The Repulsion Hypothesis

1. The Repulsion Hypothesis Caitlan Webster

2. Overview • Alternative Explanation for Newcomb’s (1961) Results • Methodological Flaws in Byrne’s (1971) Experiment • Experiment 1 (Modified Replication of Byrne) • Experiment 2 (Iowa Caucus Study) • Experiment 3 (Reinforcement-Affect Theory) • Discussion

3. Alternative Explanation for Newcomb’sResults

4. Newcomb’s (1961) results • Examined naturalistic development of interpersonal attraction in male housemates. • Found that pre-acquaintance similarity in attitudes predicted pair attraction on late but not on early acquaintance. • The difference in timing was expected on the basis of the presumption that it would take time to know other’s attitudes.

5. Newcomb’s (1961) results • An alternative explanation is that as the housemates got to know each other, they were increasingly repulsed by persons with dissimilar attitudes and values. • By the process of elimination, the housemates were left to be attracted to similar persons.

6. Newcomb’s (1961) results • It is possible that similarity leads to attraction and dissimilarity to repulsion. • However, it is also possible that dissimilarity leads to repulsion and similarity has no impact on attraction.

7. Flaws in Byrne’s Experiment

8. Byrne’s (1971) Experiment • Subjects responded to an attitude questionnaire. • Subjects are then provided with a fake copy of the same questionnaire and told it was completed by a stranger. • A linear relation supports the generalization that similarity leads to attraction and dissimilarity causes repulsion.

9. Byrne’s (1971) Experiment • However, an adequate control or baseline condition has never been included. • Needs to include a “no-attitudes” questionnaire condition. • Permits determination of the degree to which similarity enhances attraction, dissimilarity decreases attraction, or whether either one has any consequence at all.

10. Byrne’s (1971) Experiment • This “no-attitudes” condition was used in Byrne’s 1968 experiment, but was not treated as a control. • During the main experiment, participants were given photographs of an attractive or unattractive person and an attitude questionnaire that was either similar or dissimilar.

11. Byrne’s (1971) Experiment • This “no-attitudes” condition was used in Byrne’s 1968 experiment, but was not treated as a control. • In a preliminary experiment, photographs were provided without the questionnaire. • This could have been used as the “no-attitudes” condition.

12. Byrne’s (1971) Experiment • When the two conditions are combined, the results suggest that: • Information concerning similarity does not enhance attraction to both attractive and unattractive people. • Information concerning dissimilarity decreases attraction to both attractive and unattractive people.

13. Experiment 1: Modified Replication of Byrne

14. Experiment 1 Procedure • 168 photographs from a yearbook were scaled for physical attractiveness. • The eight photographs that received the most extreme mean rating in each category representing sex and attractiveness were chosen for experimental use.

15. Experiment 1 Procedure • 2 X 2 X 2 X 3 factorial design: • Sex of subject X Sex of photograph X Attractiveness X Attitude information (similarity, dissimilarity, no-attitude) • 192 participants. • Previously completed attitude questionnaires. • Same-sex group sessions containing 3 to 12 subjects.

16. Experiment 1 Procedure • Subjects were provided with a photograph and a fake attitude questionnaire completed by the photographed person (except for the no-attitude condition). • Scales were adjusted to be similar on 10 issues and dissimilar on 2 issues, or similar on 2 issues and dissimilar on 10 issues. • Subjects evaluated the person on the Interpersonal Judgment Scales.

17. Experiment 1 Results • Attractive were rated higher than unattractive. • Similar and control did not significantly differ. • Dissimilar was different from other conditions.

18. Experiment 1 Discussion • The findings support the hypothesis that attitudinal dissimilarity leads to repulsion but similarity does not enhance attraction. • Unattractive people who had similar attitudes were not evaluated more positively than people whose attitudes were not presented.

19. Experiment 2: Iowa Caucus Study

20. Experiment 2 Procedure • Iowa Caucus Study: • Presumed that attitudinal information is embedded in political party affiliation. • Discovering a stranger is of the same party would lead to liking while discovering a stranger is of the opposite party would lead to disliking.

21. Experiment 2 Procedure • A card with a list of 8 traits describing a person were given to participants to evaluate. • A high-positive list of traits and a low-positive list of traits. • 8th word was either Democrat, Republican, or no party affiliation. • Cards were given at Democratic caucuses and a Republican rally.

22. Experiment 2 Procedure • 2 X 2 X 3 design: • Traits X Party (Person) X Party (Participant) • 309 participants. • 240 Democrats, 69 Republicans.

23. Experiment 2 Results • Democrats were more attracted to very positive traits. • Republicans were equally attracted to either very positive or moderately positive traits.

24. Experiment 2 Results • Democrats were attracted equally to Democrats and controls. • Democrats were less attracted to Republicans.

25. Experiment 2 Results • Republicans were equally attracted to Republicans and controls. • Republicans were less attracted to Democrats.

26. Experiment 2 Discussion • Another study (Rosenbaum & Holtz, 1985) adapted the caucus study in the context of arbitrary group categorization. • Participants were randomly assigned as “Phis” or “Gammas”.

27. Experiment 2 Discussion • Participants were then given trait cards similar to the caucus study. • Some subjects’ cards contained either in-group or out-group labels, while others had no labels (control).

28. Experiment 2 Discussion • High-positive traits were not rated differently. • Moderately positive traits with in-group membership and no membership label were rated equally. • Moderately positive traits with out-group membership were rated more negatively. • Based on out-group derogation and not in-group favorability.

29. Experiment 3: Reinforcement-Affect Theory

30. Experiment 3 Procedure • Based on reinforcement-affect theory, occurrence of attitudinal similarity is a reinforcement and dissimilarity is a punishment. • Golightly & Byrne (1964) showed that attitude statements that were similar to or dissimilar from the subject’s attitude could be used to designate correct and incorrect responses and produce learning.

31. Experiment 3 Procedure • A replication was performed later using similar attitudes and neutral responses for correct and incorrect responses compared to neutral responses and dissimilar attitudes for correct and incorrect responses. • The neutral-dissimilar group showed learning while the similar-neutral group did not.

32. Experiment 3 Procedure • A follow-up experiment used similar statements and black cards, neutral statements and blank cards, or blank cards and dissimilar statements for correct and incorrect responses. • All three groups showed learning. • Theorized that neutral statements have reinforcing properties.

33. Experiment 3 Procedure • Stimulus cards were prepared with a circle and square that were black or white, large or small, and appeared on the left or right. • The characteristics were randomly varied. • The participants had to chose either the circle or the square as the correct response. • Half of the participants had “small” as the correct response while the other half had “large” as the correct response.

34. Experiment 3 Procedure • Feedback cards were: • A card containing a BXX nonsense syllable and a blank card for correct and incorrect responses. • A card containing a DXX nonsense syllable and a blank card for correct and incorrect responses. • A card containing a BXX nonsense syllable and a DXX nonsense syllable for correct and incorrect responses.

35. Experiment 3 Results • Significant increase in performance for BXX-neutral and DXX-neutral conditions. • No significant increase in performance for BXX-DXX condition.

36. Experiment 3 Discussion • Helson’s (1959,1964) adaptation level theory: • One’s own attitude serves as the adaptation level from which a stranger’s attraction is to be judged based on the stranger’s attitude.

37. Experiment 3 Discussion • Helson’s (1959,1964) adaptation level theory: • A similar stranger should be viewed at the neutral point, thereby commanding a neutral response. • A dissimilar stranger should be viewed as different from the neutral point, thereby commanding a negative response.

38. General Discussion

39. General Discussion • Cases where similarity could lead to attraction: • Experience of similarity in the context of dissimilarity. • Experience of agreement. • Relatively new and important attitudes.

40. General Discussion • The experience of similarity in the context of dissimilarity has been shown to result in increased attraction responses above the level obtained in the absence of the dissimilarity context. • Similar strangers are rated as more attractive following presentation of an unattractive stranger than similar strangers not preceded by a dissimilar stranger.

41. General Discussion • The consistency theories: • Including cognitive dissonance theory. • The occurrence of inconsistency in each of these theories produces aversive states that cause motivation to reduce or eliminate them.

42. General Discussion • In the context of consistency theories, exposure to attitudinal similarity is a consistent event that lacks affective or motivational properties. • Explanation for no difference occurring in attraction between similar conditions and no-attitude conditions.

43. General Discussion • However, exposure to dissimilar attitudes causes the induction of inconsistency and an aversive state. • The presence of the aversive state leads to the repulsion of the person whose attitudes induced the negative state. • Repulsion leads to reduction in negative state.

44. Conclusion • Considerable events suggests that attitudinal dissimilarity leads to repulsion but similarity does not enhance attraction.