Chapter 9: Interpersonal Attraction
•Situational Factors & Liking
1. Proximity
•Festinger, Schachter, & Back (1950)
–Massachusetts Institute of Technology Study
–Physical proximity was the most important determinant of friendship
Other Areas
•Urban housing projects for the elderly
•Office work environments
•Classroom settings
•Priest & Sawyer (1967)
•Lions and Lambs
•What if we move enemies next door to one another?
•Ebbesen, Kjos, & Konecni (1976)
•They also developed most of their enemies close by as well. Why?
2. Familiarity
•We like stimuli we have had more exposure
–Occurs in the absence of information about the person or object
•Saegert, Swapp, & Zajonc (1973)
3. Anxiety:Does Misery Love Company?
•Schachter (1959)
–Dr. Gregor Zilstein study
•Misery loves miserable company
Are anxious people motivated to seekout similar others in order to talk about
the impending misery?
Same study, but women could not talk
•Motivating Factor
•Social Comparison
–Compare emotional reactions
•Two little wrinkles
•Sarnoff & Zimbardo (1961) “Baby Study”
•Chose to wait with dissimilar others
•Outcome dependence vs. Emotional dependence operating
–Outcome dependence refers to dependence on others for positive outcomes
•Social Comparison Process
•Kulik & Mahler (1989) “Heart Surgery Study”
–Social comparison fueled by desire to affiliate with similar others AND a need to appraise the situation itself
Characteristics of Others
•Physical Attractiveness
•Feingold (1992)
SociableLess Modest
DominantMentally Healthy
IntelligentSocially Skilled
•Frieze, Olson, & Russell (1991)
•Facial attractiveness led to $2,200 more in starting salary
–Influenced later salaries for women
•Attractive women average $4,200 more
•20% overweight reduced a man’s starting salary by $2,000
Are Attractive People Better?
•Feingold (1992) analyzed 90 studies
•Found no differences
•Attractive people:
Not More Not Perceived to Be
IntelligentTrustworthy
DominantHonest
Self-EsteemSensitive
Judgments of Attractiveness
•Value Transfer or “rub off” effect
–viewed simultaneously
•Contrast Effect
–viewed sequentially
Evaluations of our own appearance
•Brown, Novick, Lord, & Richards (1992)
•Universal Beauty Standard
•Ford and Beach (1951)
•Studied 190 tribal societies
•No Universal Standards of Beauty
•WHY?
Similarity and Liking
•Kandel (1978) found best friends in H.S. were similar in sex, race, age, and year in school
•Why does similarity increase liking?
Theories of Similarity & Liking
•Byrne (1971)
•Aronson (1974)
•Davis (1981)
Evaluation and Liking
•Aronson & Linder (1965)
•4 patterns were:
–Positive from start to finish
–Negative at first, then positive
–Positive at first, then negative
–Negative from start to finish
Competence and Liking
•Competent people are liked more
–“Best idea guy” is not the best liked member
•Aronson, Willerman, & Floyd (1966)“Spilled Coffee” study