willingly.

 

 

 

 

 

T F
0 0
O 0
0 O
O 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 O
0 0

 

 

20.

21.
22.

23.
24.
25.

26.
27.

28.

50

I Often feel on edge when I am with a group
of people.

I tend to withdraw from peOple.

I don't mind talking to people at parties
or social gatherings.

I am seldom at ease in a large group of
peOple.

I Often think up excuses in order to avoid
social engagements.

I sometimes take the responsibility for
introducing people to each other.

I try to avoid formal social occasions.

I usually go to whatever social engagements
I have.

I find it easy to relax with other peOple.

LI ST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Aristotle. The Rhetoric. New York: Appleton-Century,
1932.

 

Aronson, E. "Some antecedents of interpersonal attraction.‘
In W. J. Arnold and D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation. University of Nebraska
Press, 1969, 21.

 

Aronson, E., and Worchel, P. "Similarity versus liking as
determinants of interpersonal attractiveness."
Psychonomic Science, 1966, 2, 157-158.

 

Backman, C. W., and Secord, P. F. "The effect of per-
ceived liking on interpersonal attraction."
Human Relations, 1959, 22, 379-384.

 

Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., and Walster, G. W.
"Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A
test of the matching hypothesis." J. Exp. Soc.
Psychol., 1971, 2, 173-189.

 

Brewer, R. E., and Brewer, M. B. "Attraction and accuracy
of perception in dyads." J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.,
1968, 2, 188-193.

 

Byrne, D. "Interpersonal attraction and attitude
similarity." J. Abn. Soc. Psychol., 1961a, 22,
713-715.

Byrne, D. "Attitudes and Attraction." In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.
New York: Academic Press, 1969, 1, 35-89.

Byrne, D. The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic
Press, 1971.

 

Byrne, D. "Interpersonal attraction." Annual Review of
Psychol., 1973, 25, 317-336.

Byrne, D., and Clore, G. L., Jr. "Predicting interpersonal
attraction toward strangers presented in three
different stimulus modes." Psychonomic Science,

 

51

52

Byrne, D., and Clore, G. L. "Effectance arousal and
attraction." J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Monogr.,
1967, g, 1-18.

 

Byrne, D., Clore, G. L., and Worchel, P. "The effect of
economic similarity-dissimilarity on inter-
personal attraction." J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.,
1966, 1, 220-224.

 

Byrne, D., Ervin, C. R., and Lamberth, J. "Continuity
between the experimental study of attraction and
"real life" computer dating." J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol., 1970, 22, 157-165.

 

Byrne, D., Gouaux, C., Griffitt, W., Lamberth, J.,
Murakawa, N., Prasad, M. B., Prasad, A., and
Ramirez, M., III. "The ubiquitous relationship:
Attitude similarity and attraction." Human
Relations, 1971, 25 (3), 201-207.

 

Byrne, D., and Griffitt, W. "A developmental investi-
gation of the law Of attraction." J. of Pers.
Soc. Psychol., 1966a, 2, 699-702.

 

 

Byrne, D., and Griffitt, W. "Similarity versus liking:
a clarification." Psychonomic Science, 1966b,
9, 295-296.

 

Byrne, D., and Griffitt, W. "Similarity and awareness of
similarity Of personality characteristics as
determinants Of attraction." J. Exp. Res. Pers.,
1969, 2, 179-186.

 

Byrne, D., Griffitt, W., Hudgins, W., and Reeves, K.
"Attitude similarity-dissimilarity and attraction:
Generality beyond the college SOphomore." J. Soc.
Psychol., 1969, 22, 159-161.

Byrne, D., Griffitt, W., and Stefaniak, D. "Attraction
and similarity of personality characteristics.“
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 1969, 2, 82-90.

 

Byrne, D., and Nelson, D. "Attraction as a linear
function of prOportion of positive reinforcements."
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 1965, 2, 659-663.

 

Byrne, D., Nelson, D., and Reeves, K. "Effects of con-
sensual validation and invalidation on attraction
as a function Of verifiability." J. of Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 98-107.

 

 

53

Byrne, D., and Rhamey, R. "Magnitude of positive and
negative reinforcements as a determinant of
attraction." J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 1965, 2,
884-889.

 

Buckhout, P. "Changes in heart rate accompanying attitude
change." J. of Personality and Social Psycholggy,
1966, 2, 695-699.

 

Dickson, H., and McGinnies, E. "Affectivity in the
arousal Of attitudes as measured by GSR." Amer.
Journal of Psychology, 1966, 22, 584-587.

 

Festinger, L. "A theory of social comparison processes."
Human Relations, 1954, 2, 117-140.

 

Goldstein, J. W., and Rosenfeld, H. M. "Insecurity and
preference for persons similar to oneself."
Jo PerSo' 1969' i1, 253-268.

Gormly, J. "Sociobehavioral and physiological reSponses
to interpersonal disagreement." J. Exp. Res.
Pers., 1971, 2, 216-222.

 

Gormly, J., Gormly, A., and Johnson, C. "Interpersonal
attraction: Competence motivation and reinforce-
ment theory." Journal of Personality and Social

 

Psychology, 1971, a, 375-380.

 

Gormly, J., Gormly, A. V., and Johnson, C. "Consistency
of sociobehavioral responses to interpersonal
disagreement." J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 1972,

21 (2), 221-224.

 

Gouaux, D., Lamberth, J., and Friedrich, G. "Affect and
interpersonal attraction: A comparison of trait

 

and state measures." J. Pers. Soc., 1972, 21,
1:53-58.
Griffitt, W. "Interpersonal attraction as a function of

self-concept and personality similarity-
dissimilarity." J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 1966, 2,
581-584.

 

Griffitt, W. "Personality similarity and self-concept
as determinants of interpersonal attraction."
J. Soc. Psychol., 1969, 22, 137-146.

 

Hendrick, C., and Page, H. A. "Self-esteem, attitude
similarity, and attraction." J. Pers., 1970,
22, 588-601.

54

Hodges, L. A., and Byrne, D. "Verbal dogmatism as a
potentiator of intolerance." J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol., 1972, 22 (3), 312-317.

 

Johnson, C., and Gormly, A. "Personality, attraction and
social ambiguity." Journal of Soc. Psychol.,
in press.

 

Johnson, C., Gormly, J., and Gormly, A. "Disagreements
and self-esteem: Support for the competence-
reinforcement model of attraction." J. Res. Pers.,
1973, 2, 165-172.

 

Krauss, R. M. "Structural and attitudinal factors in
interpersonal bargaining." J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.,
1966, 2, 42-55.

 

Newcomb, T. M. The Acquaintance Process. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961.

 

Palmer, J., and Byrne, D. "Attraction toward dominant and
submissive strangers: Similarity versus comple-
mentarity." J. Exp. Res. Pers., 1970, 2, 108-115.

 

Reagor, P. A., and Clore, G. L. "Attraction, test anxiety,
and similarity-dissimilarity of test performance."
Psychon. Sci., 1970, 22, 219-220.

 

Richardson, Helen M. "Studies of mental resemblance be-
tween husbands and wives and between friends."
Psychol. Bull., 1939, gg, 104-120.

 

Richardson, Helen M. "Community of values as a factor in
friendships of college and adult women." J. Soc.
Psychol., 1940, 22, 303-312.

Rokeach, M. "The nature and meaning Of dogmatism."
Psychol. Rev., 1954, 22, 194-205.

 

Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic
Books, 1960.

 

Rosenfeld, H. M., and Nauman, D. "Effects of dogmatism
on the development of informal relationships
among women." Journal of Personality, 1969, 22,
497-511.

 

Schooley, M. "Personality resemblances among married
couples." J. Abn. Soc. Psychol., 1936, 22,
340-347.

 

55

Smith, A. J. "Perceived similarity and the projection of
similarity: The influence Of values." J. Abn.

SOC. Psychol., 1958, 22, 376-378.

 

Smith, R. E. "Social anxiety as a moderator variable in
the attitude-attraction relationship." J. Exp.
Res. Pers., 1972, 2, 22-28.

 

Smith, R. E., and Jeffery, R. W. "Social evaluative
anxiety and the reinforcement properties of agree-
ing and disagreeing attitude statements." J. Exp.
Res. Pers., 1970, 2, 276-280.

 

Steiner, I. D. "The resolution of interpersonal disagree-
ments.“ In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in Experi-
mental Personality Research. Vol. 3. New York:
Academic Press, 1966.

 

 

Steiner, I. D. "Strategies for controlling stress in
interpersonal situations." In. J. E. McGrath (Ed.)
Social and Psychological Factors in Stress.
1970, 140-159.

Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., and Rattman, L.
"Importance Of physical attractiveness in dating
behavior." J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 1966, 2, 508-

 

516.
Watson, D., and Friend, R. "Measurement of social-
evaluative anxiety." J. Cons. Clinic Psychol.,

 

1969, 3;, 448-457.

"‘IIIIIIIITIIITIIIILITIIIIIISIII“

31293100