INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION IN A DYAD AS A FUNCTION OF THE PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS OF ITS MEMBERS by RICHARD MARSHALL MCVJHIRTER, JR., B.A. , M.A. A DISSERTATION IN PSYCHOLOGY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Approved Accepted December, 1969
58
Embed
INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION IN A DYAD AS A FUNCTION …
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION IN A DYAD AS A FUNCTION
OF THE PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS OF ITS MEMBERS
by
RICHARD MARSHALL MCVJHIRTER, JR., B.A. , M.A.
A DISSERTATION
IN
PSYCHOLOGY
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved
Accepted
December, 1969
SOI
/c/y^ O ACKNOWTLEDGEMENTS
I am indebted to Dr. Clay George, chairman of
the committee, for his assistance by v/ay of suggestions
and encouragement, and to the other committee members.
Dr. Sam Campbell, Dr. Nathan Denny, Dr. Charles Halcomb,
Dr. James Archer, and Dr. Everett Gillis, for their
time and interest.
Also, I would like to express my appreciation
to my wife and our families for their moral and
material support throughout graduate school.
11
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
I. INTRODUCTION 1
The Interpersonal Attraction Variable 1
The Typical Paradigm of Attraction
Experiments 2
Correlates of Attraction 4
Propinquity and Responsivity 5
The Dynamics of the Interaction 5
Overt Stimulus Characteristics 7
Aims of the Current Study 10
II. METHOD 14
Subjects 14
Design 14 Scaling of Attractiveness 15
Procedure 17
III. RESULTS 19
IV. DISCUSSION 30
The Law of Attraction 30
The Role of Sex 32
The Role of Subject Attractiveness 32
The Role of Stranger Attractiveness 33
The Second-Order Interaction 36
Suggestions for Future Research 37 • • •
111
IV
V. SUI -IARY 40
LIST OF REFERENCES 41
APPENDIX 44
A. Interpersonal Judgement Scale 45
B* Correlation Coefficients for Each Pair
of Judges Rating S Attractiveness 46
C. Attitude Questionnaire 47
D. Raw Attraction Scores for All Subjects 49
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Mean and Standard Deviation of Attraction Scores for Each Experimental Treatment 20
2. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Attraction Scores 21
3. Difference in Mean Attraction Tov/ard Lov/ and High Agreeing Strangers for Combinations of Subject and Stranger Attractiveness 25
w
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1* Attraction as a joint function of proportion of similar attitudes and physical attractiveness (after Byrne et_ aJL., 196S) 9
2* Attraction tov/ard lov/ attractive strangers as a joint function of agreement and subject attractiveness 22
3. Attraction toward average attractive strangers as a joint function of agreement and subject attractiveness 23
4. Attraction toward high attractive strangers as a joint function of agreement and subject attractiveness 24
5* Attraction of male and female Ss toward female strangers of varying attractiveness 27
6. Attraction as a negatively accelerated function of stranger attractiveness 25
7* Non-interactive effects of subject and stranger attractiveness on attraction 29
5* Attraction as a joint function of agreement and stranger attractiveness 35
VI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Interpersonal Attraction Variable
Among the topics of recent concern to social and
personality psychologists, fev/ have been of more
heuristic importance than that of "interpersonal
attraction," its theory and dynamics. Despite the fact
that, in the realm of human behavior, "prediction and
control" are not universally accepted as positive values,
a working understanding of interpersonal relationships
is gradually emerging—an understanding that could
someday inform an attack on hate, prejudice, and
violence. However that may be, a really complete
formulation of the principles of attraction, not to
mention effective practical application of those
principles, awaits the slow accumulation of data obtained
by such experiments as the one reported here.
Whether interpersonal attraction is conceptualized
as a sort of mechanistic affinity between individuals or,
more cognitively, as an introspectively perceived
"liking" for another, is not particularly relevant. V/hat
is important is to realize that attraction is a construct
v/hich has meaning only v/ith regard to the operations by
1
v/hich it is defined, and that it has been defined in a
variety of v/ays. Ordinarily, the definitions of
attraction require introspection and an ability, on the
part of the subject, to rank order, rate, or otherv/ise
quantify his liking of others. Recently, attempts have
been made to measure attraction by behavioral variables
v/hich avoid the need for introspection. Clone (1969)
has found that such behavioral indices as distance and
angle of preferred interaction, seating behavior, etc.
correlate to some degree with the more classical
introspective indices. Other measures, such as pupil
dilation (Hess & Polt, 1966), also seem to hold promise
for future use as measures of attraction. But such
definitions of attraction, with their appeal to
objectivism, have not yet been sufficiently well
validated to substitute for the more popular paper and
pencil scales, with assurance that the same variable is
being discussed in all instances. Thus in the current
study the attraction measure will be of the verbal
report type.
The Typical Paradigm of Attraction Experiments
Though the attraction in a dyad is a two-way
proposition, the attraction of X for Y and of Y for X
being conceptually independent quantities, the typical
experiment utilizes only the attraction of one person
3
(the subject (S) ) for a stimulus person (also called
"target" or "stranger"). Differences betv/een the Ss
and/or the stimulus persons usually serve as the
independent variables. Thus the stranger is usually
either a confederate pre-programmed to behave in a
certain v/ay, or a mythical stranger who is known to S
only by his alleged responses on a questionnaire. The
latter approach has the advantages of economy and
experimental control while sacrificing the realism of
the confederate approach, with its greater generality.
Interestingly enough, it has been found that, within the
limits of a typical experimental situation, the tv/o types
of strangers do not produce differential results
(McVJhirter & Jecker, 1966). In that study, half of the
4^ subjects were exposed to a confederate stranger who,
in a face-to-face interaction, agreed on either two,
four, or six items of a seven item attitude scale. The
other half saw only the completed questionnaire of a
non-existent stranger: here, also, agreement v/as on
either tv/o, four, or six items for each subject. V/hile
agreement was found to significantly influence attraction,
the effect of stimulus mode was non-significant. The
current study will utilize the mythical-type stranger,
as a matter of convenience and control*
Correlates of Attraction
Propinquity and Responsivity
The experimentally investigated correlates of
attraction might be roughly classified into four main
Job Corpsmen and hospital patients (Byrne, Griffitt,
Hudgins, & Reeves; in press), spouses (Richardson, 1939),
friends (Richardson, 1940), etc. The phenomenon itself
is not really open to contradiction, so consistently and
predictably is it found—it has even been called the
"Law of Attraction" (Byrne & Nelson, 1965)--but the
theoretical interpretation is currently the subject of a
fairly lively debate. As might have been predicted, the
arguments fall broadly into tv/o schools of thought,
cognitive and reinforcement interpretations* In the
words of Byrne, London, and Reeves (1965, p. 259):
Cognitive consistency theorists stress the importance of the balance or symmetry of the positive and negative attitudes and orientations of any tv/o individuals v/ith respect to each other and to the objects about which they communicate (e*g*, Heider, 1955; Newcomb, 1959, 1961). In a quite different theoretical context, reinforcement theorists stress the reward-punishment consequents of each element of the interaction . . .
Byrne (1966) and Pepitone (1964) are proponents of
reinforcement interpretations of attraction. According «
to them, attraction is essentially the learned expectation
of forthcoming reward from another person* As interesting
as this controversy is, it is not the central focus of
this study. Nor is any experiment or group of experiments
likely to resolve the controversy in the near future.
What is of importance to this study is the empirical fact
that the attraction of §_ for a stranger is a positive
linear function of the proportion of similar attitudes
attributed to the stranger (Byrne & Nelson, 1965).
attractiveness--were all highly significant individually,
and (combined) as a second-order interaction. The
subject attractiveness main effect was seen as supporting
the reinforcement approach to attraction. The
interaction was interpreted to mean that, for attractive
subjects, agreement becomes less important in affecting
attraction as stranger attractiveness increases; for
unattractive subjects, agreement becomes more important
as stranger attractiveness increases. Suggestions v/ere
made for future research in the area of attraction.
40
LIST OF REFERENCES
Byrne, D. The influence of propinquity and opportunities for interaction on classroom relationshipso Human Relations. 1961, L^, 63-69. "
Byrne, Do Response to attitude similarity-dissimilarity as a function of affiliation need. Journal of Personality. 1962, 10, 164-177.
Byrne, D. An introduction to personality: A research approach. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966.
Byrne, D., Clore, G. L., Jr., & V'/orchel, P. The effect of economic similarity-dissimilarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1966, 4, 220-224.
Byrne, D., & Griffitt, VJ. A developmental investigation of the law of attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology* 1966, 4, 699-702.
Byrne, D., Griffitt, W., Hudgins, V7. , & Reeves, K. Attitude similarity-dissimilarity and attraction: generality beyond the college sophomore. Journal of Social Psychology, in press.
Byrne, D., Griffitt, W., & Stefaniak, D. Attraction and similarity of personality characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, i,"~52-90.
Byrne, D., London, 0., & Reeves, K. The effects of physical attractiveness, sex, and attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality, 1965, l6 (2), 259-271o
N/Byrne, D. , & Nelson, D. Attraction as a linear function of proportion of positive reinforcements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, i, ^9-S53T^ ~
Clore, G. L., Jr. Attraction and interpersonal behavior. Paper read at meeting of Southwestern Psychological Association, Austin, Texas, 1969.
41
42
Edwards, A. Experimental design in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963.
Helson, H. Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper and Rov/, I964.
Hess, E* H. & Polt, J. H. Pupil size as related to interest value of visual stimuli. Science, 1966, 122, 349-350.
Hoult, T. F. Experimental measurement of clothing as a factor in some social ratings of selected American men. American Sociological Reviev/, 1954, 19, 324-32^7^
Jones, E. E. Authoritarianism as a determinant of first-impression formation. Journal of Personality, 1954, 21, 107-127.
Kirk, R. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole, 1965.
Krauss, R. M. Structural and attitudinal factors in interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 2, 42-55.
Lerner, M. J. Evaluation of performance as a function of performer's rev/ard and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 355-360.
McV/hirter, R. M., & Jecker, J. D. Attitude similarity and inferred attraction. Psvchonomic Science, 1967, 2, 225-226.
Newcomb, T. M. The acquaintance ^roc,ess. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961.
Pepitone, A. Attraction and hostility. New York: Atherton, 1964*
Richardson, Helen M. Studies of mental resemblence between husbands and wives and between friends. Psychological Bulletin, 1939, 16, 104-120.
43
Richardson, Helen M. Community of values as a factor in friendships of college and aault wfomenc Journal of Social Psychology, 1940, il, 303-312.
Scheffe, H. A method for judging all contrasts in the analysis of variance. Biometrika, 1953, 40, 57-104.
Wong, T. J. The effect of attitude similarity and prejudice on interpersonal evaluation and attraction. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Texas, 1961.
•1
APPENDIX
A. Interpersonal Judgement Scale 45
B* Correlation Coefficients for Each Pair of Judges Rating S, Attractiveness 46
C. Attitude Questionnaire 47
D* Raw Attraction Scores for All Subjects 49
44
45
APPENDIX A: INTERPERSONAL JUDGEMENT SCALE
Judging from this person's responses and
appearance, evaluate, as accurately as possible, the
person on the follov/ing traits or qualities.
Circle the number v/hich represents the degree of
your evaluation:
INTELLIGENCE Very low 1 2 3 4 5
MORALITY Very lov/ 1 2 3 4 5
KNOV/LEDGE OF CURRENT EVENTS Very small 1 2 3 4 5
ADJUSTMENT Very poor 1 2 3 4 5
I FEEL THAT I V/OULD LIKE THIS PERSON Very l i t t l e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much
I FEEL THAT I WOULD ENJOY V/ORKING IN A CLASS EXPERIMENT
WITH THIS PERSON Very l i t t l e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
Very high
Very high
Very great
Very good
46
APPENDIX B: CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH PAIR OF
JUDGES RATING S ATTRACTIVENESS
JUDGE
w o Q
•-3
2
3
4
1
.63
.63
.55
2
.55
.57
3
.74
•-.62
47 APPENDIX C: ATTITUDE QUT^STIONNAIRE
Name
Sex
Favorite Hobby
Do you have a picture of yourself you can spare,
preferably taken while engaging in your hobby? Yes No
Circle the number which indicates your amount
of agreement:
1. It is all right for college undergraduates to smoke.
Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
2. It is all right for undergraduates to drink alcoholic
beverages. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
3. I am for integration in public schools. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
4. I am a Democrat by political preference. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
5. It is all right for undergraduates to get married. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
6. Money is one of the most important goals in life. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
7. The typical four point college grading system
works fine. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
5. The legal voting age should be left at twenty-one
years. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
45
APPENDIX C — CONTINUED
9. Organized religion could stand a whole lot of
improvement. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
10. Athletics is overemphasized at most U.S. colleges.
Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
11. Much of the campus unrest across the nation
is justified. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree
12. The U.S. spends too much for foreign aid and too
little for welfare. Very much disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very much agree