- Email: [email protected]
Some variables affecting changes in interpersonal attraction
JOURNAL
OF EXPERIMENTAL
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
18,
358-374 (1982)
Some Variables Affecting Changes in Interpersonal Attraction A.
CATHERINE University
BARBARA
RIORDAN
of Missouri-Rolla
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ
Pan American
University AND
JAMES State
University
T.
TEDESCHI
of New
York
at Albany
Received March 2, 1981
An expectancy theory of attraction predicts changes in attraction as a result of disconfirmations of a person’s expectancies about another’s rewarding behavior. Attitude similarity and normative pressures are interpreted as cues eliciting positive or negative reward expectations. In a test of expectancy theory an experiment employing a 2 x 2 x 2 design was carried out. Subjects requested or did not request help from a similar or dissimilar confederate, who either did or did not provide help. A three-way interaction of these factors on changes in attraction from pre- to postinteraction revealed in general that increments of attraction following help were greater in the Dissimilar conditions and the decrements following no help were greater in the Similar conditions. Furthermore, the greatest decrement in attraction occurred when a similar confederate did not provide help after it had been requested. Secondary findings regarding the predictability of the confederate and the degree of altruism attributed to her supported the assumptions of expectancy theory.
Tedeschi (1974) proposed a theory of interpersonal attraction which views attraction toward another person as an attitude which has cogThis research was supported in part by a University of Missouri Faculty Research Grant to the first author. Requests for reprints should be sent to the first author, Department of Social Sciences, University of Missouri, Rolla, MO 65401. We would like to thank Tom Kane for his advice during various phases of this research and Robert Montgomery and anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. 358 0022-1031/82/040358-17$02.00/O Copyright 0 1982 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
359
nitive, affective, and dispositional components. The cognitive component is central to the theory and consists of an expectancy concerning how another person is likely to act in future interactions. Specifically, the expectancy is that “the other person will altruistically provide benefits or favors of various types and values across a number of situations and over time” (p. 198). Factors frequently demonstrated as antecedents of attraction (e.g., similar attitudes, compliments, background similarity, reward mediation) are believed to operate on attraction by affecting an individual’s expectancies concerning the kind and amount of reward he might expect to derive from future interaction with another person. To the extent that expectancy for future rewards is high, attraction should be high. To the extent that expectancy is low, attraction should be low. Within expectancy theory, disattraction or disliking is distinctly different from positive attraction or liking because the former is believed to result from the expectancy that the other person will mediate punishments and not rewards in future interactions. The second and affective component of Tedeschi’s theory reflects emotional responses toward the other person. The individual’s expectancies concerning the other’s behavior toward him allows the individual to interpret and label any emotional reaction or arousal experienced in interactions with that person. The third and final component consists of the behavioral disposition to act toward the other person. This disposition follows directly from the individual’s existing expectancies concerning the other’s behavior, and stipulates that a person will provide rewards to another at a level approximating his own expectancies concerning the rewards or punishments the other is likely to provide. According to Tedeschi, our expectancies concerning another’s behavior toward us act as mediators of attraction, with changes in attraction for another occurring as a result of violations of, or changes in, expectancies. Expectancy theory assumes that rewards and punishments will have no effect on attraction unless they serve to disconfirm existing expectancies concerning the probable level of reward that the other person will provide. This reasoning is similar to that offered by Thibaut and Kelley (1959), who proposed that attraction develops as a function of disconfirmed expectancies. Individuals are assumed to develop expectancies concerning the outcomes obtainable from interactions with others. A person’s mean expectancy for rewards from all sources is referred to as the comparison level. When another provides benefits to an individual which exceed the comparison level for the donor, liking should ensue. When the benefits received are less than the recipient’s comparison level, a decrease in attraction toward the donor should occur. Hence, this formulation by Thibaut and Kelley makes the similar pre-
360
RIORDAN,
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ,
AND
TEDESCHI
diction that receipt of benefits which are congruent with expectations or comparison level should not affect liking. The expectancy theory makes explicit these relationships of expectancies, rewards, and attraction outlined by Thibaut and Kelley. Specifically, expectancy theory predicts a positive linear function for reinforcements and attraction only when rewards exceed the individual’s expectations for the interaction. If, through a series of interactions, another person provides many rewards of high value, then an additional reward of approximately the mean value of previous ones might be expected; in such a case, no increment in attraction would occur. However, if for some reason (i.e., situational norms, past experience, or temporary moods) the individual does not expect to be rewarded or expects only low rewards and receives rather substantial rewards, expectations would be exceeded by the actual outcomes of intereaction, and there would be an increment in attraction, Based on the same reasoning, expectancy theory predicts decreases in attraction when rewards are less than the individual expects. Perceived Altruism
A critical difference between the theories proposed by Tedeschi and by Thibaut and Kelley and other exchange theories of attraction (e.g., Blau, 1968), or those based on equity principles (e.g., Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 197g), is that the former stipulates that no increment will accrue as a function of reinforcements unless the donor’s motives are believed by the recipient to be altruistic. For a positive change in attraction to occur, Tedeschi postulated that the person must feel that the rewards were provided altruistically (i.e., with the recipient’s welfare in mind and not for the donor’s benefit). There is some support for the view that benefits must be perceived as having been altruistically given. Rewards must be intentionally rather than accidentally mediated for the recipient to like the donor (Pepitone & Kleiner, 1957). In order to enhance attraction, positive evaluations received from another must be perceived as being veridical, as having been provided without ulterior motive, and as being on topics of importance to the recipient of the evaluation (Mettee & Aronson, 1974). Obvious use of rewards for purposes of ingratiation tends to bring about a boomerang effect and leads to a decrement in liking (Jones, Jones, & Gergen, 1963). Attempts to manipulate another person to mediate rewards for the individual lead to contempt for that individual rather than attraction (Dickoff, 1961, cited in Mettee & Aronson, 1974). Furthermore, the intentions of enemies are more suspect than those of friends. Hence, it is not surprising that subjects perceived aid from an ally in a tactical negotiations game more positively, as being of more
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
361
value, and reflective of more effort than an equal amount of aid from an enemy (Nadler, Fisher, & Streufert, 1974). It should be noted that the expectancy theory does not state that the benefits must actually be provided altruistically but, rather, that they be perceived by the recipient as having been provided altruistically. In fact, it is postulated that although the participants will not make it explicit, they implicitly operate according to a norm of reciprocity. However, it is important that the exchange nature of the relationship not be made explicit. If it is, it will not have positive effects on attraction, because the recipient cannot make the attribution that help was provided altruistically, and it can change the relationship to one of a different kind in which attraction is not relevant. Clark and Mills (1979) found that immediate, direct reciprocation and requests to reciprocate a benefit reduced the attractiveness of others who were potential intimates. However, it has been shown that even intimates do keep track of the level of reward they believe they deserve and prefer to get what they feel they deserve or a little more, rather than much more or much less (Walster, Walster, & Traupman, 1977, cited in Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Intimates feel as indebted to intimates as they do to strangers (Bar-Tal, Bar-Zohar, Greenberg, & Hermon, 1977), even though they are not as concerned with temporary discrepancies in reciprocation (Weinstein, DeVaughn, & Wiley, 1969) and are more likely to request big favors (Shapiro, 1980). Relation to Other Theories The predictions derived from the expectancy theory for changes in attraction would, in some instances, be similar to those derived from the gain-loss model of attraction proposed by Aronson and Linder (1965). That model states that changes in the affective quality of evaluations will produce more of a change in attraction than will evaluations which maintain a consistent quality. The rationale underlying these predictions is that we tend to habituate to stimulus repetition. Therefore, an evaluator who changes from negative to positive is seen as more attractive than one who maintains consistently positive evaluations. The difference between the expectancy theory and gain-loss model is the specified underlying mechanism. In the former, the mediating mechanism is an expectancy and it concerns very broad expectations regarding probable level of reward of many types and in many situations. In the latter, it is redundancy in type of reward in similar situations which produces the gain-loss effect (Mettee & Aronson, 1974, p. 277). Hence, in situations where sequences of interaction include very different types of rewards, the predictions from the two theories can be distinguished. The expectancy theory is also similar to reinforcement theories in its focus on rewards in the development of attraction. The central difference
362
RIORDAN,
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ,
AND
TEDESCHI
lies in the necessity of certain cognitive mediators specified by expectancy theory. The attribution that the reward be altruistically provided as discussed above is one such critical attribution. The incorporation of this particular attribution allows the expectancy theory to handle some findings which have served as anomalies for the reinforcement theories (see Tedeschi, 1974, for a review). The predictive value of specification that attraction is mediated by a cognitive expectancy concerning probable levels of reward is detailed below. Additionally, the expectancy theory allows predictions concerning the future behavior of both attracted others and therefore has more heuristic value for the study of the interaction of attracted others. Attitude
Similarity
and Attraction
Of the various antecedents of attraction which have been studied, considerable attention has been given to attitudinal similarity. Under most conditions increasing similarity of attitudes is associated with greater attraction. Attitude similarity is assumed by many to be a reward because of the feeling of competency an individual is believed to derive from the knowledge that others share his or her attitudes (e.g., Byrne & Clore, 1967). Expectancy theory views attitude similarity as a cue affecting the individual’s estimate of the probable course of interaction with another person. Attitude similarity may suggest that future interactions with the person will probably be positive because of congruency of values, the likelihood that unnecessary conflict and argument can be avoided, and a kind of a priori trust will be established between people of like minds (cf. Tedeschi, 1974). For example, research on race and beliefs indicates that differences in attitudes signal potential conflict and are therefore associated with disliking (cf. Rokeach, 1961). Some evidence is available bearing on the predictions of expectancy theory regarding the relationship between expectations, rewards, and attraction. Morse and Gergen (1971) and Morse (1972) found that subjects who received unexpected help evaluated the donor more positively than when help was expected. These results are consistent with both Thibaut and Kelley’s and Tedeschi’s notion that unexpected, hedonically positive behaviors are more apt to affect changes in attraction than are positive ones which are expected. A more direct test of expectancy hypotheses was performed by Stapleton, Nacci, and Tedeschi (1973). Subjects were paired with a confederate who was either similar or dissimilar to them in attitudes. The confederate then had an opportunity to mediate 10 rewards to subjects and provided 1, 5, or 9 such rewards. It was assumed that similarity would cue an expectancy of many rewards and that dissimilarity would lead to expectation of few rewards. Thus, according to expectancy theory
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
363
subjects in the similarity conditions should indicate smaller increments in attraction for the confederate as the number of rewards increased, and subjects in the dissimilarity conditions should like the confederate more as the number of rewards increased. These predictions were confirmed. Particularly interesting was that when low-similarity subjects received only 1 reward and when high-similarity subjects received 9 rewards, no change in attraction from pre- to postinteraction occurred. Stapleton, Nelson, Franconere, and Tedeschi (1973) found a complementary set of results. They reasoned that similar others would not be expected to deliver shocks but that dissimilar others would be expected to mediate such punishments. Subjects received 1, 5, or 9 out of 10 potential shocks from a similar or dissimilar confederate. In support of expectancy theory subjects in the high-similarity condition decreased their liking for the confederate as a direct function of the number of shocks delivered, whereas subjects in the dissimilarity conditions increased their liking for the confederate as the number of shocks decreased. Once again, when subjects got what they expected, no change in attraction occurred. Thus, when subjects received 9 shocks from a dissimilar other or only 1 shock from a similar other, no change in liking occurred. Direct measurements of expectancies were obtained by Schlenker, Brown, and Tedeschi (1975). They found that subjects were more confident of receiving benefits from a similar than from a dissimilar other person. Of course, one might not find differences in expectancy in situations which have strong normative pressures for an individual to behave in particular ways. For example, if one student asked another student for help in solving a problem, there might be strong pressures for compliance since it might be very difficult to refuse such a request. In such a situation one might expect help from both similar and dissimilar others. Hypotheses
and Experimental
Design
The present study examined the assumptions of expectancy theory: that the predictability of rewarding behavior, i.e., degree of expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation, is associated with changes in attraction; that social norms are situational determinants of expectations of individuals regarding positive outcomes of interactions; and that perceived altruism is an important factor in the association of rewards and attraction. An experiment with a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design was conducted to examine these assumptions. It was contrived that half of the subjects asked for aid from a confederate known to have similar or dissimilar attitudes; the other half of the subjects worked with either a similar or a dissimilar confederate but did not ask for help. In addition to the request for help or no request, and similarity of their attitudes, the
364
RIORDAN,
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ.
AND TEDESCHI
confederate was programmed either to provide help or not to provide help, regardless of whether the subjects requested it. The following hypotheses were derived from the information presented above: (1) People should be more attracted to those who provide help than to those who do not help. (2) When a request for aid is made by the person, the donor’s behavior should be perceived as controlled by situational norms and thus should not lead to an increment in liking; on the other hand, failure to provide help when a request is made should violate expectations and lead to a decrement in attraction. (3) Evidence for expectancy disconfirmation would be obtained by asking subjects to what extent they felt their partner’s behavior was predictable. Similar others who help and thus act in a manner which confirms expectancies should be perceived as more predictable than dissimilar others who help or similar others who do not help. Dissimilar others who fail to help should also be perceived as more predictable than similar others who fail to help or dissimilar others who do help. (4) Changes in attraction should be associated with an interaction of all three factors. Subjects should show an increment in attraction when help is provided by a dissimilar other and the increment should be greater when the help was not requested than when it was requested. A decrement in attraction should occur when help is not given by a similar other and the decrement should be greater when help was requested. No change should occur when a dissimilar other does not provide help and it was not requested, and very little change in a negative direction when the dissimilar other does not provide help and it was requested. No change is also predicted when a similar other provides help and it was requested, and very little change in a positive direction when it was not requested. (5) Finally, a confederate who provides help should be perceived as more altruistic than one who does not provide help. However, similar others who provide help should be perceived as more altruistic than dissimilar others who provide help. That is, some suspicion about the motives of dissimilar helpers will temper attributions of altruism to them. METHOD Subjects Seventy female students participated in partial fulfillment of an introductory psychology course requirement and were assigned randomly to conditions. There were either eight or nine subjects in each condition. Eleven female undergraduates served as experimenters and confederates and were randomized across conditions and roles.’ Only female students participated because of the greater availability of female students, experimenters, and ’ The authors would like to take this opportunity to thank Cheryl Bennick, Linda Cicero, Terri Dunlap, Hallie Heurun, Nina Kanter, Lee Kossin, Robbin Lindenberg, Diana Oruci, Robin Reich, Karen Scott, and Marianne Sicilian for their assistance as experimenters and confederates.
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
365
confederates, and because of our interest in same-sex pairs rather than opposite-sex pairs in which processes underlying the development of attraction may be somewhat different (Dutton & Aron, 1974; Stroebe, Insko, Thompson, & Layton, 1971). Of course, the failure to include males in the sampling may serve to restrict the generalization of the results. However, a number of studies have found the development of attraction (i.e., liking) under conditions similar to those in the present study to be the same for both sexes (cf. Byrne. 1971). Procedure. Shortly after the subjects arrived in the waiting room, the confederate entered through the same door. The experimenter immediately escorted them to a small room and seated them adjacent to each other at a small table. The participants were told that the experiment they had signed up for involved assisting the experimenter in pretesting materials to be used in two experiments to be conducted the following semester. The experimenter explained that she was attempting to develop a screening procedure which would allow her to select compatible individuals for a study which would require the pairs of subjects to participate together for an extended period of time. The first task the subjects would be engaged in therefore would involve assessing another individual based on limited information provided by that person. The experimenter indicated that details of the second experiment would be provided later. The manipulation of attitude similarity-dissimilarity was then performed. A 16-item attitude survey requiring responses on 7-point Likert-type scales (Byrne, 1969) was given to the subjects and represented as the first part of the screening procedure which was currently being evaluated for later use. In order to keep the experimenter blind to the similarity manipulation, the confederate was assigned to conditions by a third party (in the experimenter’s absence) immediately before the confederate joined the subject in the waiting room. For the similarity manipulation the confederate and subject remained seated on each side of a corner of a small table. This was done to provide the confederate with an easy view of the subject’s paper. Once the experimenter left the room, the confederate surreptitiously observed the subject’s responses to the attitude survey and, according to condition, made her own responses so as to be either similar or dissimilar to those of the subject. The experimental confederates were highly trained in this copying procedure. No subject mentioned to the experimenter or the confederate any suspicion about copying. Nor, according to the confederates, did any subject behave as though she noted the confederate observing her attitudes (e.g., covering her paper). In the Similarity conditions, the confederate’s responses to the 16 items were 1 scale unit more extreme than the subject’s unless the latter’s response was the most extreme, in which case the responses were identical. In the Dissimilarity conditions, all the confederate’s responses to the 16 items were 3 scale units toward the opposite end of the scale from the subject’s responses. After the attitude surveys were completed the experimenter reentered the room. Participants were told, “. . . for the experiment I will be doing next semester I need to find the optimal criteria for placing students together who will interact successfully over a period of time. Thus, I need to get some idea of people’s reactions to each other if we are to use this screening procedure.” Subjects were then instructed to exchange questionnaires and to give their reactions to the questions on the form provided. The participants were then given copies of the Interpersonal Judgement Scale (IJS; Byrne, 1969). To assure the subject that her responses to the IJS were confidential a table divider was then placed between the participants. Subjects were given several minutes to complete the IJS. The experimenter then returned, collected the IJS and, in the Request conditions, told the subject she would be working alone during the next phase. The experimenter then gave the confederate a “personality questionnaire” to fill out and asked the subject to accompany her to another room, allegedly to work with some materials there. Once in the second room, the subject was told that in connection with the research which would be conducted next semester the experimenter
366
RIORDAN,
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ,
AND TEDESCHI
was interested in determining the different personality characteristics of people who help others. In order for her to study these characteristics, the experimenter needed the cooperation of a student, like the subject. The experimenter stated that she decided to ask the subject to help her because she was the first one to arrive at the laboratory for the experiment. The subject was asked, “Do you think you’ll be able to do that?” Once the subject agreed the tasks were described to her. It was pointed out that it would be apparent to the other person that the subject was given the more time-consuming task to perform. Subjects were told, “When the other person finishes her task I would like you to ask her to help you finish yours.” It was suggested that subjects say, “Hey, before you go, could you help me with this?” Prior to returning to the other room the subject was told that the tasks would be explained to both participants. The subject was cautioned to act as though it were the first time she had heard about the tasks.
The subject was escorted back to the original cubicle and was reseated and the confederate’s questionnaire was collected. Both individuals were then instructed about the tasks. In the No Request conditions, the subject and confederate were instructed about their experimental tasks immediately after the IJSs were collected. In all conditions, the actual subject was given the task of alphabetizing 10 decks of cards containing 10 cards each which had multiword task names printed across the top. Subjects were told not to combine the 10 decks. The confederate was requested to rank order 10 perceptual-motor tasks according to their perceived level of difficulty. Both individuals were told that upon finishing they could leave and obtain their experimental credit in another office in the same building. They were also told that whoever finished first could help the other person if she so desired. The experimenter then left the room. When the confederate finished her task, subjects in the Request conditions asked for help. One subject in the Request condition failed to ask for help and was subsequently dropped from all data analyses. In the Help conditions, the confederate responded to the request by saying, “Oh, sure. Why don’t you give me half of what you have left?” In the No Help conditions, the confederate responded to the request by politely refusing, saying, “No, I’m going to leave.” In the No Request conditions, the confederate in the No Help conditions simply left without saying anything; in the Help conditions the confederate offered to assist the subject by saying, “Why don’t you give me half of what you have left?” Again, to keep the experimenter blind to conditions, the confederate had been told either to provide or not to provide help by a third party. Four minutes after the subject and confederate were assigned their tasks the experimenter returned saying, “OK, you can stop working now.” In the conditions where the confederate was still present she was asked to accompany the experimenter to another room. On returning to the subject the experimenter said, “Now that you’ve worked with the other person for a while and know a little more about her we’d like you to fill out this form so we’ll have your current perceptions of her.”
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
367
Subjects were given a short questionnaire which contained the final dependent measures. All measures were on i-/-point scales. The main dependent variables consisted of subjects’ responses to the items, “How much do you think you would like the other person?” and “How much do you think you would like to work with the other person?” which were embedded in the questionnaire. The summed scores of these two items provided the postinteraction measure attraction; a score of 14 represented maximum attraction and a score of 2 minimum attraction. Subjects also answered whether they received help from the other person (yes or no), and rated the confederate on three bipolar adjective scales: free (7)-constrained (I), predictable (7)-unpredictable (I), and altruistic (7)-selfish (1). Following the subject’s involvement with the experiment, suspiciousness toward all manipulations was assessed. Subjects were extensively probed for suspiciousness toward all manipulations in the manner suggested by Aronson and Carlsmith (1968) and debriefed. No suspicions regarding the procedures or rationale were revealed.2 Subjects were thanked for their participation and asked not to divulge any aspects of the experiment for the remainder of the semester. RESULTS Manipulation
Checks
Analysis of variance revealed a main effect of Attitude Similarity-Dissimilarity on the preinteraction IJS measure of attraction, F(1, 61) = 84.77, p < .OOl, indicating that subjects in the Similarity conditions expressed more attraction (M = 11.56) toward the confederate than did subjects in the Dissimilarity conditions (M = 7.83). Additionally, all subjects accurately reported whether or not they received help from the confederate. Changes in Attraction Differences in ratings of attraction from preinteraction to action were obtained by subtracting the preinteraction summed of “liking” and “work with” from the postinteraction scores. each of these measures of attraction can be seen in Table 1.
postinterIJS scores Means for The range
* We believe suspiciousness was kept to a minimum. In order to assess the believability of the manipulations and to refine the procedures a pilot study had been conducted. The request manipulation used in the pilot study produced suspiciousness because the subjects believed that the experimenter was also informing the other person of how to react to the request. Therefore, procedures were adopted resulting in the subject never being left alone, thereby eliminating the possibility of the experimenter instructing the other person. Queries concerning suspicion included: “What did you think of the experiment?” “Did you have any idea what we were looking at?” “ Did you think there was anything we were not telling you about the experiment?” “ What did you think about your partner?”
368
RIORDAN,
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ,
AND TEDESCHI
TABLE 1 MEANS FORMEASUREOF ATTRACTION” Request Help Preinteraction Similar Dissimilar Postinteraction Similar
attractiot?
No help
11.75
(2.0)
(1.2)
8.44
7.56 (1.1)
11.67
6.50 (1.3) 6.22 (2.0)
11.62 9.66 (1.2)
9.33 (1.1) 5.40 (1.6)
-4.6 (1.3) -2.44
-.12 (1.2) 2.1 (2.1)
-2.6 (1.4) -2.0 (1.3)
9.33 (1.5) .22
(1.2) Dissimilar
Help
11.12
CO) Changes in attraction’ Similar
No help
11.4 (1.5) 7.89 (1.8)
attraction
Dissimilar
No request
1.0 (1.9)
(2.5)
(2.3)
(1.8)
11.89 t.31 7.38 (1.1)
’ Standard deviations in parentheses. b Pre- and postinteraction attraction scores reflect sum of IJS liking and work with items. ’ Changes in attraction computed by subtracting preinteraction from postinteraction attraction for each subject.
of scores possible on the change in attraction measure was from - 12 to 12. Increases in attraction from pre- to postinteraction will be indicated by positive scores, whereas decreases in attraction will be indicated by negative scores. Analysis of variance on these difference scores revealed significant main effects for Attitude Similarity-Dissimilarity, F(1, 61) = 16.07, p < .OOl, and Help-No Help, F(1,61) = 68.89, p < .OOl. Overall attraction decreased for both similar and dissimilar conditions; however, the decrements in attraction were greater for similar others (M = - 1.74) than for dissimilar others (M = - 0.1 I), and in support of hypothesis 1, some increase in attraction occurred toward helpers (M = 0.94) and a decrease in attraction (M = -2.82) occurred toward nonhelpers. The interpretation of these main effects is qualified by the significant three-way interaction that was obtained, F(1, 61) = 4.95, p < .04. This interaction can be seen in Table 1. When the similar confederate provided help, almost no change in attraction occurred whether or not a request was made; when a dissimilar confederate provided help, an increase in attraction occurred; and somewhat more of an increase occurred when no request was made than when the subjects asked for help. When no help was provided there was a decrement in attraction in all conditions; however, the decrement as indicated by Tukey’s Honestly Significant
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
369
Difference test was significantly greater when the subjects had requested help and a similar confederate refused to provide it than in the Similar/ No Request, Dissimilar/Request, or Dissimilar/No Request conditions. There were no differences between the latter three conditions. In general, then, the increments in attraction following help were greater in the Dissimilar conditions and the decrements following No Help were greater in the Similar conditions.3 Predictability
Analysis of subjects’ ratings of how predictable-unpredictable the other person was served as the measure of subjects’ expectancies for the other’s behavior. It revealed only a signilicant Similarity-Dissimilarity Help-No Help interaction, F(1, 61) = 4.05, p < .05. Consistent with predictions, subjects believed that a dissimilar other was more predictable (M = 5.19) than a similar other (M = 4.17) when she failed to provide help. There was a tendency for the reverse to be true when help was provided; the similar other who helped (M = 4.61) was rated as slightly more predictable than a dissimilar other who helped (M = 4.50). Expectancy theory predicts that only disconfirmations of expectancies will result in changes in attraction. Of course, the direction of change depends upon the initial expectations of the individual. However, the implication is that a measure of absolute change, regardless of direction, should be related to the predictability of the other person. In support of this reasoning was the obtained correlation, r(67) = -0.23, p < .06, indicating that the less predictable the other person was, the more the individual’s level of attraction for her was changed. Within-cell correlations also evidenced this same negative relationship of predictability and change (i.e., all correlations negative) except in the Dissimilar/No Request/Help condition where r(8) = . 11. Although it may be ill-advised to place too much emphasis on such a small correlation, it suggests the possibility that such unsolicited help from a dissimilar other is so counter to expectations that it may lead to suspiciousness of motives. Perceived
Altruism
Subjects were asked to rate the confederate on a scale of altruistic-selfish because Tedeschi’s theory proposes that positive changes in attraction as a function of rewards should occur only when the recipient attributes nonselfish motives to the donor. In fact, the correlation between per3 Due to the high initial attraction scores found in the similar group (M = 11.56) there is a possibility that the failure to find enhancement of attraction toward a similar other after she helped in the similar help groups as predicted from the reinforcement perspective might be due to a ceiling effect. A number of investigators have, however, obtained much higher scores using the IJS than were obtained in the present study. Byrne and Rhamey (1965), for example, obtained a value of 13.13 on the 1Cpoint scale.
370
RIORDAN.
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ,
AND
TEDESCHI
ceived altruism and postinteraction attraction measures was significant, and positive, r(67) = 44, p < .Ol. Main effects of Similarity-Dissimilarity, F(1, 61) = 10.91, p < .OOl, and Help-No Help, F(1, 61) = 56.73, p < .OOl, and an interaction of these two factors, F(1, 61) = 4.61, p < -05, were found on the perceived altruism measure. The interaction does not qualify the main effects but only suggests that the difference between the perceived altruism of a similar and dissimilar other person was greater when the confederate helped than when she did not. The confederate was perceived as most altruistic when she provided help and was similar (M = 5.68) rather than dissimilar (A4 = 4.17) in attitudes. When no help was provided, the other person was perceived as somewhat selfish regardless of similarity (M = 3.00) or dissimilarity (M = 2.88). It should be noted that although these attributions of altruism are consistent with the theoretical predictions, the present study does not allow definitive conclusions concerning the temporal precedence of the altruism attributions. It may be the case that attributed altruism follows the attraction instead of preceding it as Fishbein (1963) would suggest. DISCUSSION The results of the present study are consistent with the hypotheses derived from the expectancy theory of attraction examined in the present study. Little change in attraction occurred when help was received from a similar other, who should be expected to help. However, a rather large decrement in attraction occurred when no help was received from a similar other. A complementary pattern of results was found when the other person was dissimilar to the subjects. An increment in attraction occurred when help was received from a dissimilar other, who should not be expected to help, and a small decrement occurred when no help was received. Additionally, these changes in attraction were related to theoretically predicted attributions subjects were making in the situation. One such attribution was that of the predictability of the other person. Presumably, if the other acted consistently with expectations, she would be seen as being predictable. Thus, when a similar other provides help, she should be perceived as predictable, but when she does not, she should be perceived as unpredictable. The opposite should occur in response to the dissimilar other person; when she provided help she should be rated as unpredictable, but when she did provide help she should be rated as predictable. This reasoning was supported by the data only in the No Help conditions. Similar others who did not help were perceived as unpredictable and dissimilar others who did not help were perceived as predictable. When help was provided by either the similar or the dissimilar other person, the subjects rated her as moderately predictable and there was no significant difference between conditions although the means were in the predicted direction. This latter finding
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
371
is similar to that reported by Nadler (1973), who found that when subjects were told they could receive help in the form of donations from either a similar or dissimilar other in the context of a game, subjects reported no differential expectations as a function of degree of partner similarity. It is likely that the mere suggestion by the experimenter that aid could be given by the partner created the expectancy on the part of subjects that giving aid was strongly demanded by the situation and hence apt to be given (Fisher & Nadler, 1974). Thus, in situations where a strong situational demand exists for engaging in prosocial behavior, subjects’ expectancies may be relatively unaffected by attitudinal information. However, when strong situational demands do not exist, such as in the study cited earlier by Schlenker et al. (1975), attitudinal information may have a stronger effect on expectations and attraction. When situational prescriptions are violated, as in the No Help conditions of the present study, the effects of attitudinally induced expectancies on changes in attraction are fairly strong. In support of Tedeschi’s (1974) assumption that perceived altruism is associated with interpersonal attraction, attributions of altruism were greatest to those to whom subjects were most attracted. This result is complementary to the finding reported by Pepitone and Sherberg (1957) that perceived intentions (good or bad) mediated attraction for an insulting other person. In addition, we found that a similar other person was perceived as more altruistic than a dissimilar one. Since similarity and dissimilarity are known to be associated with liking and disliking, this result can be taken as support for Heider’s (1958) assertion that “if p who dislikes o also benefits O, the action will be suspect and ulterior motives will be looked for” (p. 258). While attributions of positive motives to a reinforcing other were related to the enhancement of interpersonal attraction in the present study, further research should be carried out to examine whether the person must actually mediate the rewards and do so with what appear to the recipient to be positive and nonselfish motives or whether these attributions of altruism are the consequence and follow attraction which develops. Reinforcement theories of interpersonal attraction have offered the view that cognitive factors are necessary for explaining the complex phenomenon of interpersonal attraction. For example, Clore and Byrne (1974) suggested that attraction is a direct function of the weighted rewards and punishments received from another but that the value of the reinforcers may be affected by cognitive factors. Although this and other references to cognitive mediators (e.g., Byrne, Allgeier, Winslow, & Buckman, 1975) have been made, there has not been much specification at the theoretical level of the factors that must be considered. It is our belief that factors suggested by Thibaut and Kelley and by attribution theorists, as incorporated in Tedeschi’s theory of attraction, may be
372
RIORDAN,
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ,
AND
TEDESCHI
important factors in the interpersonal expectancies formulated by the person. These factors include the other person’s prosocial or aggressive behaviors; the degree of altruism or malevolence that is perceived as the motive for these behaviors; and situational factors, such as norms and stimulus characteristics of strangers. Expectancies of rewards and punishments, when disconfirmed, may then lead to increments or decrements in attraction. Disconfirmation associated with unexpected rewards that are altruistically provided should lead to increments of attraction, and disconfirmation associated with expected rewards should lead to decrements in attraction. The advisability of incorporating such factors is evidenced in the voiced dissatisfaction with reinforcement theories (cf. Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, pp. 255-288) and the proliferation of cognitive theories of attraction. The advantage of the expectancy theory is that it offers a framework for incorporating the well-substantiated effects of reinforcement and information-processing variables which also have been shown to effect attraction. The relationships between reward and attraction observed in the present study and discussed by the expectancy theory are important to many relationships for which attraction serves as the base, such as friendship and marriage. The high degrees of attraction which characterize those relationships reflect very high expectancies concerning frequency, amount, and continuance of reward. Additionally, the dispositional component, the third component of attraction in the expectancy theory, predicts that rewards will be returned at a high level. The implicit reciprocity norm continues to operate in these relationships, as it does in developing relationships. The primary difference would be that continued reciprocal exchanges over time lead to the development of confidence in the fact that reciprocation will occur. Therefore intimates will be able to go for longer periods of time when the exchange is inequitable, such as when one partner is sick, without the relationship deteriorating. The necessity that altruism be attributed is also still relevant to changes in the attraction between two intimates. Benefits which are provided as though required will not improve the relationship and may actually detract from the affection if those rewards were expected to have been freely provided because they had been so in the past or because of one’s conceptions of what the other should act like. Such reasoning suggests that therapies such as contracting for beneficial behaviors between intimates may not have the desired effect of increasing the affection because they make the exchange explicit. Additionally, the specification of benefits may serve to raise expectations and thus increase the opportunity for very negative consequences on attraction. This not only would not help to increase the attraction but may also change the character of the relationship to one more similar to a business-like one. What may need to be done when such behavioral contracting seems to be
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
373
required is to allow the contracting to surround only specific problem areas and not require explicitly specified exchanges in all areas of the relationship. REFERENCES Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, R. J. Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968, pp. 1-79. Aronson, E., & Linder, D. Gain and loss of esteem as determinants of interpersonal attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 156-172. Bar-Tal, D., Bar-Zohar, V., Greenberg, M., & Hermon, M. Reciprocity behavior in the relationship between donor and recipient and between harm-doer and victim. Sociometty,
1977,
40, 293-298.
Blau, P. M. Social exchange. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 7). New York: Macmillan, 1968. Byrne, D. Attitudes and attraction. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4). New York: Academic Press, 1969. Byrne, D. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press, 1971. Byrne, D., Allgeier, A. R., Winslow, L., & Buckman, J. The situational facilitation of interpersonal attraction: A three-factor hypothesis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1975, 5, 1-15. Byrne, D., & Clore, G. Effectance arousal and attraction. Journal of Personnlity and Social Psychology Monograph, 1967, 6 (4, Part 2, Whole No. 638). Byrne, D., & Rhamey, R. Magnitude of positive and negative reinforcements as a determinants of attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965,2, 884-889. Clark, M., & Mills, J. Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 12-24. Clore, G., & Byrne, D. A reinforcement-affect model of attraction. In T. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction. New York: Academic Press, 1974. Dutton, D., & Aron, A. Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 510-517. Fishbein, M. An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and attitudes toward that object. Human Relations, 1963, 16, 233-240. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975. Fisher, J. D., & Nadler, A. The effect of similarity between donor and recipient reactions to aid. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974, 4, 230-243. Griffit, W., & Guay, P. “Object” evaluation and conditioned effect. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1969, 4, l-8. Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. Jones, E. E., Jones, R. G., & Gergen, K. J. Some conditions affecting the evaluation of a conformist. Journal of Personality, 1963, 31, 278-288. Mettee, D., & Aronson, E. Affective reactions to appraisal from others. In T. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction. New York: Academic Press, 1974. Morse, S. Help, likeability and social influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1972, 2, 34-46. Morse, S., 62 Gergen, K. Material aid and social attraction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1971, 1, 150-212. Nadler, A. Donor-recipient similarity and recipient’s level of self-esteem as determinants of recipient’s reactions to aid. Unpublished manuscript, Purdue University, 1973. Nadler, A., Fisher, J. D., & Streufert, S. The donor’s dilemma: Recipient’s reactions to aid from friend or foe. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974, 4, 275-285.
RIORDAN,
374
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ,
AND TEDESCHI
Pepitone, A., & Kleiner,
R. The effects of threat and frustration on group cohesiveness. and Social Psychology, 1951, 54, 192-199. Pepitone, A., & Sherberg, J. Intentionality, responsibility, and interpersonal attraction. Journal
of Abnormal
Journal
of Personality,
1957,
25, ISl-166.
Rokeach, M. Belief versus race as determinants of social distance: Comments on Triandis’ paper. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 187-188. Schlenker, B. E., Brown, R. C., Jr., and Tedeschi, J. T. Attraction and expectation of harm and benefits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 664-670. Shapiro, E. G. Is seeking help from a friend like seeking help from a stranger? Social Psychology Quarterly, 1980, 43, 259-263. Stapleton, R. E., Nacci, P., & Tedeschi, J. T. Interpersonal attraction and the reciprocation of benefits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 28, 199-205. Stapleton, R. E., Nelson, B. L., Franconere, V. T., & Tedeschi, J. T. The effects of harmdoing on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 96, 109-120. Stapleton, R. E., I% Tedeschi, J. T. A test of stimulus-response versus a power-oriented cognitive theory of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Social Psychology, 1978, 106, 37-47.
Stroebe, W., Insko, C. A., Thompson, V. D., & Layton, B. D. Effects of physical attractions, attitude similarity, and sex on various aspects of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 18, 79-91. Tedeschi, J. T. Attributions, liking and power. In T. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction, New York: Academic Press, 1974. Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley, 1959. Toughey, J. Interpersonal congruency, attitude similarity, and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Research in Personality, 1975, 9, 66-73. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berschctd, E. Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978. Weinstein, E. A., DeVaughn, W. L., & Wiley, M. G. Obligation and the flow of deference in exchange. Sociometty, 1969, 32, l-12.
OF EXPERIMENTAL
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
18,
358-374 (1982)
Some Variables Affecting Changes in Interpersonal Attraction A.
CATHERINE University
BARBARA
RIORDAN
of Missouri-Rolla
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ
Pan American
University AND
JAMES State
University
T.
TEDESCHI
of New
York
at Albany
Received March 2, 1981
An expectancy theory of attraction predicts changes in attraction as a result of disconfirmations of a person’s expectancies about another’s rewarding behavior. Attitude similarity and normative pressures are interpreted as cues eliciting positive or negative reward expectations. In a test of expectancy theory an experiment employing a 2 x 2 x 2 design was carried out. Subjects requested or did not request help from a similar or dissimilar confederate, who either did or did not provide help. A three-way interaction of these factors on changes in attraction from pre- to postinteraction revealed in general that increments of attraction following help were greater in the Dissimilar conditions and the decrements following no help were greater in the Similar conditions. Furthermore, the greatest decrement in attraction occurred when a similar confederate did not provide help after it had been requested. Secondary findings regarding the predictability of the confederate and the degree of altruism attributed to her supported the assumptions of expectancy theory.
Tedeschi (1974) proposed a theory of interpersonal attraction which views attraction toward another person as an attitude which has cogThis research was supported in part by a University of Missouri Faculty Research Grant to the first author. Requests for reprints should be sent to the first author, Department of Social Sciences, University of Missouri, Rolla, MO 65401. We would like to thank Tom Kane for his advice during various phases of this research and Robert Montgomery and anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. 358 0022-1031/82/040358-17$02.00/O Copyright 0 1982 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
359
nitive, affective, and dispositional components. The cognitive component is central to the theory and consists of an expectancy concerning how another person is likely to act in future interactions. Specifically, the expectancy is that “the other person will altruistically provide benefits or favors of various types and values across a number of situations and over time” (p. 198). Factors frequently demonstrated as antecedents of attraction (e.g., similar attitudes, compliments, background similarity, reward mediation) are believed to operate on attraction by affecting an individual’s expectancies concerning the kind and amount of reward he might expect to derive from future interaction with another person. To the extent that expectancy for future rewards is high, attraction should be high. To the extent that expectancy is low, attraction should be low. Within expectancy theory, disattraction or disliking is distinctly different from positive attraction or liking because the former is believed to result from the expectancy that the other person will mediate punishments and not rewards in future interactions. The second and affective component of Tedeschi’s theory reflects emotional responses toward the other person. The individual’s expectancies concerning the other’s behavior toward him allows the individual to interpret and label any emotional reaction or arousal experienced in interactions with that person. The third and final component consists of the behavioral disposition to act toward the other person. This disposition follows directly from the individual’s existing expectancies concerning the other’s behavior, and stipulates that a person will provide rewards to another at a level approximating his own expectancies concerning the rewards or punishments the other is likely to provide. According to Tedeschi, our expectancies concerning another’s behavior toward us act as mediators of attraction, with changes in attraction for another occurring as a result of violations of, or changes in, expectancies. Expectancy theory assumes that rewards and punishments will have no effect on attraction unless they serve to disconfirm existing expectancies concerning the probable level of reward that the other person will provide. This reasoning is similar to that offered by Thibaut and Kelley (1959), who proposed that attraction develops as a function of disconfirmed expectancies. Individuals are assumed to develop expectancies concerning the outcomes obtainable from interactions with others. A person’s mean expectancy for rewards from all sources is referred to as the comparison level. When another provides benefits to an individual which exceed the comparison level for the donor, liking should ensue. When the benefits received are less than the recipient’s comparison level, a decrease in attraction toward the donor should occur. Hence, this formulation by Thibaut and Kelley makes the similar pre-
360
RIORDAN,
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ,
AND
TEDESCHI
diction that receipt of benefits which are congruent with expectations or comparison level should not affect liking. The expectancy theory makes explicit these relationships of expectancies, rewards, and attraction outlined by Thibaut and Kelley. Specifically, expectancy theory predicts a positive linear function for reinforcements and attraction only when rewards exceed the individual’s expectations for the interaction. If, through a series of interactions, another person provides many rewards of high value, then an additional reward of approximately the mean value of previous ones might be expected; in such a case, no increment in attraction would occur. However, if for some reason (i.e., situational norms, past experience, or temporary moods) the individual does not expect to be rewarded or expects only low rewards and receives rather substantial rewards, expectations would be exceeded by the actual outcomes of intereaction, and there would be an increment in attraction, Based on the same reasoning, expectancy theory predicts decreases in attraction when rewards are less than the individual expects. Perceived Altruism
A critical difference between the theories proposed by Tedeschi and by Thibaut and Kelley and other exchange theories of attraction (e.g., Blau, 1968), or those based on equity principles (e.g., Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 197g), is that the former stipulates that no increment will accrue as a function of reinforcements unless the donor’s motives are believed by the recipient to be altruistic. For a positive change in attraction to occur, Tedeschi postulated that the person must feel that the rewards were provided altruistically (i.e., with the recipient’s welfare in mind and not for the donor’s benefit). There is some support for the view that benefits must be perceived as having been altruistically given. Rewards must be intentionally rather than accidentally mediated for the recipient to like the donor (Pepitone & Kleiner, 1957). In order to enhance attraction, positive evaluations received from another must be perceived as being veridical, as having been provided without ulterior motive, and as being on topics of importance to the recipient of the evaluation (Mettee & Aronson, 1974). Obvious use of rewards for purposes of ingratiation tends to bring about a boomerang effect and leads to a decrement in liking (Jones, Jones, & Gergen, 1963). Attempts to manipulate another person to mediate rewards for the individual lead to contempt for that individual rather than attraction (Dickoff, 1961, cited in Mettee & Aronson, 1974). Furthermore, the intentions of enemies are more suspect than those of friends. Hence, it is not surprising that subjects perceived aid from an ally in a tactical negotiations game more positively, as being of more
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
361
value, and reflective of more effort than an equal amount of aid from an enemy (Nadler, Fisher, & Streufert, 1974). It should be noted that the expectancy theory does not state that the benefits must actually be provided altruistically but, rather, that they be perceived by the recipient as having been provided altruistically. In fact, it is postulated that although the participants will not make it explicit, they implicitly operate according to a norm of reciprocity. However, it is important that the exchange nature of the relationship not be made explicit. If it is, it will not have positive effects on attraction, because the recipient cannot make the attribution that help was provided altruistically, and it can change the relationship to one of a different kind in which attraction is not relevant. Clark and Mills (1979) found that immediate, direct reciprocation and requests to reciprocate a benefit reduced the attractiveness of others who were potential intimates. However, it has been shown that even intimates do keep track of the level of reward they believe they deserve and prefer to get what they feel they deserve or a little more, rather than much more or much less (Walster, Walster, & Traupman, 1977, cited in Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Intimates feel as indebted to intimates as they do to strangers (Bar-Tal, Bar-Zohar, Greenberg, & Hermon, 1977), even though they are not as concerned with temporary discrepancies in reciprocation (Weinstein, DeVaughn, & Wiley, 1969) and are more likely to request big favors (Shapiro, 1980). Relation to Other Theories The predictions derived from the expectancy theory for changes in attraction would, in some instances, be similar to those derived from the gain-loss model of attraction proposed by Aronson and Linder (1965). That model states that changes in the affective quality of evaluations will produce more of a change in attraction than will evaluations which maintain a consistent quality. The rationale underlying these predictions is that we tend to habituate to stimulus repetition. Therefore, an evaluator who changes from negative to positive is seen as more attractive than one who maintains consistently positive evaluations. The difference between the expectancy theory and gain-loss model is the specified underlying mechanism. In the former, the mediating mechanism is an expectancy and it concerns very broad expectations regarding probable level of reward of many types and in many situations. In the latter, it is redundancy in type of reward in similar situations which produces the gain-loss effect (Mettee & Aronson, 1974, p. 277). Hence, in situations where sequences of interaction include very different types of rewards, the predictions from the two theories can be distinguished. The expectancy theory is also similar to reinforcement theories in its focus on rewards in the development of attraction. The central difference
362
RIORDAN,
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ,
AND
TEDESCHI
lies in the necessity of certain cognitive mediators specified by expectancy theory. The attribution that the reward be altruistically provided as discussed above is one such critical attribution. The incorporation of this particular attribution allows the expectancy theory to handle some findings which have served as anomalies for the reinforcement theories (see Tedeschi, 1974, for a review). The predictive value of specification that attraction is mediated by a cognitive expectancy concerning probable levels of reward is detailed below. Additionally, the expectancy theory allows predictions concerning the future behavior of both attracted others and therefore has more heuristic value for the study of the interaction of attracted others. Attitude
Similarity
and Attraction
Of the various antecedents of attraction which have been studied, considerable attention has been given to attitudinal similarity. Under most conditions increasing similarity of attitudes is associated with greater attraction. Attitude similarity is assumed by many to be a reward because of the feeling of competency an individual is believed to derive from the knowledge that others share his or her attitudes (e.g., Byrne & Clore, 1967). Expectancy theory views attitude similarity as a cue affecting the individual’s estimate of the probable course of interaction with another person. Attitude similarity may suggest that future interactions with the person will probably be positive because of congruency of values, the likelihood that unnecessary conflict and argument can be avoided, and a kind of a priori trust will be established between people of like minds (cf. Tedeschi, 1974). For example, research on race and beliefs indicates that differences in attitudes signal potential conflict and are therefore associated with disliking (cf. Rokeach, 1961). Some evidence is available bearing on the predictions of expectancy theory regarding the relationship between expectations, rewards, and attraction. Morse and Gergen (1971) and Morse (1972) found that subjects who received unexpected help evaluated the donor more positively than when help was expected. These results are consistent with both Thibaut and Kelley’s and Tedeschi’s notion that unexpected, hedonically positive behaviors are more apt to affect changes in attraction than are positive ones which are expected. A more direct test of expectancy hypotheses was performed by Stapleton, Nacci, and Tedeschi (1973). Subjects were paired with a confederate who was either similar or dissimilar to them in attitudes. The confederate then had an opportunity to mediate 10 rewards to subjects and provided 1, 5, or 9 such rewards. It was assumed that similarity would cue an expectancy of many rewards and that dissimilarity would lead to expectation of few rewards. Thus, according to expectancy theory
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
363
subjects in the similarity conditions should indicate smaller increments in attraction for the confederate as the number of rewards increased, and subjects in the dissimilarity conditions should like the confederate more as the number of rewards increased. These predictions were confirmed. Particularly interesting was that when low-similarity subjects received only 1 reward and when high-similarity subjects received 9 rewards, no change in attraction from pre- to postinteraction occurred. Stapleton, Nelson, Franconere, and Tedeschi (1973) found a complementary set of results. They reasoned that similar others would not be expected to deliver shocks but that dissimilar others would be expected to mediate such punishments. Subjects received 1, 5, or 9 out of 10 potential shocks from a similar or dissimilar confederate. In support of expectancy theory subjects in the high-similarity condition decreased their liking for the confederate as a direct function of the number of shocks delivered, whereas subjects in the dissimilarity conditions increased their liking for the confederate as the number of shocks decreased. Once again, when subjects got what they expected, no change in attraction occurred. Thus, when subjects received 9 shocks from a dissimilar other or only 1 shock from a similar other, no change in liking occurred. Direct measurements of expectancies were obtained by Schlenker, Brown, and Tedeschi (1975). They found that subjects were more confident of receiving benefits from a similar than from a dissimilar other person. Of course, one might not find differences in expectancy in situations which have strong normative pressures for an individual to behave in particular ways. For example, if one student asked another student for help in solving a problem, there might be strong pressures for compliance since it might be very difficult to refuse such a request. In such a situation one might expect help from both similar and dissimilar others. Hypotheses
and Experimental
Design
The present study examined the assumptions of expectancy theory: that the predictability of rewarding behavior, i.e., degree of expectancy confirmation or disconfirmation, is associated with changes in attraction; that social norms are situational determinants of expectations of individuals regarding positive outcomes of interactions; and that perceived altruism is an important factor in the association of rewards and attraction. An experiment with a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design was conducted to examine these assumptions. It was contrived that half of the subjects asked for aid from a confederate known to have similar or dissimilar attitudes; the other half of the subjects worked with either a similar or a dissimilar confederate but did not ask for help. In addition to the request for help or no request, and similarity of their attitudes, the
364
RIORDAN,
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ.
AND TEDESCHI
confederate was programmed either to provide help or not to provide help, regardless of whether the subjects requested it. The following hypotheses were derived from the information presented above: (1) People should be more attracted to those who provide help than to those who do not help. (2) When a request for aid is made by the person, the donor’s behavior should be perceived as controlled by situational norms and thus should not lead to an increment in liking; on the other hand, failure to provide help when a request is made should violate expectations and lead to a decrement in attraction. (3) Evidence for expectancy disconfirmation would be obtained by asking subjects to what extent they felt their partner’s behavior was predictable. Similar others who help and thus act in a manner which confirms expectancies should be perceived as more predictable than dissimilar others who help or similar others who do not help. Dissimilar others who fail to help should also be perceived as more predictable than similar others who fail to help or dissimilar others who do help. (4) Changes in attraction should be associated with an interaction of all three factors. Subjects should show an increment in attraction when help is provided by a dissimilar other and the increment should be greater when the help was not requested than when it was requested. A decrement in attraction should occur when help is not given by a similar other and the decrement should be greater when help was requested. No change should occur when a dissimilar other does not provide help and it was not requested, and very little change in a negative direction when the dissimilar other does not provide help and it was requested. No change is also predicted when a similar other provides help and it was requested, and very little change in a positive direction when it was not requested. (5) Finally, a confederate who provides help should be perceived as more altruistic than one who does not provide help. However, similar others who provide help should be perceived as more altruistic than dissimilar others who provide help. That is, some suspicion about the motives of dissimilar helpers will temper attributions of altruism to them. METHOD Subjects Seventy female students participated in partial fulfillment of an introductory psychology course requirement and were assigned randomly to conditions. There were either eight or nine subjects in each condition. Eleven female undergraduates served as experimenters and confederates and were randomized across conditions and roles.’ Only female students participated because of the greater availability of female students, experimenters, and ’ The authors would like to take this opportunity to thank Cheryl Bennick, Linda Cicero, Terri Dunlap, Hallie Heurun, Nina Kanter, Lee Kossin, Robbin Lindenberg, Diana Oruci, Robin Reich, Karen Scott, and Marianne Sicilian for their assistance as experimenters and confederates.
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
365
confederates, and because of our interest in same-sex pairs rather than opposite-sex pairs in which processes underlying the development of attraction may be somewhat different (Dutton & Aron, 1974; Stroebe, Insko, Thompson, & Layton, 1971). Of course, the failure to include males in the sampling may serve to restrict the generalization of the results. However, a number of studies have found the development of attraction (i.e., liking) under conditions similar to those in the present study to be the same for both sexes (cf. Byrne. 1971). Procedure. Shortly after the subjects arrived in the waiting room, the confederate entered through the same door. The experimenter immediately escorted them to a small room and seated them adjacent to each other at a small table. The participants were told that the experiment they had signed up for involved assisting the experimenter in pretesting materials to be used in two experiments to be conducted the following semester. The experimenter explained that she was attempting to develop a screening procedure which would allow her to select compatible individuals for a study which would require the pairs of subjects to participate together for an extended period of time. The first task the subjects would be engaged in therefore would involve assessing another individual based on limited information provided by that person. The experimenter indicated that details of the second experiment would be provided later. The manipulation of attitude similarity-dissimilarity was then performed. A 16-item attitude survey requiring responses on 7-point Likert-type scales (Byrne, 1969) was given to the subjects and represented as the first part of the screening procedure which was currently being evaluated for later use. In order to keep the experimenter blind to the similarity manipulation, the confederate was assigned to conditions by a third party (in the experimenter’s absence) immediately before the confederate joined the subject in the waiting room. For the similarity manipulation the confederate and subject remained seated on each side of a corner of a small table. This was done to provide the confederate with an easy view of the subject’s paper. Once the experimenter left the room, the confederate surreptitiously observed the subject’s responses to the attitude survey and, according to condition, made her own responses so as to be either similar or dissimilar to those of the subject. The experimental confederates were highly trained in this copying procedure. No subject mentioned to the experimenter or the confederate any suspicion about copying. Nor, according to the confederates, did any subject behave as though she noted the confederate observing her attitudes (e.g., covering her paper). In the Similarity conditions, the confederate’s responses to the 16 items were 1 scale unit more extreme than the subject’s unless the latter’s response was the most extreme, in which case the responses were identical. In the Dissimilarity conditions, all the confederate’s responses to the 16 items were 3 scale units toward the opposite end of the scale from the subject’s responses. After the attitude surveys were completed the experimenter reentered the room. Participants were told, “. . . for the experiment I will be doing next semester I need to find the optimal criteria for placing students together who will interact successfully over a period of time. Thus, I need to get some idea of people’s reactions to each other if we are to use this screening procedure.” Subjects were then instructed to exchange questionnaires and to give their reactions to the questions on the form provided. The participants were then given copies of the Interpersonal Judgement Scale (IJS; Byrne, 1969). To assure the subject that her responses to the IJS were confidential a table divider was then placed between the participants. Subjects were given several minutes to complete the IJS. The experimenter then returned, collected the IJS and, in the Request conditions, told the subject she would be working alone during the next phase. The experimenter then gave the confederate a “personality questionnaire” to fill out and asked the subject to accompany her to another room, allegedly to work with some materials there. Once in the second room, the subject was told that in connection with the research which would be conducted next semester the experimenter
366
RIORDAN,
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ,
AND TEDESCHI
was interested in determining the different personality characteristics of people who help others. In order for her to study these characteristics, the experimenter needed the cooperation of a student, like the subject. The experimenter stated that she decided to ask the subject to help her because she was the first one to arrive at the laboratory for the experiment. The subject was asked, “Do you think you’ll be able to do that?” Once the subject agreed the tasks were described to her. It was pointed out that it would be apparent to the other person that the subject was given the more time-consuming task to perform. Subjects were told, “When the other person finishes her task I would like you to ask her to help you finish yours.” It was suggested that subjects say, “Hey, before you go, could you help me with this?” Prior to returning to the other room the subject was told that the tasks would be explained to both participants. The subject was cautioned to act as though it were the first time she had heard about the tasks.
The subject was escorted back to the original cubicle and was reseated and the confederate’s questionnaire was collected. Both individuals were then instructed about the tasks. In the No Request conditions, the subject and confederate were instructed about their experimental tasks immediately after the IJSs were collected. In all conditions, the actual subject was given the task of alphabetizing 10 decks of cards containing 10 cards each which had multiword task names printed across the top. Subjects were told not to combine the 10 decks. The confederate was requested to rank order 10 perceptual-motor tasks according to their perceived level of difficulty. Both individuals were told that upon finishing they could leave and obtain their experimental credit in another office in the same building. They were also told that whoever finished first could help the other person if she so desired. The experimenter then left the room. When the confederate finished her task, subjects in the Request conditions asked for help. One subject in the Request condition failed to ask for help and was subsequently dropped from all data analyses. In the Help conditions, the confederate responded to the request by saying, “Oh, sure. Why don’t you give me half of what you have left?” In the No Help conditions, the confederate responded to the request by politely refusing, saying, “No, I’m going to leave.” In the No Request conditions, the confederate in the No Help conditions simply left without saying anything; in the Help conditions the confederate offered to assist the subject by saying, “Why don’t you give me half of what you have left?” Again, to keep the experimenter blind to conditions, the confederate had been told either to provide or not to provide help by a third party. Four minutes after the subject and confederate were assigned their tasks the experimenter returned saying, “OK, you can stop working now.” In the conditions where the confederate was still present she was asked to accompany the experimenter to another room. On returning to the subject the experimenter said, “Now that you’ve worked with the other person for a while and know a little more about her we’d like you to fill out this form so we’ll have your current perceptions of her.”
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
367
Subjects were given a short questionnaire which contained the final dependent measures. All measures were on i-/-point scales. The main dependent variables consisted of subjects’ responses to the items, “How much do you think you would like the other person?” and “How much do you think you would like to work with the other person?” which were embedded in the questionnaire. The summed scores of these two items provided the postinteraction measure attraction; a score of 14 represented maximum attraction and a score of 2 minimum attraction. Subjects also answered whether they received help from the other person (yes or no), and rated the confederate on three bipolar adjective scales: free (7)-constrained (I), predictable (7)-unpredictable (I), and altruistic (7)-selfish (1). Following the subject’s involvement with the experiment, suspiciousness toward all manipulations was assessed. Subjects were extensively probed for suspiciousness toward all manipulations in the manner suggested by Aronson and Carlsmith (1968) and debriefed. No suspicions regarding the procedures or rationale were revealed.2 Subjects were thanked for their participation and asked not to divulge any aspects of the experiment for the remainder of the semester. RESULTS Manipulation
Checks
Analysis of variance revealed a main effect of Attitude Similarity-Dissimilarity on the preinteraction IJS measure of attraction, F(1, 61) = 84.77, p < .OOl, indicating that subjects in the Similarity conditions expressed more attraction (M = 11.56) toward the confederate than did subjects in the Dissimilarity conditions (M = 7.83). Additionally, all subjects accurately reported whether or not they received help from the confederate. Changes in Attraction Differences in ratings of attraction from preinteraction to action were obtained by subtracting the preinteraction summed of “liking” and “work with” from the postinteraction scores. each of these measures of attraction can be seen in Table 1.
postinterIJS scores Means for The range
* We believe suspiciousness was kept to a minimum. In order to assess the believability of the manipulations and to refine the procedures a pilot study had been conducted. The request manipulation used in the pilot study produced suspiciousness because the subjects believed that the experimenter was also informing the other person of how to react to the request. Therefore, procedures were adopted resulting in the subject never being left alone, thereby eliminating the possibility of the experimenter instructing the other person. Queries concerning suspicion included: “What did you think of the experiment?” “Did you have any idea what we were looking at?” “ Did you think there was anything we were not telling you about the experiment?” “ What did you think about your partner?”
368
RIORDAN,
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ,
AND TEDESCHI
TABLE 1 MEANS FORMEASUREOF ATTRACTION” Request Help Preinteraction Similar Dissimilar Postinteraction Similar
attractiot?
No help
11.75
(2.0)
(1.2)
8.44
7.56 (1.1)
11.67
6.50 (1.3) 6.22 (2.0)
11.62 9.66 (1.2)
9.33 (1.1) 5.40 (1.6)
-4.6 (1.3) -2.44
-.12 (1.2) 2.1 (2.1)
-2.6 (1.4) -2.0 (1.3)
9.33 (1.5) .22
(1.2) Dissimilar
Help
11.12
CO) Changes in attraction’ Similar
No help
11.4 (1.5) 7.89 (1.8)
attraction
Dissimilar
No request
1.0 (1.9)
(2.5)
(2.3)
(1.8)
11.89 t.31 7.38 (1.1)
’ Standard deviations in parentheses. b Pre- and postinteraction attraction scores reflect sum of IJS liking and work with items. ’ Changes in attraction computed by subtracting preinteraction from postinteraction attraction for each subject.
of scores possible on the change in attraction measure was from - 12 to 12. Increases in attraction from pre- to postinteraction will be indicated by positive scores, whereas decreases in attraction will be indicated by negative scores. Analysis of variance on these difference scores revealed significant main effects for Attitude Similarity-Dissimilarity, F(1, 61) = 16.07, p < .OOl, and Help-No Help, F(1,61) = 68.89, p < .OOl. Overall attraction decreased for both similar and dissimilar conditions; however, the decrements in attraction were greater for similar others (M = - 1.74) than for dissimilar others (M = - 0.1 I), and in support of hypothesis 1, some increase in attraction occurred toward helpers (M = 0.94) and a decrease in attraction (M = -2.82) occurred toward nonhelpers. The interpretation of these main effects is qualified by the significant three-way interaction that was obtained, F(1, 61) = 4.95, p < .04. This interaction can be seen in Table 1. When the similar confederate provided help, almost no change in attraction occurred whether or not a request was made; when a dissimilar confederate provided help, an increase in attraction occurred; and somewhat more of an increase occurred when no request was made than when the subjects asked for help. When no help was provided there was a decrement in attraction in all conditions; however, the decrement as indicated by Tukey’s Honestly Significant
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
369
Difference test was significantly greater when the subjects had requested help and a similar confederate refused to provide it than in the Similar/ No Request, Dissimilar/Request, or Dissimilar/No Request conditions. There were no differences between the latter three conditions. In general, then, the increments in attraction following help were greater in the Dissimilar conditions and the decrements following No Help were greater in the Similar conditions.3 Predictability
Analysis of subjects’ ratings of how predictable-unpredictable the other person was served as the measure of subjects’ expectancies for the other’s behavior. It revealed only a signilicant Similarity-Dissimilarity Help-No Help interaction, F(1, 61) = 4.05, p < .05. Consistent with predictions, subjects believed that a dissimilar other was more predictable (M = 5.19) than a similar other (M = 4.17) when she failed to provide help. There was a tendency for the reverse to be true when help was provided; the similar other who helped (M = 4.61) was rated as slightly more predictable than a dissimilar other who helped (M = 4.50). Expectancy theory predicts that only disconfirmations of expectancies will result in changes in attraction. Of course, the direction of change depends upon the initial expectations of the individual. However, the implication is that a measure of absolute change, regardless of direction, should be related to the predictability of the other person. In support of this reasoning was the obtained correlation, r(67) = -0.23, p < .06, indicating that the less predictable the other person was, the more the individual’s level of attraction for her was changed. Within-cell correlations also evidenced this same negative relationship of predictability and change (i.e., all correlations negative) except in the Dissimilar/No Request/Help condition where r(8) = . 11. Although it may be ill-advised to place too much emphasis on such a small correlation, it suggests the possibility that such unsolicited help from a dissimilar other is so counter to expectations that it may lead to suspiciousness of motives. Perceived
Altruism
Subjects were asked to rate the confederate on a scale of altruistic-selfish because Tedeschi’s theory proposes that positive changes in attraction as a function of rewards should occur only when the recipient attributes nonselfish motives to the donor. In fact, the correlation between per3 Due to the high initial attraction scores found in the similar group (M = 11.56) there is a possibility that the failure to find enhancement of attraction toward a similar other after she helped in the similar help groups as predicted from the reinforcement perspective might be due to a ceiling effect. A number of investigators have, however, obtained much higher scores using the IJS than were obtained in the present study. Byrne and Rhamey (1965), for example, obtained a value of 13.13 on the 1Cpoint scale.
370
RIORDAN.
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ,
AND
TEDESCHI
ceived altruism and postinteraction attraction measures was significant, and positive, r(67) = 44, p < .Ol. Main effects of Similarity-Dissimilarity, F(1, 61) = 10.91, p < .OOl, and Help-No Help, F(1, 61) = 56.73, p < .OOl, and an interaction of these two factors, F(1, 61) = 4.61, p < -05, were found on the perceived altruism measure. The interaction does not qualify the main effects but only suggests that the difference between the perceived altruism of a similar and dissimilar other person was greater when the confederate helped than when she did not. The confederate was perceived as most altruistic when she provided help and was similar (M = 5.68) rather than dissimilar (A4 = 4.17) in attitudes. When no help was provided, the other person was perceived as somewhat selfish regardless of similarity (M = 3.00) or dissimilarity (M = 2.88). It should be noted that although these attributions of altruism are consistent with the theoretical predictions, the present study does not allow definitive conclusions concerning the temporal precedence of the altruism attributions. It may be the case that attributed altruism follows the attraction instead of preceding it as Fishbein (1963) would suggest. DISCUSSION The results of the present study are consistent with the hypotheses derived from the expectancy theory of attraction examined in the present study. Little change in attraction occurred when help was received from a similar other, who should be expected to help. However, a rather large decrement in attraction occurred when no help was received from a similar other. A complementary pattern of results was found when the other person was dissimilar to the subjects. An increment in attraction occurred when help was received from a dissimilar other, who should not be expected to help, and a small decrement occurred when no help was received. Additionally, these changes in attraction were related to theoretically predicted attributions subjects were making in the situation. One such attribution was that of the predictability of the other person. Presumably, if the other acted consistently with expectations, she would be seen as being predictable. Thus, when a similar other provides help, she should be perceived as predictable, but when she does not, she should be perceived as unpredictable. The opposite should occur in response to the dissimilar other person; when she provided help she should be rated as unpredictable, but when she did provide help she should be rated as predictable. This reasoning was supported by the data only in the No Help conditions. Similar others who did not help were perceived as unpredictable and dissimilar others who did not help were perceived as predictable. When help was provided by either the similar or the dissimilar other person, the subjects rated her as moderately predictable and there was no significant difference between conditions although the means were in the predicted direction. This latter finding
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
371
is similar to that reported by Nadler (1973), who found that when subjects were told they could receive help in the form of donations from either a similar or dissimilar other in the context of a game, subjects reported no differential expectations as a function of degree of partner similarity. It is likely that the mere suggestion by the experimenter that aid could be given by the partner created the expectancy on the part of subjects that giving aid was strongly demanded by the situation and hence apt to be given (Fisher & Nadler, 1974). Thus, in situations where a strong situational demand exists for engaging in prosocial behavior, subjects’ expectancies may be relatively unaffected by attitudinal information. However, when strong situational demands do not exist, such as in the study cited earlier by Schlenker et al. (1975), attitudinal information may have a stronger effect on expectations and attraction. When situational prescriptions are violated, as in the No Help conditions of the present study, the effects of attitudinally induced expectancies on changes in attraction are fairly strong. In support of Tedeschi’s (1974) assumption that perceived altruism is associated with interpersonal attraction, attributions of altruism were greatest to those to whom subjects were most attracted. This result is complementary to the finding reported by Pepitone and Sherberg (1957) that perceived intentions (good or bad) mediated attraction for an insulting other person. In addition, we found that a similar other person was perceived as more altruistic than a dissimilar one. Since similarity and dissimilarity are known to be associated with liking and disliking, this result can be taken as support for Heider’s (1958) assertion that “if p who dislikes o also benefits O, the action will be suspect and ulterior motives will be looked for” (p. 258). While attributions of positive motives to a reinforcing other were related to the enhancement of interpersonal attraction in the present study, further research should be carried out to examine whether the person must actually mediate the rewards and do so with what appear to the recipient to be positive and nonselfish motives or whether these attributions of altruism are the consequence and follow attraction which develops. Reinforcement theories of interpersonal attraction have offered the view that cognitive factors are necessary for explaining the complex phenomenon of interpersonal attraction. For example, Clore and Byrne (1974) suggested that attraction is a direct function of the weighted rewards and punishments received from another but that the value of the reinforcers may be affected by cognitive factors. Although this and other references to cognitive mediators (e.g., Byrne, Allgeier, Winslow, & Buckman, 1975) have been made, there has not been much specification at the theoretical level of the factors that must be considered. It is our belief that factors suggested by Thibaut and Kelley and by attribution theorists, as incorporated in Tedeschi’s theory of attraction, may be
372
RIORDAN,
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ,
AND
TEDESCHI
important factors in the interpersonal expectancies formulated by the person. These factors include the other person’s prosocial or aggressive behaviors; the degree of altruism or malevolence that is perceived as the motive for these behaviors; and situational factors, such as norms and stimulus characteristics of strangers. Expectancies of rewards and punishments, when disconfirmed, may then lead to increments or decrements in attraction. Disconfirmation associated with unexpected rewards that are altruistically provided should lead to increments of attraction, and disconfirmation associated with expected rewards should lead to decrements in attraction. The advisability of incorporating such factors is evidenced in the voiced dissatisfaction with reinforcement theories (cf. Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, pp. 255-288) and the proliferation of cognitive theories of attraction. The advantage of the expectancy theory is that it offers a framework for incorporating the well-substantiated effects of reinforcement and information-processing variables which also have been shown to effect attraction. The relationships between reward and attraction observed in the present study and discussed by the expectancy theory are important to many relationships for which attraction serves as the base, such as friendship and marriage. The high degrees of attraction which characterize those relationships reflect very high expectancies concerning frequency, amount, and continuance of reward. Additionally, the dispositional component, the third component of attraction in the expectancy theory, predicts that rewards will be returned at a high level. The implicit reciprocity norm continues to operate in these relationships, as it does in developing relationships. The primary difference would be that continued reciprocal exchanges over time lead to the development of confidence in the fact that reciprocation will occur. Therefore intimates will be able to go for longer periods of time when the exchange is inequitable, such as when one partner is sick, without the relationship deteriorating. The necessity that altruism be attributed is also still relevant to changes in the attraction between two intimates. Benefits which are provided as though required will not improve the relationship and may actually detract from the affection if those rewards were expected to have been freely provided because they had been so in the past or because of one’s conceptions of what the other should act like. Such reasoning suggests that therapies such as contracting for beneficial behaviors between intimates may not have the desired effect of increasing the affection because they make the exchange explicit. Additionally, the specification of benefits may serve to raise expectations and thus increase the opportunity for very negative consequences on attraction. This not only would not help to increase the attraction but may also change the character of the relationship to one more similar to a business-like one. What may need to be done when such behavioral contracting seems to be
INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
373
required is to allow the contracting to surround only specific problem areas and not require explicitly specified exchanges in all areas of the relationship. REFERENCES Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, R. J. Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1968, pp. 1-79. Aronson, E., & Linder, D. Gain and loss of esteem as determinants of interpersonal attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 156-172. Bar-Tal, D., Bar-Zohar, V., Greenberg, M., & Hermon, M. Reciprocity behavior in the relationship between donor and recipient and between harm-doer and victim. Sociometty,
1977,
40, 293-298.
Blau, P. M. Social exchange. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. 7). New York: Macmillan, 1968. Byrne, D. Attitudes and attraction. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4). New York: Academic Press, 1969. Byrne, D. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press, 1971. Byrne, D., Allgeier, A. R., Winslow, L., & Buckman, J. The situational facilitation of interpersonal attraction: A three-factor hypothesis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1975, 5, 1-15. Byrne, D., & Clore, G. Effectance arousal and attraction. Journal of Personnlity and Social Psychology Monograph, 1967, 6 (4, Part 2, Whole No. 638). Byrne, D., & Rhamey, R. Magnitude of positive and negative reinforcements as a determinants of attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965,2, 884-889. Clark, M., & Mills, J. Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 12-24. Clore, G., & Byrne, D. A reinforcement-affect model of attraction. In T. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction. New York: Academic Press, 1974. Dutton, D., & Aron, A. Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 510-517. Fishbein, M. An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and attitudes toward that object. Human Relations, 1963, 16, 233-240. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975. Fisher, J. D., & Nadler, A. The effect of similarity between donor and recipient reactions to aid. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974, 4, 230-243. Griffit, W., & Guay, P. “Object” evaluation and conditioned effect. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1969, 4, l-8. Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. Jones, E. E., Jones, R. G., & Gergen, K. J. Some conditions affecting the evaluation of a conformist. Journal of Personality, 1963, 31, 278-288. Mettee, D., & Aronson, E. Affective reactions to appraisal from others. In T. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction. New York: Academic Press, 1974. Morse, S. Help, likeability and social influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1972, 2, 34-46. Morse, S., 62 Gergen, K. Material aid and social attraction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1971, 1, 150-212. Nadler, A. Donor-recipient similarity and recipient’s level of self-esteem as determinants of recipient’s reactions to aid. Unpublished manuscript, Purdue University, 1973. Nadler, A., Fisher, J. D., & Streufert, S. The donor’s dilemma: Recipient’s reactions to aid from friend or foe. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1974, 4, 275-285.
RIORDAN,
374
QUIGLEY-FERNANDEZ,
AND TEDESCHI
Pepitone, A., & Kleiner,
R. The effects of threat and frustration on group cohesiveness. and Social Psychology, 1951, 54, 192-199. Pepitone, A., & Sherberg, J. Intentionality, responsibility, and interpersonal attraction. Journal
of Abnormal
Journal
of Personality,
1957,
25, ISl-166.
Rokeach, M. Belief versus race as determinants of social distance: Comments on Triandis’ paper. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 187-188. Schlenker, B. E., Brown, R. C., Jr., and Tedeschi, J. T. Attraction and expectation of harm and benefits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 664-670. Shapiro, E. G. Is seeking help from a friend like seeking help from a stranger? Social Psychology Quarterly, 1980, 43, 259-263. Stapleton, R. E., Nacci, P., & Tedeschi, J. T. Interpersonal attraction and the reciprocation of benefits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 28, 199-205. Stapleton, R. E., Nelson, B. L., Franconere, V. T., & Tedeschi, J. T. The effects of harmdoing on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 96, 109-120. Stapleton, R. E., I% Tedeschi, J. T. A test of stimulus-response versus a power-oriented cognitive theory of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Social Psychology, 1978, 106, 37-47.
Stroebe, W., Insko, C. A., Thompson, V. D., & Layton, B. D. Effects of physical attractions, attitude similarity, and sex on various aspects of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 18, 79-91. Tedeschi, J. T. Attributions, liking and power. In T. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction, New York: Academic Press, 1974. Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley, 1959. Toughey, J. Interpersonal congruency, attitude similarity, and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Research in Personality, 1975, 9, 66-73. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berschctd, E. Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978. Weinstein, E. A., DeVaughn, W. L., & Wiley, M. G. Obligation and the flow of deference in exchange. Sociometty, 1969, 32, l-12.