You Only Hurt the Ones You Love

The Gain-Loss Effect

Aronson and Linder (1965)

The “law of infidelity,” derived from E. Aronson’s (1969) gain-loss theory of attraction, predicts that when 2 evaluators compete for the affections of an evaluatee, the one whose evaluations begin negatively but then become positive (a gain evaluator) will be liked more than a consistently positive evaluator. Experimental support for gain-loss theory has been obtained exclusively under single-evaluator conditions where the S evaluatee received evaluations from only one evaluator who either delivered a gain series or a continuously positive series of evaluations. The “law of infidelity,” however, predicts attraction in a competitive triangle, a double-evaluator situation, where the S evaluatee receives evaluations both from the gain evaluator and the positive evaluator. The present study with 70 female undergraduates confirmed the hypotheses that while a gain evaluator is liked more than a positive evaluator under single-evaluator conditions, when placed in direct competition with each other in a double-evaluator situation, the gain evaluator is no longer preferred; rather, the positive evaluator is liked significantly more. These and other findings are discussed in terms of the importance of contextual factors in the prediction of interpersonal attraction.

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/33/6/709/

Fuck Up and Still Look Sexy

The Pratfall Effect

Aronson, Willerman and Floyd (1966)

Proposed that the influence of a pratfall on a superior-ability person’s attractiveness might depend on the ability level of the “beholder.” Exp. I with 150 undergraduates showed that Ss of superior intellectual ability disliked a superior-ability person significantly more if he committed a pratfall, whereas an average-ability person was reacted to indifferently regardless of whether or not he committed a pratfall. The dislike shown for the superior-ability-pratfall person was so intense that it fell significantly below the liking shown for the average-ability-pratfall person. In Exp. II, 76 Ss of average intellectual ability tended to derogate a person of average ability if he committed a pratfall and was berated by a 3rd person, while the same conditions brought about a slight increase in superior-ability person’s attractiveness. Results are discussed in terms of the general pattern that emerged, showing that superior-ability Ss reacted toward a superior-ability person much as average Ss reacted toward an average-ability person.

The pratfall effect is a psychological phenomenon whereby the attractiveness of a person perceived as competent increases if the person commits a blunder. Conversely, the attractiveness of a person perceived as incompetent decreases if the person commits a blunder.

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/22/2/246/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratfall_effect

Proximity and Relationships

The Effect of Proximity on Interpersonal Attraction

Festinger, Schachter & Back (1950)

After WWII, waves of G.I.s went to college on government money. Many of these soldiers already had families, making regular student housing inappropriate. MIT resolved this issue by renting nearby Westgate apartment complexes. In 1950, friendship formation was tracked among the new couples at Westgate. Couples would name their three closest friends. 65% of the friends mentioned were in the same building. 41% of the next-door neighbors (19′ apart) were close friends. 22% of those who were two doors away (38′ apart) said so. Only 10% of those who lived on opposite ends of the hall (89′ apart) said they were close friends. Attraction also depended on functional distance: people whose rooms were next to the building’s mailboxes were more likely to have friends, since others would pass by them each day on the way to the mailbox.

In social psychology, propinquity(from Latin propinquitas, nearness) is one of the main factors leading to interpersonal attraction. It refers to the physical or psychological proximity between people. Two people living on the same floor of a building, for example, have a higher propinquity than those living on different floors. Propinquity can mean physical proximity, a kinship between people, or a similarity in nature between things.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/psychology/attraction.shtml#proximity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propinquity

Birds of a Feather Flock Together

The Effect of Similarity on Interpersonal Attraction

Byrne, Smeaton, & Clore (1986) / Gutkin, Gridley & Wendt (1976) / Kaplan & Olczak (1971) / Kurdek & Schnopp-Wyatt (1997)

In social psychology, similarity refers to how closely attitudes, values, interests and personality match between people. Research has consistently shown that similarity leads to interpersonal attraction. Many forms of similarity have been shown to increase liking. Similarities in opinions, interpersonal styles, amount of communication skill, demographics, and values have all been shown in experiments to increase liking.

Several explanations have been offered to explain similarity increases interpersonal attraction. First, people with similar interests tend to put themselves into similar types of settings. For example, two people interested in literature are likely to run into each other in the library and form a relationship (involving the propinquity effect). Another explanation is that we notice similar people, expect them to like us, and initiate relationships. Also, having relationships with similar people helps to validate the values held in common. Finally, people tend to make negative assumptions about those who disagree with them on fundamental issues, and hence feel repulsion.

An article written by Byrne, Smeaton, & Clore (1986), “The Attraction Hypothesis: Do Similar Attitudes Affect Anything?” may help to clarify the relationship between similarity and attraction. The paper was a critique of a study by Rosenbaum (1986). Rosenbaum created a four attraction experiment to prove that similarity does not lead to attraction rather dissimilarity lead to repulsion (Rosenbaum 1986). Rosenbaum found that similar attitudes do not lead to liking and therefore have no effect on attraction. Byrne et al. (1986) provided three main critiques of this finding. One, Rosenbaum did not compare similar attitude conditions with a neutral control condition and instead compared them with a positive trait condition .By doing this information that was left out led to the participants to already assume attitude similarity. Rosenbaum added information to the control condition without realizing the effect of it. According to Byrne, “human subjects think and their cognitive activity fills in information even though the experimenter may leave it out” (Byrne et al. 1986 p. 1167). Second, the proportion of similar and dissimilar attitudes varied methodically. Because attraction is influenced by proportion, the various numbers of similar and dissimilar attitudes are not seen as significant. Finally, he concluded that additional descriptive information should be treated qualitatively with all other information presented to the participants. Descriptive information would be physical appearance and occupation. The article concluded that Rosenbaum’s study did not prove that similar attitudes do not lead to liking. Byrne proposed the alternative explanation that having negative information about others leads to a straying away from others who are dissimilar. Byrne at al also suggested that those who have positive information would be more attracted to those who are similar and this will lead to building lasting relationship. There are findings that suggest people are more drawn to similarities such as age, race, educational level, beliefs and values and this in turn will enhance attraction (Byrne et al. 1986).

Similarity has effects on starting a relationship by initial attraction to know each other. It is showed that high attitude similarity resulted in a significant increase in initial attraction to the target person and high attitude dissimilarity resulted in a decrease of initial attraction (Gutkin, Gridley & Wendt, 1976; Kaplan & Olczak, 1971). Besides, similarity also promotes relationship commitment. Study on heterosexual dating couples found that similarity in intrinsic values of the couple was linked to relationship commitment and stability (Kurdek & Schnopp-Wyatt, 1997).

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Attraction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similarity_%28psychology%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_attraction#Effects_of_similarity_on_interpersonal_attraction

The Love of Familiarity

The Mere Exposure Effect

Zajonc (1968)

In the 1960s, a series of laboratory experiments by Robert Zajonc demonstrated that simply exposing subjects to an unfamiliar stimulus led them to rate it more positively than other, similar stimuli which had not been presented. Researchers have used words, Chinese characters, paintings, pictures of faces, geometric figures, and auditory stimuli in these experiments. In one variation, subjects were shown an image on a tachistoscope for a very brief duration that could not be perceived consciously. This subliminal exposure produced the same effect, though it is important to note that subliminal effects are generally weak and unlikely to occur without controlled laboratory conditions. According to Zajonc, the exposure effect is capable of taking place without conscious cognition, and that “preferences need no inferences.”

A meta-analysis of 208 experiments found that the exposure effect is robust and reliable, with an effect size of r=.26. This analysis found that the effect is strongest when unfamiliar stimuli are presented briefly. Mere exposure typically reaches its maximum effect within 10-20 presentations, and some studies even show that liking may decline after a longer series of exposures. For example, people generally like a song more after they have heard it a few times, but many repetitions can reduce this preference. A delay between exposure and the measurement of liking actually tends to increase the strength of the effect. Curiously, the effect is weaker on children, and for drawings and paintings as compared to other types of stimuli. One social psychology experiment showed that exposure to people we initially dislike makes us dislike them even more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_exposure_effect

Forgetting Reciprocity

Effects of Time on the Norm of Reciprocity

Burger, Horita, Kinoshita, Roberts, and Vera (1997)

Abstract:

The norm of reciprocity is a widely accepted social rule that requires us to return favors to those who do something nice for us. We conducted two experiments to test the hypothesis that the obligation to return favors diminishes as the amount of time between the initial favor and the opportunity to reciprocate grows. Participants in the first experiment were given an opportunity to return a favor either 5 min or 1 week after receiving a free soft drink from a confederate. Participants in the 5-min condition agreed to the confederate’s request to deliver an envelope across campus more often than control group participants receiving only the request. However, participants in the 1-week condition showed no significant reciprocity effect. Participants in the second experiment indicated in hypothetical scenarios that they would be less likely to return a favor as the length of time since the favor increased. We interpret the findings to mean that the norm of reciprocity does not mandate an open-ended obligation to return a favor. Rather, the social rule requires only that we return acts of kindness within a reasonable period of time.

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/The_Norm_of_Reciprocity

Boring Task

Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance

Festinger and Carlsmith (1959)

Abstract:

In Festinger and Carlsmith’s classic 1959 experiment, students were asked to spend an hour on boring and tedious tasks (e.g. turning pegs a quarter turn, over and over again). The tasks were designed to generate a strong, negative attitude. Once the subjects had done this, the experimenters asked some of them to do a simple favour. They were asked to talk to another subject (actually an actor) and persuade them that the tasks were interesting and engaging. Some participants were paid $20 (inflation adjusted to 2009, this equates to $148.40) for this favor, another group was paid $1 (or $7.42 in ’2009 dollars’), and a control group was not asked to perform the favour.

When asked to rate the boring tasks at the conclusion of the study (not in the presence of the other “subject”), those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 and control groups. This was explained by Festinger and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance. The researchers theorized that people experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions, “I told someone that the task was interesting”, and “I actually found it boring.” When paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, however, had an obvious external justification for their behaviour, and thus experienced less dissonance.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Festinger/

Doomsday Cults

When Prophecy Fails

Festinger et al. (1959)

Abstract:

Cognitive Dissonance is an inconsistency between two or more thoughts, opinions or behaviors. Every one has experienced cognitive dissonance. A cigarette smoker is a classic example of a dissonant individual. For example, a smoker might say, “I would quit smoking, but there is not enough evidence that smoking is dangerous.”Cognitive dissonance is powerful motivation for behavior or opinion change. Leon Festinger stated, “that the psychological opposition of irreconcilable ideas (cognitions), held simultaneously by one individual, created a motivating force that would lead, under proper conditions, to the adjustment of beliefs to fit prior behavior instead of changing behavior to express beliefs (the sequence conventionally assumed)”

Leon Festinger’s research provides empirical evidence to support the accuracy of cognitive dissonance theory. People often change their opinions and behaviors to match various social situations. However, most people will not change their behavior, even when they are presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

Also see Mistakes were made (but not by me)

Felt-tip Overjustification

Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification hypothesis”

Lepper et al. (1973)

Abstract:

Procedure
Pre-school children who were observed to enjoy drawing were selected for the experiment. The three conditions were:
1. The children agreed to engage in drawing for a reward (a certificate with gold seal and a ribbon).
2. The children did the activity and were surprised with the reward at the end.
3. The children neither expected or received the award.

They then evaluated the student’s general interest in a drawing activity 1-2 weeks later via a 2-way mirror.

The activity was drawing with magic markers.
Results
As predicted, kids in the expected reward condition showed subsequently less interest in drawing at later periods than kids in the other two conditions. In addition, the quality of the pictures in the expected-award group were lower than the other groups.

http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/lepper_overjust.html

Discussion Group Initiation

The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group

Aronson and Mills (1959)

Abstract:

An experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis that persons who undergo an unpleasant initiation to become members of a group increase their liking for the group; that is, they find the group more attractive than do persons who become members without going through a severe initiation. This hypothesis was derived from Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance. 3 conditions were employed: reading of “embarrassing material” before a group, mildly embarrassing material to be read, no reading. The results clearly verified the hypothesis.

See Mistakes were made (but not by me)