":29— ...‘(_9..§!33mfi..rrvf h .Wnfldfiuauc an :r 2:425? .2 .2. s. W... 55?. ... é .. . . gm$ .- “flair. ‘ I... \‘V .11»:- Mumwnu f“. 2 . .4... . I." '. Rumba?! . 3“ l D xvi g {I . gsfiey. 22%. . 2| . if]. 4. v. k. . . LO‘ 1;: . v . «afiubrfifiufinmmzfi x»: ‘- .31 . ’2 x§2 ' ’- . V . 6“::f[;:“' 2 2. ‘ .Ag‘ HE“? _ R E. 1! ‘Ew' a; ‘1, “23%‘4‘ 2 x§.< ‘ ,1 2.: . 'h’htf‘:f‘«ffiz . “4 vv tgfiwgggwydfiufi. 3...? ‘29.”..51 vivciz. ha»... . .x f; I 2%;2 MN v... .lIi..!-‘;u.vd v. (rt. :2 9V:I.$t1r.\..:..lz2 ..l 2:. Q...» o .72: .1. $925.. f .925. . 2‘ . 2L . 93!! . Lil-1.2... 6....- . rum- 1 $122.22.. an}: .. 7E» .iab... 3... 2am “ID-2t. . 9 Kill). ”.2... mflfivrr Luv 2 . 2 . 2 . 2 . .9. . 7: . . infirvue flag! . . 23.33"“, X1 . if: 1.1%. éetfighrr I. . } gattr :AM Mun .En . ~ ~ 2 3 $6 a. .2 V\ . #51 2.3: amusinvk 1......wmflw. . 2 . :3. Ir . L ‘ . Rio-rt!“- «gun + x . ‘2 I. 125 t Vuf-rfiu~ . -;2. 2-2 .9 U 22 .22 ’t it I iii ti 3-312 3 . ;. :5 h’ ‘r {2- .2 2?- 3i 2 -, 2. g, S. 1' . 2 2 x‘ :4 . ‘v 2 .. r 9 2’2, 1 2; L" . 3.x 3 1! 1 .l O Q 9 . {CC 3! .. tuna“... E K; In?! 3?“? ~ ‘ 3 2 i -n I r , rI L 3v- *2 2 - «a ""23 Y ’5 ..2.xi.1.-§v§ 0.3: $300!... 2 .22....2qfirpmgnmuw24fint ahfflV’?! , 2. 2 pv‘ L , 1.3%....Liéoumgmui2 28% . 2. . 3kg" 1 (6. x..ma.~ . i .. .I. .3. i trot 1.. , 2%... $2221....Pm. fifisfififl. . Lhikcglrivhuini 5. «(ti 2 4.251 . e: . .7 2 . . . ~1:.s..i§x. t :: ’5 e ‘ I Q 7‘ .v ..fi3 . . . 1.13 .. n.9- btasv u. VIA , .. .24“... st 4....fldhflhnwufi. .be.u.n. . .cnthf .13...» 41 . 2 . 3:21 .2 ‘eoifwvub p 22 2 . 2 2 .. . I! .l . . JCMrnvlésv tuft}? 221...-..rli. El}... . , . .. i ‘2 .Ztisn. i. c ‘H‘vAIIiliz . , .. . 2 2 . E I» . 7. {222172.34}... ........2. 3:23... I“ \. Mn 12:. .. .HV‘IA.‘ v... i. . . .. ...... . 2 t. A,» I ”“52; .99 :‘nVAIO'IQ! v.1”..wca-rnnwfl. .2 u. . .1. £9.36 5 .‘4l Ali gait?! .5 K . ..nv;rr£0...»7. 22.. 31$th 5134b}... 7341.! 6.. 0591154912: 2. iv ‘ A .5 ~§An~fi~£l§0v§ 21.05592. 1.4.! «X s zuN..c};‘oh¥H .. 14....xtvzf¢ («it‘t it . £6.82... (h: I; ‘20.!!! 21": 5%... v.23 £54343¢1§i~iumfr~34~§ ,. M ufiéMuwfififimfififimfiygg 2. .. . .l. . u . . .2 ...... 2. Lu. . .IXK 2.711... . v . .ALLLLLno2 . A ~... 0. if: 3.2.}; n .O!,¢.;L.I.I.vo. Stitxflnthxotnf... 2..le f: 22:32:0012‘241 .Hvtétf» . «Lt .Eoin}. 2th....» 9?. 10A§§Ot$~ ‘4 7:02 7063.}. v»... I. 303.432.1005.; . .huhifiul..i..s.4u a izgho§~xv tn...o&.1\7vl|hb 2 L . .59- ifvua io§o¢b§zt;a .3 3.16.};- tfu If! .v.‘ , . . . .- .2! I. 9 7: . 1.01.82!» . 1 0.1: Vs‘iflflfllfl?! 1 W‘I.-.« an... 5:132... . 323. .To .D . . .fiiwiy.§23 .2 Jfififlg 2.. z .1. 2.... 2 .. .. 22. 46.1: 2 £21.)...IAA... 5.2...2 «3&2. ....\ .wJ. . x . ... a. . I .2 .. : . .. i , r .. . . . , . . T. 7.22. ..2 . .a .. .2. | «53“;x2 .. 3%..-. .&,}.b§1.u.. $93.34.“. Eran. .2... 21 . . H . 2 . .n. . . . . 2 . -\ .u . 1 ‘ A..-_._.J..‘-1L-_)2-"' :4 mg. -u—- _H.“._.... w- -_ -._,..~- 3 / . -\‘ THY—£53.f Egg??? ‘3' f4 7:3; y- . - «2.113;; 52"}: ~' 2.4:; 5,5 Mfigflis‘fflg'IQh ’23:} 2. ggfl . m : . Umwemw 1 2‘ I 4. tr 2" N'" 7- ".' ‘I naV‘u‘... . ‘U'rw‘iu This is to certify that the thesis entitled PER SONALI TY SIMILARI TY , INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION, AND GROUP BEHAVIOR presented by Douglas Mark Hardy has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M u A 0 degree in _PSVChOlogY Mm ”2&3 Major professor Norman Abeles, Ph.D. Date 1/1 5/82 0-7639 Willi Ill lfilill/Ill/flifllfllflll 31293008302154 l Ill! RETURNING MATERIALS: )V1ESI.J Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from w your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ROOM USE ONLY durum? 1996, , ; ?% “jilril ‘ Y . no him amour.“ “072062 /§//-— 96242 PERSONALITY SIMILARITY, INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION, AND GROUP BEHAVIOR By Douglas Mark Hardy A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1982 ABSTRACT PERSONALITY SIMILARITY, INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION, AND GROUP BEHAVIOR By Douglas Mark Hardy In research that employed the hypothetical stranger paradigm (Byrne, 1971) it was predicted and demonstrated that personality similarity leads to interpersonal attrac- tion when no other uncontrolled independent variables are operating and when the difference between levels of person— ality similarity is obvious and extreme. This finding extends the external validity of Byrne's work by showing that the personality similarity-attraction relationship holds even when personality similarity is defined as being similarity along a fairly comprehensive operational definition of personality (as provided by self-reports on the Interpersonal Check List (Leary, 1957)). However, no relationship was found between personality similarity and attraction when real personality profiles were used (instead of ones created by the experimenter) or when subjects rated their attraction for strangers whom they had just met during an unstructured group interaction. A strong relationship (average r = +.73) was found between attraction and perceived personality similarity in both of these situations however. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Norman Abeles, my thesis committee chairman, for helping me to do this research. His guidance and encouragement were there when I needed them, and his ideas served as a catalyst for this study. I would also like to express my appreciation to Terry Allen for the many hours which he spent talking with me. His comments and criticisms were invaluable and led me to a more thorough and complete understanding of my study. I am also grateful to Bill Crano for his encouragement and insight. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION General Survey of Interpersonal Attraction Research The Relationship Between Similarity . and Attraction . The Relationship Between Personality. Similarity and Attraction Evaluation of the Hypothetical Stranger Paradigm (Design C) Present Study and Hypotheses METHOD Subjects Measures . . Procedure (From the Subjects' Viewpoint) Procedure (From the Experimenter' s Viewpoint) RESULTS General Findings Findings Regarding Perceived Similarity . DISCUSSION iii Page vi 13 16 21 21 22 27 28 33 33 38 42 Page APPENDICES Appendix A. Research Consent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 B Interpersonal Check List (ICL) . . . . . . . . 54 C. Interpersonal Judgement Scale (IJS) . . . . . 57 D The Leary Bipolar Circumplex and Interpersonal Check List . . . . . . . . . 59 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 iv Table LIST OF TABLES Means and Standard Deviations (N - 1 Denominator) for Major Variables m=6m Analysis of Variance on Attraction Scores by Personality Similarity of Identical and Inversely Identical ICL's Analysis of Variance on Attraction Scores by Personality Similarity of Most and Least Similar Group Members when Subjects are Exposed Only to these Group Members' ICL's Analysis of Variance on Attraction Scores by Personality Similarity of Most and Least Similar Group Members when Attraction is Assessed after a 20 Minute, Unstructured Group Interaction . Average Perceived Similarity of Most Similar, Least Similar, Most Liked, and Least Liked Group Members, by Group . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance on Perceived Similarity of Most and Least Sbnilar Group Members (as Determined by a Comparison of their ICL's) Analysis of Variance on Perceived Similarity of Most and Least Liked Group Members . . . . . . . Relationship Between Perceived Similarity and Attraction, by Group Page 34 35 37 38 39 40 40 41 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Diagram of the Experimental Design for Hypotheses 2 and 3 32 2. The Leary (1957) Bipolar Circumplex and Interpersonal Check List Illus- trating the Classification of Inter— personal Behaviors into 16 Variable Categories and Two Principle Factors (Love-Hate and Dominance-Submission). (From Leary, 1957, p. 135) . . . . . . . . . 59 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The present study was conducted to suggest and begin to test how an alteration in Byrne's (1971) hypothetical stranger paradigm might produce a paradigm.which is capable of studying and connecting a far wider range of phenomena. General Survey of Interpersonal Attraction Research Interest in attraction research has been accelerating rapidly for the past twenty years. Hundreds of studies of the various aspects of interpersonal attraction have been published with approximately one more being added every day. There is, however, a surprising uniformity about the kinds of things that are studied as interpersonal attrac- tion. Several areas are covered by hundreds of studies, many others by none or only a few. Huston and Levinger (1978) categorized all attraction studies published from 1972 through 1976 and found that only three types of on-going relationships were given extensive attention: same-sex friendships, cross-sex romantic relationships, and marriage. In addition, this attention was somewhat limited as many of these studies were inspired by equity, exchange, or communication theory 1 2 and so usually bypassed an independent—dependent variable research design to concentrate on reciprocal behavior contingencies or sequential patterns of communication. Aside from these studies of relationships, virtually all published studies of attraction (69% of the total) focus on one person's unilateral impression of another after being given information about this other or after a brief encounter. This focus on first impressions between strangers (almost always college students) means that attraction research tends to ignore such issues as how attraction is developed and maintained, life style changes that affect attraction, social motivation issues, etc., while concentrating heavily on discovering the antecedents of attraction between strangers; and even within this area, a handful of antecedents have received most of the atten- tion. Interpersonal attraction between strangers has been shown to be a function of four general types of stimuli (Byrne & Griffitt, 1973). The first type is composed of the characteristics and behaviors of the target person. Although at least fourteen antecedents of this type have been identified, most research has been directed toward the effects of race and physical attractiveness. Byrne and Ervin (1969) found that the effect of a target person's race is related to the prejudice level of the respondent. There is virtually no effect if the respondent has a low prejudice level; however, race exerts 3 a strong negative influence on the attraction responses of high prejudice respondents. For this reason, none of the subjects in the present study belongs to a racial minority. A great many studies have focused on the physical attractiveness of the target and have shown that this variable exerts a strong and pervasive impact on attrac- tion (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottmann, 1966; Byrne, Ervin, & Lamberth, 1970). Both men and women feel more attraction toward physically attractive targets of either sex than toward less attractive ones (Byrne, London, & Reeves, 1968); however, this variable seems to be more important for men than for women and is most important when a man is evaluating a woman (Miller & Rivenbark, 1970). Most of the remaining research in this category has investigated certain specific nonverbal behaviors of the target person -- standing position, arm position, body relaxation, eye contact, smiling, voice qualities, etc. -- and has found that these behaviors tend to have some in- fluence on attraction. Stimulus conditions which are not directly attribut- able to the target person make up the second classifica- tion. Included in this category are such variables as temperature, time of day, crowding, sexual arousal, and mood. Since these variables vary from subject to subject and from day to day, they are a source of "noise” in most attraction research. 4 Much of the research in this area has been directed toward the variable of proximity, and the results clearly indicate that familiarity breeds attraction. Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) have shown that any architec- tural feature of a housing complex which brings residents into closer contact with other residents (living near the trash cans, for example) increases their popularity. Several studies have also shown that students are more attracted to those who live in the same dormitory or with whom they share a class, especially if these students tend to sit near them (Maissonneuve, Palmade, & Fourment, 1952; Byrne & Buehler, 1955; Nahemow & Lawton, 1975; Byrne, 1961a). It is therefore preferable that undergraduate students who are going to be meeting one another in an attraction experiment do not share any classes or live in the same building. The personality characteristics of the respondent are the third type of stimulus which might affect attraction responses. Much effort has gone into the search for relatively stable personality variables in the respondent which reliably influence the attraction which he feels to- ward others. The basic finding of this research is that there are a great number of personality variables which are unrelated to attraction responses. A few variables have shown inconsistent findings; none are clearly related to attraction. The last type of stimulus affecting attraction is also 5 the most important in that it has generated the most research, theory, and controversy. This is the relation- ship between the characteristics of the target person and of the respondent. Since several types of relationships could conceivably exist between an infinite number of characteristics, it is somewhat surprising that the research and theory in this area have focused so intensely on the relationship of similarity of attitudes or of personality. In addition, much of this research also makes use of the same basic methodology, which different researchers either borrow intact or use in modified form. The Relationshipretween Similarity and Attraction Byrne's 1961 study (Byrne, 1961b) is a classic in that it has supplied the basic experimental paradigm (the "hypothetical stranger” paradigm) for nearly all subse— quent research into the relationship between attitude similarity and attraction. In the first of two sessions subjects fill out a short attitude survey in which they indicate to what extent they agree or disagree with a series of attitude statements. In the second session, which takes place a couple of weeks later, they are asked to first read an attitude survey which was "filled out by another subject" and to then rate this person on the Interpersonal Judgement Scale (IJS). The IJS (see Method section for a discussion of this measure) is the dependent 6 variable measuring the subject's attraction toward this "stranger." The attitude surveys which subjects see in the second session are actually filled out by the experimenter to resemble the subjects' own surveys to the extent required by the experimental design (20%, 50%, 80% similar, for example). In this way the experimenter can precisely manipulate the similarity level between the subject and the "stranger” and so can precisely determine the extent to which attraction towards this "stranger" is dependent upon attitude similarity. Since the subject knows nothing about this other person except these attitudes, almost all of the other variables which might affect attraction are eliminated and so cannot contribute to the results. This type of study has consistently and reliably shown that, under these conditions, a subject's attraction toward a "stranger" is a positive linear function of the propor- tion of similar attitudes. In fact, if proportion of similar attitudes is symbolized by x, a subject's IJS attraction (y) toward a stranger can be accurately and consistently predicted by the use of the equation y = 5.4 x + 6.6 (Byrne & Nelson, 1965). This basic experimental paradigm has been modified to extend the generality of these results across different stimulus modes and populations and even into such non- attitudinal measures of similarity as economic status (Byrne, Clore, & Worchel, 1966), task performance (Senn, 7 1971; Zander & Havelin, 1960), intellectual ability (Reagor & Clore, 1970), perceived social desirability of self and target (Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971), and even paint consumption (Brock, 1965). The attitudinal information about the target has been transmitted via tape recordings, movies,and mimeographed attitude scales (Byrne & Clore, 1966), closed-circuit television (Hodges & Byrne, 1972), and by confederates (Aronson & Worchel, 1966; Byrne & Griffitt, 1966) or uninformed subjects (Brewer & Brewer, 1968) who expressed predetermined attitudes or their own attitudes face-to-face. The subjects for these experiments have included school children (Byrne & Griffitt, 1966), senior citizens (Griffitt, Nelson, & Littlepage, 1972), female clerical workers (Krauss, 1966), hospitalized alcoholics and schizophrenics (Byrne, Griffitt, Hudgins, & Reeves, 1969), and Japanese, Indian, and Mexican students (Byrne, Gouaux, Griffitt, Lamberth, MUrakawa, Prasad, Prasad, & Ramirez, 1971). The results of all of these variations on the basic experimental paradigm have generally been consistent with the Byrne and Nelson (1965) equation. The framework which is usually used to explain these findings is the Byrne-Clore Reinforcement-Affect Model of Attraction (Byrne, 1971), whose basic principles are listed below (Baron & Byrne, 1977, p. 204). Byrne (1971) has provided very extensive evidence supporting each of these propositions. 8 1. "Most stimuli to which we are ex- posed can be identified as either rewarding or punishing.... 2. "Rewarding stimuli arouse positive feelings while punishing stimuli arouse negative feelings. These feelings ... are believed to fall along a continuum from extremely positive to extremely negative. 3. "The evaluation of any given stimu- lus as good or bad, enjoyable or unenjoyable, depends on whether it arouses positive or negative feelings. The strength of the aroused feeling is reflected in how posi- tively or negatively we express our evalua- tions. The result is that we can order our likes and dislikes along a rough scale.... 4. "Through the process of simple con- ditioning, any neutral stimulus that is associated with a reward or with a punishment will acquire the capacity to arouse positive or negative feelings respectively, and therefore will be liked or disliked as a consequence.” To sum it up, we like people who reward us and dislike people who punish us; therefore, since we are attracted to people who express similar attitudes, we must be responding to similar attitudes as positive reinforcements. Byrne seems to show little patience with those who ask him.why things should be this way. In his view, he is not explain- ing why attitude similarity is reinforcing; he is simply describing reality (Byrne, 1971, p. 164). ”The relationship between attitude similarity and attraction is a low—level em- pirical law. It does not constitute either a moral or a theoretical imperative; it simply describes the way subjects from a specific population are found to respond under specified conditions. The basic prin- ciple which is proposed is the relationship between positive reinforcement and attrac- tion. The fact that human beings respond to similar attitudes as positive reinforcements 9 does not result from some perverse whim of the author not does it necessarily even meet with his approval.” Other researchers have created several theories as to why similarity (not just attitude similarity) may be reinforcing. These theories fall into three main groups. First, another's similarity increases the perceiver's sense of self-esteem or well-being. Second, another's similarity leads the perceiver to predict that he will be liked; and third, degree of perceived similarity is con- founded with the affective value of the other's character- istics and has no independent effect by itself. The Relationship Between Personality Similarity and Attraction In contrast to the uniformly consistent results obtained when attitude similarity is studied, the area of personality similarity is noted for the inconsistency of its research findings and for the considerable controversy which surrounds the issues of research methodology and the nature of the relationship between personality similarity and attraction. It has been proposed that attraction is related to similarity, complementarity, both similarity and complementarity, similarity under certain conditions, and neither similarity nor complementarity of personality. Disagreement can flourish in this area, at least in part, because there is considerable research evidence in support of all five positions. 10 Research has supported the similarity hypothesis (Murstein, 1961; Singh, 1973), the complementarity hypothesis (Rychlak, 1965; Kerckhoff & Davis, 1962), and some combination of the two (Secord & Backman, 1964; Becker, 1964). Some studies find that similarity is related to attraction under certain conditions, or for specific groups, or for certain variables (Rosenfeld & Jackson, 1965; Izard, 1963); while other studies have indicated that there is no relationship at all between personality similarity and attraction (Katz, Cohen, & Castiglione, 1963; Hoffman & Maier, 1966). Three basic research designs have been used to study this issue. Studies of existing relationships almost al- N ways use design ”A" in which real life" attraction pairs (usually friends, lovers, or spouses) are selected and tested with respect to one or more personality variables. The scores of these pairs are then correlated, and these correlations are compared with correlations for random or antagonistic pairs selected from the same population. In design "B" similar or dissimilar pairs of strangers are selected on the basis of personality test scores. These pairs are then allowed to interact for a short time, after which their attraction for one another is assessed. Byrne (Byrne, 1971; Byrne & Griffitt, 1973; Byrne, Griffitt, & Stefaniak, 1967) has proposed that the reason for this bewildering variety of research results is that the designs usually used (A and B) both contain ...basic 11 design flaws which make it literally impossible to deter- mine the effects of personality similarity on attraction" (Byrne, Griffitt, & Stefaniak, 1967, p. 83). Byrne (Byrne & Griffitt, 1973) criticizes designs A and B on three basic grounds. First, it is known that many variables affect attraction, and in both designs many of these variables plus all variables that are as yet unidentified are operating. Second, personality similarity is defined as being similarity of one or of a small sub- group of personality variables, which means that similarity of all other personality variables is uncontrolled. These studies are therefore attempting to determine the effect of a limited number of variables in a situation in which a much larger number of uncontrolled variables are also operating, a nearly hopeless task. Byrne's third point is that personality variables can only have an effect on attraction to the extent that they are reflected in overt behavior, and we have no idea of how the scores on these personality tests are related to actual behavior, if at all. His solution to these problems (design "C”) was to adapt the hypothetical stranger paradigm for use with personality variables (Byrne, Griffitt, & Stefaniak, 1967). Subjects fill out an inventory designed to measure some aspect of personality and then are later exposed to the responses of a target person (the "hypothetical stranger") on the same instrument. 12 The results from this type of experiment have been very consistent and can be predicted from the same equation used for attitude similarity. For example, attraction has been shown to be a linear function of personality similar- ity with respect to self-esteem (Hendrick & Page, 1970), dominance-submissiveness (Palmer & Byrne, 1970), repres- sion-sensitization (Byrne & Griffitt, 1969; Byrne, Griffitt, & Stefaniak, 1967), and self-concept (Griffitt, 1966; Griffitt, 1969). Personality similarity-attraction research tends to be quite polarized. Researchers who study existing relationships usually use design A and find that the results of their studies tend to be inconsistent with the results of attraction studies using design 9. For example, Byrne (1969) has shown that personality similarity has a strong influence on attraction, but the overwhelming majority of type A studies examining actual relationships among friends and spouses show low positive to zero correlations (Day, 1961; Miller, Campbell, Twedt, & O'Connell, 1966). In another example, Griffitt (1966), using design 9, has shown that attraction is a function of similarity of self-concept but not of similarity of ideal-self or of self-ideal-self discrepancy. However, Kipnis (1961), using design A, has found that a subject's best friends tend to closely approximate his ideal-self and that the more a friend approximates a subject's ideal-self, the more likely 13 the relationship is to endure. Similarly, Murstein (1971) has shown in a type A study that subjects tend to choose marriage partners whose self-ideal—self discrepancy is approximately equal to their own. Whereas Byrne accounts for the discrepancy between the results of these different types of studies by saying that type A and B studies are hopelessly inadequate for the reasons previously cited, proponents of these methods counter by saying that type 9 studies are so unrelated to real life that they can tell us nothing about reality out- side of the laboratory; and they support this view by listing ways in which the conditions found in type B studies differ from those found in the "real world." Evaluation of the Hypothetical Stranger Paradigm (Design C) Byrne (1971) has made a rigorously logical and eloquent response to this type of criticism. He sees basic research in psychology as being similar to that in physics in that we must study only a very limited number of precisely controlled variables at any one time in order to make progress toward discovering the basic laws underlying reality. His experimental results can't be generalized to the real world, of course, but this is acceptable as his purpose is to describe the underlying laws, not the super- ficial reality where a great many variables are operating. This type of reasoning is perfectly sound for the study of physics, but can it be transposed intact to the 14 study of human beings? We must consider that the answer may very well be ”no” as there is at least one profound difference between the disciplines of physics and psychol- ogy. A physicist can be absolutely certain that there are certain inviolable laws to which all reality conforms, and, no matter how ”artificial” his experiments become, he knows that the same laws that operate in real life are also operating in his experiment. It is therefore reasonable for him to experimentally eliminate all variables except one in order to mathematically specify the effects of that single variable. In psychology, however, we cannot as yet make the assumption that there are inviolable laws to which all human behavior conforms. More importantly, we can neither assume that these same laws will operate no matter how removed our experiments become from real life. It is H therefore possible that the "laws discovered in rigorously scientific experiments such as Byrne's type B_work are no more than experimental artifacts produced by the character- istics of the experimental situation itself. Why then are the results of Byrne's type B experiments so consistent? Is it because he has discovered one of the basic laws underlying human behavior, or is it merely because similar experiments are producing similar arti- facts? Let's see what kind of case can be made for the latter possibility. 15 If all a subject knows about a stranger are his responses to a personality inventory, then theoretically there can only be three possible results when we measure his attraction toward this stranger (Murstein, 1971). He can be attracted to the stranger because of his personal- ity, repelled from him because of his personality, or be indifferent to the stranger's personality. Since the only information the subject has is about the stranger's personality, it scarcely seems likely that he will be indifferent to it; and since we can probably assume that most subjects don't dislike themselves so much as to dislike anyone who is similar, it seems very likely that, under these conditions, subjects will be attracted to a similar stranger. Byrne therefore seems to have dis— covered not one of the basic laws underlying human behavior but only an experimental artifact produced by the extremely limited amount of information which he makes available to his subjects. Byrne's research paradigm has gained its experimental purity and power at the expense of losing its ties with the real world. As a psychological research paradigm focuses down on one variable, the results become "cleaner” (less noise), more predictable, and less generalizable until a point may be reached where hundreds of studies all point to the same absolutely predictable mathematical relationship which (unlike in physics) may be only an experimental artifact not having any relevance at all in 16 the real world. In Byrne's own words (Byrne, 1971, p. 14): "Anyone reading one of our articles or listening to a paper presented at a conven— tion would be convinced that he was in the presence of an active scientific enterprise. As a result of exposure to multiple articles or papers, however, it is not uncommon to hear expressions of puzzlement as to where all this might be leading. The possibility must be raised that much of our research, both basic and applied, may not be leading anywhere." Present Study and Hypotheses Personality similarity-attraction research is suffer- ing from at least two interrelated problems. First, Byrne's hypothetical stranger paradigm (design B) needs to be able to study a wider, more realistic range of phenomena with a consequent increase in the generalizability of the results. The second problem is that there are such sharp differences between studies of first impressions and studies of ongoing relationships, both with respect to the research designs used and the results obtained, that it is very difficult to propose a comprehensive theory uniting attraction and friendship as parts of a unitary process. What is needed is an experimental paradigm which is capable of studying both first impressions and ongoing relationships, using the same basic research design and instruments. The purpose of the present study is to pro- pose and begin to test how an alteration in Byrne's hypothetical stranger paradigm might produce just such a paradigm, a paradigm around which type A, B, and 9 studies 17 could be built. The choice of personality measure for such a paradigm is crucial. Not only do two of Byrne's criticisms of type A and B studies focus on the characteristics of the per- sonality inventory, but Duck (1977a) has shown that care must be taken in the choice of personality measure as the type of personality similarity which is important may change as a relationship evolves. It seems intuitively clear that if one wishes to assess the relationship between personality similarity and interpersonal attraction in a setting in which normally functioning individuals meet face-to—face, the measure of personality should be capable of (1) reflecting with equal facility both ”normal" or "adjusted" as well as abnormal or pathological functioning, and (2) comprehensively measuring all those aspects of personality which might affect such an interpersonal interaction. The Interpersonal Check List (ICL) (LaForge & Suczek, 1955; Leary, 1957) (Appendix B) was designed to have these capabilities (Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, & Coffey, 1951) and seems to have achieved a reasonable approximation of this goal (Carson, 1969; McCormick, 1977). Since a per- sonality trait must be manifested in behavior to affect attraction, and since the ICL seems to measure most aspects of interpersonal behavior, Byrne's concern (Byrne, Griffitt, & Stefaniak, 1967) that the personality measures presently in use measure only one or a small subgroup of l8 personality variables is satisfied. Byrne's second requirement, that responses to the personality measure be related to actual behavior, is also satisfied as all of the variables measured by the ICL have a clear and systematic interpersonal reference. Although it is beyond the scope of the present study, an observer could use the ICL to rate subjects' actual behavior thus opening up several new lines of inquiry and providing a very strong link between behavior and personality. For example, if original selection of friends is based on discovered similarities, then it must follow that behavior is a function of similarity level and of the stage of the relationship (Duck, 1977b). Having an observer use the ICL to rate actual behavior would allow such questions to be asked as: How does interpersonal behavior change as a function of the stage of the relationship?, How is interpersonal behavior related to one's personality characteristics?, Are people with similar/complementary interpersonal behavior patterns attracted to one another?, etc. To satisfy Byrne's third concern about the multitude of variables operating in the experimental situation would be to defeat the purpose of this adaptation of his para- digm. It is clear that a certain amount of uncontrolled reality must be allowed to enter these experiments, both to increase the external validity of the results as well as the range of phenomena which can be investigated. 19 Let's see how we might go about using the ICL to bridge the gap between impression research (type B) and interaction-relationship research (type B). We will first replicate Byrne's basic personality similarity-attraction study in order to see how the ICL functions in a pure type B study. Hypothesis 1: Subjects will be more attracted to a bogus stranger whose per— sonality is similar to theirs than to a bogus stranger whose personality is less similar when the only information available about these strangers are their responses on the ICL. Next, we will replicate this study a second time us- ing real personality profiles as opposed to bogus ones. These profiles will provide a normal amount of human in- consistencies along with a realistic level of personality similarity and dissimilarity. The effect should be of lesser strength than in the first study. Hypothesis 2: Subjects will be more attracted to the group member who has the most similar personality (as determined by a comparison of their ICL's) than to the group member who has the least simi- lar personality when the only information available about these strangers are their responses on the ICL. The third study will be of type B'in which strangers meet face-to-face. Its design is identical to that of the first two type B studies except that the subjects rate 20 their attraction for the similar and dissimilar strangers after actually meeting them instead of after being exposed to only their responses on the ICL. Hypothesis 3: Subjects will be more attracted to the group member who has the most similar personality (as determined by a comparison of their ICL's) than to the group member who has the least simi- lar personality when attraction is assessed after a short,face- to-face group interaction. It would be of some interest if this hypothesis is confirmed in that this would imply that: 1. The ICL is measuring personality traits which are expressed in one's behavior with strangers. This finding would support the author's view that the ICL is the measure of choice for this type of study. 2. Personality similarity (of the type measured by the ICL) is a powerful enough variable to affect attraction even in a short-term group interaction where many of the other variables which normally affect attrac- tion are also operating. This basic issue cannot be addressed by type 9 studies. CHAPTER II METHOD Subjects Since the effects of sex differences on interpersonal attraction are not clearly delineated (Duck, 1973; Stroebe, Insko, Thompson, & Layton, 1971), a single sex pool of subjects was decided upon. Accordingly, the subjects of this study are 60 female college undergraduates enrolled in introductory psychology courses at Michigan State University. They participated in this study in partial fulfillment of course requirements. With the course instructors' permission the experi- menter visited one session of each course in order to recruit subjects. The study was described as being an investigation of how people form interpersonal judgements based on a limited amount of information about another person. Students were told that, if they wished to parti- cipate, they could either stay after class or come to a session later that night to fill out a personality check list. If they were then selected to participate in the second part of the study, they would be called and asked to come in for one additional session lasting approximately 60 minutes. 21 22 The students who elected to participate were given the Interpersonal Check List (ICL) (LaForge & Suczek, 1955) (Appendix B). It was explained that their responses on the ICL would be confidential and that their names would be replaced by code numbers. They were then asked to use the ICL to describe themselves as they really were, not as they would like to be, to work rapidly, and to respond on the basis of their first impressions (LaForge, Leary, Naboisek, Coffey, & Freedman, 1954). Subjects for the second part of the experiment were chosen from the pool of students handing in ICL's by a random process with the following restrictions. 1. No foreign students or students belonging to a racial minority were chosen. 2. Subjects were selected in groups of six; none of whom knew any of the other members of her group. 3. All subjects were 19-24 years old. Measures The Interpersonal Judgement Scale (IJS) (Appendix C). (Byrne, 1971) The IJS was used to assess interpersonal attraction. It consists of six seven-point Likert-type rating scales. The last two scales measure liking and willingness to work in an experiment with the person being rated. The scores (1-7) on these two scales are summed to yield an attraction measure which ranges from 2 (most negative) to 14 (most 23 positive). This two-item response measure was found to have a split-half reliability of .85 by Byrne and Nelson (1965) using undergraduate psychology students as the subjects and a (nus week test-retest reliability of .82 by Griffitt and Nelson (1970). The measure had a split-half reliabil- ity of .63 in a small (6 subject) pilot study conducted by the author. The purpose of the first four unscored items (which assess one's judgements of the other person's intelligence, knowledge of current events, morality, and adjustment) is to disguise to some degree the major purpose of the IJS and to lend credence to the instructions, which usually state that the experiment is concerned with one's interpersonal judgements of another person. The content of these four unscored items was based upon intuitive speculations as to the way people respond to others who agree or disagree with their attitudes. In this study the first two of these items (dealing with intelligence and knowledge of current events) were not used in order to decrease the amount of time needed to respond to the measure and because these items intuitively seem to be more appropriately related to similarity-dissimilarity of attitudes than of personality. The IJS was chosen as the measure of attraction because it has been used by many different researchers over a wide variety of circumstances. As Byrne so strongly states, this facilitates comparisons between the results of 24 different studies (Byrne, 1971, pp. 44-47). "A necessary, though hardly sufficient, condition for progress in research is con- sistency of operations across experiments.... A meaningful and cumulative increase in knowledge is possible only if identical or equivalent operations serve as connecting links across experiments." Two assumptions underly the IJS along with most other measures of attraction. It is first assumed that the operations used to measure attraction define it. Secondly, it is assumed that an attraction measure has meaning to the extent that it can be linked to other variables associated with attraction and that no further justification is needed for the measure (Huston, 1974). The IJS meets this requirement quite well as it has been shown to be significantly related to a great variety of other variables which are associated with attraction -- 1. sexual and physical attractiveness of strangers (Moss, 1969) 2. standing and seating proximity (Byrne, Baskett, & Hodges, 1971) 3. compliance with requests (Baron, 1970) 4. desirability as a date/marriage partner (Stroebe et al., 1971) 5. willingness to expend effort for a stranger (Byrne, 1971) 6. social distance ratings (Schwartz, 1966) 7. ratings of a stranger's morality, intelli- gence, knowledge of current events, adjustment, and 25 desirability as a roommate (Byrne, 1971) 8. visual interaction (Effran, 1967) 9. ratings of strangers over the affective dimension of the semantic differential scale (Griffitt & Guay, 1969). The Interpersonal Check List (ICL) (Appendix B) (LaForge & Suczek, 1955) The ICL was chosen as the measure of personality for the reasons discussed in the Introduction. It was designed to measure certain of the variables defined by the Inter- personal Personality System (Leary, 1957). This system is concerned with several levels of personality and with the relationships between these levels (self-description, overt behavior, private symbolization, and values) and has been shown to be capable of predicting and incorporating most subsequent empirical findings (Carson, 1969). The ICL has an average octant test-retest reliability of .78 at two weeks (LaForge & Suczek, 1955) and an inter- nal consistency reliability as measured by the Kuder- Richardson formula of between .953 and .976 (Armstrong, 1958). The researchers who designed and tested the ICL (Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, & Coffey, 1951; LaForge, Leary, Naboisek, Coffey, & Freedman, 1954; LaForge & Suczek, 1955) took the following steps to ensure its validity. (It should be noted that the validation of a system of Inersonality research requires an approach to the idea of 26 ' validity different from that used when the test to be validated is designed to measure only a single or very limited aspect of personality.) 1. They agreed that the ICL would be valid by definition if it could meet the following specific criteria. a) The variables comprise the total person- ality and are systematically related to one another. b) Each variable has an interpersonal reference. c) The variables reflect with equal facil- ity "normal" or "adjustive" functioning as well as abnormal or pathological functioning. d) Each variable is capable of being operationally defined. e) A correspondence can be shown between presently accepted measures and the ICL. f) There are predictable, meaningful relationships among the variables of the ICL. g) There are relationships of practical importance between the variables of the ICL and variables outside of the system (for example, certain categories of medical diagnosis which can be distinguished with relative accuracy and ease). 2. They designed the ICL to be able to meet these seven criteria. 3. They tested and altered the ICL until it was 27 conclusively shown that, in its final form (Form IV, which is used in the present study), it did meet all seven criteria. Procedure (From the Subjects' Viewpoint) Ten groups of six subjects each were randomly selected from the group of students turning in ICL's. Two or more weeks after the first session, each group met together for the second part of the experiment. During the second session subjects were informed that they would first be using the IJS to make some judgements about four anonymous persons based on these persons' responses to the ICL. The following instructions were given in writing (adapted from Bourpos, 1975). "The purpose of this experiment is to learn something about how a person makes judgements about another person when only a limited amount of information is available. Enclosed are four anonymous personality check lists. The people you are to make judgements about are of the same sex and age as yourself and will remain anonymous. Please read the checked items carefully and try to form an opinion about this person. When you have finished examining the first person's responses, complete the attached evaluation form. Examine the remaining check lists one at a time, filling out the evaluation form attached to each before pro- ceeding to the next check list. All infor— mation remains strictly confidential." After this data was collected, the experimenter told the subjects that he would like to see how well they could make judgements about people whom they had just met, so he asked them to, ”Just kind of get to know one another for 28 about 20 minutes or so." He emphasized that he did not want to interfere with this process in any way and so was going to leave the room and not monitor them during this period. After this group interaction the experimenter returned and asked each subject to fill out an IJS on each of the other five members in her group. In order to determine how perceived similarity was related to the attraction which subjects felt for one another, subjects from eight of the ten groups were then asked to rate how similar they perceived each of the other members of their group to be to themselves in terms of personality. Perceived similarity was rated on a scale of l to 7 in which 1 represented "highly dissimilar," 4 represented "neither similar nor dissimilar," and 7 represented ”highly similar." This rating was made immediately after the subjects had rated their attraction toward these group members. The experimental design was then explained to the subjects and any questions that they had were answered. The experimenter made it clear that he was interested in hearing what they felt and/or thought about the experiment. Procedure (From the Experimenter's Viewpoint) At the start of the second session each subject re- ceived a packet containing four ICL's (presented in random order) which they were told had been filled out earlier by four anonymous strangers. There was a blank IJS form 29 stapled to the back of each of these ICL's. The subjects were asked to read the checked items on the first ICL carefully, to try to form an opinion about this stranger, and then to fill out the attached IJS. They did this for each of the four ICL's in succession. In reality, two of the four ICL's had not been filled out by a stranger at all but by the experimenter to represent a high and a low level of personality similarity with respect to the ICL which that subject had filled out two weeks earlier. The high similarity ICL was identical to that of the subject; while the low similarity ICL was "inversely identical." The term "inversely identical" has a very specific definition in this study. When people use the ICL to describe themselves, their responses tend to consistently follow a particular pattern. It was therefore necessary for the experimenter to also follow this pattern in creating the inversely identical ICL's; otherwise, these newly created ICL's might be filled out in ways in which no human being would ever respond to this measure. Follow- ing is a discussion of the relevant characteristics of the ICL and the operational definition of ”inversely identical." The ICL is composed of sixteen personality variable categories; each of which is represented by eight words or phrases which can be rated in intensity from 1, which represents "a mild or necessary amount of a trait," to 4, which represents "an extreme or highly inappropriate 30 amount" (LaForge & Suczek, 1955). There is one word of intensity 1, three words of intensity 2, three words of intensity 3, and one word of intensity 4 for each of the sixteen categories. It has been found that subjects generally check the eight words in any one category in order of increasing intensity. In addition, the categories of the ICL have been shown (LaForge & Suczek, 1955) to be related to one another in the following way. The correlation between any two variables on the Circumplex (Appendix D) is a monotonic decreasing function of their separation with adjacent variables having the highest positive correlations and variables separated by 180 degrees having the highest negative correlations. This relationship implies that the scores of any one subject will probably be imbalanced (more words checked on one side of the Circumplex than on the other). However, when the scores of many subjects are combined, it has been shown (Smith, 1976) that, as a group, they check approximately the same number of words in each octant. Since any one subject's scores are probably imbalanced, it is possible to create a bogus low similarity check list by checking the same number of words, at each intensity level, as the subject had checked in the variable category 180 degrees removed on the circumplex, hence the term ”inversely identical.” The second pair of ICL's in the packet given to each 31 subject were replicas of the ICL's filled out earlier by the most and least similar members of that subject's group. The most and least similar group members were found for each subject by correlating that subject's ICL by octants (using the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient) with the ICL of each of the other members of her group. Hypothesis 2 is essentially the same as Hypothesis 1 except that real personality profiles were used instead of bogus ones created by the experimenter. After the 20 minute group interaction each subject rated her attraction for each of the other members of her group. Subjects then rated how similar they perceived each of these group members to be to themselves in terms of personality. Hypothesis 3 states that a subject will be more attracted to the most similar member of her group than to the least similar group member after actually meeting them during the 20 minute group interaction. Hypotheses 2 and 3 (H2 and H3) can best be understood as being parts of a 2-way analysis of variance (AOV) design. Following is a diagram of this design. 32 £21 =Apersonality similarity between subject and group member High Low in . _ DV = raw attraction scores +———H lyz—type of person 3 exposure tote rou on , memEer paper H2 Figure l. —- Diagram of the Experimental Design for Hypotheses 2 and 3. CHAPTER III RESULTS General Findings Table 1 lists the basic statistics for each of the relevant variables in the study. The major hypotheses and pertinent data are as follows: Hypothesis 1: Subjects will be more attracted to a bogus stranger whose per- sonality is similar to theirs than to a bogus stranger whose personality is less similar when the only information available about these strangers are their responses on the ICL. The analysis of Hypothesis 1 consisted of a l x 2 repeated measures analysis of variance with Personality Similarity of the bogus ICL's and Subjects as the factors. Personality Similarity had two levels in that each subject was exposed to ICL's identical and inversely identical to her own. The extent to which subjects differed from one another in their attraction to both ICL's combined was represented by the Subjects factor. The responses of each subject were assumed to be independent of the responses of the other subjects in her 33 34 Table l. -- Means and Standard Deviations (N - l Denomina- tor) for Major Variables (N = 60). Standard Variable Mean Deviation l. Attraction to Identical ICL 10.97 2.83 (scale of 2-14) 2. Attraction to Inversely Identical 8.38 2.77 ICL 3. Attraction to Most Similar Group Member's 8.52 3.12 (GM's) ICL 4. Attraction to Least 9.05 2.90 Similar GM's ICL 5. Attraction to Most Similar GM in Person 10'85 2-60 6. Attraction to Least Similar GM in Person 10°58 2°43 7. Perceived Similarity with Most Similar GM 4.15 1.49 (scale of 1-7) 8. Perceived Similarity with Least Similar GM 4'10 1'57 9. Perceived Similarity with Most Liked GM 5'55 1'02 10. Perceived Similarity with Least Liked GM 2-72 1.10 35 group. This assumption is acceptable as this data was collected before the groups had begun to interact and before the subjects knew that they would later be inter— acting with and then evaluating the other members of their group. Table 2 shows that the level of personality similar- ity of the bogus ICL's did have a significant effect on the attraction which subjects felt toward the "strangers” whom these ICL's were said to describe (F(1, 59) = 11.97, p < .001). Hypothesis 1 was therefore confirmed. Table 2. -- Analysis of Variance on Attraction Scores by Personality Similarity of Identical and Inversely Identical ICL's. Source of Variation Bf MB B Personality Similarity (P) 1 200.20 28.56*** Subjects (S) 59 8.69 1.24 P x S 59 7.01 ——— Total 119 9.46 —-— *** P < .001 Table 2 also shows that the subjects were not signi—AE ficantly different from one another in their attraction toh the combined ICL's. Since the F test of the Subjects 5 variable in a repeated measures analysis of variance is decreased in power to some unknown extent, we can be reasonably confident if this test yields significant 3 . u 36 results, but not if the results are insignificant,as in this case. Hypothesis 2: Subjects will be more attracted to the group member who has the most similar personality (as determined by a comparison of their ICL's) than to the group member who has the least simi- lar personality when the only information available about these strangers are their responses on the ICL. The experimental design used to investigate Hypothesis 2, as well as the analysis of the results ob- tained, is identical to that used to investigate Hypothe- sis 1. The only difference between these two hypotheses is that, in the case of H1, subjects were exposed to bogus ICL's; while, in the case of H2, they were exposed to ICL's describing the members of their group who were most and least similar to themselves. The responses of each subject were again assumed to be independent of the responses of the other members of her group. This assumption is still acceptable as the subjects did not know that they were indirectly evaluating each other and as this data was collected before the groups had begun to interact and before the subjects knew that they would later be interacting with and then evaluating the other members of their group. Table 3 shows that the level of personality similarity of these real ICL's did not have a significant effect on the attraction which the subjects felt for the strangers 37 whom these ICL's described. Hypothesis 2 was therefore not confirmed. Table 3. -- Analysis of Variance on Attraction Scores by Personality Similarity of Most and Least Similar Group Members when Subjects are Exposed Only to these Group Members' ICL's. Source of Variation BB MB B Personality Similarity (P) l 8.54 .81 Subjects (S) 59 7.57 .72 P x S 59 10.57 --- Total 119 9.06 --- Hypothesis 3: Subjects will be more attracted to the group member who has the most similar personality (as determined by a comparison of their ICL's) than to the group member who has the least simi- lar personality when attraction is assessed after a 20 minute, unstructured groUp interaction. Since the data used to test Hypothesis 3 was collected after the unstructured group interaction, it can no longer be assumed that the responses of each subject are indepen- dent of the responses of the other members of her group. The attraction scores of the six members of each group were therefore combined and these group sums were used for this analysis, which was, in all other respects, the same as that used to test H1 and H2. 38 Table 4 shows that the level of personality similarity between group members (as determined by a comparison of their ICL's) did not significantly affect the attraction which they felt for one another after the unstructured group interaction. Hypothesis 3 was therefore not con- firmed. The Group factor did have a significant effect on attraction however (F(9, 9) = 5.35, p < .01), indicating that significantly different levels of attraction were present among the ten groups. Table 4. -— Analysis of Variance on Attraction Scores by Personality Similarity of Most and Least Simi- lar Group Members when Attraction is Assessed after a 20 Minute, Unstructured Group Inter- action. Source of Variation BB MB B Personality Similarity (P) 1 192.2 2.57 Groups (G) 9 414.36 5.53** P x G 9 74.87 --- Total 19 241.85 —-- *7'.’ P < 0]_ Findings Regarding_Perceived Similarity The relevant data are given in Tables 5, 6, and 7. Tables 5 and 6 show that the group members designated most and least similar to a given subject by means of a comparison of their ICL self-descriptions were both 39 Table 5. -- Average Perceived Similarity of Most Similar, Least Similar, Most Liked, and Least Liked Group Members, by Group. Most Similar Least Similar Most Liked Least Liked Group GM GM CM CM 3 4.50 3.33 5.00 3.50 4 4.50 4.67 5.67 3.00 5 3.83 5.17 5.95 2.80 6 3.67 3.67 5.17 1.92 7 4.00 3.67 5.28 1.63 8 4.00 3.83 6.17 3.00 9 4.17 4.83 5.87 2.75 10 4.50 3.67 5.30 3.17 Mean 4.15 4.10 5.55 2.72 40 Table 6. -- Analysis of Variance on Perceived Similarity of Most and Least Similar Group Members (as Determined by a Comparison of their ICL's). Source of Variation BB MB B Perceived Similarity (PS) 1 .25 .02 Groups (G) 7 9.00 .79 PS x G 7 11.39 ——- Total 15 9.53 -—- Table 7. —- Analysis of Variance on Perceived Similarity of Most and Least Liked Group Members. Source of Variation BB MB B Perceived Similarity (PS) 1 1,152.61 130.83*** Groups (G) 7 11.94 1.36 PS x G 7 8.31 --- Total 15 86.53 --- *** p < .001 41 perceived by that subject as being ”neither similar nor dissimilar from myself." In contrast, Tables 5 and 7 show that subjects perceived a great difference in personality similarity between themselves and the group members whom they liked the most and the group members whom they liked the least (F(1, 7) = 29.25, p < .001). In order to determine the strength of the relationship between perceived similarity and attraction, these two variables were correlated for each group using the Pearson Product—Moment Correlation Coefficient. The results are given in Table 8. Table 8. -- Relationship Between Perceived Similarity and Attraction, by Group. Group Pearson r % of Variance Accounted For 3 .48** 23% 4 .6971“k 48% 5 .84** 71% 6 .69** 48% 7 .88** 77% 8 .74** 55% 9 .69** 48% 10 .83** 69% ** P < .01 CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION The findings tended, in general, to not support the previously-stated major predictions. Hypothesis 1 was confirmed in that subjects were more attracted to a stranger represented by an identical than by an inversely identical ICL. Hypothesis 2 was not confirmed, however, for when these ICL's were replaced by those of the group members most and least similar to the subject, the relationship was no longer significant and, in fact, tended in other than the predicted direction. Neither was Hypothesis 3 confirmed as subjects were nearly equally attracted, after the group interaction, to the members of their group whose personalities were most and least similar to their own. Several unforeseen relationships were also uncovered. It was found that while there was a very strong relation- ship (av. r = +.73) between perceived similarity and attraction, there was essentially no relationship between perceived similarity and similarity of self-descriptions on the ICL (av. r = +.02). The relationship between similarity of ICL descriptions and attraction was correspondingly low (av. r = +.O3). While it was not 42 43 unexpected that there would be a high positive correlation between perceived similarity and attraction, the finding that there was essentially no relationship between ICL similarity and either attraction or perceived similarity was quite unexpected. The confirmation of Hypothesis 1 can be interpreted in two ways. First, it can be seen as being evidence that personality similarity does lead to attraction when no other uncontrolled independent variables are operating and when the difference in levels of personality similarity is obvious and extreme. This result confirms and extends the findings of Byrne's (1971) series of Type 9 experiments investigating the relationship between personality similarity and attraction. These experiments have yielded very Consistent results, but their generalizability has been lessened by the fact that each experiment defined personality similar- ity as being similarity of only one or of a small subgroup of personality variables. The confirmation of Hypothesis 1 extends the external validity of Byrne's work by showing that similar results are obtained even when personality similarity is defined as being similarity along a fairly comprehensive operational definition of personality. It is possible, however, that personality similarity did not lead directly to attraction, but that this relationship was mediated by the cognitive reactions of the subjects. Approximately 70% of the subjects reported 44 during the debriefing that they had thought that the person represented by the identical ICL was ”very similar to me,” and approximately 5% said that they had known that it was their own ICL. It therefore seems possible that a cogni- tive process of the form: "She's very similar to me, and I like myself, so I would probably like her.’ could have mediated the similarity-attraction relationship in the experimental test of Hypothesis 1. This factor did not seem to be operating in the tests of Hypotheses 2 and 3, however, as no subject reported similar cognitions under these conditions. In either case, the generalizability of these results is still somewhat limited as the description of personality used in the present study was obtained solely from self— reports. Since the Interpersonal Personality System, of which the ICL is a part, is capable of quantifying several levels of personality in addition to self-reports, future research could use overt behavior or projective testing as the basis for the description of a subject's personality. This would increase the generalizability of the findings as well as enable one to compare different levels of personality -— self-description, overt behavior, and pri— vate symbolizations —- with respect to similarity and attraction. The technique of using overt behavior to obtain a description of personality and of interaction style seems particularly well suited to the study over time of ‘ 45 relationships in which information relating style of inter- personal interaction to other variables, such as outcome, would be useful (parent-child, therapist-client relation- ships, etc.). In addition, it would become possible to completely bypass the hypothesized internal construct of "personality" and simply determine if subjects who behave in similar interpersonal ways tend to be attracted to one another. The finding that there was a strong relationship between attraction and perceived personality similarity (av. r = +.73) after the group interaction implies that either similarity of personality of a type not accurately represented by self—descriptions on the ICL lead to attraction, or attraction lead to the perception of personality similarity, or some unknown factor(s) lead to both attraction and the perception of personality similar- ity. In this case, however, it seems most likely that attraction lead to the reported perception of personality similarity and that this relationship was mediated by the cognitive reactions of the subjects to the experimental situation. ' Bem (1965, 1972) has theorized that when internal cues are minimal or uninterpretable, people infer their atti- tudes and other internal states primarily from their behavior. In the present study the subjects had just finished rating their attraction toward the members of their group when they were asked to rate, on the same sheet 46 of paper, how similar each of these people were to them- selves in terms of personality. Since this determination intuitively seems to be quite complex, with few internal cues available, and since it is widely accepted in this culture that similarity and attraction are positively related (Berscheid & Walster, 1978), it seems possible that subjects used their just completed attraction ratings as a means to infer how similar they believed each of the members of their group to be to themselves in terms of personality. The widely accepted finding that people generally want to project and maintain the image that their attitudes are consistent (Schlenker, 1980; Cialdini, Petty, & Cacioppo, 1981) lends support to this hypothesis. In some cases the most liked group member had a similar personality as revealed by a comparison of ICL self-descriptions, but not always. Certain subjects were most attracted to group members with highly dissimilar personalities; yet they still perceived these group members as being very similar to themselves. Six of the seven subjects most attracted to dissimilar group members rated the group member whom they liked the most as being more similar to themselves in terms of personality than anyone else in the group even though the average correlation between their ICL self-descriptions was —.72. This is an interesting finding in that it supports the hypothesis that attraction might, to some extent, have lead to the reported perception of personality similarity as 47 well as suggesting the additional possibility that certain subjects might have been attracted to dissimilar or complementary personalities. The negative correlations reported in the present study represent dissimilar person- alities; however, since complementarity of ICL's is a well defined concept (Leary, 1957; Freedman, 1978), these correlations could be recalculated so as to yield a complementarity as well as a similarity score for any pair of subjects. Future research using both similarity and complementarity scores might thus be useful in helping to resolve the long-standing controversy as to whether similarity or complementarity of personality leads to attraction under various conditions. Neither Hypothesis 2 nor Hypothesis 3 was confirmed, and it was quite unexpected that essentially no relation- ship was found between ICL similarity and either perceived similarity or attraction. What might account for these findings? One possible contributing factor is that the most and least similar group members for Hypotheses 2 and 3 were selected from a randomly chosen group of only five sub- jects who were similar to one another on several variables. All were young, white, female, MSU undergraduates who were enrolled in an introductory psychology course. It therefore seems possible that the difference between the personalities of the most and least similar group members was not extreme enough to be clearly perceived by the 48 ' subjects, either when they met these group members during the 20 minute group interaction or when they studied their ICL's. This factor could not have influenced the test of Hypothesis 1 however, since in this case the similar and dissimilar ICL's were created in such a way that there was a very large difference between them. Future research could eliminate this factor by choosing group members in some nonrandom manner so that a greater difference between their ICL self-descriptions would be ensured. A possible factor which could have influenced the tests of Hypotheses 1 and 2 is that the ICL data given to the subjects for evaluation may have been so complex that they had difficulty in perceiving what the personalities of these "people” were like. This possibility seems reasonable as the data given to the subjects was quite complex (128 yes or no personality descriptions represent- ing 4 levels of intensity on 16 different personality variables for each of the 4 strangers whom they were to evaluate) and as many of the subjects said during the de- briefing that it had been very difficult for them to form any sort of impression at all of these strangers from their ICL self—descriptions alone. If present, this factor would have acted as a source of increased variability for the tests of Hypotheses 1 and 2 making the results of these tests less likely to be significant. A third possibility, which could have influenced the tests of Hypotheses 2 and 3 as well as the correlations 49 between ICL similarity and both perceived similarity and attraction, is that the subjects' self-descriptions on the ICL were similar to one another because they were highly correlated with some independent characteristic of the ICL items unrelated or relatively unrelated to the subjects' personalities. This possibility seems very likely as several researchers, studying different personality inventories, have found that the probability that any given item will be endorsed is strongly related to the social desirability value of that item (Kenny, 1956; Hanley, 1956; Rosen, 1956; Edwards, 1953, 1957a, 1957b, 1959). Edwards (1957a), using college undergraduates as the subjects, found that the correlation between the probabil- ity of endorsement of an item and the social desirability scale value of that item for the ICL is +.83 (69% common variance) even when the subjects are assured complete anonymity and do not sign their self-descriptions. Subjects therefore seem to try to portray themselves in a favorable light when they use the ICL (or any person- ality inventory) to describe themselves. Since there is a high consensus in this culture as to the social desirabil— ity of various personality traits, and since the correla— tion between social desirability and probability of endorsement is so high, the tendency to describe oneself in a socially approved of manner would result in subjects' ICL self-descriptions being fairly similar. Such a similarity of ICL self-descriptions would tend to reduce 50 l the validity of the measure thereby making it less likely for Hypotheses 2 and 3 to be confirmed as well as less likely that a significant correlation between ICL similar- ity and both perceived similarity and attraction would be found. It seems reasonable to hypothesize that the desire to portray themselves in a favorable light may have also affected the subjects' behavior during the group interac- tion. The subjects knew that they would shortly be evaluated by the other members of their group, and many reported during the debriefing that they had suspected that they were being observed by the experimenter. The physical design of the experimental room probably contributed to these suspicions. The group interaction took place in a room which was equipped with two one—way mirrors, a video camera, and a microphone hanging down from the ceiling on a long cord. It was explained to the subjects that none of these devices was being used and that they would not be observed in any way; however, many subjects said during the debriefing that they had felt that they were being watched. One group even became convinced that they could see someone moving behind the one-way mirrors and believed that the experimenter was deceiving them even during the debriefing. A number of researchers (Mischel, 1968; Jones & Nisbett, 1972; Ross, 1977; Fiske, 1974; Kendrick & Stringfield, 1980) have come to believe that psychologists 51 and laymen alike share a tendency to overestimate personal factors (personality traits) and to underestimate situation- al factors in interpreting and predicting behavior. In a review of the literature Mischel (1968) suggested that individual differences, though producing statistically significant results in empirical studies, rarely account for more than 4 to 9 percent of the relevant variance. Argyle and Little (1972) found that situations seem to account for up to 11 times more variance than can be attri— buted to persons; while Kendrick and Stringfield (1980) found that two additional variables need to be considered before one can make accurate behavioral predictions from a subject's self-description of his personality: how much the subject thinks the trait varies across situations and how publicly observable he thinks the trait is. The find— ings of these researchers have important implications for this study. When used as a self—report instrument, the ICL essentially asks subjects to describe their behavior and subjective feelings in interpersonal situations (Are you bossy?, Are you a good leader?, Are you helpful?, Are you shy?, etc.). Many subjects seemed to have experienced quite a bit of difficulty in answering these questions because they felt that their interpersonal behavior varies from situation to situation. The experimenter was often asked how one should answer the questions since one's behavior is not always the same, and many subjects attempted 52 to deal with this problem by writing comments next to their ICL responses (”sometimes," "not always," "around some people," etc.). In light of the previously mentioned research, it seems possible that the situations to which subjects are referring when they describe themselves using the ICL are so dissimilar from the relatively unusual experimental situation that there is consequently little relationship between their ICL self-descriptions and their later behav- ior in the laboratory. If this process does indeed occur, it is hard to see how the ICL can profitably be used as a self-report measure of personality in personality similarity-attraction research in which strangers interact for short periods of time in a laboratory setting. APPENDICES APPENDIX A RESEARCH CONSENT FORM APPENDIX A RESEARCH CONSENT FORM MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Psychology DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM I have freely consented to take part in a scientific study conducted by: Mark Hardy under the supervision Of} Norman Abeles, Ph.D. Academic Title: Professor - Department of Psychology The study has been explained to me and I understand the explanation that has been given and what my participa- tion will involve. I understand that I am free to discontinue my partici- pation in the study at any time without penalty. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, results of the study will be made available to me at my request. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation of the study after my partici— pation is completed. Signed: Date: Age: Phone number: Class: 53 "' ..." 1 APPENDIX B INTERPERSONAL CHECK LIST (ICL) APPENDIX B INTERPERSONAL CHECK LIST (ICL) (From Leary, 1957, pp. 456-457) Able to give orders Admires and imitates others Able to take care of self Appreciative Accepts advice readily Always pleasant and agreeable Agrees with everyone Able to doubt others Affectionate and under- standing Able to criticize self Always giving advice Apologetic Acts important Always ashamed of self Bossy Boastful Businesslike Bitter Big-hearted and un- selfish Can be indifferent to others Cruel and unkind 54 Impatient with others' mistakes Grateful Hardly ever talks back Irritable Hard-hearted Likes responsibility Jealous Likes everyone Kind and reassuring Loves everyone Manages others Likes to compete with others Lacks self-confidence Modest Meek Lets others make deci— sions Likes to be taken care of Cooperative Outspoken Often unfriendly Often gloomy Passive and unaggressive Can be strict if necessary Can be frank and honest Critical of others Can complain if necessary Can be obedient Complaining Clinging vine Considerate Dominating Distrusts everybody Dictatorial Dependent Egotistical and con- ceited Forceful Cold and unfeeling Firm but just Frequently angry Easily led Easily fooled Eager to get along with others Fond of everyone Friendly all the time Encourages others Forgives anything Enjoys taking care of others 55 Often helped by others Obeys too willingly Oversympathetic Overprotective of others Often admired Self—respecting Self—confident Self—reliant and asser— tive Slow to forgive a wrong Stubborn Social and neighborly Proud and self—satisfied Self-punishing Somewhat snobbish Shy Shrewd and calculating Spineless ' Selfish Spoils people with kind— ness Stern but fair Sarcastic Makes a good impression Straightforward and direct Resentful Skeptical Resents being bossed Expects admiration from everyone Good leader Hard to impress Friendly Independent Easily embarrassed Helpful Gives freely of self Generous to a fault Hard-boiled when necessary Touchy and easily hurt Timid Usually gives in Very respectful to authority Wants to be led Very anxious to be approved of Will believe anyone Frequently disappointed 56 Rebels against every— thing Too easily influenced by friends Tender and soft—hearted Too lenient with others Tries to comfort every— one Too willing to give to others Respected by others Tries to be too success- ful Think only of yourself Wants everyone to like her Trusting and eager to please Warm Will confide in anyone Wants everyone's love Well thought of Self-seeking APPENDIX C INTERPERSONAL JUDGEMENT SCALE (IJS) APPENDIX C INTERPERSONAL JUDGEMENT SCALE (IJS) (From Byrne, 1971, pp. 426-427) 1. Morality (check one) This person impresses me as being extremely moral. This person impresses me as being moral. This person impresses me as being moral to a slight degree. This person impresses me as being neither particularly moral nor particularly immoral. This person impresses me as being immoral to a slight degree. This person impresses me as being immoral. This person impresses me as being extremely immoral. 2. Adjustment (check one) I believe that this person is extremely maladjusted. I believe that this person is maladjusted. I believe that this person is maladjusted to a slight degree. I believe that this person is neither particularly mal- adjusted nor particularly well adjusted. I believe that this person is well adjusted to a slight degree. I believe that this person is well adjusted. I believe that this person is extremely well adjusted. 3. Personal feelings (check one) I feel that I would probably—like this person very much. I feel that I would probably like this person. I feel that I would probably like this person to a slight degree. . I feel that I would probably neither particularly like nor particularly dislike this person. I feel that I would probably dislike this person to a slight degree. I feel that I would probably dislike this person. I feel that I would probably dislike this person very much. 4. Working together in an experiment (check one) I believe that I would very mudh dislike working with this person in an experiment. I believe that I would dislike working with this person in an experiment. 57 58 I believe that I would dislike working with this person in an experiment to a slight degree. I believe that I would neither particularly dislike nor particularly enjoy working with this person in an experiment. I believe that I would enjoy working with this person in an experiment to a slight degree. I believe that I would enjoy working with this person in an experiment. I believe that I would very much enjoy working with this person in an experiment. APPENDIX D THE LEARY BIPOLAR CIRCUMFLEX AND INTERPERSONAL CHECK LIST APPENDIX D THE LEARY BIPOLAR CIRCUMPLEX AND INTERPERSONAL CHECK LIST Dominance MANl DIC'I1>QILL aluncts )intls ocumnm r .0331 nuts It: LN coon Lt oonclv (3“ILI I OIU 'Q'INOl' L ANGRY IOI'IIO not LIRKC‘ A 0' O H p . C x o I C x olttfi U OIIOUUI'L outsroul SIRMGN! UOOISY (ASuv 1 ' USUALLY I‘vts lttl OASSIVI A .66 “(VS '00 'ILLWGL' Shuttlts V Submission Figure 2. -- The Leary (1957) Bipolar Circumplex and Inter- personal Check List Illustrating the Classifi- cation of Interpersonal Behaviors into 16 Variable Categories and Two Principle Factors (Love-Hate and Dominance-Submission). (From Leary, 1957, p. 135) 59 (DCOE‘ LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Argyle, M., and Little, B. R. Do personality traits apply to social behavior? Journal of Theory of Social Behavior, 1972, 2, 1-35. Armstrong, R. C. The Leary Interpersonal Check List: A reliability study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1958, 13, 393-394. Aronson, E., and Worchel, P. Similarity versus liking as determinants of interpersonal attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 5, 157-158. Baron, R. A. Attraction toward the model and model's com- petence as determinants of adult imitative behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, lg, 3fi54351. Baron, R., and Byrne, D. Social Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction. (2nd ed?) Boston: AIlyn and Bacon, 1977. Becker, G. The complementary-need hypothesis: Authori- tarianism, dominance, and other Edwards Personality Preference Schedule scores. Journal of Personality, 1964, 22, 45-56. Bem, D. J. An experimental analysis of self-persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 199—218. ' Bem, D. J. Self-perception theory. Advances in Experi- ‘mental Social Psychology, 1972, 6,1-62. Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., and Walster, G. W. Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1971, 2, 173-189. Berscheid, E., and Walster, E. H. Interpersonal Attraction. (2nd ed.) Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1978. 6O 61 Bourpos, J. T. The effects of disagreement style on attraction. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1975. Brewer, R. E., and Brewer, M. B. Attraction and acouracy of perception in dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 8,‘188-193. Brock, T. C. Communicator-recipient similarity and decision change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 650-654. Byrne, D. The influence of propinquity and opportunities for interaction on classroom relationships. Human Relations, 1961, 23, 63-70. (a) Byrne, D. Interpersonal attraction and attitude similar- ity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62(3), 713- 715. (b) Byrne, D. Attitudes and attraction. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1969. Byrne, D. The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press, 1971. Byrne, D., Baskett, G. D., and Hodges, L. Behavioral indicators of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1971, 2, 137-149} Byrne, D., and Buehler, J. A. A note on the influence of propinquity upon acquaintanceships. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 157-148. Byrne, D., and Clore, G. L. Predicting interpersonal attraction toward strangers presented in three differ- ent stimulus modes. Psychonomic Science, 1966, g, 239-240. Byrne, D., Clore, G. L., and Worchel, P. The effect of economic similarity—dissimilarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, E, 220-224. Byrne, D., and Ervin, C. R. Attraction toward a Negro stranger as a function of prejudice, attitude similar- ity, and the stranger's evaluation of the subject. Human Relations, 1969, 22, 397-404. Byrne, D., Ervin, C. R., and Lamberth, J. Continuity between the experimental study of attraction and real- life computer dating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 26, 157-165. 62 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, 24(3), 201-207. Byrne, D., and Griffitt, W. Similarity versus liking: A clarification. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 6, 295- 296. — Byrne, D., and Griffitt, W. Similarity and awareness of similarity of personality characteristics as deter- minants of attraction. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1969,}, 179-186. Byrne, D., and Griffitt, W. Interpersonal attraction. Annual Review of Psychology, 1973, 24, 317-336. Byrne, D., Griffitt, W., Hudgins, W., and Reeves, K. Attitude similarity-dissimilarity and attraction: Generality beyond the college sophomore. Journal of Social Psychology, 1969, 29, 159-161. Byrne, D., Griffitt, W., and Stefaniak, D. Attraction and similarity of personality characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5(1), 82-90. Byrne, D., London, 0., and Reeves, K. The effects of physical attractiveness, sex, and attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality, 1968, 26, 259-271. Byrne, D., and Nelson, D. Attraction as a linear function of proportion of positive reinforcements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 659-663. Carson, R. C. Interaction Concepts of Personality. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. Cialdini, R. B., Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. Attitude and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 1981, 22, 357—404. Day, B. R. A comparison of personality needs of courtship couples and same sex friendship. Sociology and Social Research, 1961, 45, 435-440. Duck, S. W. Similarity and perceived similarity of per- sonal constructs as influence on friendship choice. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 22, 1-6. 63 Duck, S. W. Personality similarity and friendship choice: Similarity of what, when? In 8. Duck (Ed.), Theor and Practice in Interpersonal Attraction. London: Academic Press, 1977, 301-316. (a) Duck, S. W. Tell me where is fancy bred: Some thoughts on the study of interpersonal attraction. In S. Duck (Ed.), Theory and Practice in Interpersonal Attrac- tion. London: Academic Press, 1977, 1-20. (b) Edwards, A. L. The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1953, 22, 90-93. Edwards, A. L. Social desirability and probability of endorsement of items in the interpersonal check list. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 22, 394-396. *(a) Edwards, A. L. The Social Desirability Variable in Personality Assessment and Research. New York: Dryden, 1957. (b) Edwards, A. L. Social desirability and the description of others. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 22, 434-436. Efran, M. G. Visual interaction and interpersonal attraction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1967. Festinger, L., Schachter, S., and Back, K. Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1950. Fiske, D. W. The limits of a conventional science of personality. Journal of Personality, 1974, 42, 1-11. Freedman, M. B., Leary, T. F., Ossario, A. G., and Coffey, H. S. The interpersonal dimension of personality. Journal of Personalipy, 1951, 22, 143-161. Freedman, S. M. Perceived interpersonal styles and preference for interaction: A phenomenological study of the complementarity hypothesis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1978. Griffitt, W. B. Interpersonal attraction as a function of self-concept and personality similarity-dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 581:584. 64 Griffitt, W. Personality similarity and self-concept as determinants of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Social Psychology, 1969, 22, 137-146. Griffitt, W., and Guay, P. 'Object' evaluation and con- ditioned affect. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, l969,4, 148. Griffitt, W., and Nelson, P. Short-term temporal stability of interpersonal attraction. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 22, 119-120. Griffitt, W., Nelson, J., and Littlepage, G. Old age and response to agreement-disagreement. Journal of Gerontology, 1972, 22, 269-274. Hanley, 0. Social desirability and responses to items from three MMPI scales: D, So, and K.‘ Journal of Applied Psychology, 1956, 49, 324-328. Hendrick, C., and Page, H. A. Self-esteem, attitude similarity, and attraction. Journal of Personality, 1970, 22, 588-601. Hodges, L., and Byrne, D. Verbal dogmatism as a potentia- tor of intolerance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 22, 312-317. Hoffman, L. R., and Maier, N. R. F. An experimental re- examination of the similarity-attraction hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 145—152. Huston, T. L. A perspective on interpersonal attraction. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of Interpersonal Attraction. New York: Academic Press, 1974. Huston, T. L., and Levinger, G. Interpersonal attraction and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 1978, 22, 115-156. Izard, C. E. Personality similarity and friendship: A follow-up study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 22, 598-600. Jones, E. E., and Nisbett, R. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions on the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones et al. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1972. 65 Katz, 1., Cohen, M., and Castiglione, L. Effect of one type of need complementarity on marriage partners' conformity to one another's judgements. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 22, 8-14. Kenny, D. T. The influence of social desirability on dis- crepancy measures between real self and ideal self. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1956, 22, 315-318. Kenrick, D. T., and Stringfield, D. 0. Personality traits and the eye of the beholder: Crossing some traditional philosophical boundaries in the search for consistency in all of the peOple. Psychological Review, 1980, 22(1), 88-104. Kerckhoff, A. C., and Davis, K. E. Value consensus and need complementarity in mate selection. American Sociological Review, 1962, 22, 295-303. Kipnis, D. Changes in self-concept in relation to percep- tion of others. Journal of Personalioy, 1961, 29, 449-465. _—' Krauss, R. M. Structural and attitudinal factors in interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 42-55. LaForge, R., Leary, T. F., Naboisek, H., Coffey, H. S., and Freedman, M. B. The interpersonal dimension of personality: II, An objective study of repression. Journal of Personality, 1954, 22, 129-154. LaForge, R., and Suczek, R. F. The interpersonal dimen- sion of personality: III, The interpersonal check list. Journal of Personality, 1955, 24, 94-112. Leary, T. Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality: A Functional Theory and Methodology for Personality Evaluation. New York: Ronald Press, 1957. Maissonneuve, J., Palmade, G., and Fourment, C. Selective choices and propinquity. Sociometry, 1952, 22, 135- 140. McCormick, C. C. A study of a procedure for the scaling and calibration of personality test items applicable to the circumplex model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Loyola University of Chicago, 1977. Miller, M., and Rivenbark, W. Sexual differences in physical attractiveness as a determinant of hetero- sexual liking. Psychological Reports, 1970, 22, 701-702. 66 Miller, N., Campbell, D. T., Twedt, H., and O'Connell, E. J. Similarity, contrast and complementarity in friend- ship choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966,2, 3-12. Mischel, W. Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968. Moss, M. K. Social desirability, physical attractiveness and social choice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, 1969. Murstein, B. I. A complementary need hypothesis in newly- weds and middle-aged married couples. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 22, 194—197. Murstein, B. I. Critique of models of dyadic attraction. In B. I. Murstein (Ed.), Theories of Attraction and Love. New York: Springer, 1971. Nahemow, L., and Lawton, M. P. Similarity and propinquity in friendship formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 22(2), 204-213. Palmer, J., and Byrne, D. Attraction toward dominant and submissive strangers: Similarity versus complemen- tarity. Journal of Experimental Research in Person- s22ty, 1970, 4, 108-115. Reagor, P. A., and Clore, G. L. Attraction, test anxiety, and similarity-dissimilarity of test performance. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 22, 219—220. Rosen, E. Self-appraisal, personal desirability, and perceived social desirability of personality traits. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 151-158. ”— Rosenfeld, H. M., and Jackson, J. Temporal mediation of the similarity-attraction hypothesis. Journal of Personality, 1965, 22, 649-656. Ross, L. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press, Rychlak, J. F. The similarity, compatibility, or incompati- bility of needs in interpersonal selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 334- 340. 67 Schlenker, B. R. Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, ahHInterpersonal Relations. Belmont, California: Brooks7Cole, 1980. Schwartz, M. 8. Prediction of individual differences in the arousal of the effectance motive and in interper- sonal attraction toward a stranger identified with the arousal of effectance motive. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1966. Secord, P. F., and Backman, C. W. Interpersonal congruency, perceived similarity, and friendship. Sociometry, 1964, 22, 115-127. Senn, D. J. Attraction as a function of similarity-dis- similarity in task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 22, 120—123. Singh, R. Attraction as a function of similarity in attitudes and personality characteristics. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 22, 87-95. Smith, R. E. Personal communication, January, 1976. Stroebe, W., Insko, C. A., Thompson, V. D., and Layton, B. D. Effects of physical attractiveness, attitude similarity, and sex on various aspects of interper- sonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 22, 79-91i Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., and Rottmann, L. Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 1966, 4, 508-516. Zander, A., and Havelin, A. Social comparison and inter- personal attraction. Human Relations, 1960, 22, 21-32. LMAR 3 0 Rico. The Ronald Press, Inc. 605 Third Avenue New York, NY 10158 Y HAHROOg Dear Sir: My master's thesis, which contains an excerpt from a book published by The Ronald Press, is being made available to the public by University Microfilms International (UMI). I therefore need the written permission of the copyright owner that: 1) I have permission to use the subsequently described copyrighted material in my thesis. 2) UMI has permission to sell single xerographic 0r microfilm copies of my thesis on demand. 3) The copyright owner agrees to "save and hold harmless" UMI from damages which may result from any copyright violation. Thesis: Personality Similarity, Interpersonal Attractiop, and Group Behavior. (by Douglas Mark Hardy) Book from which the copyrighted excerpt has been taken: Leary, T. Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality: A Functional Theory and Methodology for Personality Evaluation. New York, Ronald Press, 1957. Description of copyrighted excerpt : l) p. 135——I would like to use Figure 6 (Interpersonal Check List Illustrating the Classification of Interpersonal Behaviors into Sixteen Variable Categories) in my thesis. -—I would also like to list the 128 items from the Interpersonal Check List in alphabetical order in one of the appendices as this was one of the measures which I used in this research. Acknowledgement of the author and source of these excerpts is, of course, made in the thesis. MAY 5 1982: P rnis sion granted.fi .--i PE‘"“r 0r3’1t W egtven i) " 3:129:12‘2b If ITC‘ICM.”-'L 1, jjjfj in Our boot Wit“ T * L: *'.FF3r source“ 7/ (:,Ca \.<:(: W413 » ' .1 4--.: that source jL CL/ Wk. 1- is I‘quii ed. L‘J 9‘1‘ PZL' ' “3 * F 1 J. 1 .--;J & 33:3. Inc, Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need further information. If you can't reach me at 517-487-5231, you can leave a message with my secretary at 517-355-9564. The written permissions can be sent to me at the address below. S'ncerely yours, W . Douglas M. Hardy 2008 Alpha Lansing, MI 48910 7% 111 MS. Marian McGrath Academic Press, Inc. 111 Fifth Avenue .H- ,, MT” New York, NY 10003 “’ ‘ ‘ 0 Dear Ms. McGrath: My master's thesis, which contains four excerpts from a book published by Academic Press, is being made available to the public by University Microfilms International (UMI). I therefore need the written permission of the copyright owner that: 1) I have permission to use the subsequently stated copyrighted material in my thesis. 2) UMI has permission to sell single xerographic or microfilm copies of my thesis on demand. 9\ am ' ~1A-l- u 1 n A 1 1 1 fr uyxppu uv ouvc GUAM 11m 7 —j-fi 1.. “...: u TIMI prom A .... .... ,. 7,-1.1: AL. m-n. -..-11. .- _J .[ I I ' LUALI (All! ——P.I‘-‘:1“L A1 L‘AL Thesis: Personality Similarity, Interpersonal Attraction, and Group Behavior. (by Douglas Mark Hardy) Book from which copyrighted excerpts have been taken: Byrne, Donn. The Attraction Paradigm. New YOrk: Academic Press, 1971. Listing and texts of the copyrighted excerpts: 1) p. l4——"Anyone reading one of our articles or listening to a paper presented at a convention would be convinced that he was in the presence of an active scientific enterprise. As a result of exposure to multiple articles or papers, however, it is not uncommon to hear expressions of puzzlement as to where all this might be leading. The possibility must be raised that much of our research, both basic and applied, may not be leading anywhere." 2) pp. 44-47--"A necessary, though hardly sufficient, condition for progress in research is consistency of operations across experiments....A meaningful and cumulative increase in knowledge is possible only if identical or equivalent operations serve as connecting links across experiments." 3) p. l64——"The relationship between attitude similarity and attraction is a low—level empiracle law. It does not constitute either a moral or a theoretical imperative; it simply describes the way subjects from a specific population are found to respond under specified conditions. The basic principle which is proposed is the relationship between positive reinforcement and attraction. The fact that human beings respond to similar attitudes as positive reinforcements does not result from some perverse whim of the author nor does it necessarily even meet with his approval." 4) pp. 426-427—-I would like to have permission to reprint items 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Interpersonal Judgement Scale. Acknowledgement of the author and source of these excerpts is, of course, made in the thesis. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need further information. If you can't reach me at 517—487—5231, you can leave a message with my secretary at 517—355-9564. The written permissions can be sent to me at the address below. 8' cerely yours, W% Douglas M. Hardy / 2008 Alpha Lansing, MI 48910 PERMISSION GRANTED, provided that you give complete credit to the source. We realize that University Microfilms must have permission to sell copies of your thesis, and we agree to this. However, we must point out that we are not giving permission for separate sale of our material. W4 :- Date: April 7, 1982 .". . . / Marian McGrath Manager, Contracts & Copyrights Please pardon the informality but to speed our reply we have answered on your own letter. ALLYN AND BACON, INC. / 470 ATLANTIC A VENUE, BOSTON, MASS. 02210 91m 1868 ...gfleadmg Educational (publishers April 1, 1982 Douglas H. Hardy 2008 Alpha Lansing, MI 48910 Dear Mr. Hardy: Allyn and Bacon is pleased to grant you permission,to use the requested excerpt from p. 204 of Baron and Byrne, SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: UNDERSTANDING HUMAN INTERACTION, Second Edition, in your master's thesis, Personality Similarity, Interpgrsonal Attraction, and Group Behavio . We understand that University Microfilms International will sell single urographic or microfilm copies of your thesis on demand. ' Please credit the authors, title and edition, copyright year date, and Allyn and Bacon, Inc., as publisher in your acknowledgments. Thank you for your interest in our material. Sincerely, 65.2.1234. 14w- Roberta A. Lew Permissions Supervisor Ms. Roberta Lew Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 470 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Dear MS. Lew: My master's thesis, which contains an excerpt from a book published by Allyn & Bacon, is being made available to the public by University Microfilms International (UMI). I therefore need the written permission of the copyright owner that: 1) I have permission to use the subsequently stated copyrighted material in my thesis. 2) UMI has permission to sell single xerographic or microfilm c0pies of my thesis on demand. 3) The copyright owner agrees to "save and hold harmless" UMI from damages which may result from any copyright violation. Thesis: Personality Similarity, Interpersonal Attractiop, and Grogp Behavior. (by Douglas Mark Hardy) Book from which a copyrighted excerpt has been taken: Baron, R., and Byrne, D. Social Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction. (2nd ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1977. Text of the copyrighted excerpt (from p. 204): 1. "Most stimuli to which we are exposed can be identified as either rewarding or punishing.... 2. "Rewarding stimuli arouse positive feelings while punishing stimuli arouse negative feelings. These feelings...are believed to fall along a continuum from extremely positive to extremely negative. 3. "The evaluation of any given stimulus as good or bad, enjoyable or unenjoyable, depends on whether it arouses positive or negative feelings. The strength of the aroused feeling is reflected in how positively or negatively we express our evaluations. The result is that we can order our likes and dislikes along a rough scale.... 4. "Through the process of simple conditioning, any neutral stimulus that is associated with a reward or with a punishment will acquire the capacity to arouse positive or negative feelings respectively, and therefore be liked or disliked as a consequence." Acknowledgement of the author and source of this excerpt is, of course, made in the thesis. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need further information. If you can't reach me at 517-487—5231, you can leave a message with my secretary at 517-355-9564. The written permissions can be sent to me at the address below. Sincerely yours, Azaflgglghfi €37. ;;é;4;¢; __ Douglas M. Hardy 2008 Alpha Lansing, MI 48910 Copyright © 1977, 1974 by Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 470 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210. ‘ ' ~ _, . g, y \‘\ 1 All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part // of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced ‘ or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. \ Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 0% and Baron, Robert A. Social psychology. Includes bibliographies and index. 1. Social psychology. I. Byrne, Donn Erwin, joint author. PIA/1251.343? 1977 301.1 76-44284 ISBN 0-205-05681-4 Scrmul printing. . . August (.977 Chapter opening photo credits: page 196 photo by Phil Carver 61: Friends; page 302 photo by Anna Kaufman Moon / Stock, Boston; page 402 photo by Pamela Schuyler / Stock, Boston; page 452 photo by Rick Smolan / Stock, Boston; page 554 photo by Weston Kemp; page 604 photo by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. [2 - W/ (977. "W'T’Ww-‘VL—yjyv—m- 3,1 A. ._,_ l: a "Illllllllllllllllls