TREE-1L Ill]llllzllflllgllllllljlllljjllllfllfllljllslll L uau WSW um This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE IMPACT OF ATTITUDE SIMILARITY AND INITIAL INTERACTION ON INTERPERSONAL AE'ERACTION presente y Michael Sunnafrank has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree in Communi cation @fl {g- ”g; Z a Major professor Date August 14, 1979 0-7639 fl‘ ‘Q' o“ 1’ u rpo Ff3§5608329mI 0 ' 0 2. 9 JAN 0 7 2002 l . ,. ’5 Iagvfi 592303 9&— e ‘2 SEP fiémf, \ f U . 200,7 THE IMPACT OF ATTITUDE SIMILARITY AND INITIAL INTERACTION ON INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION By Michael James Sunnafrank A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1979 ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF ATTITUDE SIMILARITY AND INITIAL INTERACTION ON INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION By Michael James Sunnafrank The present study focused on identifying the independent and conjoint influence of attitude similarity and initial interactions on interpersonal attraction to relative strangers. The participants in the study were in- formed that they would be working with either an attitudinally similar or dissimilar stranger on a project. Half of the participants were then allowed to engage in an initial interaction with their partner and the other half were not. All of the participants then filled out a scale which included a measure of interpersonal attraction. The results of the study indicated that the conjoint non-additive effects of attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction overrode the significant main effects of these variables. While attitudinally similar non—interactants were more attracted to their partners than dissimilar non—interactants, no differences on attraction were observed among similar and dissimilar interactants. Dissimilar interactants were more attracted to their partners than dissimilar non-interactants but no differences in attraction were observed between similar interactants and non-interactants. Dedicated to The Ones I Love ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to the members of my committee for their constant help and guidance. In addition, I would like to thank the Department of Communication for providing the resources which made this work possible. A special thanks to Dr. Gerald R. Miller, the chairman of my committee, who encouraged me to pursue this work from the very beginning through to its completion. I feel very honored to have had the opportunity to work with this man and I hope that he will never feel that the years he spent on me were wasted. I would like to thank both Dr. Miller and Pearl Ann for the many pleasant and delicious evenings at their home. Those evenings provided treasured memories that Donna and I will always recall with fondness. Thanks, also, to my other committee members for the many hours of time and energy they spent with me. To Dr. Michael Burgoon I extend my apprecia- tion, not only for the questions which helped me think as a researcher but also for his help in allowing me to learn that I had the answers, however long it took. To Dr. Eugene Jacobson, my thanks for his knowledge and the time he took to impart some of that formidable knowledge to me. To Dr. Raymond Frankmann, my thanks for an understanding of design and analysis which will help me in the years ahead. A special thanks to Dr. Norman E. Fontes, who saw the beginnings of a student in me more than five years ago and who encouraged me to reach beyond what I thought were my capabilities. I would like to thank him especially for his friendship which helped me through these past years. iii I would also like to thank Dr. Ed Kaminski, Laura Henderson, Steve McDermott, Gordon Dahnke, and Bob Bundens for the insanity which has kept me partially sane these last three years. Finally, I would like to thank Donna, Shana, and Ryan (the ones I love) for the love and patience which made this all worthwhile. Thanks to you all. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I INTRODUCTION ........ .... ................. . ................ Initial Interaction and Attraction.............. .......... Attitude Similarity and Attraction.... ....... ....... ...... Initial Interaction-Attitude Similarity and Attraction.... II PROCEDURES ........... .... ..... ...... ............ .... ...... Overview ................ ............. ..................... Selection of Participants and Attitude Topics ............. Procedures........ ..... . ....... . ....... . .................. Attitude Similarity. ................................. Initial Interaction... ....... .... ..... ............... The Interaction Room ............ . .................... Interpersonal Attraction ............................. Debriefing................ ....... . ...... ............. Design ............................................... Participants ...................................... ... III RESULTS ..................................... . ............. Tests of Hypotheses ....................................... IV DISCUSSION ...................... . ......................... APPENDIX A ........................................................ APPENDIX B ................................................. ....... BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................. .... 15 15 15 19 22 23 24 24 25 26 26 28 29 34 47 52 59 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 The Effects of Attitude Similarity, Sex, and Initial Interaction on Interpersonal Attraction................ 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Interpersonal Attraction Toward Similar and Dissimilar Interactants and Non-InteractantSOOOOOI......OOOOOCOO......COOO0.0...... vi 33 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Over the past five decades researchers have identified several variables which are related to the attraction of one individual to another. This research on interpersonal attraction has examined the cor— relates of attraction in long-term relationships (Hunt, 1935; Newcomb & Svehla, 1937; Vreeland & Corey, 1935; Winslow, 1937) and in relationships among previously unacquainted individuals once they become acquainted (Newcomb, 1961), and the antecedents of attraction to relative strangers (Byrne, 1971; Clore & Baldridge, 1968; Dion, 1972; Griffitt, 1969; Miller, 1970). While investigations into interpersonal attraction have proceeded within various research traditions, in recent years most of the reported research focuses on the attraction of individuals to relative strangers. The most studied antecedent of attraction in these studies has been the attitude similarity variable. Research focusing on the attitude similarity- attraction relationship among strangers typically employs some variant of the bogus stranger technique developed by Byrne (1961). Practitioners of this technique normally measure individuals' attitudes concerning various attitudinal topics. These individuals are then presented with the attitudes of a "bogus" stranger toward the same topics. These responses are actually manufactured by the experimenter to agree or disagree with the respondent's attitudes to produce the similarity manipulation. The participants then complete Byrne's Interpersonal Judgment Scale (1961) which includes an estimate of how much they would like the stranger and how much they would like working with the stranger. The responses to these two items are summed to produce the attraction measure. Researchers employing these methods consistently find attitude similarity to be positively related to interpersonal attraction (Byrne, 1961; Byrne, London & Griffitt, 1968). This bogus stranger research has been conducted primarily for the purpose of building and testing theory. In this capacity it has been quite successful in generally supporting both balance and reinforcement models. A by—product of this theory testing process has been the identification of several variables, including attitude similarity, which may influence pre-acquaintance attraction in non-laboratory settings. For example, computer dates and job interviewers are often formally provided with atti— tudinal information prior to interacting with strangers. Experiments con- ducted focusing on both of these situations indicate that attitude similarity among computer dates and with job interviewees is positively related to pre-acquaintance attraction (Byrne, Ervin & Lamberth, 1970; Griffitt & Jackson, 1970; Merritt, 1970; Shaughnessy & Levinger, 1969). These two situations in which attitudes are formally disclosed prior to initial interactions are somewhat atypical of the types of situations in which interpersonal relationships normally develop. As several research— ers have noted, individuals typically do not disclose attitudinal informa- tion during the initial stages of acquaintanceship (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Berger, Gardner, Parks, Shulman & Miller, 1976; Miller & Steinberg, 1975; Miller, 1978; Newcomb, 1961). However, there are numerous naturally occurring situations in which the attitudes of strangers are available to individuals prior to initial interactions with the strangers and to which the findings of bogus stranger research may generalize. People are often in situations where they know they will be interacting with a particular stranger. On some of these occasions the strangers may perceive that certain attitudes held by the other would influence the quality and/or outcome of their subsequent interactions. When this occurs it seems likely that the individuals will attempt to ascertain the interaction-relevant attitudes of the other before the initial interaction. One means of attain- ing this information would be to get it from mutual acquaintances. Thus, if mutual acquaintances exist, it seems likely that individuals would have some knowledge of the interaction-relevant attitudes of strangers prior to interacting with them. It is not being argued that attitudinal information elicited from mutual acquaintances will be perceived in the same manner as attitudinal information disclosed by the actual stranger. Rather, the point being made is that the findings of bogus stranger research may well generalize to these naturally occurring situations. What is not clear from most of this research is how this pre-interaction knowledge concerning attitude similar- ity combines with the typically non-attitudinal information exchanged dur- ing initial interactions to influence attraction. The present study focuses on this concern in examining the possible independent and conjoint effects of initial interactions and attitude similarity on the attraction variable. Initial Interaction and Attraction While research on attraction to strangers has successfully isolated several variables which appear to influence attraction to strangers, one potentially powerful variable, the opportunity to engage in an initial interaction with the stranger, has been neglected. The majority of studies reported experimentally isolate the variables of interest while not pro- viding the participants with the Opportunity to interact with one another. A few studies (Brewer & Brewer, 1968; Brink, 1977; Byrne, Ervin & Lamberth, 1970; Byrne & Griffitt, 1966; Lombardo, Weiss & Stich, 1973) have allowed participants to engage in limited interactions with one another in attempts to ascertain the influence of attitude similarity on attraction after individuals engage in these interactions. However, no reported research has examined the impact of "typical" initial interaction with a stranger on attraction. It is curious that so much of the recent work on attraction has chosen to ignore the role of initial interaction in the attraction process. As noted, there may be numerous situations in which individuals possess information about a stranger whom they have not interacted with which may influence attraction and decisions regarding whether they will attempt to interact with the stranger. The research on pre-acquaintance attraction has been quite successful in delineating the variables which impact on this process. However, in many of these situations the next stage in the attraction process would involve communicating with the stranger. Although research on attraction to strangers has not addressed the impact of initial interaction on attraction, some research with relative strangers and with long-term relational partners indicates that the oppor— tunity to interact with strangers may positively influence attraction. In a study described in greater detail later, Byrne, Ervin, and Lamberth (1970) examined the impact of attitude similarity and physical attractiveness on attraction among opposite-sex dyads after 30 minute interactions. In addition, they report attraction measures for individuals who were given information about attitude similarity but were not allowed to interact. In both of these situations participants were more attracted to similar others. Byrne, Ervin & Lamberth do not report any comparison of the results of the 30 minute interaction conditions and the no interaction conditions. However, a comparison of the means obtained in these two situations reveals an interesting pattern. In both similar and dissimilar conditions the par- ticipants who interacted were more attracted to one another than the participants who did not interact. It should be noted that there were a number of differences between the interactive and non-interactive situa- tions other than the opportunity to communicate. Thus, while these differences in attraction cannot be directly interpreted as resulting from the opportunity to communicate, these results do suggest that something about the initial interactions may have led to the differences observed. Several studies focusing on long-term relationships provide evidence which indicates that the Opportunity to interact with another may be positively related to attraction (Burchinal, 1960; Newcomb, 1961; Ramsoy, 1966). These studies all report a positive relationship between propinquity, which should influence interaction opportunities, and attraction. While most of this research focuses on pre-marital residential propinquity, Newcomb's classic longitudinal research focused upon the development of interpersonal networks among previously unacquainted individuals. Newcomb induced 17 male students, who were strangers to one another, to occupy a single residence for one school year. During this time, he took several measures of attraction among the residents. In the initial stages of re— lationship formation, Newcomb found that propinquity within the residence was positively related to attraction. While there are a number of possible interpretations of this finding, one possible explanation would involve the opportunity to interact. Individuals who spend much of their time in close proximity would have greater opportunities to interact than individuals in less propinquitous settings. It may be that something about the act of interacting with another increases attraction. Although little research exists which bears directly on the relation- ship between initial interaction and attraction, some theoretical orienta— tions do suggest that initial interaction and attraction should be positively related. Various theorists assume that individuals strive for a stable, predictable, and controllable environment (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis, 1965; Miller & Steinberg, 1975). Know- ing that one is about to interact with a stranger would likely threaten this goal; i.e., the stranger's behavior and reactions to the individual's behavior would be difficult to predict and control. Indeed, one recent theoretical formulation advanced by Berger and Calabrese (1975) suggests that the main goal of interactants during initial encounters is to increase predictability of interaction behaviors or reduce uncertainty. This sug- gests that information exchanged during initial interaction may provide a basis for increasing predictability. Lalljee and Cook (1973) report findings which support the position that individuals are relatively uncertain during the beginning of initial interactions and that further interaction reduces this uncertainty. These researchers found that during the first two minutes of initial interac- tions uncertainty level, as measured by pause and speech rate, was high relative to later stages of the initial interaction. This research indi- cates that individuals may perceive that their goal of a predictable environment is threatened when meeting strangers and that information exchanged during initial interactions may facilitate achievement of this goal. Various reinforcement models of interpersonal attraction posit that individuals are attracted to those who provide rewards to them (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Byrne, 1971; Homans, 1961; Lott & Lott, 1972). This paper assumes that the enhancement of the individual's goal of a predictable and controllable environment achieved during initial interactions would be rewarding to the individual. If this assumption is valid, then attraction to relative strangers should be greater after initial interactions which increase predictability than before these interactions, provided that these interactions do not lead to arguments or other negative reinforcement. This reasoning leads to the following hypothesis concerning the relation- ship of initial interaction and attraction. H Among individuals who are strangers to one another, individuals who engage in brief, non- punishing interactions will be more attracted to one another than individuals who do not. 1: Conceptual definitions of interpersonal attraction and initial interaction are presented below. Interpersonal Attraction: Interpersonal attraction is conceptually defined as an individual's evaluation of the degree to which s/he likes another. Initial Interaction: Initial interaction is concep— tualized as the first brief encounter individuals have with one another in which participants exchange normative nonpunishing information. Attitude Similarity and Attraction While the impact of initial interaction on attraction has received little empirical scrutiny, the attitude similarity-attraction relationship has been extensively studied. The voluminous research on this relationship consistently demonstrates that these two variables are positively related (Byrne, 1971; Clore & Baldridge, 1968; Griffitt, 1969; Hunt, 1935; Newcomb, 1961; Newcomb & Svehla, 1937; Winslow, 1937). Recently, most of this re- search has focused on the attraction of individuals to strangers based on information about the stranger's attitudes. This research indicates that individuals who have never met are more attracted to one another if they think they are attitudinally similar than if they think they are attitudin- ally dissimilar (Byrne, 1961; Griffitt, 1969). Although most research on attraction to strangers focuses on pre— acquaintance attraction, some research has examined the impact of attitude similarity on attraction among strangers after they have engaged in limited, non-typical interactions. Byrne and Griffitt (1966) examined the combined impact of a stranger's attitude similarity and his expressed liking toward another on the other's attraction to the stranger in one limited interactive situation. In each of 30 all male dyads there was a naive participant and an experimental confederate. Both were asked to fill out a seven-item attitude scale. The limited interaction involved having each person read his responses aloud, with the naive participant reading his first each time. The confederate then either agreed or disagreed with the participants' responses 100 percent of the time. The participants were then asked to write about their reaction to the experiment and exchange these messages. The confederate expressed either like or dislike for the participant in his written message to produce the liking manipulation. Both the participant and the confederate were then asked to evaluate each other on the Interpersonal Judgment Scale (1961). The results indicated that while expressed liking produced the greatest effect on attraction, attitude similarity also produced a significant positive effect. In a somewhat more realistic interactive situation Brewer and Brewer (1968) examined the impact of expressed similarity concerning capital pun— ishment during an interaction on post-interaction attraction. These re- searchers pre-tested 623 respondents on a 20-item attitude scale concerning the topic of capital punishment. The 216 high and low scoring respondents were then selected to participate in the experiment. They were placed in dyads with another respondent who had either scored similarly or dis- similarly to them and asked to discuss the tOpic of capital punishment for a 20—minute period. The number of statements made by each member of the dyad concerning capital punishment and whether these statements were for, against, or neutral were unobtrusively recorded from behind a onedway mirror. After the interaction the members of each dyad were instructed to fill out a set of questionnaires which included a measure of attraction to their dyadic partner. The researchers then computed a similarity measure by dividing the number of statements made by each person's partner which were in agreement with the person's actual attitudes by the total number of capital punishment statements made by the partner. A statistically sig- nificant correlation of .62 was observed between the attraction and simi- larity measures. This result indicates that expressed similarity during an interaction is strongly related to post—interaction attraction. While neither of the interactive situations presented above is typical of usual initial interactions, the Byrne, Ervin, and Lamberth (1970) study discussed earlier did give some participants the opportunity to engage in more normative initial interactions after manipulating attitude similarity. Some of the participants in this study were exposed to the usual bogus stranger situation, however the main thrust of the study involved an examina— tion of the impact of actual similarity and physical attractiveness on post-interaction attraction among computer dates. A 50-item questionnaire was administered to 420 individuals. This questionnaire contained ten items measuring each of the following areas: authoritarianism, repression- sensitization, attitudes, personal preferences, and self-concept. The re- sponses of each male on these items were then compared to the responses of each female. This matching procedure produced 24 similar pairs (correlations of .66 to .74 on responses) and 20 dissimilar pairs (.24 to .40). These couples were then brought together individually and told that they would be participating in a study involving computer dating and that they had been matched on the basis of being either highly similar or highly dissimi— lar. They were given 50¢ and asked to spend 30 minutes together on a coke date. After completing the date, the couples responded to the Interpersonal Judgment Scale. The results indicated that physical attractiveness and 10 similarity of the dates were both positively related to post-interaction attraction. The attitude similarity—interpersonal attraction relationship is often interpreted as supporting various reinforcement models of interpersonal behavior (Byrne, 1971; Byrne & Clore, 1970; Lott & Lott, 1972). The rein- forcement properties of similar and dissimilar attitudes are generally seen as deriving from a need to be accurate in interpreting one's environment. The accuracy of attitudes may only be evaluated by comparing one's atti— tudes with those held by others. The need to be accurate is satisfied by others who agree with the individual's attitudes and frustrated by those who disagree. Thus, attitude similarity is positively reinforcing and dissimilarity is negatively reinforcing. Another possible reinforcement property of attitude similarity could be that interacting with similar others would require less effort than interacting with dissimilar others. That is, similar others should be easier to communicate with simply because they share common points of reference and interactions with them are less likely to lead to unresolv- able arguments. This reinforcement property of attitude similarity would be especially important in situations where individuals know they will be interacting with another in the future about a topic which could lead to the discussion of the revealed attitudes. The research reviewed, along with these posited reinforcement proper- ties of attitude similarity, leads to the following replication hypothesis concerning the impact of attitude similarity on both pre— and post-inter- action attraction. H2: Individuals who are aware that another is attitudinally similar will be more attracted to the other than individuals who are aware that another is attitudinally dissimilar. 11 A conceptual definition of the attitude similarity variable is presented below. Attitude Similarity: Many theorists have concep- tualized the attitude construct as an evaluative response toward some aspect of the individual's world. For example, Thurstone (1931) defines attitude as "affect for or against a psychological object." Fishbein (1961) views attitudes as implicit evalua- tive responses. Byrne (1971) defines attitudes as "an orientation along a positive-negative continuum with respect to any object or event." In this tradition, the present approach views attitudes as an individual's evaluation for or against any object or event. Attitude similarity is conceptualized as the degree to which two or more individuals' attitudes agree or disagree. Initial Interaction-Attitude Similarity and Attraction While numerous studies have examined the impact of attitude similarity on attraction, no reported research has systematically examined the com- bined impact of attitude similarity and typical initial interactions. As noted earlier, the Byrne, Ervin, and Lamberth (1970) study is the sole study to report attraction findings for individuals who either engaged in ini- tial interactions with a similar or dissimilar other or did not interact under somewhat analogous similarity manipulations. While individual mea— sures of attraction among participants who engaged in dates with either similar or dissimilar partners were obtained, the remainder of the study participants examined a bogus questionnaire which portrayed a highly similar or dissimilar stranger. These participants then rated the stranger's attractiveness. As noted earlier, their results suggest both similar and dissimilar others may be more interpersonally attractive after initial interaction. However, there is one possible reinforcement property of attitude similarity which would indicate that initial interaction may differentially impact on attraction to similar and dissimilar strangers. This reinforce— ment property of attitude similarity emanates from the impact of information 12 concerning the state of attitude similarity on the individual's goal of achieving a predictable and controllable environment. This researcher has taken the position that coming into contact with strangers threatens this goal. Moreover, it has been assumed that information which enhances this goal is rewarding to the individual. It will be argued below that informa- tion which indicates that a stranger whom one is about to meet is atti— tudinally similar will enhance an individual's perceived ability to achieve this goal but that information that the stranger is attitudinally dissimi- lar will further disrupt this goal. It will be further argued that since the major reinforcement property of initial interaction stems from the enhancement of this same goal, that initial interaction should combine with attitudinal similarity and dissimilarity to produce somewhat different consequences for interpersonal attraction. When an individual receives information that another is attitudinally similar prior to interacting with him/her, the individual may perceive that the behavior of the other would be more predictable. As suggested earlier, individuals may infer that interactions with similar others would be un— likely to lead to disagreements. In this situation individuals would be likely to perceive that interactions with the other would proceed normally which would increase the perceived predictability of the initial interaction. This increase in predictability would be positively rewarding to the in- dividual and should positively influence attraction. However, information which indicates that another is attitudinally dissimilar should have a somewhat different effect. Information that another whom the individual will be interacting with is attitudinally dissimilar may decrease the perceived predictability of the other's interaction behavior. This information would indicate that future interactions with the other may or may not lead to disagreements. 13 This ambiguity concerning how the initial interaction will proceed should decrease the individual's perception of the predictability of the inter- action which would be negatively reinforcing. This negatively reinforcing decrease in predictability should negatively impact on attraction. This researcher has proposed that the major reinforcement property of initial interaction emanates from the enhancement of the individual's goal of a predictable and controllable environment. If the argument out- lined above concerning this reinforcement property of attitude similarity is accurate, the reinforcements obtained during initial interaction should have a different impact on attraction to attitudinally similar and dissimi— lar strangers. Specifically, if pre-interaction information that another is attitudinally similar increases perceived predictability, then the posited reinforcement property of initial interaction should not have as strong an effect. However, if information that another is attitudinally dissimilar decreases perceived predictability, then this reinforcement property of initial interactions should have a strong influence on attrac- tion, provided that these interactions proceed routinely and do not lead to disagreement or other negative reinforcement. Thus, initial interaction with a similar other should increase predictability and attraction to a slight degree while initial interactions with dissimilar others should increase predictability and attraction to a greater degree. This reasoning suggests the following hypothesis concerning the conjoint effects of attitude similarity and initial interactions on attraction among indivi- duals who are strangers to one another. H3: Individuals who engage in brief, non-threatening interactions with a partner will be more attracted to their partner than those who do not. This effect will be greater for individuals with an attitudinally dissimilar partner. 14 This analysis has suggested that initially interacting with similar and dissimilar strangers increases attraction, but that this increase should be greater towards dissimilar strangers. However, given the other reinforcement properties of attitude similarity discussed earlier, indivi- duals should remain more attracted to similar others than to dissimilar others after initial interactions as predicted in Hypothesis 2. CHAPTER II PROCEDURES Overview This section of the paper develops the methods used to test the pro- posed hypotheses. An independent groups design was employed with two levels of attitude similarity; similar or dissimilar responses to two tOpics. In addition, two different experimental situations involving the initial inter- action variable were developed; one in which the participants were allowed to interact for five minutes after receiving the attitude similarity manipu- lation and one in which the participants did not interact. Selection of Participants and Attitude Topics It was necessary for the purposes of the present inquiry to obtain participants who were known to be attitudinally similar or dissimilar prior to the experiment. In most of the research conducted by Byrne and his asso- ciates this is not a necessity primarily because the participants never interact with the bogus other. However, since half of the participants in the present study would be allowed to interact, the possibility that they might discuss the revealed attitudes arose. This possibility led to a decision to obtain individuals who were known to be similar or dissimilar on the chosen attitudes. The following methods were employed to accomplish this and to select the attitudinal topics. During the initial day of the winter term at Michigan State University the attitudes of all students enrolled in beginning Communication classes toward 14 t0pics were solicited. These students were told that responding to the questionnaire was completely voluntary but that those who did complete it would be placed in a participant pool for a study to be conducted later 15 16 in the term which could lead to extra-credit possibilities. They were also informed that if they chose not to do this, they would still be able to earn extra-credit in other projects. The students who completed the question— naire were asked to place their names on it to enable the researcher to contact them for later participation. In this manner the attitudes of 540 students toward the 14 topics were obtained. Nine of these topics and the scales employed to measure attitudes toward them were taken from Byrne's 56—item Attitude Scale (1971). Five other topics were either modifications of items taken from this scale con- structed to conform to current issues involving the topics or new topics of current social interest. The 14 topics chosen included cigarette smoking, fraternities and sororities, God, legal drinking age, American way of life, grading systems, religion, preparedness for war, welfare spending, relations with Communist China, construction of nuclear power plants, gay rights, and the ERA. A six-point scale, ranging from either very much in favor to very much opposed or strongly believe X to strongly believe not X, was employed to measure individuals' attitudes toward each topic. An example of these items and the scale employed to measure attitudes is presented below. Construction of Nuclear Power Plants (check one) I am very much in favor of the construction of nuclear power plants. I am in favor of the construction of nuclear power plants. I am mildly in favor of the construction of nuclear plants. I am mildly opposed to the construction of nuclear power plants. I am opposed to the construction of nuclear power plants. I am very much opposed to the construction of nuclear power plants. Two of these topics, attitudes toward the construction of nuclear power plants and preparedness for war, were chosen to provide the attitude similarity manipulation primarily because there was the greatest diversity of attitudes 17 toward these tOpics in the sample. There was a great deal of agreement among the students on the remaining tOpics which would have made it diffi- cult to generate dissimilar dyads. While it could be argued that the use of only two attitude topics would produce a relatively weak similarity manipulation, a number of studies employing between-subjects designs have demonstrated that revealing two attitudes is a sufficient manipulation which does produce the usual similarity-attraction relationship (Byrne & Nelson, 1965; Rosenblood, 1970). This prior research reveals no differences in attraction as the number of attitudes revealed to manipulate attitude similarity increases from one through six. The individuals' responses were then dichotomized into positive and negative responses. A participant could then fall into one of four categor— ies; positive attitude toward the construction of nuclear power plants and toward preparedness for war; a positive attitude toward the construction of nuclear power plants and a negative attitude toward preparedness for war; a negative attitude toward the construction of nuclear power plants and a positive attitude toward preparedness for war; or a negative attitude toward both topics. It should be noted that this process produced categor- ies of individuals who were similar with respect to the direction, positive or negative, of their attitudes. However, the extremity of individuals' attitudes was not considered when establishing these categories primarily because it was felt that the extremity of an individual's reported attitude would be likely to change between the time of the pre-test and the experiment. Attitudinally similar pairs were produced by randomly selecting indi- viduals from within each category. Seven individuals, all with dichoto- mously similar responses, were selected for each of 14 different experimental sessions. While only four individuals were needed for each session, two for 18 the similar-no interaction situation and two for the similar-interaction situation, seven were selected to assure that at least four would attend. Attitudinally dissimilar pairs were produced by randomly selecting individuals from two different pairs of categories; those with positive attitudes toward both tOpics with those with negative attitudes toward both; and those with positive attitudes toward the construction of nuclear power plants and negative attitudes toward preparedness for war with those who held negative attitudes toward the construction of nuclear power plants and positive attitudes toward preparedness for war. Eight of these indivi— duals, four from each of the two attitudinally opposite groups chosen for that session, were selected for one of 14 further experimental sessions. Again, only four individuals were needed for each session and the over- scheduling was used to assure that at least four would attend. One further stipulation was implemented regarding the composition of the individuals selected for each session. Only participants of the same sex were selected for each session. Seven of the sessions in the attitud- inally similar conditions and seven in the attitudinally dissimilar con— ditions contained only females while seven in each of the similarity con- ditions contained only males. While it would have been interesting to examine opposite—sex dyads, there are no theoretical reasons to expect or research evidence to indicate that the outcomes for opposite—sex and same—sex dyads would differ. As an initial look into the combined effects of attitude similarity and initial interaction, it was decided that same— sex partners would be employed. A total of 210 participants were selected in this manner. Each of these individuals was contacted in their Communication class during the fifth week of classes. Each was given a sheet of paper with their name, h 19 the date and hour they had been scheduled to participate, and the room where they were to report written on it. This paper also included a brief description of the project which stated that they would be working with another Communication student on a project involving some of the topics which they had responded to on the first day of class. Procedures The same experimenter conducted each of the 28 experimental sessions. Since it was not possible to keep the experimenter "blind" to the experi- mental conditions, it was decided that most of the instructions to the participants should be written to reduce the probability that experimenter bias and/or characteristics would affect the experimental results. The following procedures were employed for each individual who participated in the study. Upon arrival at the designated experimental session each participant was escorted to a separate room to eliminate the possibility of interaction between participants. Each individual was then given the following instruc- tions concerning the project: Earlier this quarter you filled out an attitude opinionnaire which dealt with a series of topics. One purpose of this was to learn something about student opinions, but a second purpose was to determine the extent to which one person can form valid judgments about another person just by knowing a few of his/her opinions. Last quarter we carried out other studies of this sort. Students were asked to write down several bits of information about themselves and this informa— tion was given to other students. They were then given the task of forming an opinion about the student's intelligence, knowledge of current events, morality, and adjustment just on the basis of knowing a few bits of information about the person's present and past life. We found the students could guess these things with better than chance accuracy. This study is, in part, an extension of this previous work and a major change has been introduced. Instead of information about another person's life, you will be shown his or her opinions on 20 two specific topics. You will be asked to form an opinion about the person based on this information and to make some predictions about the person. All I can guarantee is that this person is the same sex as your— self, to the best of my knowledge you do not know the person whose opinions you will receive, and it is not someone in the same communication class as yourself. After you have completed the initial phase of your participation, I will give you a chance to meet the person whose opinions you have examined. In the last phase of today's participation you will be asked to work on a project with this person in which the two topics are likely to come up. These instructions actually constituted a cover story which is a modification of the one normally presented to participants in bogus stran- ger research. The major modifications involve leading the individuals to believe that they would be meeting the stranger and working with the stranger on a project involving the attitude topics. The individuals were led to believe that they would meet the person whose attitudes would be re— vealed to them primarily because it was felt that without this perception the individual's goal of attaining a predictable and controllable environ- ment would not be disrupted. The reason for leading them to believe that the project would involve the attitude topics was to reduce the possibility that they might question the reason for the choice of the particular topics. If this question were raised in the participants' minds, it seems likely that they might suspect that the choice had been made on the basis of the similarity or dissimilarity of their own and their partner's responses. This particular cover story was implemented to reduce this possibility. Moreover, as suggested earlier, individuals would normally not have infor— mation about a stranger's attitudes unless they thought the information would be relevant in future interactions with the stranger. This cover story provided a way to make the attitudes appear relevant. 21 After the participants finished reading these instructions, they were given the attitude questionnaire they had completed at the beginning of the term, told to examine their responses, and asked to change the responses to conform with their current positions on the topics. While many of the participants did elect to make changes, none switched from one side of an attitudinal position, positive or negative, to the other with respect to the two topics chosen for the attitude similarity manipulation. This step was taken to insure the desired attitude similarity manipulation. When the individuals had completed examining their responses, they were instructed to read the following information and complete the items included: As I indicated earlier, you will be made aware of the opinions of your partner on two of the topics which were included in the opinionnaire. The purpose of this is two-fold. First, to determine if individuals can form accurate opinions about others based on limited information, as we discovered last term. Secondly, these two topics are likely to come up when you work on the project together. The two topics which have been chosen are pre— paredness for war and the construction of nuclear power plants. Please indicate your general opinion on these topics below. Preparedness for War (check one) ___I believe that preparedness for war will not tend to lead to war. I believe that preparedness for war will tend to lead to war. Construction of Nuclear Power Plants (check one) I am in favor of the construction of nuclear power plants. I am opposed to the construction of nuclear power plants. While the participants worked on this task, the experimenter randomly assigned individuals to either the interaction or no interaction situations. In the attitudinally similar sessions this involved choosing two names 22 from the list of all individuals attending the session. These individuals were then assigned to the interaction situation and the remainder were assigned to the no interaction situation. In the attitudinally dissimilar sessions, partners' names were chosen from two different lists. Each of these lists contained the names of individuals who had given similar re— sponses but the people on one list had taken attitudinal positions opposite to the positions taken by the individuals on the other list. The first individual chosen from each list was assigned to the interaction situation. The remaining individuals on each list were paired with participants from the other list and assigned to the no interaction situation. Attitude Similarity: The attitude similarity variable was manipulated in the following manner. After each participant completed the dichotomous measures of his/her attitudes toward the two topics the experimenter checked them to ascertain if the responses corresponded to the positions the individual had taken earlier. All participants responded as their initial responses indicated they should; i.e., all respondents who had initially given one of the three positive responses on the topic gave positive responses on the dichotomous measure and all respondents who had initially given one of the three negative responses to the tepic gave negative responses on the dichotomous measure. The experimenter then gave each participant his/her assigned partner's responses. Each person was given five minutes to look these responses over. During this time they were instructed to form a gen— eral opinion about their partner. In this manner half of the individuals were made aware that their partner was attitudinally similar and half were made aware that s/he was attitudinally dissimilar. An odd number of individuals attended some sessions. In those instances, one individual was left without an actual partner. When this occurred the 23 experimenter constructed a questionnaire to be either similar or dissimilar to that respondent's attitudes. This questionnaire was then given to the individual who was led to believe that it had been completed by his/her partner. In all of these cases the individual was assigned to the no inter- action situation. Initial Interaction: When the participants completed examination of their partner's attitudes, those who had been selected to interact were brought together and introduced to one another as future interaction part- ners. They were then asked to take a seat in a room that neither of them had been in earlier. After they were seated, the experimenter told them that a separate study was being conducted which involved an analysis of interactions between people. The participants were informed that as part of this separate study videotapes of students talking together were being made. They were then asked if they would mind being videotaped talking to- gether for five minutes before continuing with the study they had come to work on. All dyads agreed to be videotaped. They were then told that the camera which would be videotaping them was behind a one-way mirror. A micro— phone was then placed on the table at which they were seated. The partici- pants were asked to take seats next to one another at one corner of the table to allow the camera to videotape the interaction. The experimenter then left the room with the instructions that he would return in five minutes to get them started on the next stage of the other study. After five minutes the interactions were terminated and the participants returned to their original rooms where they began the next phase of the study. In the no interaction situation the responses of the individual's partner were removed after the five minute examination period. These parti- cipants were told that the next phase of the study would commence in about five minutes. These individuals were then left alone for five minutes. 24 The Interaction Room: The room in which the initial interactions took place was 12 feet by 12 feet. It contained one rectangular table which was 3 feet and 10 inches by 5 feet and 8 inches. Six chairs were situated around the table, one at each end and two along each side. Two doors led into the room, one from an adjacent hallway through which the participants entered the room and one which led into another room. This second door contained the one—way mirror through which the videotaping was accomplished. Interpersonal Attraction: Subsequent to the initial interaction and no interaction situations the participants were asked to respond to a question— naire which included the measure of attraction to their interaction partner. Also included in this questionnaire were measures of the participants' estimates of their partner's morality, intelligence, knowledge of current events, adjustment, attitudes toward the original 14 attitude topics, and their own current attitudes toward these topics. The participants were told that their responses would not be made available to their partner. The attraction measure consisted of the following three items, the first two of which were adapted from Byrne's Interpersonal Judgment Scale: Personal Feelings (check one) ___I feel that I will probably like this person very much. . ___I feel that I will probably like this person. .___l feel that I will probably like this person to a slight degree. ___I feel that I will probably neither particularly like nor dislike this person. ___I feel that I will probably dislike this person to a slight degree. ___I feel that I will probably dislike this person. ___I feel that I will probably dislike this person very much. 25 Working Together (check one) ___;I feel that I will very much dislike working with this person on the project. ___I feel that I will dislike working with this person on the project. ___I feel that I will dislike working with this person on the project to a slight degree. ___I feel that I will neither particularly dislike nor particularly enjoy working with this person on the project. ___I feel that I will enjoy working with this person on the project to a slight degree. ___I feel that I will enjoy working with this person on the project. ___I feel that I will very much enjoy working with this person on the project. If you were given the choice of either working with your current partner on the project or of working with someone else, how likely would you be to choose your current partner? would be very likely to choose my current partner. would be likely to choose my current partner. would be somewhat likely to choose my current partner. would be neither particularly likely nor particularly unlikely to choose my current partner. ___I would be somewhat unlikely to choose my current partner. ___I would be unlikely to choose my current partner. .___I would be very unlikely to choose my current partner. 'H H'H H The individual's responses to these three items were coded on a scale of one through seven, with one representing the most negative response and seven the most positive. The responses to these items were then summed to produce the attraction measure. An alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951) of .847 was obtained for this measure indicating a fair degree of internal consistency among the items. Debriefing: After all participants in each session finished the questionnaire they were brought together in the room where the interaction had taken place. At this time the experimenter attempted to ascertain if any of the participants had fathomed the purpose of the study. All of the individuals were encouraged to express any observations they had about the study up to that point. In most of these sessions participants either asked about the nature of the project they would be working on or asked 26 the experimenter how he thought people were able to make accurate predic- tions about others based on limited information. None of the participants brought up anything which would indicate that they thought the study had anything to do with attitude similarity, initial interaction, or attraction. The participants were then informed of the purposes of the study and completely debriefed. During this time the experimenter asked the indivi— duals who had interacted with one another if they had met before partici- pating in the study. One dyad indicated that they had met before and their data were discarded. At the end of this debriefing the participants were asked to not discuss the study with anyone until the term was over and the ramifications for the results of the study if they did discuss it were carefully explained to them. Design: The experimental design employed in this study was a 2 X 2 X 2 completely randomized design with two levels of attitude similarity (com- pletely similar or dissimilar), two levels of initial interaction (five minutes of interaction or no interaction), and two levels of sex (male or female respondent). While no predictions were made concerning sex differ— ences, the sex variable was included in the analysis to examine possible differences attributable to this variable. Participants: A total of 124 communication students, 60 males and 64 females, participated in the study. Their average age was 19.242 years, ranging from 17 years of age to 28 years of age. Fourteen of these indivi- duals participated in each of the following experimental situations: male and female respondents who were attitudinally similar and who interacted with their same-sex partner, male and female respondents who were dissimilar and who interacted with their same-sex partner, and male respondents who were similar and who did not interact with their same—sex partner. The 27 over—scheduling which was instituted to assure that enough individuals would participate produced a total of 18 participants in each of the follow- ing non-interacting situations: attitudinally dissimilar male and female respondents and attitudinally similar female respondents. CHAPTER III RESULTS This chapter reports the results of the study. For all statistical tests the .05 significance level was employed. Before presenting these results, it should be noted that while the respondents' initial attitude extremity was not considered when assigning participants to the different experimental conditions, it was felt that this variable might significantly influence the experimental results. Num- erous studies have provided evidence that the discrepancy between an individual's attitudes and the attitudes of a stranger influence attraction independently of the attitude similarity variable (Byrne, 1971; Nelson, 1965). This would suggest that in the present experiment the extremity of an individual's attitudes might impact on the attraction variable. In order to examine this possibility and to determine if attitude extremity should be considered as a covariate in analyzing the data, the following proce- dures were employed. The individuals' initial reSponses to the six-point attitude scales concerning nuclear power plants and preparedness for war at the time of the experiment were examined. For each topic, regardless of the direction of the individuals' attitudes, those who responded with the most extreme attitudes (responses of 1 or 6) were assigned a score of 3 on attitude extremity, those who held moderate attitudes (responses of 2 or 5) were assigned a score of 2 on attitude extremity, and those who held the least extreme attitudes (responses of 3 or 4) were assigned a score of 1 on attitude extremity. The attitude extremity scores on each of the topics were then correlated with the attraction measures for individuals who had been paired with similar partners and with dissimilar partners. For indi- viduals with similar partners, attitude extremity toward nuclear power 28 29 plants correlated -.08 with attraction while extremity in attitudes toward preparedness for war was correlated -.04 with attraction. For individuals with dissimilar partners the observed correlations were .10 and .07 respectively. These low correlations indicated that attitude extremity was not influencing attraction and the extremity variable was disgarded as a covariate. Tests of Hypotheses As a preliminary step to test the hypotheses, a 3—way analysis of variance employing the unweighted means procedure was conducted on the data. Table 1 presents the results of this analysis along with the means obtained for each of the eight groups. Significant main effects were ob— served for attitude similarity (F=24.29, df=1/116, p<.05); initial inter- action (F=17.24, df=1/116, p<.05); and sex (F=6.87, df=1/116, p<.05). A significant non—additive effect was observed for the attitude similarity and initial interaction variables (F=9.93, df=1/116, p<.05). No other signi- ficant non—additive effects were observed. An estimate of the amount of variance explained by each of these significant effects indicated that the attitude similarity main effect accounted for 13 percent of the variance, while initial interaction accounted for 9 percent of the variance, sex explained 3 percent, and the non-additive effect of attitude similarity and initial interaction accounted for 5 percent. Since the sex variable did not combine with the other two independent variables to produce any significant non-additive effects, the marginal means for male and female respondents on the attraction measure were examined to determine the direction of the relationship indicated by the significant sex main effect. The average attraction of male respondents to their same— sex partners was 15.32 (s=3.08, n=60) while the average attraction of 30 female respondents to their same—sex partners was 16.65 (s=3.29, n=64) indicating that females were slightly more attracted to their partners than males. Given the lack of non-additive effects involving the sex variable, the marginal means for attitude similarity and initial interaction were examined to determine the nature of the non-additive effects of these two variables. These marginal means are presented in Table 2. It can be seen that the pattern of the results conforms to the prediction made in Hypothesis 3; i.e., the means on attraction for interactants fall above the means for non—interactants and the difference in attraction between interactants and non-interactants is greater for individuals paired with a dissimilar partner. Analysis of the simple main effects for attitude similarity and initial interaction was undertaken to further determine the nature of these relationships. This analysis revealed that attitude similarity produced significantly greater attraction than attitude dissimilarity among persons who did not interact with their partner (t=6.17, df=116, p<.05), but that among persons who interacted attitudinal similarity and dissimilarity did not produce differences in attraction (t?1.20, df=116, p>.05). Moreover, it was discovered that interactants were more attracted to their partner than non-interactants when their partner was dissimilar (t=5.25, df=116, p<.05), but that among individuals paired with similar partners interactants were no more attracted to their partners than non-interactants (t<1, df=116, p>.05). This analysis indicates that the ordinal non-additive effects of attitude similarity and initial interaction produced results which support neither Hypothesis 1, which predicts that interactants will be more attracted to one another than non-interactants regardless of the state of 31 attitude similarity, nor Hypothesis 2, which predicts that attitudinally similar individuals will be more attracted to one another than attitudinally dissimilar individuals regardless of the level of initial interaction. Apparently, then, the brief initial interaction eliminated the impact of the attitude similarity variable on attraction by increasing attraction to dissimilar partners. 32 Table 1 The Effects of Attitude Similarity, Sex, and Initial Interaction on Interpersonal Attraction Engaged in Initial Interaction Did Not Engage in Initial Interaction Source Similarity (A) Initial Interaction (B) Sex (C) A X B A X C B X C A X B X C Error Total Male Participant Similar Dissimilar Partner Partner X=16.43 X=16.00 x=2.50 s=2.94 n=14 n=14 X=16.21 $13.22 s=2.91 s=2.88 n=14 n=18 Sums of Squares 173.72 123.63 49.26 71.26 13.89 8.12 1.85 832.06 1317.87 DE 116 123 Female Participant Similar Dissimilar Partner Partner X=18.64 X=17.36 s=2.85 s=2.44 n=14 n=14 X=l7.89 SE=13.06 s=2.l7 s=2.71 n=18 n=18 Mean Square 173.72 123.63 49.26 71.26 13.89 8.12 1.85 7.17 10.71 24.22* 17.24* 6.87* 9.93* 1.94 1.13 .26 *p<.05 33 Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Interpersonal Attraction Toward Similar and Dissimilar Interactants and Non-Interactants Interaction Condition Similarity Condition Similar Dissimilar Engaged in ie17.54 '§%16.68 Initial s=2.86 s=2.74 Interaction N=28 n=28 gidaNZ'in §é17.16 §é13.14 Initial s=2.62 s=2.76 n=32 n=36 Interaction CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION The results of the present study indicate that initial interaction and attitude similarity combine in a non-additive manner to influence attraction to relative strangers. Initial interaction had a significant positive im- pact on attraction, but only for individuals paired with attitudinally dissimilar partners. Individuals paired with attitudinally similar partners were more attracted to their partner than individuals paired with attitu— dinally dissimilar partners, but only when they had not engaged in an initial interaction with their partner. This pattern of results supports Hypothesis 3, which predicts that initial interaction has a greater posi- tive influence on attraction to dissimilar strangers than to similar strangers. However, neither Hypothesis 1, which predicts that initial inter— action has a positive influence on attraction regardless of the state of attitude similarity, nor Hypothesis 2, which predicts that attitude similar- ity is more attractive than dissimilarity regardless of the level of initial interaction, were supported. An additional finding of the present study was that female respon- dents were slightly more attracted to their same-sex partners than male respondents. As noted, the sex variable accounted for only 3 percent of the variance in attraction suggesting that its influence, if any, is small. This section of the paper will first attempt to provide an explana- tion of this finding for the sex variable. The non-additive influence of initial interaction and attitude similarity will then be discussed. The current finding that female respondents were more attracted to female partners than were males to male partners conflicts with the results of previous research in the bogus stranger tradition. Two studies conducted 34 l..— 35 by Byrne, London, and Reeves (1968) have focused on the sex of stranger- sex of respondent relationship. In the first of these studies, the research- ers exposed male and female college students to photographs of either physi- cally attractive or unattractive male and female stimulus persons and subsequently measured the respondents' attraction to the stranger by means of the IJS. These procedures produced eight experimental conditions in- volving two levels of sex of participant, two levels of sex of stimulus person, and two levels of physical attractiveness. The second study added attitude similarity to this design as a fourth factor by depicting the stranger as attitudinally similar or dissimilar. The results of these two studies indicated that physically attractive individuals are more interpersonally attractive than physically unattractive individuals. Additionally, the results of the second study supported the familiar finding that attitudinally similar others are perceived as more interpersonally attractive than dissimilar others. However, in neither study did sex of respondent significantly influence attraction nor did this variable produce any significant non—additive effects with any other vari- able. This outcome suggests that female and male respondents do not respond differently with respect to attraction to strangers. Moreover, the lack of a significant non-additive effect for sex of respondent and sex of stimulus person suggests that this lack of differences on attraction holds for both same—sex partners, which are the focus of the present study, and for opposite—sex partners. While the seemingly conflicting findings of the Byrne, London, and Reeves studies and the current study may be attributable to sampling error, one difference in the experimental procedures employed in the current study may account for these conflicting findings. Participants in the present study were led to believe that they would be working with their partner on 36 a project in the near future. NO such perception was created in the Byrne, London, and Reeves studies. It may be that this perception led to the sex differences observed in the current study. In this culture, it seems likely that males would be more likely than females to perceive that this future interaction situation, in which they would be working with their same-sex partner, would be competitive in nature. As Shaw (1971; pp. 168-169) points out, much of the research focusing on small group behavior has found that "women more often than men adopt an anticompetitive norm and attempt to Operate so that everyone will benefit." If the males in the present study perceived that they would be in a more competitive future interaction with their same-sex partner than did their female counterparts, it seems likely that these different perceptions would impact on the attraction of males and females to their same—sex partner. Specifically, males should be less attracted to their same—sex partner, whom they perceive as a competitor, than their female counter— parts, who are less likely to perceive their partner as a competitor. While this analysis accounts for the slight sex differences observed, there are no means of ascertaining whether these differences are attributable to the sex of the respondent, the partner, or both, given the current data on same—sex dyads. Future research which attempts to measure individuals' perceptions of competitiveness in this situation among same- and opposite- sex dyads is needed to assess the accuracy of this analysis and to ascertain if these sex differences are due to sex of respondent, sex of partner, or both. While a significant main effect was observed for the sex variable in the present study, this variable did not produce any significant first or second order non—additive effects with the initial interaction or attitude similarity variables. Therefore, the sex of respondent variable 37 will not be considered in interpreting the non—additive effects of attitude similarity and initial interaction. The current findings concerning attitude similarity and initial inter- action indicate that these two variables combine in a non—additive manner to influence attraction. As predicted by Hypothesis 3, initial interaction had a greater positive impact on attraction for individuals paired with attitudinally dissimilar partners than for those paired with similar part- ners. As noted, the non-additive effect of these two variables overrode the significant main effects of each, leading to findings which failed to support Hypotheses 1 and 2. One possible explanation of these findings concerns the individual's goal of attaining a stable, predictable, and controllable environment. It was suggested earlier that knowing one is about to interact with a stranger would likely threaten this goal. Both the attitude similarity and initial interaction variables should impact on the individual's ability to achieve this goal, thereby influencing attraction to relative strangers. Knowing that a stranger is attitudinally similar with respect to topics relevant to future interactions should enhance the individual's perceived ability to achieve this goal and positively influence attraction. Conversely, knowing that a stranger is attitudinally dissimilar on these topics should further disrupt the individual's perceived ability to achieve this goal and negatively influence attraction. Moreover, having the opportunity to engage in brief, non-punishing initial interactions with the relative stranger should enhance the individual's perceived ability to predict the future interaction behaviors of the stranger and that these interactions would be stable and controllable which should positively influence attrac- tion. 38 If this analysis is correct, then the only condition in the present study in which individuals did not have the opportunity to attain their goal of a stable, predictable, and controllable environment with respect to future interactions with the stranger was the attitudinally dissimilar— no interaction condition. Table 2 reveals that individuals in this condi- tion rated their partner as far less attractive than individuals in any other condition. Indeed, individuals in this condition were significantly less attracted to their partners than either their attitudinally dissimi— lar, interacting counterparts or their attitudinally similar, non-interact- ing counterparts as predicted by Hypotheses 1 and 2. This reasoning would also explain the failure to support the remaining prediction made by Hypothesis 1; i.e., that similar interactants would be more attracted to their partner than similar non-interactants. Speci— fically, if knowing that another whom one is about to interact with is attitudinally similar with respect to topics relevant to this future inter— action enables the individual to achieve his/her goal of a stable, pre— dictable, and controllable environment, then this reinforcement property of initial interaction should have relatively little impact on attraction. The failure to support the remaining prediction made by Hypothesis 2, that attitudinally similar interactants would be more attracted to one another than attitudinally dissimilar interactants, cannot be fully explained by the original perspective taken in this paper. This prediction was based primarily on the assumption that the attitude similarity variable influ— ences an individual's ability to achieve yet another goal, to be accurate and logical in interpreting one's environment. This assumption is based on Festinger's (1954) notion that nonsocially unverifiable attitudes can only be validated through comparison to the attitudes held by Others. Knowing 39 that the attitudes held by others are dissimilar to the individual's own attitudes leads to attitudinal invalidation and threatens the individual's goal of being accurate and logical in interpreting the environment, which is negatively reinforcing and negatively influences attraction. Conversely, knowing that another's attitudes are similar enhances the individual's perception that s/he is accurate and logical in interpreting the environ- ment, which is positively reinforcing and positively influences attraction. In the current research this reasoning led to the prediction that attitud— inally similar partners would be more attractive than dissimilar partners. This prediction was supported for non-interactants only. The similar and dissimilar interactants did not differ with respect to attraction to their partners. This finding of no difference on attraction for similar and dissimilar interactants not only conflicts with the perspective outlined above, it also conflicts with the findings of the past studies reviewed in this paper which allowed participants to interact and found similar interactants to be more attracted to their partners than dissimilar interactants (Brewer & Brewer, 1968; Byrne, Ervin & Lamberth, 1970; Byrne & Griffitt, 1966). However, the procedures Of the current study differ from those of past studies on a number of dimensions which could have led to these conflicting findings. Probably the most important procedural differences involve the number Of attitude topics employed to manipulate attitude similarity and the type of interaction allowed participants. Only two attitude topics were involved in the attitude similarity manipulation in the present study. It was found that this was a sufficient number to produce the usual attitude similarity—attraction relationship among non—interactants but not among 40 interactants. Past studies which have allowed participants to interact employed a greater number of topics in manipulating attitude similarity with the fewest being seven in the Byrne and Griffitt study. It may be that the number of topics employed in the present study to manipulate attitude similarity was not sufficient to influence attraction after participants engaged in an initial interaction with their partner, but that future re- search using more tOpics in this situation would observe significant differences in post-interaction attraction due to the attitude similarity variable. Some information obtained during the debriefing period supports this speculation. When asked why they were attracted to one another even though they were dissimilar, many dissimilar interactants indicated that they disagreed even with their closest friends on some issues and that it would not make sense to dislike someone who seemed nice enough just because they had different opinions on a couple of tOpics. Although this information is anecdotal, it does suggest that when only a few topics are involved in manipulating attitude similarity, individuals who interact with dissimilar others can reach their goal of being logical in interpreting their environ- ment by reminding themselves that no two people will be attitudinally similar on all topicsand thatit would be illogical to demand this of others who have interacted with them in a normal, non-punishing manner. In their nor— mal daily interactions individuals may have information about the attitudes held by relative strangers on a varying number of topics. Perhaps as the number of tOpics increase, dissimilar partners become less likely to attain their goal of being accurate and logical in the manner described above. While increasing the number of topics employed to manipulate attitude similarity may produce the usual attitude similarity-attraction relationship 41 among individuals who have engaged in initial interactions, it should be noted that in most normal situations in which individuals have attitudinal information about a stranger, this information is not likely to be very ex- tensive. That is, the information is likely to consist of attitudes toward just a few topics that are relevant to the future interaction. If this is true, the results of the present study suggest that the attitude similarity variable will not have a strong influence on attraction to strangers, who the individuals have attitudinal information about, after individuals have engaged in initial interactions with them. However, it is possible that attitude similarity may regain an influence on attraction when the atti- tudinal topics become relevant during later stages of the interaction. While differences in the number of topics employed in the present and past studies may explain the conflicting results for the attitude similar— ity-attraction relationship, it is possible that the similarity-attraction relationship is highly ephemeral in nature and easily erased by brief com- municative exchanges. This speculation would indicate that something other than the number of attitude tOpics employed may have led to the contradic- tory findings in the current and past studies. One procedural difference between this study and previous ones which employed interacting dyads, other than the number of tOpics employed, that could account for these differences involves the type of interaction that took place. In the present study interactants thought that the interaction they engaged in was for another study which was examining normal interaction behavior between individuals. This perception led to interactions in which participants exchanged primarily demographic information; e.g., names, college majors, hometowns. None of the dyads chose to discuss the revealed attitudinal topics. As Berger and Calabrese (1975) note, during normal 42 interactions with relative strangers individuals prefer to avoid attitud- inal topics and to exchange precisely this sort of demographic information. Thus, it would appear that the interactions involved in the present study were normal in nature as far as the type of information exchanged by participants is concerned. While the interactions which took place in the present study did not include a discussion of attitudinal topics, those which took place in at least two of the three reviewed studies did. In the Byrne and Griffitt (1966) study naive participants read their attitudinal responses aloud and then a confederate read either a disagreeing or agreeing response. In the Brewer and Brewer (1968) study participants were allowed to freely interact about the topic of capital punishment, a topic on which they were basically agreed or disagreed. Even in the Byrne, Ervin, and Lamberth (1970) "coke" date study, it appears likely that participants discussed attitudinal information. In this study opposite-sex participants who were either similar or dissimilar to one another on a number of attitude topics and personality dimensions were asked to go on a "coke" date. In addition, they were told that they were either highly similar or dissimilar to one another on the measured topics although no information about the particular topics was made available to them. The researcher instructed them to find out as much about their partners as they could while on the date because they would be quizzed about one another by the researcher after the date. Although no observations Of these interactions were made, it does appear that these procedures would lead participants to discuss attitudinal topics to ascer— tain areas of similarity and dissimilarity. Obviously, in the similar dyads more similarities than dissimilarities would likely be discovered, while the opposite would be expected in the dissimilar dyads. While this 43 possibility is highly speculative, it does suggest that the interactions in the Byrne, Ervin, and Lamberth study were somewhat different than the interactions which took place in the current study. These considerations suggest that the normal, non-punishing inter- actions which occurred in the present study were unlike the interactions which took place in past studies in which attitudinal similarities and dis- similarities were revealed. As these studies indicate revealing either attitudinal similarities or dissimilarities during initial interactions has different implications for attraction, with similar partners being more attracted to one another than dissimilar partners. However, the find- ings of the present study suggest that when initial interactions proceed normally, the attitude similarity variable has no impact on post—interaction attraction. These divergent findings make sense when examined from the perspective Of individuals attempting to achieve stable, predictable, and controllable environments. In the past studies this goal would likely have been achieved by individuals in dyads where similarities were revealed during the inter- action but threatened in dyads where dissimilarities were revealed. This would be positively reinforcing for similar interactants and negatively rein— forcing for dissimilar interactants which would produce the observed differences in attraction. However, it has been suggested that in the current study both similar and dissimilar interactants have achieved this goal which would be positively reinforcing to both leading to the lack of impact for the attitude similarity variable in the interaction situation. To assess the validity of this analysis, future research should attempt to obtain measures Of the perceived predictability and stability of future interactions with attitudinally similar and dissimilar strangers prior to 44 and after both normative initial interactions and interactions in which the attitudinal topics are discussed. The possibility that the type of interactions involved in the present study led to the conflicting findings of this study and past studies has serious implications for research focusing on the attitude similarity— attraction relationship. As noted, individuals typically do not discuss attitudinal topics during the initial stage of relational development. If so, past studies have, to a greater or lesser extent, not allowed inter~ actants to go through this initial non—punishing stage in which the inter— actants in the present study participated. Failures to include this initial stage may lead to a highly distorted interpretation of the relationship of the influence of the attitude similarity and interaction variables in the attraction process. The current findings suggest that this initial inter- action phase reduces the negative impact of known attitude dissimilarity on attraction to relative strangers leading them to be as equally attrac- tive as similar strangers. Future research which allows participants to engage in this initial phase of interaction and then discuss the topics on which they are similar or dissimilar should be undertaken. Perhaps then the attitude similarity variable would re—emerge as an influential variable in the attraction process. However, it is not clear from the present re- search whether or not this would occur. Another possible reason for differences between the findings of the current study and past studies involving freely interacting dyads involves the amount of time devoted to the interaction. In the present study participants were allowed five minutes of interaction, whereas the Brewer and Brewer study permitted 20 minutes and the Byrne, Ervin, and Lamberth study allowed 30 minutes. As noted, these interactions differed along a number of dimensions other than time and it would be difficult to imagine 45 time as a strong factor in producing attraction differences. However, if interactants who are actually similar or dissimilar are allowed to inter- act freely, they may eventually discuss the topics on which they are similar or dissimilar. This would be especially likely if the topics were relevant to some future task or project that they would be working on together, as in the present study. Thus, if a longer period of time than five minutes had been allowed for the initial interaction, the attitude topics might have been discussed. In this event, it seems possible that attitude similarity would again exert an influence on attraction. The possible influence on attraction of another procedure employed in the present study needs to be examined. The participants in the initial interaction conditions in the present study were aware that they were being videotaped. In order to make this videotaping as unobtrusive as possible, all of the equipment, other than the microphone, was placed out of the view of the interactants. Even so, the knowledge that they were being video- taped placed the participants in a highly unique situation. This situation may have led participants to engage in atypical interactions and may have influenced attraction in an unusual manner. Additionally, just participat- ing together in this unique situation could possibly affect the attraction variable, whereas the attraction measure for non—interactants would not have been so influenced. Future research either employing participants who are not aware that they are being videotaped or participants who are not videotaped while interacting under conditions similar to the present con- ditions should be undertaken to eliminate and examine the possible in— fluence of this confounding variable. Until this is done, any attempt to generalize the results of this study to other situations would be risky. 46 One further limitation of the present study involves the character- istics of the sample employed. The participants in this study were all young adult college students. While this is not uncharacteristic of research in this and other areas in the social sciences, it does restrict the generalizability of the present findings. Despite all these limitations, it is clear that the relationship of attitude similarity and initial interaction to attraction may be extremely complex in the "real" world and that the usual experimental relationship between attitude similarity and attraction may not apply when the complex interactive situations in which people conduct their interpersonal affairs are considered. This would indicate that the past research findings of Byrne and his colleagues in this area will not generalize straightforwardly to the "real" world despite previous research which suggests they will. Rather, it appears that additional variables——in this case, the presence or absence of the Opportunity to engage in commonplace, non—threatening communication——must also be considered when attempting to assess the impact of attitude similarity on perceived attraction. APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX A PRETEST QUESTIONNAIRE TO ALL COMMUNICATION 100 STUDENTS During the upcoming weeks of this quarter the Department of Communica- tion will provide you with the opportunity to participate in various projects being sponsored by both faculty and graduate students. If you participate you will be given extra credit for each hour of participation (up to a maximum of five hours) by your Communication 100 instructor. We never know exactly how many projects will be offered during the quarter, so if you think you would like extra credit, it is usually a good idea to sign up for each of the projects that fits your schedule. If you do participate in each of the projects offered you will greatly increase the likelihood of receiving the maximum amount of extra credit. For at least two of the projects being offered this quarter we need to get some information from you today if you want to participate. Both of these projects will involve an examination of issues that today's students consider important. In order to accomplish this objective we need to know how you personally feel about the issues that are listed on the attached questionnaire. Completing this questionnaire is voluntary and anyone who does not think they would be interested in these projects need not complete it. However, if you think you might be interested please fill out the question- naire since you will not be able to participate unless we receive your com- pleted questionnaire. Please take your time in responding to each of the items and carefully consider each of them. This is a very short questionnaire that should require only about five minutes of your time. 47 48 Those Of you who decide that you are interested in participating should be aware of one further matter. One item on the questionnaire asks you to list the times you could be available for participation. Please list only the times that you are reasonably certain you will be free. For each of these projects we will be working with you individually. We will be using the information you give us concerning the times you can participate to schedule a time for your participation which is most convenient for you. You will be receiving these time assignments later in the quarter. COMMUNICATION 100 OPINIONNAIRE Listed below are a number of topics about which many students have shown concern. Under each of these tOpics six statements about how people might feel concerning each topic are listed. Please check the response which most closely represents your feeling about the topic. 1. Smoking Cigarettes (check one) ___In general, I am very much in favor of smoking. ___In general, I am in favor of smoking. .___In general, I am mildly in favor of smoking. __”In general, I am mildly against smoking. ___In general, I am against smoking. In general, I am very much against smoking. Fraternities and Sororities (check one) very much against fraternities and sororities. against fraternities and sororities. mildly against fraternities and sororities. mildly in favor of fraternities and sororities. in favor of fraternities and sororities. very much in favor of fraternities and sororities. am am am am am am Belief in God (check one) strongly believe that there is a God. believe that there is a God. believe that perhaps there is a God. believe that perhaps there is no God. believe that there is no God. strongly believe that there is no God. Drinking (check one) am am am am am am very much in favor of 18 year olds drinking alcohol. in favor of 18 year olds drinking alcohol. mildly in favor of 18 year olds drinking alcohol. mildly opposed to 18 year olds drinking alcohol. Opposed to 18 year olds drinking alcohol. very much Opposed to 18 year olds drinking alcohol. American Way of Life (check one) strongly believe that the American way Of life is not the best. believe that the American way of life is not the best. mildly believe that the American way of life is not the best. mildly believe that the American way of life is the best. believe that the American way Of life is the best. strongly believe that the American way of life is the best. Grades (check one) am very much in favor of the grading system that now exists. am in favor of the grading system that now exists. am mildly in favor of the grading system that now exists. am mildly Opposed to the grading system that now exists. Opposed to the grading system that now exists. am strongly opposed tO the grading system that now exists. 49 8. 10. 11. 12. 50 Religion (check one) strongly believe that my religion is the one true religion. believe that my religion is the one true religion. mildly believe that my religion is the one true religion. mildly believe that no religion is the one true religion. believe that no religion is the one true religion. strongly believe that no religion is the one true religion. Preparedness for War (check one) ___I strongly believe that preparedness for war will not tend to lead to war. I believe that preparedness for war will not tend to lead to war. ___I mildly believe that preparedness for war will not tend to lead to war. ___I mildly believe that preparedness for war will tend to lead to war. ___I believe that preparedness for war will tend to lead to war. ___I strongly believe that preparedness for war will tend to lead to war. Welfare Legislation (check one) am very much Opposed to increased welfare spending. am opposed to increased welfare spending. am mildly opposed to increased welfare spending. am mildly in favor of increased welfare spending. am in favor of increased welfare spending. am very much in favor of increased welfare spending. Communist China (check one) am very much Opposed to the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am opposed to the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am mildly opposed to the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am mildly in favor of the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am in favor of the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am very much in favor of the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. War (check one) ___I strongly feel that war is sometimes necessary to solve world problems. I feel that war is sometimes necessary to solve world problems. I mildly feel that war is sometimes necessary to solve world problems. I mildly feel that war is never necessary to solve world problems. I feel that war is never necessary to solve world problems. I strongly feel that war is never necessary to solve world problems. Illl Construction of Nuclear Power Plants (check one) am very much in favor Of the construction of nuclear power plants. am in favor of the construction of nuclear power plants. am mildly in favor of the construction of nuclear power plants. am mildly opposed to the construction of nuclear power plants. am Opposed to the construction of nuclear power plants. am very much opposed to the construction of nuclear power plants. 51 13. Gay Rights Legislation (check one) ___I am very much Opposed to legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. ____I am opposed to legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. ____I am mildly opposed to legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. ___I am mildly in favor of legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. __flfllam1irifavor of legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. ___I am very much in favor of legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. 14. Equal Rights Amendment (check one) am very much in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment. am in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment. am mildly in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment. am mildly opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment. am opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment. am very much Opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment. Thank you for your cooperation thus far. We would now like you to give us some information about yourselves. Name (We need this information to contact you later about projects. Please be assured your responses to the above items will be treated anonymously and confidentially) Your COM 100 instructor Hours your class (COM 100) meets Days your class (COM 100) meets Times and days you are free to participate in the projects. (Each project will take about one hour to complete.) Age Sex Male Female Ethnic Affiliation (e.g., Caucasion, African American) THANK YOU VERY MUCH APPENDIX B APPENDIX B POSTTEST QUESTIONNAIRE We would now like yOu to fill out the Interpersonal Judgment Scale and indicate your best guess as to this person's intelligence, morality, know- ledge of current events, and adjustment. Also indicate how much you will like this person and how much you will like working with this person on the task you will be performing later. 1. Intelligence (check one) believe this person is very much above average in intelligence. believe this person is above average in intelligence. believe this person is slightly above average in intelligence. believe this person is average in intelligence. believe this person is slightly below average in intelligence. believe this person is below average in intelligence. believe this person is very much below average in intelligence. (...A 2. Knowledge of Current Events (check one) ___I believe that this person is very much below average in his/her knowledge of current events. ___I believe that this person is below average in his/her knowledge of current events. ___I believe that this person is slightly below average in his/her know- ledge of current events. ___I believe that this person is average in his/her knowledge of current events. ___I believe that this person is slightly above average in his/her knowledge of current events. ___I believe that this person is above average in his/her knowledge of current events. ___I believe that this person is very much above average in his/her knowledge of current events. 3. 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. 52 53 4. 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 maladjusted 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. 5. Personal Feelings (check one) I feel that I will probably like this person very much. I feel that I will like this person. I feel that I will probably like this person to a slight degree. I feel that I will neither particularly like nor particularly dislike this person. ___I feel that I will probably dislike this person to a slight degree. ___I feel that I will probably dislike this person. ___I feel that I will probably dislike this person very much. 6. Working Together on the Task (check one) ___I believe that I will very much dislike working with this person on the task. ___I believe that I will dislike working with this person on the task. ___I believe that I will dislike working with this person on the task to a slight degree. ___I believe that I will neither particularly dislike nor particularly enjoy working with this person on the task. ___I believe that I will enjoy working with this person on the task to a slight degree. ___I believe that I will enjoy working with this person on the task. ___I believe that I will very much enjoy working with this person on the task. If we gave you the choice of either working with the person you have been paired with on the task or of working with someone else, how likely would you be to choose your current partner? ___I would be very likely to choose my current partner rather than another person. ___I would be likely to choose my current partner rather than another person. ___I would be somewhat likely to choose my current partner rather than another person. ___I would be neither particularly likely nor particularly unlikely to choose my current partner rather than another person. ___I would be somewhat unlikely to choose my current partner rather than another person. ___I would be unlikely to choose my current partner rather than another person. _"_I would be very unlikely to choose my current partner rather than another person. 54 In addition to discovering that individuals could form fairly accurate opinions about others based on a few bits of information, last quarter we also discovered that given just a little information about another, people could predict with a fair degree of accuracy another's opinions on a number of topics. As a further extension of our investigation into this phenomena we would like you to complete the opinionnaire below as you believe the person_you have beeanaired with completed it. Please take your time and carefully consider how you would guess the person completed each item. You will notice that the two topics which you already have some information on are included. Please respond to these items also as you believe your partner would have. PLEASE REMEMBER TO RESPOND AS YOU BELIEVE YOUR PARTNER DID. COMMUNICATION 100 OPINIONNAIRE Listed below are a number of topics about which many students have shown concern. Under each of these topics six statements about how people might feel concerning each topic are listed. Please check the response which most closely represents your feeling about the topic. 1. Smoking Cigarettes (check one) In general, I am very much in favor Of smoking. In general, am in favor of smoking. In general, am mildly in favor of smoking. In general, am mildly against smoking. In general, am against smoking. In general, am very much against smoking. lllll HHHHH 2. Fraternities and Sororities (check one) _~_I am very much against fraternities and sororities. ___I am against fraternities and sororities. ___I am mildly against fraternities and sororities. ___I am mildly in favor of fraternities and sororities. ____I am in favor of fraternities and'sororities. ____I am very much in favor of fraternities and sororities. ___I strongly believe that there is a God. ___I believe that there is a God. ___I believe that perhaps there is a God. ___I believe that perhaps there is no God. ____I believe that there is no God. ___I strongly believe that there is no God. ___I am very much in favor of 18 year olds drinking alcohol. ____I am in favor of 18 year olds drinking alcohol. ___I am mildly in favor of 18 year olds drinking alcohol. .___I am mildly opposed to 18 year olds drinking alcohol. _w_I am opposed to 18 year olds drinking alcohol. ___I am very much opposed to 18 year olds drinking alcohol. 10. 55 American Way of Life (check one) strongly believe that the American way of life is not the best. believe that the American way of life is not the best. mildly believe that the American way of life is not the best. mildly believe that the American way of life is the best. believe that the American way of life is the best. strongly believe that the American way of life is the best. Grades (check one) am very much in favor of the grading system that now exists. am in favor of the grading system that now exists. am mildly in favor of the grading system that now exists. am mildly opposed to the grading system that now exists. am Opposed to the grading system that now exists. am strongly opposed to the grading system that now exists. Religion (check one) I :I _I I I I strongly believe that my religion is the one true religion. believe that my religion is the one true religion. mildly believe that my religion is the one true religion. mildly believe that no religion is the one true religion. 4 believe that no religion is the one true religion. p strongly believe that no religion is the one true religion. Preparedness for War (check one) ___I strongly believe that preparedness for war will not tend to lead to war . I ___I believe that preparedness for war will not tend to lead to war. mildly believe that preparedness for war will not tend to lead to war . .___I I ____I mildly believe that preparedness for war will tend to lead to war. believe that preparedness for war will tend to lead to war. strongly believe that preparedness for war will tend to lead to war . Welfare Legislation (check one) am very much opposed to increased welfare spending. am opposed to increased welfare spending. am mildly opposed to increased welfare spending. am mildly in favor of increased welfare spending. am in favor of increased welfare spending. am very much in favor of increased welfare spending. Communist China (check one) ___I am very much opposed to the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am Opposed to the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am mildly opposed to the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am mildly in favor of the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am in favor of the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am very much in favor of the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. 11. 12. 13. 14. 56 War (check one) _”_I strongly feel that war is sometimes necessary to solve world problems. I feel that war is sometimes necessary to solve world problems. I mildly feel that war is sometimes necessary to solve world problems. I mildly feel that war is never necessary to solve world problems. I feel that war is never necessary to solve world problems. I strongly feel that war is never necessary to solve world problems. Construction of Nuclear Power Plants (check one) am very much in favor of the construction of nuclear power plants. am in favor of the construction of nuclear power plants. am mildly in favor of the construction of nuclear power plants. am mildly opposed to the construction of nuclear power plants. am opposed to the construction of nuclear power plants. am very much opposed to the construction of nuclear power plants. Gay Rights Legislation (check one) ____I am very much opposed to legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. ___I am opposed to legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. ___I am mildly opposed to legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. ___I am mildly in favor Of legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. ___I am in favor of legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. ___I am very much in favor of legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. Equal Rights Amendment (check one) amxery much in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment. am in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment. am mildly in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment. am mildly opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment. am opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment. am very much Opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment. We would now like you to tell how you personally feel about each of the 14 topics on the opinionnaire below. Please respond as you personally feel about these topics at the present time. 1. Smoking Cigarettes (check one) In general, I am very much in favor of smoking. In general, am in favor of smoking. In general, am mildly in favor of smoking. In general, am mildly against smoking. In general, am against smoking. In general, an very much against smoking. HHHHH 57 Fraternities and Sororities (check one) am very much against fraternities and sororities. am against fraternities and sororities. am mildly against fraternities and sororities. am mildly in favor of fraternities and sororities. am in favor of fraternities and sororities. am very much in favor of fraternities and sororities. Belief in God (check one) strongly believe that there is a God. believe that there is a God. believe that perhaps there is a God. believe that perhaps there is no God. believe that there is no God. strongly believe that there is no God. Drinking (check one) am very much in favor of 18 year olds drinking alcohol. am in favor of 18 year olds drinking alcohol. am mildly in favor of 18 year olds drinking alcohol. am mildly opposed to 18 year olds drinking alcohol. am opposed to 18 year olds drinking alcohol. am very much Opposed to 18 year olds drinking alcohol. American Way of Life (check one) strongly believe that the American way of life is not the best. believe that the American way of life is not the best. mildly believe that the American way of life is not the best. mildly believe that the American way of life is the best. believe that the American way Of life is the best. strongly believe that the American way of life is the best. Grades (check one) am very much in favor of the grading system that now exists. am in favor of the grading system that now exists. am mildly in favor of the grading system that now exists. am mildly opposed to the grading system that now exists. am opposed to the grading system that now exists. am strongly Opposed to the grading system that now exists. Religion (check one) strongly believe that my religion is the one true religion. believe that my religion is the one true religion. mildly believe that my religion is the one true religion. mildly believe that no religion is the one true religion. believe that no religion is the one true religion. strongly believe that no religion is the one true religion. 10. 11. 12. 13. 58 Preparedness for War (check one) ____I strongly believe that preparedness for war will not tend to lead to war. ____I believe that preparedness for war will not tend to lead to war. ___I mildly believe that preparedness for war will not tend to lead to war. ___I mildly believe that preparedness for war will tend to lead to war. ____I believe that preparedness for war will tend to lead to war. I strongly believe that preparedness for war will tend to lead to war. Welfare Legislation (check one) I am very much opposed to increased welfare spending. am opposed to increased welfare spending. am mildly Opposed to increased welfare spending. am mildly in favor of increased welfare spending. am in favor of increased welfare spending. am very much in favor of increased welfare spending. I I (m HH Communist China (check one) I am very much Opposed to the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am Opposed to the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am mildly opposed to the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am mildly in favor of the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am in favor of the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. am very much in favor of the new U.S. diplomatic relation with China. HH HHH lllll War (check one) ___I strongly feel that war is sometimes necessary to solve world problems. I feel that war is sometimes necessary to solve world problems. I mildly feel that war is sometimes necessary to solve world problems. I mildly feel that war is never necessary to solve world problems. ___I feel that war is never necessary to solve world problems. ___I strongly feel that war is never necessary to solve world problems. HI Construction Of Nuclear Power Plants (check one) I am very much in favor of the construction of nuclear power plants. I am in favor of the construction of nuclear power plants. I am mildly in favor Of the construction of nuclear power plants. I am mildly opposed to the construction of nuclear power plants. I am opposed to the construction of nuclear power plants. I am very much opposed to the construction Of nuclear power plants. IIIHI Gay Rights Legislation (check one) ___I am very much opposed to legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. ____I am opposed to legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. ___I am mildly opposed to legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. ____I am mildly in favor of legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. ____I am in favor Of legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. .___I am very much in favor of legislation guaranteeing equal rights for gay persons. 59 14. Equal Rights Amendment (check one) am am am am am am very much in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment. in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment. mildly in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment. mildly opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment. opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment. very much opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment. BIBLIOGRAPHY 60 BIBLIOGRAPHY Altman, I. & D. A. Taylor. Social Penetration: The Development of Inter- personal Relationships. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, 1973. Berger, C. R., R. R. Gardner, M. R. Parks, L. Schulman, and G. R. Miller. "Interpersonal Epistemology and Interpersonal Communication." In G. R. Miller (Ed.) Explorations in Interpersonal Communication, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1976, 149—172. Berger, C. R. & R. J. Calabrese. "Some Explorations in Initial Interactions and Beyond: Toward a Developmental Theory in Interpersonal Communica— tion." Human Communication Research, 1 (1975), 99-112. Brewer, R. E. & M. B. Brewer. ”Attraction and Accuracy of Perception in Dyads." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8 (1968), 188—193. Brink, J. H. "Effect Of Interpersonal Communication on Attraction." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35_(1977) 783-790. Burchinal, L. G. "Membership Groups and Attitudes Toward Cross—Religious Dating and Marriage." Marriage and Family Livipg, 22_(1960), 248—253. Byrne, D. "Interpersonal Attraction and Attitude Similarity." Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, p2_(1961), 713—715. Byrne, D. The Attraction Paradigm, New York: Academic Press, 1971. Byrne, D. & G. L. Clore. "A Reinforcement Model of Evaluative Responses." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1§_(1970), 103-128. Byrne, D., C. R. Ervin, and J. Lamberth. "Continuity Between the Experi— mental Study of Attraction and 'Real Life' Computer Dating." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1§_(1970), 157—165. Byrne, D. & W. Griffitt. "Similarity VerSus Liking: A Clarification." Psychonomic Science, §_(1966), 295-296. Byrne, D., 0. London, and W. Griffitt. "The Effect of Topic Importance and Attitude Similarity-Dissimilarity on Attraction in an Intra- Stranger Design." Psychonomic Science, 11_(1968), 303—304. Byrne, D., 0. London, and K. Reeves. "The Effects of Physical Attractive- ness, Sex, and Attitude Similarity on Interpersonal Attraction." Journal of Personality, 3§_(1968), 340—346. Byrne, D. & D. Nelson. ”Attraction as a Linear Function of Proportion of Positive Reinforcements." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1_(1965), 659—663. Clore, G. L. & B. Baldridge. "Interpersonal Attraction: The Role of Agree— ment and Topic Interest." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2 (1968), 340-346. 61 Dion, K. "Physical Attractiveness and the Evaluation of Children's Transgressions." Journal of Personality and Social ngchology,'24 (1972), 207-213. Fishbein, M. "A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation of the Inter- Relation Between Beliefs About an Object and the Attitude Toward that Object.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1961. Cited in Himmelfarb, S. & A. H. Eagly (Eds.) Readings in Attitude Changg, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974. Festinger, L. "A Theory of Social Comparison Processes." Human Relations, 7 (1954), 117-140. Griffitt, W. "Attitude Evoked Anticipatory Responses and Attraction." Psychonomic Science, 1§_(1969), 153-155. Griffitt, W. & T. Jackson. "The Influence of Ability and Non-Ability Information on Personnel Selection Decisions." Psychological Reports, Zfl.(1970)’ 959-962. Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. Homans, G. C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1961. Hunt, A. "A Study of the Relative Values of Certain Ideals." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, §Q_(1935), 222-228. Jones, E. E. & K. E. Davis. "From Acts to Dispositions: The Attribution Process in Person Perception." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Berkowitz, L. (Ed.) Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Lalljee, M. & M. Cook. "Uncertainty in First Encounters." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,_26 (1973), 137-141. Lombardo, P., R. R. Weiss, and M. Stich. "Effectance Reduction through Speaking in Reply and Its Relation to Attraction." Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 2§_(1973), 325-332. Lott, A. J. & B. E. Lott. "The Power Of Liking: Consequences of Inter- personal Attitudes Derived from a Liberalized View of Secondary Reinforcement." Advances in Experimental Social Psycholggy. Berkowitz, L. (Ed.) Vol. 6. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Merritt, D. L. "The Relationships Between Qualification and Attitudes in a Teacher Selection Situation." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Cited in Byrne, D. The Attraction Paradigm, New York: Academic Press, 1971. Miller, A. G. "Role of Physical Attractiveness in Impression Formation." P§ychonomic Science, 12 (1970), 241-243. Miller, G. R. "The Current Status of Theory and Research in Interpersonal Communication." Human Communication Research, 4_(1978), 164-178. run-.— 62 Miller, G. R. & M. Steinberg. Between People. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1975. Nelson, D. "The Effect of Differential Magnitude of Reinforcement on Inter- personal Attraction.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas, 1965. Newcomb, T. M. The Acquaintance Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961. Newcomb, T. M. & G. Svehla. "Inter-Family Relationships in Attitudes." Sociometry, 1_(1937), 180-205. Ramsoy, N. R. "Assortative Mating and the Structure of Cities." American Sociological Review, 31_(1966), 773-786. Rosenblood, L. "Information Saliency: An Explanation of the Set Size Effect in Impression Formation and Similarity-Attraction Research." Unpub- lished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1970. Cited in Byrne, D. The Attraction Paradigm, New York: Academic Press, 1971. Shaw, M. E. Group Dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Thurstone, L. L. "The Measurement Of Social Attitudes." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, g§_(1931), 249-269. Vreeland, F. M. & S. M. Corey. "A Study of College Friendships." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 39_(1935), 229-236. Winslow, C. N. "A Study of the Extent of Agreement Between Friends' Opinions and Their Ability to Estimate the Opinions of Each Other." Journal of Social Psychology, §_(1937), 433-442. "Ill11111111111111“