Inferred evaluation and the relation between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction.

Abstract

John W. CondonMichigan State UniversityWilliam D. CranoTexas AM holding inferred evaluation constant strongly attenuated thesimilarity-attraction association. Moreover, the inferred evaluation-attraction relation was un-affected when attitude similarity was partialed from it. The correlational pattern is contrary to thatput forward by Byrne (1971) and suggests a reconsideration of the conventional interpretation of thesimilarity-attraction relation.The study of factors that influence people's attraction to oth-ers is a major and continuing preoccupation of social psychol-ogy (Byrne, 1971; Byrne, Clore, & Smeaton, 1986; Newcomb,1961, 1968;Rosenbaum, 1986a, 1986b). Over the past two de-cades, researchers have identified a number of variables associ-ated with attraction. Propinquity, similarity or difference onvarious dimensions, physical attractiveness, cooperativeness,exposure, fear, intelligence, and other variables too numerousto mention do, under specified circumstances, enhance one'sattraction to another (Crano & Messe, 1982). Of all the attrac-tion-inducing variables, attitude similarity has received perhapsthe greatest attention. The similarity-attraction link has beenstudied in a wide variety of contexts involving interactions be-tween naive subjects (Brewer & Brewer, 1968), naive subjectsand experimental confederates (Aronson & Worchel, 1966;Byrne & Griffitt, 1966; McWhirter & Jecker, 1967), and naivesubjects with a hypothetical other whose opinions are presentedvia experimenter-provided (bogus) feedback (Byrne, 1971).These studies have consistently demonstrated a positive associa-tion between attitude similarity and attraction. The ubiquity ofthis result, and the wide range of research settings in which ithas been found, render the similarity-attraction link one of so-cial psychology's most dependable research findings (Berscheid& Walster, 1978). Whereas the existence of the similarity-at-traction association is no longer questioned (although the spe-cific role of similarity or dissimilarity is the focus of currentThis research was supported in part by NSF Grant BNS-8517416 toWilliam D. Crano.We gratefully acknowledge this support, and that of Lawrence A.Messe, Norbert Kerr, and Eileen G. Thompson for their helpful com-ments on an earlier version of this article.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Wil-liam D. Crano, Department of Psychology, Texas AM see Byrne et al., 1986;Rosenbaum, 1986a, 1986b),its functional basis has been the source of considerable theoreti-cal debate.Interpretations of the Similarity-Attraction RelationEffectance MotiveWe begin with a consideration of the position of Byrne andassociates (Byrne, 1971; Byrne & Clore, 1967, 1970; Byrne L see also Byrne et al., 1986) proposedthat agreement with another provides a person with consensualvalidation for his or her own beliefs and helps to satisfy alearned drive to be logical, to interpret the environment cor-rectly, and to function effectively in understanding and predict-ing events (Byrne & Clore, 1970, p. 118). They labeled thisdrive the effectance motive (after White, 1959) and suggestedthat agreement, in satisfying this motive, took on the propertiesof a higher-order conditioned stimulus. The satisfaction of thisdrive results in the attachment of positive affect (attraction orliking) to the source of the satisfaction: the agreeing other.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 250 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.