Download Dissimilarity Slides

The Repulsion
Hypothesis
Caitlan Webster
Overview
 Alternative
Explanation for Newcomb’s
(1961) Results
 Methodological Flaws in Byrne’s (1971)
Experiment
 Experiment 1 (Modified Replication of Byrne)
 Experiment 2 (Iowa Caucus Study)
 Experiment 3 (Reinforcement-Affect Theory)
 Discussion
Alternative
Explanation
for
Newcomb’s
Results
Newcomb’s (1961) results
 Examined
naturalistic development of
interpersonal attraction in male housemates.
 Found that pre-acquaintance similarity in
attitudes predicted pair attraction on late
but not on early acquaintance.
 The difference in timing was expected on
the basis of the presumption that it would
take time to know other’s attitudes.
Newcomb’s (1961) results
 An
alternative explanation is that as the
housemates got to know each other, they
were increasingly repulsed by persons with
dissimilar attitudes and values.
By the process of elimination, the
housemates were left to be attracted to
similar persons.
Newcomb’s (1961) results
 It
is possible that similarity leads to attraction
and dissimilarity to repulsion.
 However, it is also possible that dissimilarity
leads to repulsion and similarity has no
impact on attraction.
Flaws in
Byrne’s
Experiment
Byrne’s (1971) Experiment
 Subjects
responded to an attitude
questionnaire.
 Subjects are then provided with a fake copy
of the same questionnaire and told it was
completed by a stranger.
 A linear relation supports the generalization
that similarity leads to attraction and
dissimilarity causes repulsion.
Byrne’s (1971) Experiment
 However,
an adequate control or baseline
condition has never been included.
 Needs to include a “no-attitudes”
questionnaire condition.
Permits determination of the degree to
which similarity enhances attraction,
dissimilarity decreases attraction, or
whether either one has any
consequence at all.
Byrne’s (1971) Experiment
 This
“no-attitudes” condition was used in
Byrne’s 1968 experiment, but was not
treated as a control.
 During the main experiment, participants
were given photographs of an attractive
or unattractive person and an attitude
questionnaire that was either similar or
dissimilar.
Byrne’s (1971) Experiment
 This
“no-attitudes” condition was used in
Byrne’s 1968 experiment, but was not
treated as a control.
 In a preliminary experiment, photographs
were provided without the questionnaire.
This could have been used as the “noattitudes” condition.
Byrne’s (1971) Experiment
 When
the two conditions are combined, the
results suggest that:
 Information concerning similarity does not
enhance attraction to both attractive and
unattractive people.
 Information concerning dissimilarity
decreases attraction to both attractive
and unattractive people.
Experiment 1:
Modified
Replication of
Byrne
Experiment 1 Procedure
 168
photographs from a yearbook were
scaled for physical attractiveness.
 The eight photographs that received the
most extreme mean rating in each
category representing sex and
attractiveness were chosen for
experimental use.
Experiment 1 Procedure
2
X 2 X 2 X 3 factorial design:
 Sex of subject X Sex of photograph X
Attractiveness X Attitude information
(similarity, dissimilarity, no-attitude)
 192 participants.
 Previously completed attitude
questionnaires.
 Same-sex group sessions containing 3 to 12
subjects.
Experiment 1 Procedure
 Subjects
were provided with a photograph
and a fake attitude questionnaire
completed by the photographed person
(except for the no-attitude condition).
Scales were adjusted to be similar on 10
issues and dissimilar on 2 issues, or similar
on 2 issues and dissimilar on 10 issues.
 Subjects evaluated the person on the
Interpersonal Judgment Scales.
Experiment 1 Results
 Attractive
were
rated higher than
unattractive.
 Similar and control
did not
significantly differ.
 Dissimilar was
different from
other conditions.
Experiment 1 Discussion
 The
findings support the hypothesis that
attitudinal dissimilarity leads to repulsion but
similarity does not enhance attraction.
 Unattractive people who had similar
attitudes were not evaluated more
positively than people whose attitudes
were not presented.
Experiment 2:
Iowa Caucus
Study
Experiment 2 Procedure
 Iowa
Caucus Study:
 Presumed that attitudinal information is
embedded in political party affiliation.
Discovering a stranger is of the same
party would lead to liking while
discovering a stranger is of the opposite
party would lead to disliking.
Experiment 2 Procedure
A
card with a list of 8 traits describing a
person were given to participants to
evaluate.
 A high-positive list of traits and a lowpositive list of traits.
 8th word was either Democrat, Republican,
or no party affiliation.
 Cards were given at Democratic caucuses
and a Republican rally.
Experiment 2 Procedure
2
X 2 X 3 design:
 Traits X Party (Person) X Party (Participant)
 309 participants.
 240 Democrats, 69 Republicans.
Experiment 2 Results
 Democrats
were
more attracted to
very positive traits.
 Republicans were
equally attracted to
either very positive
or moderately
positive traits.
Experiment 2 Results
 Democrats
were
attracted equally to
Democrats and
controls.
 Democrats were
less attracted to
Republicans.
Experiment 2 Results
 Republicans
were
equally attracted to
Republicans and
controls.
 Republicans were
less attracted to
Democrats.
Experiment 2 Discussion
 Another
study (Rosenbaum & Holtz, 1985)
adapted the caucus study in the context of
arbitrary group categorization.
 Participants were randomly assigned as
“Phis” or “Gammas”.
Experiment 2 Discussion
 Participants
were then given trait cards
similar to the caucus study.
 Some subjects’ cards contained either ingroup or out-group labels, while others
had no labels (control).
Experiment 2 Discussion
 High-positive
traits were not rated differently.
 Moderately positive traits with in-group
membership and no membership label were
rated equally.
 Moderately positive traits with out-group
membership were rated more negatively.
 Based on out-group derogation and not
in-group favorability.
Experiment 3:
ReinforcementAffect Theory
Experiment 3 Procedure
 Based
on reinforcement-affect theory,
occurrence of attitudinal similarity is a
reinforcement and dissimilarity is a
punishment.
 Golightly & Byrne (1964) showed that
attitude statements that were similar to or
dissimilar from the subject’s attitude could
be used to designate correct and incorrect
responses and produce learning.
Experiment 3 Procedure
A
replication was performed later using
similar attitudes and neutral responses for
correct and incorrect responses compared
to neutral responses and dissimilar attitudes
for correct and incorrect responses.
 The neutral-dissimilar group showed
learning while the similar-neutral group did
not.
Experiment 3 Procedure
A
follow-up experiment used similar
statements and black cards, neutral
statements and blank cards, or blank cards
and dissimilar statements for correct and
incorrect responses.
 All three groups showed learning.
 Theorized that neutral statements have
reinforcing properties.
Experiment 3 Procedure
 Stimulus
cards were prepared with a circle
and square that were black or white, large
or small, and appeared on the left or right.
 The characteristics were randomly varied.
 The participants had to chose either the
circle or the square as the correct response.
 Half of the participants had “small” as the
correct response while the other half had
“large” as the correct response.
Experiment 3 Procedure
 Feedback
cards were:
 A card containing a BXX nonsense syllable
and a blank card for correct and incorrect
responses.
 A card containing a DXX nonsense syllable
and a blank card for correct and incorrect
responses.
 A card containing a BXX nonsense syllable
and a DXX nonsense syllable for correct
and incorrect responses.
Experiment 3 Results
 Significant
increase
in performance for
BXX-neutral and
DXX-neutral
conditions.
 No significant
increase in
performance for
BXX-DXX condition.
Experiment 3 Discussion
 Helson’s
(1959,1964) adaptation level
theory:
 One’s own attitude serves as the
adaptation level from which a stranger’s
attraction is to be judged based on the
stranger’s attitude.
Experiment 3 Discussion
 Helson’s
(1959,1964) adaptation level
theory:
 A similar stranger should be viewed at the
neutral point, thereby commanding a
neutral response.
 A dissimilar stranger should be viewed as
different from the neutral point, thereby
commanding a negative response.
General
Discussion
General Discussion
 Cases
where similarity could lead to
attraction:
 Experience of similarity in the context of
dissimilarity.
 Experience of agreement.
 Relatively new and important attitudes.
General Discussion
 The
experience of similarity in the context of
dissimilarity has been shown to result in
increased attraction responses above the
level obtained in the absence of the
dissimilarity context.
 Similar strangers are rated as more
attractive following presentation of an
unattractive stranger than similar strangers
not preceded by a dissimilar stranger.
General Discussion
 The
consistency theories:
 Including
cognitive dissonance theory.
 The occurrence of inconsistency in each of
these theories produces aversive states that
cause motivation to reduce or eliminate
them.
General Discussion
 In
the context of consistency theories,
exposure to attitudinal similarity is a
consistent event that lacks affective or
motivational properties.
 Explanation
for no difference occurring in
attraction between similar conditions and noattitude conditions.
General Discussion
 However,
exposure to dissimilar attitudes
causes the induction of inconsistency and
an aversive state.
 The
presence of the aversive state leads to
the repulsion of the person whose attitudes
induced the negative state.
 Repulsion leads to reduction in negative state.
Conclusion
 Considerable
events suggests that
attitudinal
dissimilarity leads to
repulsion but
similarity does not
enhance attraction.