THE ATTRACTION PARADIGM REVISITED Responses to Dissimilar Others

Human Communication Research Vol. 10, No. 1, Fall 1983, 137-151

THE ATTRACTION PARADIGM REVISITED

Responses to Dissimilar Others

BENJAMIN J. BROOME George Mason University

A laboratory study investigated the effects of three kinds of informotion on response to dissimilar others. A 2 x 2 x 2 design with two levels 0f“expectation of evaluation” (expressed like or dislike), two levels of “message openness” (open or closed), and two levels of uattribution of intent” (expressed desire to share or change attitudes) was employed to test hypotheses related to impression formed, defensiveness of response, and attraction toward adissimilar other. Resultsfrom a multivariate analysis showed that response to dissimilarity differed significantly with variation in expectation of evaluation and message openness, but that responses did not vary in relation to attribution of intent. Results support uncertainty reduction theory, and it is suggested that some of the rewards normally associated with similarity can also be associated with dissimilar others, thus making for a more positive response to dissimilarity.

Attitudinal similarity is generally posited as a major source of reward in interpersonal encounters (Clore & Byrne, 1974). Assuming that we like ourselves, we are cognitively consistent (Heider, 1958) if we like those who hold attitudes similar to our own. Similar others provide social validation for our beliefs and opinions (Festinger, 1954). Agreeing attitudes evoke anticipatory responses relative to antic- ipated positive interactive consequences associated with a stranger (Griffitt, 1969; Berscheid & Walster, 1978). Similar others provide a more promising information-per-time-unit investment (Knapp, 1978a, 1978b; Miller & Steinberg, 1975). Attitudinal similarity leads to the expectation that we will be liked by the other (Newcomb, 1961; McWhirter & Jecker, 1967). Finally, knowing that one is about to

Benjamin J. Broome (Ph.D., University of Kansas, 1980) is an assistant professor of communication at George Mason University, Fairfax VA 22030.

137

138 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / September 1983

interact with someone who holds attitudes similar to oneself could function to lower the uncertainty normally associated with initial interaction (Berger & Calabrese, 1975).

Byrne (1971) and his associates have studied the effect of attitude similarity upon evaluative responses to others in a great number of studies, conducted with diverse populations and under a wide variety of conditions. The overwhelming majority of the findings in this research have shown that people respond more positively to those they expect to exhibit a manner and an attitude like their own. In Byrne’s research, attitudinally similar others receive a more positive response than dissimilar others in a number of ways: similar others are usually judged to have more positive personal qualities and characteristics than dissimilar others, less defensiveness is felt by individuals in response to similar others, and individuals report greater attraction toward similar others.

With attitude similarity exhibiting such a dominant force in response to others, questions must be raised concerning the possibility of relationships developing between participants who represent different cultural backgrounds, where communication takes place within a matrix of differences (Stewart, 1978). Fortunately, while studies clearly show that individuals respond more positively to similar others than to dissimilar others, studies do not show that dissimilarity produces repulsion (Crockett & Friedman, 1980). Rather, a close inspection of the Byrne studies shows that dissimilar attitudes typically produces indifference. The mean ratings on the Interpersonal Judgment Scale (IJS) used by Byrne (1971) usually fall around the midpoint of the scale, indicating a neutral response, when subjects are asked to rate adissimilar other. The neutral response to dissimilarity in many of the Byrne studies may be due to the fact that the only information the perceiver is usually given about the person being rated is the extent to which that person agrees with the perceiver on a set of attitudes. Nothing is known about the nature of that disagreement. The perceiver may be withholding judgment and waiting for more information about the dissimilar other. What other types of information might be used in making judgments about dissimilar others?

Studies by Byrne (1962), Aronson and Worchel(1966), and Byrne and Griffitt (1966) found that individuals expressed greater attraction toward dissimilar others who evaluated them positively. In an experiment by Mueller (1969) individuals expressed greater attraction toward

Broome / RESPONSES TO DISSIMILAR OTHERS 139

those who made positive evaluations of them, even if the evaluations were in reference to attitudes that were mirror images of those they actually held. What this finding suggests is that some of the ambiguity is removed from dissimilarity when we know whether or not we will be accepted, respected, approved of, and otherwise liked by the dissimilar other. If assurance can be given that the dissimilar other evaluates us positively, then our response to that individual may improve. In this manner, one’s response to dissimilar others is hypothesized to be modified by “expectation of evaluation.”

Indications of openness to differences may be another basic type of information the perceiver needs before making a strong judgment of a dissimilar other. A primary source of this information is the manner in which the other expresses attitudes and opinions. Hodges and Byrne (1972) found that nondogmatic wording reduces threat and results in a more positive response to the other. In a study by Broome (1981) individuals presented with attitudes stated in an open manner (after Millar & Millar, 1976), rather than a closed manner, responded with more desire to learn about the other, with a perception of the speaker as more open to input, with less anger and irritation toward the speaker, and with written responses that were judged less defensive. In light of the above studies it is hypothesized that response to dissimilarity is mediated by the manner in which the different attitudes are expressed to another. The degree of “message openness” then becomes an important consideration in judging the effects of dissimilarity upon perception of another.

One of the hesitancies individuals feel toward interaction with dissimilar others may center on a fear of being controlled or changed. Sarbaugh (1979) suggests that if the intent of the other is perceived to be one of obstructing the achievement of mutual understanding, then little energy will be expended in a transaction. On the other hand, if the other appears interested in sharing opinions or promoting learning, then the perceiver may form a more positive impression of the other and may be more committed to achieving coordinated action. Partial support for the moderating effect of perceived intent is found in a study by Batchelor and Tesser (1971). It is hypothesized, thqn, that information concerning the intent of the other may remove some of the uncertainty generated by dissimilar attitudes. Thus, “attribution of intent” becomes a third variable influencing response to dissimilar others.


Based upon the above discussion, the following hypotheses were examined in the present study:

HI: Individuals’ responses to dissimilar others will be more positive under conditions of expected liking (expressed favorable evaluation) than expected dislike (expressed unfavorable evaluation).

H2: Individuals’ responses to dissimilar others will be more positive under conditions of open expression of differences (dissimilar attitudes expressed in open manner) than closed expression of differences (dissimilar attitudes expressed in dogmatic fashion).

Hs: Individuals’ responses to dissimilar others will be more positive under conditions of intent to share (expressed desire to discuss differences) than intent to change (expressed desire to change attitudes of other).

“Response to other” is conceptualized in this study as comprised of three related dimensions: impression formed of the other, defensiveness of response to the other, and attraction toward the other.

METHOD

Design

Following a pilot study, a 2 x 2 x 2 independent-groups design-with two levels of expectation of evaluation (like and dislike), two levels of message openness (open and closed), and two levels of attribution of intent (share and change)-was employed to test the hypotheses. A total of 118 women and 80 men (N = 198) participated in the study. The participants were students enrolled in the basic communication courses of a large midwestern university. Participants volunteered for the study and received course credit for their participation.

Stimulus Material

The context for the experiment involved American students’responses to an individual portrayed through a transcript of a fictitious interview. The interview read by participants was created by the experimenter and served as stimulus material for the experiment. This stimulus material was designed to present to participants a “dissimilar other” (someone whose attitudes and opinions were predominately different from their


own) and to manipulate the independent variables. The interview portrayed a “foreign student” (neither sex nor country was directly indicated) responding to questions posed by an “interviewer.”

In the transcript read by participants, the interviewer asked three sets of questions. The first set concerned the foreign student’s impression of the United States; the second set dealt with eight issues related to cultural differences between the foreign student and the American (i.e., political, economic, and justice systems in the different countries); and the third set asked if there was “one thing you would do differently during your stay in the United States if you could begin again.” Responses indicated that the foreign student came from a country with a religious government that used harsh public methods of punishment (e.g., thieves were publicly de-limbed) and which functioned under a noncapitalist economic system.

Expectation of evaluation was manipulated by responses of the interviewee to questions about impressions of the United States formed by the foreign student. In the “like” condition, responses indicated that the foreign student held a positive image of Americans (“I’ve had no difficulty in getting along with Americans. . . . They seem well-informed, so they’re interesting to talk with”). In the “dislike”condition, responses indicated that the foreign student held a negative image of Americans (“Mostly I’ve had difficulty getting along with Americans. . . . They don’t seem so well informed, so they’re not very interesting to talk with”).

Message openness was manipulated by responses to eight issues discussed in the second set of questions. The opinions expressed by the interviewee included four dissimilar attitudes, two agreeing attitudes, and two neutral attitudes. In the “open” condition, responses were worded such that the foreign student took responsibility for the perception of the feeling expressed (“I personally like the system very much”), used personal examples (“Last week someone came into my room and took my stereo”), and indicated flexibility (“I know there are different thoughts on the matter”). In the “closed” condition, responses were worded such that the foreign student described the object/ idea as having inherent characteristics (“The system in my country is certainly much better’?, used generalities (“People are always cheating and stealing’?, and indicated inflexibility (“Everybody knows that fear is definitely the best deterrent to crime’?.


Attribution of intent was manipulated by responses to the third set of questions. In the “share”c0ndition the foreign student indicated a desire to share ideas with Americans (“I believe I could help them understand the situation of foreign students’?. In the “change” condition, the foreign student indicated a desire to control (“I believe I could make them change their wrong ideas about foreign students”).

Procedures

Participants were scheduled for the experiment in groups of five to twenty. Within each group participants were randomly assigned to one of the eight experimental conditions. The cover story provided to participants indicated that the researcher was interested in American and foreign student relations on campus, in particular the impressions people hold of foreign students and how people respond to particular individuals. They were informed that they would be reading a transcript of one of a number of interviews that had been conducted the previous semester with foreign students on campus, and they would be giving their impression of the individual whose interview they read.

Each participant was given a booklet containing the cover story, the stimulus material, and a five-part questionnaire. Part 1 of the questionnaire asked participants to judge the stimulus person on a twenty-item semantic differential instrument (described below). Part 2 asked participants to write down their responses (in afive-minute time limit) to one of the issues raised by the stimulus person (an expressed disappointment that Americans did not understand the feelings of foreign students). Part 3 asked participants to indicate the extent of their agreementdisagreement with sixteen Likert-type statements (described below). Parts 4 and 5 asked for certain demographic data, which were not used in interpreting results reported here. All participants were debriefed by the experimenter.

Dependent Measures

Three dependent measures were created for use in the study. The Personal Judgment Differential (PJD), a twenty-item semantic differential instrument, was constructed for measuring the perceived characteristics of the stimulus person. Items for this instrument were obtained by conducting a pilot study (using stimulus material from four of the


experiment’s conditions), in which participants provided an open-ended description of the characteristics they believed best described the stimulus person. Characteristics given in these responses were used to create twenty adjective pairs,’ which were each placed on seven-point bipolar scales. The order of the twenty items was randomly determined, and the position of the positive attribute in ten of the items was reversed to guard against response bias. An alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951) of .85 was obtained for this instrument.

The Defensive Response Evaluation Differential (DRED), a five- item semantic differential instrument taken from Broome (198 l), was used to evaluate the written responses given by participants on Part 2 of the questionnaire. The instrument consists of five seven-point bipolar scales. The first two items, evaluative/ descriptive and control-oriented/ problem-oriented, are patterned after Gibb’s (1961) discussion of a defensive climate. The remaining three items, unreceptive/ receptive, self-oriented/ other-oriented, and detached/involved, assess the extent to which the respondent indicates interest in understanding what the other has to say rather than blocking reception of information from the other. An alpha coefficient of .97 was obtained for this instrument.

Following the data-gathering process, four graduate students served as judges to independently rate participants’ responses on the DRED. The judges were trained by means of a handout giving a description of each end of the scales, along with examples of responses that would be rated at the high and low ends of each scale, and a practice session. In addition, the judges were experienced in the use of these concepts through graduate study in human relations and teacher experience in the basic interpersonal communication course. An overall interjudge reliability score (using Pearson product-moment correlations) of .82 was obtained.

The Perceived Attraction Questionnaire (PAQ), a sixteen-item Likert-type instrument, was constructed to assess the degree of attraction felt by the participants toward the stimulus person. The majority of the items were patterned after Byrne’s (1971) conceptualization of attraction (an expression of liking and an expressed willingness to cooperate with the stimulus person) as measured by his Interpersonal Judgment Scale (IJS). Other items were included in the PAQ as a way of embedding the attraction items and as manipulation checks. Each item was placed above a seven-point scale, on which participants were asked


to indicate the extent of their agreementdisagreement with the statement. The statements were randomly worded positively or negatively to guard against response bias. An alpha coefficient of .88 was obtained for this instrument.

RESULTS

Manipulation Checks

In order to determine if a “dissimilar other” had been created by the stimulus material, the following item was embedded in the PAQ: “This person has attitudes and beliefs similar to my own.” Responses were scored 1 for “strongly agree” through 7 for “strongly disagree.” The mean response was 5.81, with over 86% of the participants indicating disagreement with the statement. An analysis of variance showed no difference between conditions on this item, indicating that the stimulus person was perceived as equally dissimilar across all groups.

In order to determine if the independent variables had been successfully manipulated, the following three items were embedded in the PAQ. (1) “This person would probably like me.” (2) “This person seems to be open-minded about things,” and (3) “This person would try to change my opinions.” These statements provided, respectively, checks for manipulation of expectation of evaluation, message openness, and attribution of intent. Responses to these three items were subjected to three-way analyses of variance.

On the first manipulation check a significant effect was obtained for expectation of evaluation (F = 16.70, df 1,190, p < .001). A significant main effect was also obtained for message openness (F 21.47, df = 1,190, p < .001). No significant main effect was found for attribution of intent (F = 2.99, df = 1,190, p > .05; n.s.). For all three variables, the means were in the appropriate direction. Thus, the indication is that expectation of evaluation and message openness were successfully manipulated. However, there is no evidence to suggest the successful manipulation of attribution of intent.

Data Analyses

In order to determine the dimensionality of each of the instruments used as dependent measures, responses to items on the PJD, DRED,

Eroorne / RESPONSES TO DISSIMILAR OTHERS 145

and PAQ were factor analyzed. The following criterion was used for assigning items to factors: An item was not considered to load cleanly on a given factor unless (a) its loading on that factor was at least S O and (b) the absolute difference between its primary and secondary loadings was at least .30. Then items that loaded cleanly on each of the resulting factors were combined to form a summary score for each factor. Summary scores were formed only for those factors to which three or more items were assigned.* In order to determine the relationship among the dependent variables, correlations were computed among the measures. The intercorrelations among the criterion variables3 suggested that a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) be used to test for differences between experimental conditions. The overall F test for the equality of the mean vectors was conducted using the Wilks Lambda criterion.

Tests of Hypotheses

It was predicted that an individual's response to a dissimilar other would be modified by expectation of evaluation, message openness, and attribution of intent. To test the three hypotheses of the study, the summary scores for the three factors that emerged from the factor analyses of the three dependent measures were subjected to a multivariate analysis of variance. Results from the MANOVA indicated significant main effects for expectation of evaluation ( F = 8.80, d f= 3,188, p < .001) and for the message openness (F = 16.17, df = 3,188, p < .001). No significant main effect was shown for attribution of intent ( F = 1.65, df= 3,188, p > .05). There were no significant interactions.

Univariate F-tests were also conducted in order to gain a clearer picture of the contribution of each dependent variable. The univariate analyses indicated significant main effects for expectation of evaluation onthePJD(F=23,56,df= l7190,p<.001),ontheDRED(F=4.47,df= 1,19O7p<.O3), and onthePAQ(F= 15.75,df= 1,190,p<.001).4Thus, expectation of evaluation influenced response in terms of impression formed, defensiveness of response, and attraction.

The main effects of message openness were significant on the P J D ( F ~ 4 5 . 4 8 , df = 1,190, p < .001) and on the PAQ ( F = 30.61, df = 1,190, p < .001), but no significant effect was found on the DRED (F 1.96, df = 1 , 190, p > .05).5 Thus, message openness influenced response in terms of impression formed and attraction but did not affect defensiveness of response.


For the third independent variable, attribution of intent, univariate analyses indicated no significant effects on the P J D ( F = 1.91, df= 1,190, p < .05) or the DRED (F = 1.02, df =1,190, p < .05), but a significant effect was found on the PAQ (F 4.95, df = 1,190, p < .02).6 Thus, attribution of intent failed to influence impression formed or defensiveness of response (leading to a nonsignificant multivariate F) but affected attraction.

DISCUSSION

Results of the present study support the notion that the effects of dissimilarity are moderated by at least two variables-expectation of evaluation and message openness.’ Although it was also predicted that attribution of intent would influence response to dissimilar others, strong support was not found for hypotheses related to this variable, perhaps due to its unsuccessful manipulation. (That is, one doesn’t necessarily believe that another desires to share rather than change attitudes just because the other is reported to have expressed this intention.) While findings relative to expectation of evaluation and message openness confirm predictions made by both popular advice and social psychologists (Berscheid & Walster, 1978; Newcomb, 1961; Festinger, 1950), another explanation accounting for these results can be drawn from what has come to be known as “Uncertainty reduction theory.”

Central to uncertainty reduction theory is “the assumption that when strangers meet, their primary concern is one of increasing predictability about the behavior of both themselves and others in the interaction” (Berger & Calabrese, 1975, p. 100). At the beginning of a particular encounter, one important task for interactants is to predict actions the other might take; a second task is to develop causal explanations for behaviors that do take place. Within uncertainty reduction theory there are two stated axioms that pertain directly to the present study. The first asserts that similarity acts to reduce the level of uncertainty in a relationship, while dissimilarity raises uncertainty levels. A second axiom asserts that decreases in uncertainty level produce increases in liking, while increases in uncertainty level produce decreases in liking. One way of increasing liking is to discover similarities; another might be to simply provide more information about the nature of the dissimilarity.


The results of the present study may indicate that some of the uncertainty normally produced by dissimilarity can be reduced by providing additional information. With knowledge of the dissimilar other’s evaluation of the perceiver, the perceiver no longer has to guess whether or not he or she would be accepted, respected, or otherwise approved of by the other. In the positive evaluation conditions, subjects were provided with information similar to that which they might expect from similar others (i.e., an expectation of liking), and their responses were therefore more positive. On the other hand, in the negative evaluation conditions, subjects were left with a great deal of uncertainty associated with the other. Even though subjects were “certain” that the other would not like them, they were not certain of the consequences of this dislike. Similar reasoning can be applied to the results associated with message openness. Open expression might serve to reduce uncertainty about dissimilarity by “switching” the focus on uncertainty from who is different from whom, to what specific dissimilarities exist between the participants. By directing the interaction toward issues rather than persons, the interaction becomes content focused (and thus involves fewer generalities, which are less predictable), rather than relationally focused. The results of the present study would support the argument advanced by Berger and Calabrese (1975, p. 110): “If the effects of uncertainty were statistically removed from the similarity- attraction relationship, the similarity-attraction relationship would weaken significantly.”

Support for this explanation comes from a recent study by Sunna- frank and Miller (1981). These researchers replicated the typical Byrne experiment on attraction, except that half of the participants were allowed to engage in an initial interaction with their partner after exchanging attitudes on two selected topics, and the other half were not allowed this interaction. The results of their study showed that, while attitudinally similar noninteractants were more attracted to their partners than to dissimilar noninteractants, no differences in attraction were observed among similar and dissimilar interactants. Also, dissimilar interactants were more attracted to their partners than dissimilar noninteractants, but no differences in attraction were observed between similar interactants and noninteractants. In other words, with those individuals who did not engage in interaction, the usual result of attraction studies was found; similar others were more attractive than dissimilar others. However, when individuals were allowed to interact, there


were no differences in attraction toward similar and dissimilar others. In addition, the opportunity to interact with one’s similar partner appar- ently made no difference in attraction, but engaging in interaction increased attraction toward dissimilar others.

The results of the study by Sunnafrank and Miller suggest that individuals gain information from interaction that is not available from simple knowledge of attitude similarity-dissimilarity. This additional information seems to remove some of the uncertainty of dissimilarity. While most studies only provide the subject with limited information about the stimulus person (i.e., information about similarity or dissimilarity on some limited set of issues), the Sunnafrank and Miller study allowed for interaction, which is potentia1ly“information rich.”That is, in actual interaction, participants are able to readily gather significant information about a number of factors that might affect response to the other.

What kind of information do interactants get that is not available from simple knowledge of dissimilar attitudes? From the present study it is suggested that interaction might provide information about three important factors: (1) the other’s evaluation of us, (2) the other’s recep- tivity to our points of view, and possibly (3) the intent of the other with regard to influencing our views. Interaction is rich in cues that speak to these issues. In light of these results, dissimilarity cannot be dismissed as the “unacceptable alternative” to similarity, when a range of responses to dissimilarity, influenced by perhaps a host of variables, is available to perceivers. Uncertainty reduction notions imply that dissimilarity is “harder” to deal with than similarity, because more different types of information are needed to reduce uncertainty about the other, but perhaps individuals can learn to anticipate positive interaction with, rather than to avoid, persons of different beliefs, races, and cultures. Future research should concentrate on discovering other variables that influence the response to dissimilar others,

I . The adjective pairs contained in the PJD are the following: impolite/polite, typical/ untypical, open-rninded/closed-minded, rejecting/accepting, honest/deceptive, consistent/ inconsistent, prejudiced/ nonprejudiced, cooperative/ uncooperative, conservative/ - liberal, maladjusted/ well-adjusted, stubborn/flexible, likable/ unlikable, unreasonable/


reasonable, caring/ noncaring, religious/ secular, unbiased/ biased, informed/ uninformed, undependable/ dependable, narrow-minded/ broad-minded, knowledgeable/ ignorant.

2. Factor analyses resulted in a single summary score for each instrument. Factor I of the PJD was labeled “dogmatism”and consisted of five items: stubborn/flexible, narrow- minded/ broad-minded, open-minded/closed-minded, prejudiced/ nonprejudiced, rejecting/ accepting. All five items of the DRED loaded on asingle factor, which accounted for 90.0% of the total variance in responses. Factor 1 of the PAQ was labeled “attraction”and consisted of nine items patterned after the two statements used by Byrne (1971) in his IJS: “I feel that I would probably like this person,”and“I believe that I would dislike working with this person in an experiment.”

3. Pearson correlation coefficients indicated the following relationships among the factors that emerged from the factor analyses: dogmatism (PJD) and attraction (PAQ), r .69; attraction (PAQ) and DRED, r .39; dogmatism (PJD) and DRED, r .18.

4. Computation of magnitude of effect (etaz) indicated that expectation of evaluation accounted for 8.5% of the variance on the PJD, 1.7% of the variance on the DRED, and 6.0% of the variance on the PAQ.

5 . Message openness accounted for 16.7% of the variance on the PJD and 12.1% of the variance on the PAQ. For the nonsignificant result obtained on the DRED, power was greater than .90 for a .05 (see Winer, 1971).

6. Attribution of intent accounted for 1.6% of the variance on the PAQ. For the nonsignificant result obtained on the PJD, power was greater than .90 for a = .05, and on the DRED, power was less than 30.

7. While space does not permit an elaborate discussion of the relationship among the dependent variables, it is instructive to note that while the strong correlations between attraction and-perception of dogmatism and between attraction and defensiveness of response (see Note 3) were to be expected, the relationship that emerged between dogmatism and defensiveness of response was surprisingly weak. This may be due to the nature of the instructions given to participants when they were asked to write their response to the foreign student’s statement about Americans. All participants, regardless of condition, responded to the same statement. While the evidence is indirect, the indication is that the nature of our verbal response to another’s statement is based more upon the nature of the stimulus statement itself than upon our impression of the other. This corresponds to the “norm of reciprocity” suggested by Leary (1955).

REFERENCES

ARONSON, E., & WORCHEL, P. Similarity vs. liking as determinants of interpersonal attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 5 , 157-158.

BARNLUND, D. C. Communication: The context of change. In E. Larson and F.E.X. Dance (Eds.), Perspectives on communication, Shorewood, W1: Helix Press, 1968.

BATCHELOR, T. R., & TESSER, A. Attitude base as a moderator of the attitude similarity-attraction relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 197 1, 19(2), 229-236.


BERGER, C. R., & CALABRESE, R. J. Some Explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1975, 2(2), 99-1 12.

BERSCHEID, E., & WALSTER, E. H. Interpersonal Attraction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978.

BROOME, B. J. Facilitating attitudes and message characteristics in the expression of differences in intercultural encounters. International Journal of Intercultural Rela- tions, 1981,5,215-237.

BYRNE, D. Response to attitude similarity-dissimilarity as afunction of affiliation need. Journal of Personality, 1962, 30, 164-177.

BYRNE, D. 7'he attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press, 1971. BYRNE, D., & GRIFFIT, W. Similarity versus liking: A clarification. Psychonomic

Science, 1966, 6, 295-296. BYRNE, D., & RHAMEY, R. Magnitude of positive and negative reinforcements as a

determinant of attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2,

CLORE, G. L., & BYRNE, D. A reinforcement model of attraction. In T. Hudson (Ed.),

COLBY, B. N. Behavioral redundancy. Behavioral Science, 1958, 3, 318. CROCKETT, W. H., & FRIEDMAN, P. Theoretical explorations of the processes of

CRONBACH, L. J. Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,

DEUTSCH, M., & SOLOMON, L. Reactions to evaluations by others as influenced by

FESTINGER, L. Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 1950, 57,

FESTINGER, L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 1954, 7,

FESTINGER, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, I L Row Peterson, 1957. GIBB, J. R. Defensive communication. Journalof Communication, 1961,11(3), 142-148. GREENSPOON, J. The reinforcing effect of two spoken sounds on the frequency of two

GRIFFITT, W. Attitude evoked anticipatory responses and attraction. Psychonomic

HEIDER, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. HODGES, L. A., & BYRNE, D. Verbal dogmatism as a potentiator of intolerance.

KELLY, G. A theory ofpersonality. New York: Norton, 1963. KNAPP, M. L. Social intercourse: from greeting to goodbye. Boston: Allyn & Bacon,

1978. (a) KNAPP, M. L. Perspectives on identifyingand understanding communicator similarities

in initial interaction. Paper presented in the seminar on Initial Interaction at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Minneapolis, November,

LEARY, T. The theory and measurement methodology of interpersonal communication.

884-889.

Foundations of Interpersonal Attraction. New York: Academic Press, 1974.

initial interactions. Western Speech Journal, 1980,42( 1).

1951, 16,297-334.

self-evaluation." Sociometry, 1959,22,93-112.

271-282.

117-140.

responses. American Journal of Psychology, 1955,68,409416.

Science, 1969, 14, 153-155.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 21(3), 312-317.

1978. (b)

Psychiatry, 1955, 18, 147-161.


LEVINGER, G., & SNOEK, J . D. Attraction in relationship: A new look or interpersonal attraction. New York: General Learning Press, 1972.

McWHIRTER, R. M., & JECKER, J. D. Attitude similarity and inferred attraction. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 7, 225-226.

MILLAR, D. P. & MILLAR, F. E. Messages and myths: understanding interpersonal communication. New York: Alfred, 1976.

MILLER, G. R., & STEINBERG, M. Between people: A new analysis of interpersonal communication. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1975.

MUELLER, L. M. Interpersonal attraction as a function of inferred similarity- dissimilarity: A reversal effect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1969.

NEWCOMB, T. The acquaintanceprocess. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961. ROKEACH, M. The open and the closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. SARBAUGH, L. Intercultural communication. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden, 1979. STEWART, E. C. Outline of intercultural communication. In F. Casmir (Ed.), Intercul-

tural and international communication. Washington, DC: University Press of Amer- ica, 1978.

SUNNAFRANK, M. J., & MILLER, G. R. The role of initialconversations in determining attraction to similar and dissimilar strangers. Human Communication Research,

SWANSON, D. L., & DELIA, J. G. The nature of human communication. Chicago:

WALSTER, E., & WALSTER, G. W. Effect of expecting to be liked on choice of

1981, 8(1), 16-25.

Science Research Associates, 1976.

associates. Journal of Abnormal and Social PsycholoKy, 1963, 67,402-404. WINER, 9. 9 . Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill,

1971.

THE ATTRACTION PARADIGM REVISITED Responses to Dissimilar Others

Documents

Transcript of THE ATTRACTION PARADIGM REVISITED Responses to Dissimilar Others