Process of Social Influence

UNIT 3 INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
Structure

3.0 Introduction
3.1 Objectives
3.2 Interpersonal Attraction
3.2.1 Physical Attractiveness
3.2.1.1 Research on Physical Attractiveness Stereotype
3.2.2 Propinquity/ Proximity
3.2.2.1 Proximity as an Intensifier of Sentiments
3.2.2.2 Increased Probability of Acquiring Information
3.2.2.3 Heider’s Balance Theory
3.2.3 Similarity
3.2.3.1 Similarity in Different Aspects
3.2.3.2 Effect of Similarity on Interpersonal Attraction
3.2.3.3 Complementarity
3.2.3.4 Principles of Similarity or Complementarity

3.3 Explaining Interpersonal Attraction

3.3.1 Social Exchange Theory
3.3.2 Evolutionary Theories
3.3.3 The Reciprocity-of-Liking Rule
3.3.4 Rewarding Reduces Anxiety, Stress, Loneliness, Enhancing Self-Esteem

3.3.4.1 Liking Produced By Rewards others Provide

3.3.4.2 Anxiety
3.3.4.3 Stress
3.3.4.4 Social Isolation
3.3.4.5 Self Esteem

3.4 Let Us Sum Up

3.5 Unit End Questions
3.6 Suggested Readings and References

3.0 INTRODUCTION
Relationships with the individuals around us are key to one’s social existence. Any
given interaction is characterised by a certain level of intensity, which is conveyed
by individual and interpersonal behaviour, including the more subtle nonverbal
behavioural information of interpersonal attraction. The words “like” and “love,”
“dislike” and “hate” are among the most frequently used in the English language.
Everyone knows what is meant by these terms. Therefore, when we state that we
feel “attracted” to a certain person, it is unlikely that we will be asked to define
48 our use of the verb “attracted.” Interpersonal attraction is the attraction between
people which leads to friendships and romantic relationships. The study of Interpersonal Attraction
interpersonal attraction is a major area of research in social psychology. In this
unit we will be discussing how Interpersonal attraction is related to how much we
like, love, dislike, or hate someone. We will consider interpersonal attraction as
a force acting between two people that tends to draw them together and resist
their separation. We would also provide the causative factors to interpersonal
attraction, as for example similarity, thinking alike etc.

3.1 OBJECTIVES
After completion of this Unit, you will be able to:

l Define Interpersonal attraction;

l Elucidate the factors contributing to Interpersonal attraction;

l Analyse Interpersonal attraction in the light of different theories;and

l Explain how rewarding or complementing in Interpersonal attraction reduces

negative emotions.

3.2 INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION

To the query why it is that a particular person has evoked our positive regard,
probably we will reply by making reference to some of the person’s “good
qualities” such as the person’s honesty, sense of humor, or even the particular
hair style that the person sports etc. While explanations referring to qualities which
seem to “compel” admiration are frequently given, it must be kept in mind that
interpersonal attraction is much more complicated than such explanations would
imply.

In some cases, people are attracted to those persons whom they perceive as
similar to themselves. The effect is very small for superficial features like clothes
or race but very strong for perceived similarity of attitudes.

In certain other cases, we like people who seem to agree with us because

a) we think they’re smart,

b) we will probably get along, and

c) they’ll probably like us too.

To pretend to agree with someone even when you do not really, for the purpose
of getting something they can give you, like a job, is called ingratiation. In general
this works best if you pretend to agree in about 70%. Research shows that less
is not enough, and more is both suspicious and boring.

Interpersonal attraction has been an important topic of research in psychology,

because humans are social animals, and attraction serves an important function in
forming a social network, which in turn provides security and satisfies people’s
need to belong to a social group (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).

49
Process of Social Influence In assessing the nature of attraction, psychologists have used methods such as
questionnaires, survey, and rating scale to determine level of one’s attraction
toward another. Here, the effects of similarity, social reward, familiarity, and
physical attractiveness are examined to see how they impact interpersonal attraction.
When measuring interpersonal attraction, one must refer to the qualities of the
attracted as well as the qualities of the attractor to achieve predictive accuracy.
It is suggested that to determine attraction, personality and situation must be taken
into account. Many factors leading to interpersonal attraction have been studied.
The most frequently studied are: physical attractiveness, propinquity, familiarity,
similarity, complementarity, reciprocal liking, and reinforcement. We will discuss
each factor one by one.

3.2.1 Physical Attractiveness

Despite the old sayings that “beauty is only skin deep” and “you can not judge
a book by its cover”, we tend to operate according to Aristotle’s 2000-year-old
pronouncement that “personal beauty is a greater recommendation than any letter
of introduction”.

One of the most commonly cited factors influencing attraction is physical

attractiveness. It is indeed well known that most people show a substantial
preference for attractive persons over unattractive others (Baumeister & Bushman,
2008). Perhaps the advantage of good looks and the inferences people make
when they see a physically attractive person are the reasons for getting attracted
to another person.

Studies have shown that when people see an attractive person, they believe that
there is more than physical beauty that they see, and they tend to assume certain
internal qualities within the person, such as kindness, outgoing, etc. (Barocas &
Karoly, 1972). To illustrate this factor, let us take the research illustrating this
relationship between physical attractiveness and its stereotypes. For instance, a
study on popularity among adolescents was carried out by Cavior & Dokecki in
1973. They found that when physical attractiveness was compared to perceived
attitude similarity, physical attractiveness had a stronger effect on popularity. These
findings suggest that individuals’ perceptions of attitude similarity with those of
others may be strongly influenced by more automatic judgments of physical
attractiveness. Such demonstrations of preferential treatment may have significant
implications at the level of society, as well. For example, in one jury task
simulation experiment, more attractive defendants were found to be evaluated
more positively and with less certainty of guilt than were other less attractive
defendants.

Even though physical attractiveness is unrelated to objective measure of internal

qualities such as intelligence and personality, many researches indicate that bias
for beauty is pervasive in society

3.2.1.1 Research on Physical Attractiveness Stereotype

In one of the first studies of the physical attractiveness stereotype, college students
were asked to look at pictures of men and women who either were good-
looking, average, or homely and to then evaluate their personalities. Results
indicated that the students tended to assume that physically attractive persons
possessed a host of socially desirable personality traits as compared to those who
50 were unattractive. Consistent with the physical attractiveness stereotype, it was
also reported from research that beautiful and handsome characters were Interpersonal Attraction
significantly more likely to be portrayed as virtuous, romantically active, and
successful than their less attractive counterparts. Over the past thirty-five years,
many researchers have examined this stereotype, and two separate meta-analyses
of these studies reveal that physically attractive people are perceived to be more
sociable, successful, happy, dominant, sexually warm, mentally healthy, intelligent,
and socially skilled than those who are unattractive.

Although the above findings are based solely on samples from individualistic
cultures, the physical attractiveness stereotype also occurs in collectivist cultures,
but its content is a bit different.

Attractiveness and Job-Related Outcomes

Field and laboratory studies conducted in both individualistic and collectivistic

cultures indicate that physical attractiveness does have a moderate impact in a
variety of job-related outcomes, including hiring, salary, and promotion decisions.
In one representative study, it was found that there was a significant difference
between the starting salaries of good-looking men and those with slow average
faces. For women, facial attractiveness did not influence their starting salaries, but
it did substantially impact their later salaries. Once hired, women who were above
average in facial attractiveness typically earned $4,200 more per year than women
who were below average in attractiveness.

For attractive and unattractive men, this difference in earning power per year was
$5,200. Further, although neither height nor weight affected a woman’s starting
salary, being 20% or more overweight reduced a man’s starting salary by more
than $2,000. Overall, the research literature informs us that physical appearance
does indeed influence success on the job.

Alan Feingold (1992) conducted a meta-analysis of more than ninety studies that
investigated whether physically attractive and physically unattractive people actually
differed in their basic personality traits. His analysis indicated no significant
relationships between physical attractiveness and such traits as intelligence,
dominance, self-esteem, and mental health.

3.2.2 Propinquity/Proximity
According to Rowland Miller’s Intimate Relationships text, the propinquity effect
can be defined as: “the more we see and interact with a person, the more likely
he or she is to become our friend or intimate partner.” This effect is very similar
to the mere exposure effect in that the more a person is exposed to a stimulus,
the more the person likes it; however, there are a few exceptions to the mere
exposure effect.

3.2.2.1 Proximity as an Intensifier of Sentiments

A frequently advanced and commonly accepted notion is that propinquity, or

proximity, has a strong influence on one’s friendship choices. Stated in its simplest
form, the proposition is as follows: Other things being equal, the closer two
individuals are located geographically, the more likely it is that they will be attracted
to each other. Studies demonstrating the impact of proximity on friendship choices
are so numerous that we will mention only a few.
51
Process of Social Influence Several investigators have collected data which indicate that students tend to
develop stronger friendships with those students who share their classes, or their
dormitory or apartment building, or who sit near them, than with those who are
geographically located only slightly farther away (Byrne, 1961a). Clerks in a large
department store and members of a bomber crew have been found to develop
closer relations with those who happen to work next to them than with co-
workers a few feet away (Zander and Havelin, 1960).

One of the more interesting studies demonstrating the relationship between proximity
and friendship choice was conducted by Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950).
These investigators examined the development of friendships in a new housing
project for married students. The housing development studies consisted of small
houses arranged in U-shaped courts, such that all except the end houses faced
onto a grassy area. The two end houses in each court faced onto the street.
Festinger (1951) arrived at the intriguing conclusion that to a great extent architects
can determine the social life of the residents of their projects. He found that the
two major factors affecting the friendships which developed were (1) sheer distance
between houses and (2) the direction in which a house faced. Friendships
developed more frequently between next-door neighbors, less frequently between
people whose houses were separated by another house, and so on. As the
distance between houses increased, the number of friendships fell off so rapidly
that it was rare to find a friendship between persons who lived in houses that were
separated by more than four or five other houses.

Festinger, Schachter, and Back also found that architectural feature which brought
an individual into proximity with other residents tended to increase that person’s
popularity. It was found, for example, that the positions of the stairways enabled
the residents of the apartments near the entrances and exits of the stairways to
make more friends than other residents. Similarity, the position of the mailboxes
in each building improved the social life of the residents of the apartment near
which they were located.

Another interesting finding has been that integrated housing produced increased
racial harmony. Deutsch and Collins (1958), for example, concluded on the basis
of their data that integrated housing should be encouraged since such integration
helps eradicate racial prejudice. Segregationists, however, have concluded that
since the evidence suggests that integration would lead to interracial friendships
and “race mixing,” segregation should be preserved at all costs.

3.2.2.2 Increased Probability of Acquiring Information

What underlies the often obtained relationship between proximity and sentiment?
Proxomity appears to allow, an opportunity to obtain information about the other
person and accumulates experience regarding the rewards or punishments one
is likely to receive from the other person.

Thus with decreasing distances sentiments such as likes and dislikes, especially
the strong sentiments of love and hate, are not likely to be felt for people about
whom we have minimal information and with whom we have had little experience.

Hence if we know the degree of proximity between two people, and do not have
knowledge of the content of the information exchange such proximity has made
possible, we cannot make a prediction concerning whether a positive sentiment
52 or a negative sentiment will develop. Therefore one may state that there are a
number of factors which may make such a conclusion erroneous.
It appears that there is a somewhat greater tendency for proximity to breed Interpersonal Attraction
attraction than hostility. Newcomb has advanced the hypothesis that proximity
should produce positive rather than negative attraction. He argued that when
persons interact, the reward-punishment ratio is more often such as to be reinforcing
than extinguishing. (Newcombe, 1956, p. 576). Thus, he reasons that the
information which proximity permits is more likely to be favorable than unfavourable
and that liking, therefore, will more often result from proximity than disliking.
Since people are to a great extent dependent upon one another for satisfaction
of their needs, it seems probable that individuals generally take care to reward
others as much as possible in interaction with them.

3.2.2.3 Heider’s Balance Theory

The prediction that proximity will more often lead to liking than disliking can be
derived from a number of the cognitive-consistency theories. It can perhaps be
most easily derived from Heider’s (1958) balance theory. The basic tenet of
Heider’s theory is that people strive to make their sentiment relationships harmonious
with their perception of the unit relationships existent between objects.

What does Heider mean by the phrase “sentiment relationships”? A “sentiment”

is simply a positive or negative attitude toward someone or something. What does
Heider mean by the phrase “unit relationships”? Separate entities are said to
have a unit relationship when they are perceived as belonging together. The
members of a family, for example, are usually perceived as a unit, as are a person
and his clothing, and so on.

Heider draws upon the principles of perceptual organisation which were formulated
by the Gestalt psychologists. The Gestaltists discovered that relationship between
objects which is especially likely to lead to unit formation is proximity: Objects
which are close together spatially tend to be perceived as a unit. According to
Heider’s theory, then, if one perceives that a unit relationship with another exists
(e.g., the other is in close proximity), this perception should induce a harmonious
sentiment relationship (e.g., liking).

To test whether or not unit formation produced by interacting intimately with

another increases attraction, Darley and Berscheid (1967) led college women to
expect that they were going to discuss their sexual standards and behaviour with
another girl, ostensibly participating in the same study. After the expectation of
further interaction had been induced, each girl was given two folders. One folder
was said to contain personality information about her partner, the girl with whom
she would converse and exchange information. The other folder was said to
contain information about another girl, who would also participate in the study but
whom she would never meet.

The personality information contained in both folders was designed to produce as

ambiguous a picture as possible of the girl described. Half of the subjects believed
that the girl described in folder A was their “randomly selected” discussion partner;
the other half believed that the girl described in folder B was their partner.

Subjects were instructed to read through both folders, form a general impression
of both girls, and then rate each of them along a number of dimensions, including
liking. The results of this study clearly indicated that the subjects expressed more
liking for the girl who had been designated as their discussion partner than they
did for the girl who was not. This study suggests, that the factor of proximity, may 53
Process of Social Influence produce a feeling of unit formation between two people. This feeling of being in
a unit relationship with another may then induce feelings of liking for that person.
Knowledge that one will be in close proximity with another may result, then, in
an individual’s going into an interaction situation with increased liking for the other
person prior to the actual interaction and prior to actual knowledge of possible
rewards which may be obtained in the interaction.

It is interesting that the liking produced by the anticipation of being in close

proximity with another may lead a person to voluntarily choose to associate with
the other person, even though the original interaction which was anticipated has
been cancelled. It was found that even when a subject anticipated interacting with
an objectively undesirable person, the attraction induced by the anticipation of
close interaction caused subjects to choose voluntarily to interact with that negative
person more readily than did people who had not previously anticipated association
with that person.

Thus one may summarise this section by stating that actual proximity is probably
correlated with attraction (or repulsion) because proximity allows one to obtain
an increased amount of information about the other person and to experience
rewards or punishments from the other. There is some suggestive evidence that
proximity in and of itself, (apart from any information it may provide about another
and apart from any rewards or punishments which the other may administer), may
facilitate attraction as a by-product of the individual’s desire for cognitive
consistency.

3.2.3 Similarity
The notion of “birds of a feather flock together” points out that similarity is a
crucial determinant of interpersonal attraction. According to Morry’s attraction-
similarity model (2007), there is a lay belief that people with actual similarity
produce initial attraction. Perceived similarity develops for someone to rate others
as similar to themselves in ongoing relationship. Such perception is either self
serving (friendship) or relationship serving (romantic relationship). Newcomb (1963)
pointed out that people tend to change perceived similarity to obtain balance in
a relationship. Additionally, perceived similarity was found to be greater than
actual similarity in predicting interpersonal attraction.

3.2.3.1 Similarity in Different Aspects

Research suggest that interpersonal similarity and attraction are multidimensional

constructs in which people are attracted to others who are similar to them in
demographics, physical appearance, attitudes, interpersonal style, social and cultural
background, personality, interests and activities preferences, and communication
and social skills. A study conducted by Theodore Newcomb (1963) on college
dorm roommates suggested that individuals with shared backgrounds, academic
achievements, attitudes, values, and political views became friends.

Physical Appearance

Erving Goffman, sociologist suggests that people are more likely to form long
standing relationships with those who are equally matched in social attributes, like
physical attractiveness etc. The study by researchers Walster and Walster supported
the matching hypothesis by showing that partners who were similar in terms of
54 physical attractiveness expressed the most liking for each other. Another study
also found evidence that supported the matching hypothesis: photos of dating and Interpersonal Attraction
engaged couples were rated in terms of attractiveness, and a definite tendency
was found for couples of similar attractiveness to date or engage (Murstein et.al.,
1976).

Attitudes

According to the ‘law of attraction’ by Byrne (1971), attraction towards a person

is positively related to the proportion of attitudes similarity associated with that
person. It was also raised that the one with similar attitudes as yours was more
agreeable with your perception of things and more reinforcing she/he was, so the
more you like him/her. Based on the cognitive consistency theories, difference in
attitudes and interests can lead to dislike and avoidance (Singh & Ho, 2000)
whereas similarity in attitudes promotes social attraction (Singh & Ho, 2000). It
was pointed out that attitude similarity activates the perceived attractiveness and
favuor-ability information from each other, whereas dissimilarity would reduce the
impact of these cues.

The studies by Jamieson, Lydon and Zanna (1987) showed that attitude similarity
could predict how people evaluate their respect for each other, and social and
intellectual first impressions which in terms of activity preference similarity and
value-based attitude similarity respectively. In intergroup comparisons, high attitude
similarity would lead to homogeneity among in-group members whereas low
attitude similarity would lead to diversity among in-group members, promoting
social attraction and achieving high group performance in different tasks Although
attitudinal similarity and attraction are linearly related, attraction may not contribute
significantly to attitude change (Simons, Berkowitz & Moyer, 1970).

Social and Cultural Background

Byrne, Clore and Worchel (1966) suggested people with similar economic status
are likely to be attracted to each other. Buss & Barnes (1986) also found that
people prefer their romantic partners to be similar in certain demographic
characteristics, including religious background, political orientation and socio-
economic status.

Personality

Researchers have shown that interpersonal attraction was positively correlated to

personality similarity (Goldman, Rosenzweig & Lutter, 1980). People are inclined
to desire romantic partners who are similar to themselves on agreeableness,
conscientiousness, extroversion, emotional stability, openness to experience and
attachment style (Klohnen & Luo, 2003).

Interests and Activities

Activity similarity was especially predictive of liking judgments, which affects the
judgments of attraction (Lydon, Jamieson & Zanna, 1988). Lydon et.al, (1988)
claimed that high self-monitoring people were influenced more by activity preference
similarity than attitude similarity on initial attraction, while low self-monitoring
people were influenced more on initial attraction by value-based attitude similarity
than activity preference similarity.

55
Process of Social Influence Social Skills

According to the post-conversation measures of social attraction, tactical similarity

was positively correlated with partner satisfaction and global competence ratings,
but was uncorrelated with the opinion change and perceived persuasiveness
measures (Waldron & Applegate, 1998).

3.2.3.2 Effects of Similarity on Interpersonal Attraction

Similarity has effects on starting a relationship by initial attraction to know each

other. It is showed that high attitude similarity resulted in a significant increase in
initial attraction to the target person and high attitude dissimilarity resulted in a
decrease of initial attraction. Similarity also promotes relationship commitment.
Study on heterosexual dating couples found that similarity in intrinsic values of the
couple was linked to relationship commitment and stability (Kurdek & Schnopp-
Wyatt, 1997).

3.2.3.3 Complementarity

The model of complementarity explains whether “birds of a feather flock together”

or “opposites attract”.Studies show that complementary interaction between two
partners increases their attractiveness to each other. Complementary partners
preferred closer interpersonal relationship than non-complementary ones. Couples
who reported the highest level of loving and harmonious relationship were more
dissimilar in dominance than couples who scored lower in relationship quality.
(Markey & Markey (2007)).

Mathes and Moore (1985) found that people were more attracted to peers
approximating to their ideal self than to those who did not. Specifically, low self-
esteem individuals appeared more likely to desire a complementary relationship
than high self-esteem people. We are attracted to people who complement to us
because this allows us to maintain our preferred style of behaviour (Markey &
Markey (2007), and through interaction with someone who complements our
own behaviour, we are likely to have a sense of self-validation and security.

3.2.3.4 Principles of Similarity or Complementarity

Principles of similarity and complementarity seem to be contradictory on the

surface. In fact, they agree on the dimension of warmth. Both principles state that
friendly people would prefer friendly partners (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997) . The
importance of similarity and complementarity may depend on the stage of the
relationship. Similarity seems to carry considerable weight in initial attraction,
while complementarity assumes importance as the relationship develops over time.
Markey (2007) found that people would be more satisfied with their relationship
if their partners differed from them, at least, in terms of dominance, as two
dominant persons may experience conflicts while two submissive individuals may
have frustration as neither member take the initiative. Perception and actual
behaviour might not be congruent with each other. There were cases that dominant
people perceived their partners to be similarly dominant, yet in the eyes of
independent observers, the actual behaviour of their partner was submissive, in
other words, complementary to them (Dryer 1997). Why do people perceive
their romantic partners to be similar to them despite evidence to the contrary? The
reason remains unclear, pending further research.
56
 Interpersonal Attraction
3.3 EXPLAINING INTERPERSONAL
ATTRACTION
3.3.1 Social Exchange Theory
People’s feelings toward a potential partner are dependent on their perception of
rewards and costs, the kind of relationships they deserve, and their likelihood for
having a healthier relationship with someone else. Rewards are the part of a
relationship that makes it worthwhile and enjoyable. A cost is something that can
cause irritation like a friend overstaying his welcome. Comparison level is also
taken into account during a relationship. This suggests that people expect rewards
or costs depending on the time invested in the relationship. If the level of expected
rewards is minimal and the level of costs is high, the relationship suffers and both
parties may become dissatisfied and unhappy. Lastly, the comparison of alternatives
means that satisfaction is conditional on the chance that a person could replace
the relationship with a more desirable one.

3.3.2 Evolutionary Theories

The evolutionary theory of human interpersonal attraction states that opposite-sex
attraction most often occurs when someone has physical features indicating that
he or she is very fertile. Considering that the primary purpose of conjugal/romantic
relationships is reproduction, it would follow that people invest in partners who
appear very fertile, increasing the chance of their genes being passed down to the
next generation. This theory has been criticised because it does not explain
relationships between same-sex couples or couples who do not want children,
although this may have something to do with the fact that whether one wants
children or not one is still subject to the evolutionary forces which produce them.

Another evolutionary explanation suggests that fertility in a mate is of greater

importance to men than to women. According to this theory, a woman places
significant emphasis on a man’s ability to provide resources and protection. The
theory suggests that these resources and protection are important in ensuring the
successful raising of the woman’s offspring. The ability to provide resources and
protection might also be sought because the underlying traits are likely to be
passed on to male offspring.

Evolutionary theory also suggests that people whose physical features suggest
they are healthy are seen as more attractive. The theory suggests that a healthy
mate is more likely to possess genetic traits related to health that would be passed
on to offspring. People’s tendency to consider people with facial symmetry more
attractive than those with less symmetrical faces is one example. However, a test
was conducted that found that perfectly symmetrical faces were less attractive
than normal faces.It has also been suggested that people are attracted to faces
similar to their own. Case studies have revealed that when a photograph of a
woman was superimposed to include the features of a man’s face, the man whose
face was superimposed almost always rated that picture the most attractive. This
theory is based upon the notion that we want to replicate our own features in the
next generation, as we have survived thus far with such features and have instinctive
survival wishes for our children. Another (non-evolutionary) explanation given for
the results of that study was that the man whose face was superimposed may
have consciously or subconsciously associated the photographically altered female
57
face with the face of his mother or other family member.
Process of Social Influence Evolutionary theory also suggests that love keeps two people together so that
they can raise a child. Love keeps two people together, and this would help raise
a child. For example, a man and a woman who love each other would be together
and work together to raise a child. Back in the tribal days—when much of human
evolution took place—it would probably require two people to successfully raise
an offspring, and a mother with a supporting partner would probably have more
surviving offspring than a mother who does not have such a partner. Thus, people
with the ability to form love would produce more offspring than those without that
ability. And these offspring would have the genes for love. Thus, the genes for
love would become common, and that is why most people today have the ability
to love.

3.3.3 The Reciprocity-of-Liking Rule

A naive observer from another culture would have little trouble discovering one
reward which people in our society spend a tremendous amount of time, money,
and effort to obtain. Just a brief glance at a few television commercials would
reveal that the desire for the esteem of others must be a very strong and pervasive
motivation, for it is often exploited by those who have something to sell. Countless
everyday observations provide a great deal of evidence that we value highly the
esteem of others and will work hard to obtain this reward. If esteem is indeed
a reward, and if it is true that we tend to like those who reward us, it follows that
we should like people who like us.

The proposition that esteem will be reciprocated can be derived from several
psychological theories. Theorists who take the reinforcement point of view reason
that the most general determinants of interpersonal esteem are reciprocal rewards
and punishments. Some of these theorists (e.g., Homans, 1961) have specifically
noted that one type of reward to which people are extremely responsive is social
approval or esteem. Like money, social approval is viewed as a generalised,
“transituational” reinforcer because it has the power to reinforce a wide variety
of human activities. For example, many experimenters have demonstrated that if
one merely nods his head and murmurs approval each time his discussion partner
utters a plural noun, he can dramatically increase the frequency with which the
recipient of that reward will pepper his discourse with plural nouns (e.g., Dulany,
1961). Stronger demonstrations of approval, such as the roar of the crowd or
another’s love for oneself, frequently influence lifetimes of activity. Social approval,
again like money, is valuable because its possession makes one reasonably confident
that a number of his needs will be satisfied; a lack of social approval often
indicates that many of one’s needs— those which require the good will and
cooperation of others for satisfaction— will be frustrated.

In addition to the reinforcement theorists, cognitive-consistency theorists also

make the reciprocal-liking prediction. Heider’s balance theory (1958), for example,
predicts that if Person A likes X (himself) and Person B likes X (Person A), a
cognitively balanced state in which Person A likes Person B will be induced.
Many correlational data, obtained from a wide variety of psychological studies,
have been cited in support of the reciprocal-liking proposition (e.g., Newcomb,
1963). These data provide evidence that individuals tend to believe that the
people they like reciprocate their liking. If it is true that we like people who like
us, we would expect to find such a correlation. Taken alone, however, these data
do not provide conclusive evidence for reciprocity of liking. Either one of two
58
processes, or both, could be responsible for the observed correlation between
the extent to which we feel another likes us and the extent to which we like him.
1) A person may come to like another and then, as a consequence of his liking, Interpersonal Attraction
come to perceive that the other person likes him. In such a case, the liking for
the other is not induced by the other person’s providing the reward of esteem,
but rather by some other determinant of interpersonal attraction.

2) One may become attracted to another as a consequence of his discovery that

the other person likes him. Such a process would support the notion that esteem
constitutes a reward, and we are attracted to people who give such a reward.

3.3.4 Rewarding Reduces Anxiety, Stress, Loneliness and

Enhances Self-Esteem
As a strategy of interpersonal attraction if one person in the interaction rewards
the other for aomething the latter has done, it enhances the interpersonal relationship.
In the process it also reduces many of the negative emotional states of the person
concerned. This is being discussed in detail below:

3.3.4.1 Liking Produced By Rewards Others Provide

The psychological principle which is most frequently used to predict interpersonal

attraction is the principle of reinforcement. We will like those who reward us, we
will dislike those who punish us. Several theorists have elaborated upon the
relationship between reinforcement and interpersonal attraction. For example,
Homans’ (1961) theory rests largely on the general proposition that a necessary
condition for receiving esteem from others is the capacity to reward them. He
hypothesizes further that

A man’s esteem depends upon the relative rarity of the services he provides if we
take a larger look at the ways in which a man may help others. If he has
capacities of heart, mind, skill, experience, or even strength that they do not have,
and uses these capacities to reward others, he will get esteem from them. But if
his capacities are of a kind that they also possess, or if these capacities are widely
available in the group, he will not get much esteem even if he uses them in such
a way as to reward the others.

In other words, there are, according to Homans, rewards and rewards— one
who provides rewards which are in short supply is more likely to evoke attraction
than one who provides rewards which are relatively common. Homans considers
the costs as well as the rewards one can incur in a relationship and introduces the
concept of profit. Profit is simply defined as the amount of reward a person
receives from an interaction minus the cost he incurs in that interaction. The
amount of social approval, or esteem, one has for another is hypothesised to be
a function of the profit one obtains from one’s interactions with the other.

According to these theorists, then, how much a person will be attracted to another
depends upon whether the outcomes the person obtains from the other are above
or below his Comparison Level (CL) “If the outcomes in a given relationship
surpass the CL, that relationship is regarded as a satisfactory one. And, to the
degree the outcomes are supra-CL, the person may be said to be attracted to
the relationship. If the outcomes endured are infra-CL, the person is dissatisfied
and unhappy with the relationship”.

Lott and Lott (1961), extending Hullian learning theory to apply to the case of
interpersonal attraction, have reasoned that a person should come to like not only 59
Process of Social Influence those who provide rewards, but also those who have nothing to do with providing
rewards, but are merely physically present when the individual receives rewards.
They have reasoned that, like any other response, response to a reward becomes
conditioned to all discriminable stimuli present at the time of reinforcement; another
person, of course, may be a discriminable stimulus.

To test whether or not one tends to like those who just happen to be present at
the time one receives a reward, Lott and Lott formed three-member groups of
children. Each group then played a game in which some members of the group
were rewarded and other members were not. Following participation in the game
sociometric tests were administered to the children. Specifically the children were
asked which two children in the class they would choose to take with them on
their next family vacation. The results of some studies indicated that children who
had been rewarded chose members of their three-person groups (who were
present at the time of reward) significantly more often than unrewarded children
chose members of their three-person groups.

Thus, Lott and Lott concluded that the reward of success in the game had been
conditioned to the other members of the group and this led to increased esteem
for these members. Results of this study were corroborated by a subsequent
study conducted by James and Lott (1964). While it is generally accepted that
“we will like those who reward us and dislike those who punish us,” we must note
that this statement does not, to any great extent, increase predictability in the area
of interpersonal attraction. We have no equation which will permit us to add up
all the rewards a stimulus person will provide and balance them against the
punishment which he will inflict and thus arrive at a total reward index which will
tell us how much others will like him.

A multitude of things may be rewarding or punishing to any individual at a given

time. In addition, it is often the case that “one man’s meat is another man’s
poison”; individuals differ in what they find to be rewarding or punishing. Since
it is so difficult to calculate what one individual at one point in time will find
rewarding, researchers in interpersonal attraction have been led to consider which
behaviours and events most people, most of the time, will find rewarding. By
considering some of the specific behaviours that have been found to be rewarding
or punishing to people in a number of different situations, that is behaviours which
appear to be “trans-situational reinforcers, some predictive insight into interpersonal
attraction has been gained.

3.3.4.2 Anxiety

There is much evidence that when individuals feel anxious, afraid, lonely or unsure
of themselves, the sheer presence of others is particularly rewarding. Try an
experiment: Come to class a few minutes early on a regular school day. You will
probably find that few of your classmates approach you. Then, some time when
an exam is scheduled in one of your classes, arrive a few minutes early. You may
be surprised to see the number of classmates who approach you with friendly
remarks or joking comments. There is a good psychological explanation for the
observation that students seem friendlier on days when an exam is scheduled than
on days when one is not.

Schachter (1959) tested the hypothesis that anxiety conditions will lead to an
increased affiliative tendency. He recruited college women to participate in an
60 experiment. When they arrived in the experimental rooms, the experimenter claimed
that his investigation was concerned with the effects of electric shock. The Interpersonal Attraction
description of the shock experiment was designed to make some of the women
highly anxious, while leaving the remainder of the women calm. Specifically, anxiety
was produced in the following way:

In the high-anxiety condition, the subjects entered a room to find facing them a
gentleman of serious mien, wearing hornrimmed glasses, dressed in a white
laboratory coat, stethoscope dribbling out of his pocket, behind him an array of
formidable electrical junk. After a few preliminaries, the experimenter began:
“Allow me to introduce myself. I am Dr. Gregor Zilstein of the Medical School’s
Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry. I have asked you all to come today
in order to serve as subjects in an experiment concerned with the effects of
electrical shock”.

To make matters worse, the series of electric shocks the girls were to receive
were described as extremely painful. In the low-anxiety condition, both the setting
and the description of the experiment were designed to avoid arousing anxiety in
the subjects. There was no electrical apparatus in the experimental room. The
experimenter explained that he was concerned with extremely mild electrical shocks
that would not in any way be painful. The “shocks” were said to resemble more
a tickle or a tingle than anything unpleasant.

Once some women had been made more anxious than others, Schachter could
examine how anxiety affected their desire to be with other individuals. He assessed
subjects’ desire to affiliate in the following way. The experimenter claimed that
there would be about a ten-minute delay while several pieces of equipment were
secured. Subjects were told that during the ten-minute break they could wait in
a private cubicle. These rooms were said to be comfortable and spacious; they
all contained armchairs and there were books and magazines in each room. The
experimenter also commented that some of them might want to wait with other
girls. If they preferred to wait with others, they were asked to let the experimenter
know. He then passed out a sheet upon which the subject could indicate whether
she preferred to wait alone, or with others, or had no preference at all. Schachter
found support for his hypothesis that anxious people will be especially inclined to
seek the company of others. Sixty-three per cent of the subjects in the high-
anxiety condition wanted to wait with other subjects. In the low-anxiety condition
only thirty-three per cent of subjects wished to wait with others. Schachter had
also asked girls to indicate how strongly they desired to be alone or with others.
They could give answers varying from “I very much prefer being alone” (scored
-2) through “I don’t care very much” (0) to “I very much prefer being together
with others” (scored +2). These data also support the notion that affiliative desire
increases with anxiety.

The finding that the anticipation of stress produces an increased desire to affiliate
has been replicated by Darley and Aronson (1966). While anxiety appears to
increase an individual’s need for affiliation, there is evidence that anxious individuals
are selective about the others with whom they wish to affiliate. Anxious people
apparently do not wish to be in the company of just any other person. Instead,
anxious individuals seem to prefer to associate with people who are in a situation
similar to their -own.

Schachter bases this conclusion on a study which is similar in many ways to the
experiment just described. Two groups of college women were led to anticipate
that they would soon be severely shocked. Then they were asked whether they 61
Process of Social Influence preferred to wait alone or with others. How the “others” were described varied.
In one condition girls were given a choice between waiting alone or waiting with
some girls who were said to be taking part in the same experiment. In the other
condition, girls were told they could either wait alone or with girls who were
waiting to talk to their professors and advisors. Sixty per cent of the girls who
had a chance to visit with similar others chose to spend their time in the company
of others. Not one girl who was given the option of waiting with girls who were
waiting to talk with their professors chose to wait with others. Scores on the
“Over-all Intensity Scale” revealed the same results. Girls did not seem to be
especially anxious to associate with other girls unless these other girls were in a
situation similar to their own. Schachter notes that this finding puts a limitation on
the old saw “Misery loves company.” Perhaps misery doesn’t love just any kind
of company - only miserable company. Once we accept the proposition that
when individuals are anxious they have a special desire to affiliate with people in
situations similar to their own, the question arises as to why this would be so.
Schachter considers several possibilities:

1) Escape. When one is in a stressful situation, perhaps he anticipates that talking

to others in the same situation may help him figure out a way to avoid the pain
altogether.

2) Cognitive clarity. There is some evidence that individuals in ambiguous or novel

situations will desire to talk with knowledgable others in order to gain some
understanding of an otherwise incomprehensible event. Since receiving severe
shock in an experimental setting is probably unique in the subject’s experience,
perhaps anxious subjects desire to associate with others in order to find out if
the others know any more about what is going on than they do.

3) Direct anxiety reduction. People often comfort and reassure one another.
Perhaps highly anxious subjects choose to wait with others in the hope that the
others will bolster their courage.

4) Indirect anxiety reduction. An effective device for reducing anxiety is to “get

one’s mind off one’s troubles.” People may be seen as more diverting than
books or magazines. Perhaps subjects choose to wait with others in order to
prevent themselves from thinking about the shock which will be forthcoming.

5) Self-evaluation. People often use other people in order to evaluate the

reasonableness of their own emotions and feelings. In this novel and emotion-
producing situation, an individual probably is not quite sure exactly how she
should be reacting. (Should she be angry at the experimenter? Slightly
apprehensive about the shock? Terrified?) Perhaps high-anxiety subjects seek
out others in an attempt to appropriately label and identify their own feelings.

3.3.4.3 Stress

There is some evidence that individuals who are placed in a stressful situation
show less severe physiological disturbance if other individuals are present than if
they are not. Bovard (1959) developed an intriguing and compelling theory
concerning the effect of social stimuli on an individual’s physiological response to
stress.

A number of recent studies have suggested a reciprocal inhibitory effect between

62 the posterior hypothalamus and the anterior hypothalamus and parasympathetic
centers . . . Stimulation of the latter region would appear to inhibit activity of the Interpersonal Attraction
former . . .

The simplest hypothesis to account for the observed phenomena at the human and
animal levels is, therefore, that the presence of another member of the same
species stimulates activity of the anterior hypothalamus and thus, as a byproduct,
inhibits activity of the posterior hypothalamus and its centers mediating the
neuroendocrine response to stress. Previous interaction with the other person or
animal, as the case may be, could be assumed to accentuate this effect.

The evidence that the presence of others may help eliminate an individual’s
discomfort when he is experiencing stress, provides an additional reason why
individuals might learn to affiliate with others in stressful circumstances.

3.3.4.4 Social Isolation

There is evidence that even when not under stressful conditions, people prefer a
fair amount of contact with others to being alone for any length of time. The
strength of the desire for social intercourse with others was dramatically
demonstrated by the results of a social reform experiment conducted in the early
19th century. At this time one of the great prison architects was John Haviland.
As the result of the Quakers’ religious beliefs and the upsurge of “humanitar-
ianism,” an attempt was made in 1821 to reform the prison system. Haviland was
commissioned to build a “perfect” and “humanitarian” prison. The Quaker reformers
noticed that mingling among prison inmates produced strong friendships among
the inmates which caused them to continue their friendships after being released.
Such friendships among ex-criminals tended to lead ex-criminals back into a life
of crime. In the humanitarian reformation, it was decided to prevent contact
among the prisoners. It was thought that total social isolation would prevent
harmful corruption, protect the criminal’s good resolutions, and give him ample
opportunity to ponder on his mistakes and make his peace with God. Haviland’s
architectural design, which provided for solitary confinement day and night, was
extremely popular with prison commissioners and a great many prisons imitated
this style. The wardens, however, soon found that great ingenuity had to be
adopted to prevent prisoners from talking. For example, new ventilation systems
had to be designed, for prisoners soon found that the regular systems could be
utilised for purposes of communication. Ultimately the policy of social isolation
was found to produce undesirable results. The fact that many inmates became
physically and mentally ill as a result of their solitary confinement and their lack
of work eventually forced a change of policy. Current psychological knowledge
would have enabled us to foresee this outcome. By early childhood a person has
usually developed a need for the company of people. Complete social isolation
for any prolonged period of time is known to be a painful experience. “Cabin
fever” is a familiar expression which epitomizes the discomfort that even brief
social isolation brings. Schachter points out that the autobiographical reports of
religious hermits, prisoners of war, make it clear that isolation is devastating.

He notes that three trends have been found to characterise the experience of
individuals enduring absolute social deprivation.

1) The reported pain of the isolation experience seems typically to bear a

nonmonotonic relationship to time. Pain increases to a maximum in many cases
and then decreases sharply. This decrease in pain is frequently marked by onset
of the state of apathy, sometimes so severe as to resemble a schizophrenic state 63
Process of Social Influence of withdrawal and detachment.

2) There seems to be a stronger tendency for those in isolation to think, dream,

and occasionally to hallucinate about people.

3) Those isolates who are able to keep themselves occupied with distracting
activities appear to suffer less and to be less prone to develop apathy.

The data support the conclusion that complete social isolation is more unpleasant
than normal human contact. It is evident that others provide some reward by their
sheer physical presence, they stave off loneliness.

3.3.4.5 Self Esteem

What effect does an individual’s self-esteem have on his reaction to accepting or

rejecting others? Clinicians seem to agree that a high self-esteem person is more
receptive to another’s love than is an individual with lower self-esteem. For
example, Rogers (1951) says that the person who accepts himself will have better
interpersonal relations with others. Adler (1926) adds that those who themselves
feel inferior depreciate others. Horney (1939) views love as a capacity, she sees
love of self and love of others as positively related. Fromm (1939), too, agrees
with this notion. Studies supporting a positive relationship between self-esteem
and liking or acceptance for others are reported in Omwake (1954). These
studies support the contention that there is a positive relationship between self-
esteem and liking.

A different prediction was made by Dittes (1959). He hypothesised that approval

from other people would be especially rewarding to individuals low in self-esteem.
He argued that:

A person’s attraction towards membership in a group, like motivational attraction

toward any object, may be considered a function of two interacting determinants:
(a) the extent to which his particular needs are satisfied by the group, and (b) the
strength of his needs.

Dittes assumed that the lower the level of one’s own self-esteem, the greater
would be his need for such supports to self-esteem as are provided by acceptance
in a group. From this assumption, Dittes’ predictions can be clearly derived: (1)
When another person is accepting, he satisfies a greater need in a low self-esteem
person than in a high self-esteem person. Thus, acceptance should produce a
greater increase in attraction the lower the self-esteem of the recipient. (2) When
the other person is rejecting, he frustrates a greater need in the low self-esteem
person than in the high self-esteem person. Thus rejection should decrease the
other’s attractiveness more, the lower the self-esteem of the recipient.

An experimental study provided support for Dittes’ proposal. Subjects were

college freshmen, who met in small groups of five or six members for a two-hour
discussion task session. An attempt was made to make the group very attractive.
During the first hour of discussion, the groups’ conversation was interrupted three
times to allow subjects to rate the desirability of having each of the other members
in the group. These ratings were requested by the experimenter as though they
were for his own interest. At an intermission, the subject’s interest in these ratings
was aroused and he was allowed to see privately what he believed to be the
64
ratings of desirability made of him by other members of the group. Actually, the
distributed ratings were fictitious, and had been prepared in advance to lead some Interpersonal Attraction
subjects (those in the Satisfying condition) to believe that they were highly accepted
by the group, and to lead others (those in the Frustrating condition) to believe that
the group rejected them. After some additional tasks had been performed, the
subject’s own attraction to the group was assessed. Individuals were asked if the
group met again, how much they would like to continue working with it, how
much they enjoyed participating in the experiment, and how disappointed would
they be if not invited back to participate. Scores on these questions were summed
to form an index of the subject’s attraction to the group.

Dittes measured self-esteem in three ways: (1) Before the experimental session,
subjects completed a self-esteem questionnaire. (2) At the end of the session,
they were asked about their general sense of adequacy among groups of peers.
(Since the acceptance manipulation would be expected to affect answers to this
question, subjects’ scores were computed separately in each experimental
condition.) (3) Subjects were rated by the other individuals in the group. The
ratings they received were considered to be indicative of their own self-esteem.The
extent to which the subject believed he had been accepted by the group had a
much greater effect on whether or not he reciprocated the group’s liking when his
self-esteem was low than when it was high.

3.4 LET US SUM UP

Both personal characteristics and environment play a role in interpersonal attraction.
A major determinant of attraction is propinquity, or physical proximity. People
who come into contact regularly and have no prior negative feelings about each
other generally become attracted to each other as their degree of mutual familiarity
and comfort level increases. The situation in which people first meet also determines
how they will feel about each other. One is more likely to feel friendly toward a
person first encountered in pleasant, comfortable circumstances. People are
generally drawn to each other when they perceive similarities with each other. The
more attitudes and opinions two people share, the greater the probability that they
will like each other. It has also been shown that disagreement on important issues
decreases attraction. One of the most important shared attitudes is that liking and
disliking the same people creates an especially strong bond between two individuals.
The connection between interpersonal attraction and similar attitudes is complex
because once two people become friends, they begin to influence each other’s
attitudes. In conclusion, people tend to be attracted to individuals who are physically
attractive, physically accessible and socially available; and similar in terms of
purposes, backgrounds, beliefs, and needs. However, interpersonal attraction is
not the only factor that affects the building of a strong and health relationship. A
good relationship requires communication and the ability to adapt to one another.

3.5 UNIT END QUESTIONS

1) Define the term interpersonal attraction and discuss its significance in our life.

2) Describe the salient factors that contribute in the development of interpersonal

attraction

3) Why do people attracted towards others as they do, critically evaluate.

65
Process of Social Influence
3.6 SUGGESTED READINGS
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2010). Social Psychology (7th
ed.). Upper addle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron, R. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Byrne, D. (2009). Social Psychology

(12th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and BaconBaumeister, R.F. & Bushman,
B. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature (1st Edition). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

Berscheid, Ellen; Walster, Elaine H. (1969). Interpersonal Attraction. Addison-

Wesley Publishing Co.

Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

References
Adler, A. The Neurotic Constitution. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1926.

Back, K. W. and M. D. Bogdonoff. “Plasma lipid responses to leadership,

conformity, and deviation.” In P. H. Leiderman and D. Shapiro (Eds.)
Psychobiological Approaches to Social Behaviour. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univer.
Press, 1964, 36-39.

Backman, C. W. and P. F. Secord. “The effect of perceived liking on interpersonal

attraction,” Hum. Rel., 1959, 12, 379-384.

Barocas, R., & Karoly, P. (1972). “Effects of physical appearance on social

responsiveness.” Psychology Reports 31:772-781.

Bovard, E. W. “The effects of social stimuli on the response to stress,” Psych.

Rev., 1959, 66, 267-277.

Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology , 50(3), 559-570.

Byrne, D., Clore, G. L. J. & Worchel, P. (1966). Effect of economic similarity-

dissimilarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
4(2), 220-224.

Byrne, D. (a) “The influence of propinquity and opportunities for interaction

on classroom relationships,” Hum. Rel. 1961, 14, 63-70.

Cavior, N., & Dokecki, P. (1973). “Physical Attractiveness, Perceived Attitude

Similarity, and Academic Achievement as Contributors to Interpersonal Attraction
among Adolescents.” Developmental Psychology 9 (1): 44-54.

Darley, J. M. and E. Aronson, “Self-evaluation vs. direct anxiety reduction as

determinants of the fear-affiliation relationship,” J. Exp. Soc. Psych. Suppl, 1966,
1,66-79.

Darley, J. M. and E. Berscheid, “Increased liking as a result of the anticipation

of personal contact,” Hum. Rel., 1967, 20, 29-40.
66
Deutsch, M. and M. E. Collins, “The effect of public policy in housing projects Interpersonal Attraction
upon interracial attitudes,” in Eleanor Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, and E. L.
Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Holt,
1958,612-623.

Dittes, J. E. “Attractiveness of group as function of self-esteem and acceptance

by group,” J. Abn. Soc.

Drayer, D. C. & H, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal

complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
72, 592-603

Dulany, D. E., Jr. “Hypotheses and habits in verbal ‘operant conditioning’ “J.
Abn. Soc. Psych., 1961, 63, 251-263.

Festinger, L. “Architecture and group membership,”J. Soc. Iss., 1951, 1, 152-

163.

Festinger, L., S. Schachter, and K. Back. Social Pressures in Informal Groups:

A Study of Human Factors in Housing. New York: Harper, 1950.

Fromm, E., “Selfishness and self-love,” Psychiatry, 1939, 2, 507-523.

Gerard, E. O. “Medieval Psychology: Dogmatic Aristotelianism or Observational

Empiricism?,”J. Hist. Behav. Sci., 1966, 2, 315-329.

Goldman, J. A., Rosenzweig, C. M. & Lutter, A. D. (1980). Effect of similarity

of ego identity status on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
9(2), 153-162.

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Wiley,

Homans, G. C. Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt,

Brace and World, 1961.

Horney, K.(1939) New Ways in Psychoanalysis. New York: Norton.

Huston, T. & Levinger, G. (1978). “Interpersonal Attraction and Relationships.”

Annual Reviews 29:115-56.

James, A. and A. J. Lott, “Reward frequency and the formation of positive

attitudes toward group members,” J. Soc. Psych., 1964, 62, 111-115.

Jamieson, D. W. Lydon, J. E., & Zanna, M. P. (1987). Attitude and activity

preference similarity: Differential bases of interpersonal attraction for low and high
self-monitors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1052–1060.

Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003) Interpersonal attraction and personality: What
is attractive – self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity, or attachment security?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709-722.

Kurdek, L. A., & Schnopp-Wyatt, D. (1997). Predicting relationship commitment

and relationship stability from both partners’ relationship values: Evidence from
heterosexual dating couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10),
1111-1119.
67
Process of Social Influence Lott, A. J. and B. E. Lott. “Group cohesiveness, communication level, and
conformity,” J. Abn. Soc. Psych., 1961, 62, 408-412.

Lydon, J. E., Jamieson, D. W., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). Interpersonal similarity

and the social and intellectual dimensions of first impressions. Social Cognition,
6(4), 269-286.

Markey, P.M.& Markey, C. N.(2007) Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment, and

relationship experiences: The complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic
partners. Journal of social and Personal Relationships, 24(4), 517-533.

Mathes, E. W., & Moore, C. L. (1985). Reik’s complementarily theory of romantic

love. The Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 321-327.

Morry, M. M. (2007). Relationship satisfaction as a predictor of perceived similarity

among cross-sex friends: A test of the attraction-similarity model. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 24, 117-138.

Murstein, Bernard I.; Patricia Christy (October 1976). “Physical attractiveness

and marriage adjustment in middle-aged couples”. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology.

Newcomb, T. M. (1963). Stabilities underlying changes in interpersonal attraction.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(4), 376-386.

Omwake, Katherine. “The relationship between acceptance of self and acceptance

of others shown by three personality inventories,” J. Cons. Psych., 1954, 18,443-
446.

Ossorio, P. G. and K. E. Davis. “The self, intentionality, and reactions to evaluations

of the self,” in C. Gordon and K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Self in Society. New York:
Wiley, 1966. Psych., 1959, 59, 77-82.

Rogers, C. R. Client-centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1951.

Schachter, S. The Psychology of Affiliation. Stanford, California: Stanford University

Press, 1959.

Simons, H. W., Berkowitz, N. N., & Moyer, R. J. (1970). Similarity, credibility,

and attitude change: A review and a theory. Psychological Bulletin, 73(1), 1-16.

Singh, R., & Ho, S. Y. (2000). Attitudes and attraction: A new test of the
attraction, repulsion and similarity-dissimilarity asymmetry hypotheses. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 39(2), 197-211.

Tagiuri, R. “Social preference and its perception,” in R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo

(Eds.), Person Perception and Interpersonal Behaviour. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1958, 316-336.

Thibaut, J. W. and H. H. Kelley. The Social Psychology of Groups. New York:

Wiley and Sons, 1959, 89-99.

Waldron, V. R., & Applegate, J. L. (1998). Similarity in the use of person-

centered tactics: Effects on social attraction and persuasiveness in dyadic verbal
disagreements. Communication Reports, 11(2), 155-165.

Zander, A. and A. Havelin. “Social comparison and interpersonal attraction,”

68
Hum. Rel., 1960, 13, 21-32.