European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 10, 279-289 ( I 980)

The cold glow of success: responses to social rejection as affected by attitude

similarity between the rejected and chosen individuals

ARlE NADLER Tel-Aviv University

CHRIS JAZWlNSKl Manchester College

SING LAU Chung Yuan CoNege of Science and Engineering Taiwan

ARDEN MILLER Purdue University

Abstract

Studied the effects of attitudinal similarity between two males on reactions to social rejection by a female. Sixty-five male undergraduate students had met an attitudinally similar or dissimilar male con federate. Later a female con federate either chose or did not choose the male confederate as a work parmer. Following that, measures designed ro tap subjects’ affective state and self evaluations were administered. Two way interactions for affect and self evaluations (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05 respectively) indicate that, relative to a control group, only subjects whose similar male partner was chosen expressed unfavorable a ffect and self-evaluations. The relevance of these findings for the affective consequences of social comparison processes is discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Festinger’s theory of social comparison (Festinger, 1954) holds that comparison with others is a primary way by which individuals obtain knowledge about themselves. Experimental research in this theoretical context has followed this original cognitive-informational emphasis and investigated variables that effect whom one chooses to compare with in order to derive the most information about him/herself. Thus, the dependent variable of interest has been: interpersonal choice (e.g., Latank 1966; Gruder er al., 1975). Nonetheless, in many social interactions one does not choose to compare with others, but a comparison is forced upon oneself. When an employee learns that a fellow-employee has been promoted while he has not, a comparison choice has

0046-2772/80/03 10-0279$01 .OO 0 1980 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 27 June I979 Revised 11 February I980

280 Ane Nadler et al.

not been made, rather the individual was put into an unfavourable comparison situation. With few exceptions (i.e., Morse and Gergen, 1970; Mettee and Riskind, 1974) past research has not dealt with this situation of forced social comparison and its consequences.

The question of interest in this context relates to the variables that determine how one responds to such a forced comparison. In fact, does one always experience a loss of esteem and an unfavourable mood as a consequence of such a forced negative comparison, or is the occurrence of such responses and their intensity dependent on who the successful other is? The present study deals with this issue by focusing on effects of social rejection, in a context of heterosexual competition, on the rejected individual’s feelings and self evaluations as moderated by the attitude similarity/dissimilarity between oneself (i.e., the rejected individual) and the other (i.e., the chosen individual).

The idea that self evaluative changes occur as a consequence of a comparison with others is well rooted within social psychology (cf. Thibaut and Kelley, 1959; Klages, 1928). Experimental data to support this notion has been provided by Morse and Gergen (1970) who have found that self esteem can be affected positively or negatively as a consequence of a meeting with a relatively inferior or superior other, respectively. However, research within the framework of interpersonal similarity (i.e., Clore and Byme, 1974) and Festinger’s contention that one seeks to compare with similar others suggests that such self evaluative changes do not always occur. Rather, their occurrence may depend on the similarity between oneself and the other who is used for comparison purposes. Specifically, research indicating that individuals draw more self knowledge from interactions with attitudinally similar than dissimilar others (e.g., Novak and Lerner, 1968; Taylor and Mettee, 1971; Fisher and Nadler, 1974; Nadler, Fisher and Streufert, 1976), and the implications of Festinger’s theorizing in this context (cf. Brickman and Bullman, 1977), suggest that in a forced comparison situation the information that one did less well than another is aversive only when that other is a similar other. To continue the previous example, the information that another employee has been promoted will be an aversive experience only when that other is a fellow employee (i.e., a similar other), and relatively not aversive when that other is an anonymous other from a different department (i.e., a dissimilar other).

Applied to the present context of social rejection, the above suggests that the rejected individual will experience negative affect and relatively unfavourable self evaluations only when the chosen individual is similar to oneself. When the rejection occurs in the context of a dissimilar other’s success, no consequences are likely to accrue from this unfavourable forced comparison.

To test the moderating effects of interpersonal similarity on reactions to social rejection, a situation was created where male subjects who had previously met an attitudinally similar or dissimilar male were rejected by an attractive female who informed them that she liked the other male better. The self reports of affect and self evaluations of these subjects were compared to the responses made by subjects in a control condition who had encountered an attitudinally similar/dissimilar other, but did not experience social rejection. Measures of subjects’ tiking for and evaluations of the other male were also collected. The inclusion of these measures was designed to provide (a) a check on the attitude

The cold glow of success 28 1

similarity manipulation, and (b) provide further information on the effects of the experimental manipulations on one’s perceptions of the other.

In summary, the present investigation is concerned with a forced comparison paradigm where one’s responses to social rejection are studied as a function of the similarity/dissimilarity between oneself and the chosen individual. It is expected that social rejection will effect affective and self-evaluative reponses only when it occurs in the context of similar other’s social success.

METHOD

Overview and design

Sixty-five male undergraduates enrolled in an introductory psychology course participated in the experiment as part of a course requirement. Each male first encountered an attitudinally similar or dissimilar male confederate. Sub- sequently, an attractive female confederate either chose the male confederate as a work partner or said she would rather have the experimenter make the choice for her. Thus, a 2 (attitudinally similar versus dissimilar other) x 2 (subject rejected and the other male chosen versus neither choice nor rejection) between-subjects design was employed.

Procedure

Upon arrival at a designated location, subjects met a male and a female confederate who had supposedly signed up for the same experiment. After checking all names, the experimenter told the subject and the two confederates that the experiment was on creative problem solving by individuals and dyads in several sex competitions. To accomplish this goal, the experiment was said to have two parts. It was indicated that in the first part, one male was to work alone and the other male with a female, while in the second part the two males were to work together and the female was to work by herself.

Following these instructions, the experimenter addressed the two males and told them that people who work together should be somewhat familiar with each other. Further, the experimenter explained that because of lack of time the two males will not have a chance to get to know each other because they begin working together in the second part of the experiment. Because of that, the experimenter indicated that a time-saving simulated interaction had been developed that would help the two males to get to know each other rather well in a short period of time. At this point, the female confederate was asked out of the room and escorted to another experimental room where she was supposed to begin reading the instructions.

Attitude similarity

Both males were then asked to engage in the ‘simulated interaction’ by voicing their agreement or disagreement on a 7-point scale with 10 salient attitudinal statements (e.g., political conservatism, premarital sex, etc.). The subject was always designated the letter ‘A’ so that he read his statement first and the

282 Arie Nadler et al.

confederate voiced his opinion second. Depending upon experimental conditions the male confederate appeared as being 90 per cent similar or dissimilar to the subject. Byrne’s method of fixed-interval (cf. Byme, 1971) was used to manipulate attitude similarity-dissimilarity.

RejectionlChoice

After the attitude similarity manipulation, the female confederate was brought to the room and asked to choose one of the males she would ‘prefer working with’, ‘feel comfortable with’ and ‘enjoy being with’ as a work partner. This was done under the pretext that people perform better with others they choose to work with than with those they are assigned to work with by others. In the rejection condition, the female, after a moment’s hesitation, pointed to the confederate as her work partner. Following this, the experimenter escorted both male and female confederates out of the room. At the no-rejection condition the female said ‘Gee, I don’t know. I’d like to work with both of them equally well. Can’t you decide?’ To that the experimenter said: ‘O.K. I’ll decide later by flipping a coin’. The female confederate was escorted out of the room and the two males were asked to fill in the dependent measures questionnaire’.

Manipulation checks

Attitude similariry. The efficacy of this manipulation was assessed by using measures of attraction towards (i.e., IJS, Byme, 1971), and evaluation of the other mate (i.e., a scale employed by Fisher and Nadler, 1976; Nadler et at., 1976). In line with past research (cf. Byme, 1971; Clore and Byme, 1974) it was expected that an effective manipulation would induce greater liking and more favourable evaluations towards a similar than a dissimilar other’.

Rejectionlchoice manipulation. In order not to sensitize subjects to the deception involved in this manipulation, and because it was followed by actual changes in sitting arrangements (i.e., the chosen male left the room with the female) no paper and pencil checks on this manipulation were included. Yet, oral debriefings indicated that subjects correctly remembered whether a choice was or was not made.

Dependent measures

Affect. To assess the subjects’ affective reactions a ‘feeling scale’ (Griffitt and Veitch, 1971; Nadler et al., 1976) was administered. This measure consists

‘A follow-up study indicates that the fact that subjects were left alone in the room in the choice condition (i.e., both male and female confederates are escorted out of the room) and not in the no-choice condition (i.e., the female was escorted out and the two males fill out the dependent measures in the same room) does not affect the dependent variables of interest. In fact, in a two 2 x 2 factorial desing where ‘choice-no choice’ and ‘staying alone-together’ were the experimental factors. the multivariate ‘alone-together’ main effect on subjects’ self-perceptions was not significant, F(3, 31) = 1.27, p < 0.35. The interaction between ‘alone-together’ and ‘choice-no choice’ was not significant, F < 1. Yet, in line with the present results subjects’ self perceptions were adversely affected by the choice of a similar other, F(3, 31) = 4.49, p < 0.005. 2This check on the manipulation was especially important since the similarity manipulation was followed by a relatively intense experience (i.e., rejection) which could have obscured the effects of the similarity manipulation.

The cold glow of success 283

of six seven-point bi-polar adjective scales (e.g., happy-sad, good-bad, pleasant-unpleasant, negative-positive, high-low, comfortable-uncomfortable). Ratings along these scales were summed to yield an affect score ranging from six (least positive) to forty-two (most positive).

One bi-polar seven point adjective scale, ranging from ‘angry’ to ‘not angry’ was used to tap subjects’ self-rated anger.

Feelings of self-worth were assessed by two seven-point bi-polar adjective scales on which subjects were asked to indicate how creative and self confident they felt themselves to be (cf. Fisher and Nadler, 1974; Nadler et af., 1976)3.

Anger.

Self ratings ofability.

RESULTS

To assess the effects of the experimental variables on (a) affect, (b) self evaluations, and (c) self-rated anger, a 2 (similarity~issimilarity) x 2 (rejection-no rejection) analyses of variance were performed for each of these dependent measures (cf. Winer, 1971).

Affect

A 2 x 2 ANOVA on the measure of affect revealed a significant rejection-no rejection main effect, F( 1, 6 1 ) = 4.28, p < 0.05 which indicates that subjects who were rejected had lower affect scores than subjects who were not rejected (means are 27.6 and 30.5 respectively). Also, the similarity x rejection interaction was statistically significant, F(1, 61) = 9.47, p < 0.01. This interaction indicates that subjects who were rejected and a similar other chosen had lower affect scores than subjects in the control group where a similar other had been encountered, but no rejection occurred, F(1, 61) = 18.44, p < 0.01. No such difference was observed between the rejection and no-rejection groups in the dissimilar condition.

Self-evaluation

A 2 x 2 ANOVA on subjects’ self-ratings of ability (i.e., creativity) yielded a significant interaction effect, F(1, 61) = 3.94, p < 0.05. This interaction is due to the fact that subjects in the ‘similar-rejection’ group saw themselves as less able (i.e., creative) than subjects in the ‘similar-no rejection’ control group, F(1, 61) = 7.0, p < 0.01. No effects of rejection on subjects’ self-ratings of ability were observed in the dissimilar condition. The ANOVA performed on the measure of self-confidence indicated that neither the main nor interaction effect were statistically significant.

31n past research (Fisher and Nadler, 1974; Nadler et al., 1976) subjects’ situational self-esteem has been assessed by two seven-point bipolar adjective self-rating scales: very intelligentdot at all intelligent and very self-confident-not at all self-confident. Since the supposed task in the present experiment was defined as ‘creative problem-solving’ the item of very intelligentdot at all intelligent was replafed by an item ranging from very creative-not at all creative. The correlation of r = 0.34 between these two scales was not above the r = 0.50 pre-set criterion. Therefore the two scales were not summed up.

284 Arie Nadler el al.

Table 1. ANOVA summary table for dependent measures 'affect' and 'creativity' (N = 65)

Source

Dependent measure 'Creativity'

'Affective' state (Selfevaluations)

df MS F df MS F

Similarity-Dissimilarity(A) 1 85.5 2.79 1 0.01 0.01 Rejection-No rejection(B) 1 131.04 4.28* 1 3.41 3.01 AXB 1 289.60 9.47f' 1 4.45 3.94' Error (within) 61 30.58 61 1.13

' p < 0.0s. tp < 0.01.

c I

9 LL 3 0 1 LL ! e

Lu 5 Y //

no rejection rejection

4 94

i I I

no rejection reject ion Figure 1. Similarity by choice interaction for measures of affect and self-rated creative abilities

The cold glow of success 285

Anger

The effects of the experimental manipulations on subjects’ self-ratings of feelings of anger was characterized by a marginally significant two-way interaction, F(1, 61) = 3.39, p < 0.06. This interaction indicates that males who were rejected while a similar other chosen, felt angrier than males who did not witness the choice of a similar male confederate, F(1,61) = 4.7, p < 0.05, (cell means are 5.8 and 6.7 respectively). No such difference existed between the two groups in the dissimilar other condition, F < 1, (cell means 5.5 and 5.7).

From an overall perspective, the data portray a similar pattern. In fact, differences between the rejection and no-rejection groups occurred only in the attitudinally similar other condition. Thus, relative to subjects who had encountered a similar other and no rejection occurred, subjects who were rejected while the similar other chosen, felt worse, angrier and less able. In contrast, no such differences were observed between the two experimental groups in the attitudinally dissimilar condition.

Before discussing these data, it should be noted that in the no-rejecfion condition subjects who had encountered an attitudinally similar other had higher self-ratings of affect and self-evaluations than subjects who had encountered an attitudinally dissimilar other (cf. Figure 1 ), This difference concurs with both theory (cf. Clore and Byrne, 1974) and research (cf. Gouaux, 1971) which indicates that attitude similarity and dissimilarity are affectively positive or negative experiences respectively. Further, in previous studies, in a different context, which have used a similar research design where in control groups subjects had encountered an attitudinally similar/dissimilar other, a similar phenomenon was observed. Specifically, affect scores of subjects who had encountered a similar other were higher than those of subjects who had encountered a dissimilar other (i.e., Fisher and Nadler, 1974; Nadler ef af., 1976).

Effectiveness of similarity manipulation-liking and evaluations of other male

The attitude similarity/dissimilarity manipulation affected subjects’ liking for, and evaluations of, the other male. Subjects liked an attitudinally similar other, F(1, 61) = 7.45, p < 0.01, and tended to evaluate him more positively, F(1, 61) = 3.48, p < 0.06, than they did an attitudinally dissimilar other. In line with past research (Byrne, 1971), this effect provides support for the efficacy of the similarity manipulation. Also, the rejection main effect was significant for the measure of liking, F( l , 61) = 6.05, p < 0.05, and measure of evaluation of other, F(1, 61) = 5.19, p < 0.05. These main effects indicate that subjects in the rejection condition liked the other male less, and evaluated him less favourably than subjects in the no-rejection control condition. The interpretation and implications of this finding is to be discussed later.

DISCUSSION

The major finding of the present study indicates that only losses to an attitudinally similar other are painful. Specifically, relative to a no-rejection

286 Arie Nadler et al.

control condition only subjects who were rejected in favour of an attitudinally similar other had lower affect scores, lower perceptions of their ability and higher ratings of anger4. In line with relevant past research (e.g., Novak and Lerner, 1968; Nadler et al., 1976; Lerner and Agar, 1972) and theory (i.e., Brickman and Bullman, 1977), these data indicate that one derives self-knowledge only when one’s lot is compared to that of a similar other. Thus, in the present context of heterosexual competition, one’s rejection by an attractive female was upsetting when evaluated against the good fortune of an attitudinally similar other.

Concerning the evaluations and liking of the other male, an attitudinally similar other was better liked and more favourably evaluated than a dissimilar other. This effect supports the effectiveness of the similarity manipulation and corresponds with voluminous amount of past research in this context (cf. Byrne, 1971). Additionally, a rejection main effect implicated that when the other had not been chosen he was better liked and more favourably evaluated than when he had been chosen. This difference was not predicted, yet it may reflect the self-threatening effects of the rejection manipulation. Specifically, the subject may have discounted the other’s obvious dispositional superiority (i.e., more attractive) by devaluating these attributes as probable causes for the other’s relative success. Thus, the subject may have shifted the locus of attribution for his failure to some external causes (e.g., the peculiarities of the chosen female). However, since the present study has centred on the individual’s affective state and self evaluations, it remains for future research to test this possibility by measuring attributions that one makes in such an interpersonal setting.

The present findings apply to many interpersonal situations which share the major characteristics of the present experimental paradigm. Three features of the present paradigm seem most important. First, the present situation was not the common social comparison paradigm where one actively seeks out information from others in order to gain better knowledge about the meaning of his/her performance. Rather, the present paradigm constituted a forced comparison situation. In fact, the rejected male in the present study was faced with the information that he was rejected while another was chosen. Second, the present social setting was a competitive setting (i.e., the success of the other meant the loss of oneself) which reflected on a highly central personal qualify (e.g., attractiveness; ‘sex-appeal’). Thus, the finding that only losses to a similar other effect one’s feelings and self evaluations may relate to any (a) forced comparison which occurs with (b) a competitive setting, and which (c) reflects on a central personal quality (e.g., intelligence; social competence; physical appearance, etc.). Such interpersonal situations are quite frequent, (e.g., competition for job openings, promotions, grades, the attention of others, etc.).

Before considering the conceptual applications of the present study, it seems appropriate to note some limitations of the present paradigm which may point at

%e lack of main or interaction effects for the measure of self-rated self-confidence is at first puzzling because of the conceptual proximity of this item to situational self-esteem. Yet, it may be that the meaning of this self-rating scale creates a strong normative pressure against appearing too self-confident (i.e., arrogant) or lacking in self-confidence (i.e., weak). If such a norm was in fact operating it could have blocked any variability and led all subjects to rate themselves somewhat above the neutral point on this scale (i,e., around 5 on a 7 point scale where 7 is the very self-confident end of the scale).

The cold glow of success 287

future avenues for research in this context. First, subjects in the present study were rejected whereas another was chosen. Parallel moderating effects of interpersonal similarity should be observed if the situation is reversed. Specifically, relying on the logic that one’s lot is evaluated only against the fortune of similar others, if one is chosen and the other rejected, most positive affect and self evaluation resulting from such an interpersonal success should occur when the other is similar to oneself. Second, the present investigation has not studied the role of organismic variables in this context. Thus, whereas subjects here were all males it still remains to be seen whether females respond similarly or differently in such situations. Also, personality characteristics may play a moderating role in this context. High self esteem individuals may be differently affected than low self esteem individuals. On the level of dependent measures, the present study has centred on the rejected individual’s feelings and self-evaluations. A more thorough consideration of one’s behaviour towards, and perceptions of, the other participants in such an interpersonal arena (e.g., willingness to aggress against the other male, attributions made for the female’s choice, perceptions of the rejecting female) remain for the scrutiny of future research.

On the conceptual level, the present paradigm and findings have implications for several domains of social-psychological inquiry. First, within the framework of social comparison research, the present study represents a point of departure from the traditional cognitive-informational research direction in this context. More specifically, while this past research has studied cognitive processes operating in the choice of a comparison other, the present investigations has centred on the affective consequences of a forced social comparison situation. Second, relating to research and theory on attitudinal similarity (cf. Clore and Byrne, 1974), the present investigation indicates that similarity is not always reinforcing. A boundary condition for the similarity-reinforcement relationships is whether similarity is followed by equality, superiority or inferiority between oneself and the other. Finally, from the perspective of understanding consequences of social rejection, the data indicate that this phenomenon should be studied within the interpersonal context in which it occurs. Investigations and theory in this conceptual domain should take into account the rejected individual, the chosen rival and the nature of their relationships (i.e., similarity/dissimilarity). Further, the above statements bear on research in the area of envy and jealousy. This major aspect of human social behaviour (cf. Shoeck, 1968) has been neglected by social psychological research and theory. The present data and paradigm adds to the recent studies in this context (cf. Clanton and Smith, 1977) and may serve as an impetus for further research in the area.

REFERENCES

Brickman, P., and Bullman, R. J . (1977). ‘Pleasure and pain in social comparison’. In: Suls. J. M. and Miller, R. L. (Eds), Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, Henisphere Publishing Co., Wahington, D.C.

Byme, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm, Academic Press, New York. Clanton, G.. and Smith, L. G. (Eds), Jealousy, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

288 Ark Nadler et al.

Clore, G. L., and Byrne, D. (1974). ‘A reinforcement-affect model of attraction’. In: Houston T. L. (Ed.), Foundations of Interpersonal Attraction. Academic Press, New York.

Festinger, L. (1954). ‘A theory of social comparison processes’, Human Relations, 7 :

Fisher, J . D., and Nadler. A. (1974). ‘The effects of similarity between donor and recipient in recipient’s reactions to aid’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4:

Fisher, J. D., and Nadler, A. (1976). ‘To receive from the rich or the poor: Effects on the recipient’s self-esteem and subsequent self-help behavior’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12: 139-1 50.

Gouaux. L. (1 971). ‘Induced affective states and interpersonal attraction’, Journal of Personaliry and Social Psychology, 20: 37-43.

Griffitt, N., and Veitch, R. (1971). ‘Hot and crowded: Influences of population density and temperature on interpersonal affective behavior’, Journal of Personality and Social

Gruder, C . L., Korth, B.. Dichtel, M., and Glos. B. ‘Uncertainty and social comparison’,

Klages, L. (1 928). Die Grundlugen der Characterkunde. Barth, Leipzig. Latane, B. (1966). ‘Studies in social comparison-introduction and overview’, Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology. (supplement), 1-5. Lerner, M. J., and Agar, E. (1972). ‘The consequences of perceived similarity: Attraction

and rejection, approach and avoidance’, Journaf of Experimental Research in Personality, 6 : 69-75.

Mettee, D. R., and Risking, J. (1974). ‘Size of defeat and liking for superior and similar ability competitors’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10: 333-351.

Morse, S.. and Gergen, K. (1970). ‘Social comparison, self-consistency and the concept of self‘, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16: 148-156.

Nadler, A., Fisher, J. D., and Streufert, S. (1976). ‘Donor-recipient similarity and recipient’s level of self-esteem as determinants of recipient’s reactions to aid’, Journal of Personality, 44: 392-409.

Novak, D. W., and Lerner, M. J. (1968). ‘Rejection as a consequence of perceived similarity’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 147-152.

Shoeck, H. (1968). Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior, Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., New York.

Taylor, S. E., and Mettee, D. R. (1971). ‘When similarity breeds contempt’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20: 75-81,

Thibaut, J. W., and Kelley, H. H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups, Wiley, New York.

Winer, B. J. (1971). Sfatistical Principles in Experimental Design, McGraw-Hill, New York.

1 17-1 40.

233-245.

Psychology, 17: 92-98.

Journal of Research in Personality, 9: 85-95.

Nadler et al. ont examine I’influence d’attitudes egales et inigales sur I’effet d’un rejet social. Des sujets de sexe masculin etaient mis dans des situations dans lesquelles une femme les rejetait (condition experimentalle) ou pas (condition de contrble) comme partenaire de travail en faveur d’un autre homme montrant des attitudes soit similaires, soit differentes de celles du sujet. Seule la prefirence d’un autre ayant les m&mes attitudes provoquait une devaluation de I’auto-estimation et une irritation plus grande du sujet. Enfin on a discute les implications theoriques du paradigme de recherche et la direction possible d’une recherche dans ce domaine.

The cold glow of success 289

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Untersuchte den EinfluD von gleichen und ungleichen Einstellungen auf die Wirkung von sozialer Ablehnung. Mannliche Vpn wurden in Situationen gebracht, in denen eine Frau einen anderen Mann als Arbeitspartner bevorzugte. Dieser Andere hatte entweder ahnliche oder verschiedene Einstellungen wie der Abgelehnte. In der Kontrollgruppe wurden die Vpn nicht abgelehnt. Lediglich die Bevorzugung eines einstellungsgleichen Anderen Ioste eine niedrigere Selbsteinschatzung und eine hohere Argerlichkeit aus. Die theoretischen Implikationen des Forschungsparadigmas und die mogliche Ausrichtung diesbeziiglicher zukunftiger Forschung werden naher erortert.

Author’s address: Dr Arie Nadler, Department of Psychology, Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Israel.