R02 - Byrne 1970 - Continuity Between Experimental Study...

7/22/2019 R02 - Byrne 1970 - Continuity Between Experimental Study...

1/9

Journal vj Personality an d Social Psychology1970, Vol. 16, No. 1,157-165

CONTINUITY B E T W E E N THE EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OFATTR AC TION A N D R E A L-L IF E C O M P U T E R D A T I N G1D O N N BYRNE2Purdue University

C H A R L E S R. ERVINUniversity of Texas

A N D JOHN L A M B E R T HPurdue University

As a test of the non labora lo ry genera l izab i l i ty o f a t t r a c t i on re s ea rch , a c o m -puter da t ing f i e ld s tudy was conducted . A SO-item ques t ionna i re of a t t i tudesand persona l i ty was admini s tered to a 4 2 0- s tuden t pool , and 44 male- fem alepairs were selected on the basis of maximal or minimal s imilari ty of responses.Each couple was in t roduced, g iven different ial info rm at ion abo ut the bas i s forthei r matching , an d asked to s pend 30 mi nu te s tog e the r at the Student Unionon a coke date." A f te rw a rd , they re tu rned to the exper imenter an d wereindependent ly a s sessed on a scries of measures . I t was f o u n d that attractionw as significantly related to similari ty and to physical a ttractiveness. Physicalattractiveness w as also signif icant ly related to ra t ings of desirability as a da te ,a s a spouse, and to sexual a ttractiveness. Both s imilari ty an d a t t ract ivenesswere rela ted to the phys ica l proximi ty of th e two in div idua ls whi le they we reta lk ing to the exper i men te r a f t e r the da te . In a fo l low -up inves t iga t ion a t th eend of the sem es ter , s imi la r i ty and phys ica l at t ract iveness w ere f o u n d top red i c t a ccu ra te memory of the date's n a m e , inc idence of ta lk i ng to oneanother in the in ter im since the coke date, and desire to date the o ther personin the f u t u r e .A fami l ia r but never totally resolved prob-

le m wi th any experimental f indings is the ex-ten t to which they m a y b e general ized to thenonlaboratory si tuat ion. A t least three view-points about th e problem m a y b e discerned.First, and perhaps most famil iar, is ins tantgeneralization from th e specific and oftenl imited condit ions of an exper iment to any andall set t ings which a re even remotely related.This tendency is most frequently seen at cock-tail parties af te r the th i rd mart in i and ontelevision talk shows f ea tu r ing those w hopopular ize psychology. Second, and almost asfamil ia r , is the not ionthat the labora tory is anecessary evil. It is seen as an adequate sub-st i tute for the real world, only to the extentthat it reproduces the world. For example,Aronson a nd Car l smi th (1968) ask , Why,1Thi s resea rch was s uppor ted in p a r t by Res ea rchG r a n t MH-11178-04 f ro m th e Na t i ona l I n s t i tu te ofM e n t a l Hea l th and in part b y Res ea rch Gra n t G S-2 7 5 2 f ro m th e Na t i ona l S c i ence F ounda t i on . T h e

a u t h o r s wish to t h a n k J a m e s Hilgren, Roya l Masset ,an d H erma n M i tche l l for thei r help in conduct ingth is exper iment .2Reques ts for r ep r in t s should be sent to DormByrne , D epa r tmen t of P s ycho log y , P u rdu e U n i ve r -s i ty , La f a ye t t e , I n d i a n a 47907 .

then, do we bother with these pall id and con-t r ived imi ta t ions of human in te rac t ion whenthere exist rath er sophist icated techniques fors tudy ing th e real thing fp . 4]?" They enu-mera te the advantages of exper iments overfield s tudy , b u t emphas i ze that good experi-men t s mus t be real ist ic in order to involve th esub jec t and have an "impact" on him. Con-cern wi th exper imenta l rea l i sm often is ex-pressed in the con tex t of posi t ing qual i ta t ivedifferences betw een the labora tory and theouts ide world; i t i s assumed that in movingf rom simplici ty to complexity, new and d i f -f e r en t pr inciples are emergent . Third, andleast f am i l i a r in personal i ty and social psy-chology, is a view which is quite common ino the r f ields. Lab ora tory research is seen nota s a necessary evil but as an essential pro-cedurew hich enables us toattain isolation andcont ro l of variables and thus makes possibleth e fo rmula t ion of basic principles in a set t ingo f reduced complexi ty . If experiments real ist i -cal ly reproduce th e nonlabora tory complexi -ties, they provide l i t t le advantage over thefields tudy. C ont inu i ty is assumed between th el abora tory and the outs ide world , and com-plexi ty is seen as quan t i t a t i ve and not qua l i -

15 7


2/9

15 8 I). B Y R N E , C. R . K R V I N , AND J . L A M B K R T Ht a t ive . To move f rom a simple s i tuat ion to acomplex onerequires deta i led knowledge aboutth e relevant variables an d their in teract ion.Applicat ion and the a t ta inment of a technol-ogy depend upon such an approach .

With respect to a specif ic psychologicalphe n om e n on , the problem o f non labora to rygeneral izat ion and application may be ex a m-ined more concrete ly . The laboratory inves t i -gat ion of interpersonal at t ract ion w i th i n ar e in fo rcement paradigm (Byrn e , 1969) hasfollowed a s t ra tegy in which the effect of avar ie ty of s t im ulus var iables on a s ing le re-sponse var iable was the pr imary focus of in-terest. A model has evolved which treats allr e levan t s t im uli as pos i t ive or negat ive re in-fo rcers of dif ferent ia l magni tude. Attract iontoward a n y s t imulus ob jec t ( inc lu d ing a n -other person) is then fo u nd to be a pos i t ivel i nea r funct ion of the proportion of w e ig h t e dpos i t ive r e in forcements associated w i th thatobjec t . At t i tude s ta tements have been themos t f r equen t ly employed re in fo rc ing s t i m u l i ,b u t o the r s t imulus e lements have i nc l udedperso nal i ty var iables (e .g ., Grifi i t t , 1 9 6 6 ) ,phys ical attractiven ess (e.g. , B y r n e , L o n d o n ,& Reeves , 1968) , economic var iables (Byrne,Clore, & Worchel , 1966) , race (e .g . , Byrne&Erv in, 1 969 ) , behavioral preferences ( H u f f -m a n , 1 9 6 9 ) ,personal evaluat ions (e .g . , Byrne& R h a m e y , 1 9 6 5 ) , room tempera ture ( G r i f -f i t t , 1970a) , and sexual arousal (P icher ,1 9 6 6 ) .Cons ide r ing just one of those variables , at-t i t u d e s imilar i ty-dis s imilar i ty , why is i t notreasonable topropose an im m e d ia t e and d i r e c tparallel between labora tory and n o n l a b o r a -fo ry responses? One r eason i s s imple and qu i teobv ious , but i t seems of ten to be over looked.Labora tory research is based on the isolationof var iables so that one or a l imi ted numbero f indepen dent va riables may be ma nipu la ted ,whi le , if poss ible , a ll o the r s t im ulus va r iab le sare control led. In the outs ide wor ld, mult ipleuncont ro l led s t imul i are present . T h u s , if allan exper imental subject knows about as t r anger is that he holds op in ions s imi la r tohis own on six out of six polit ical is sues , th es t r ange r wi l l be l iked (By rne , Bo nd, & D ia -m o n d , 1 9 6 9 ) . W e ca nno t , however , a s sumetha t a n y tw o i n t e r a c t i n g i n d iv idua l s w hoagree on these s ix issues wi l l become f a s t

f r i ends because (a) they may never getaround to discuss ing those s ix topics a t all,and (b) even if these topics are discussed, s ixpositive re in fo rcement s may s imply become anins ign i f icant po r t i ono f a host ofo the r pos i t ivean d negative r e i n fo rc i ng e l e m e n t sin the i n t e r -act ion. A second bar r ier to immedia te appl i -cability of a l a b o r a to r y f in d in g lies in then a tu r e of the response. It is good researchstrategy to l i m i t the dependent var iable ( inthis ins tance, the sum of two 7-po int r a t i n gscales ) , b u t nonlabora tory r e sponses m a y b eas varied and uncont ro l led as the s t im u l i .T her e la t ionsh ip be tween tha t pape r -and-penc i lmeasure o f at t ract ion an d o the r in te rpe r sona lresponses i s only b egi nn ing to be explo red(e .g . , Byrne,Baskett,& Hodges, 1969; E f r a n ,1 9 6 9 ) . Th e th i rd ba r r ie r l i e s in the n a tu r e o fth e re la t ionsh ip inves t iga ted . For a nu m be r ofq u i t e practical reasons, th e labora tory s tudyo f at t ract ion is l imited in i t s time span andhence might leg i t imately b e labeled the s tudyof f i r s t im pres s ions . W hether th e de t e r m in a n t so f f i r s t impress ions are precisely the same asth e de te rminan t s of a pro longed f r i ends h i p , oflove, or of mar i ta l h appines s i s an em pir ic alques t ion and one r eq u i r in g a g rea t dea l o fresearch.

f n view of these ba r r i e r s to ex t ra l abora to ryappl icat ion of exper imenta l f indings , how mayone beg in the eng ineer ing en te rp r i se? T hepresent research sugges ts one a t t e m p t to seeka solut ion. Specif ical ly ,a l imi ted da t ing s i tu -at ion is created in which the bar r iers toappl ica t ion a re min i miz ed . I ndep end ent va r ia -bles iden t i f ied in the labora tory ( a t t i tud es imi l a r i ty , personal i ty s imilar i ty , and phys icalat t ract iveness ) are var ied in a real-l ife s i t u -at ion, and an a t t e m p t is m a d e to m a k e thevariables salient and to m i n i m i z e th e occur-rence of o the r s t imulus even t s . Even thoughs imilar i ty has been the focus of much of theexper imental work on at t ract ion, the f indingsw i t h respect to physical attractiveness havecons i s t en t ly de m on s t r a t e d th e pow er fu l in f lu -ence of appearance on responses to those ofth e oppos i te sex and even of the same sex.Both f ie ld s tudies (Mega rgec , 1 9 5 6 ; 1'err in,1 9 2 1 ; Tay lo r , 1 9 5 6 ; W a l s t e r , Aronson , A b r a -h a m s , & R o t t m a n n , 1 9 6 6 ) a n d l a b o r a to r y in -ves t iga t ions ( B y r n e et al., 1968; Mc W h i r t c r ,1969 ; Moss , 1969) have shown that those


3/9

A T T R A C T I O N A N D REAL L I F K C O M P U T E R D A T I N G 9w ho a re physica l ly a t t rac t ive elicit more posi-t ive responses than do those who a re u na t -t ract ive . T h e labora tory response measure w asreta ined sot h a t a common reference po int w asavailable, but add i t iona l response variableswere also used in order to extend the general-i ty and m e a n i n g of the a t t r ac t ion co ns t ru c t .Final ly, in this exper iment , th e interact ionw as deliberately limited in t ime so that itremained close to a first- impress ion rela t ion-ship. Given these deliberately limited condi-t ions, i t was proposed that the positive rela-t ionship between the proport ion of weightedpos i t ive re inforcements and a t t rac t ion is di-rectly applicable to a nonlabora tory interac-tion. Specifically, i t was hypothesized that ina computer da t i ng si tuat ion (a ) a t t ract ion isa j o in t fu nc t io n of s imi la r i ty and phys icalat t rac t iveness , an d (b) th e greater the ex tentto which the specific elements of s imilari ty arem a d e salient, the greater is the re l a t i o nsh ipbetween similari ty an d a t t r ac t ion .The var ie ty of ways in which similari ty andattraction could be inves t igated in a fieldsi tuat ion raises an interest ing quest ion ofstrategy.It shouldbe kept in mind thattherei s no magic a b o u t the similari ty effect. Simi-larity does n ot exude from th e pores; ra the r ,specific a t t i t udes and other characteris t icsm u s t be expressed overtly. It would be rela-t ively s imple to design a computer da t ing ex-per iment in which no s imi la r i ty effects wouldbe f o u n d . For example, one could li e aboutthe degree of s imi la r i ty , and in a br ief in ter-action, th e subject s would not be l ikely todiscover th e decept ion. Another a l terna t ivewould be to provide n o inform at ion abouts i m i l a r i t y an d then to forbid the subject s totalk dur ing the i r date. Negative results insuch studies would be of no importance as alest since they are beyond the bounda ry con-dit ions of the theory. Another possible studywould give no initial s imilar i ty informationand then requ i re an ex tended interact ion pe-r iod , b ut that h a s a l ready been done .That is ,people in the real world do this every day,an d nu mero u s co r re l a t i o na l s tudies indicatet ha t under such cond i t ions , s imi la r i ty is asso-ciated with a t t r ac t ion . The s t r a tegy of thepresent research w as f r a n k l y to m a x i m i z e th epossibi l i ty of securing a precise s imi la r i tyat tract ion effect in a real- l i fe set t ing; in sub-

sequen t research, th e l imi t ing cond i t ions of theeffect ma y be de te rmined .

METHODA ttitude.-Personality Questionnaire

In o rd e r to p r o v i d e a re lat ively b road base onw hi c h to match couples for the dat ing process , a 50-i tem q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s c o n s t ru c t e d u t i l i z i ng f ivevariables . In previous research, a s ignificant similar-i ty effect has been f o u n d fo r au t h o r i t a r i an i s m (S h e f -f ie ld & B y r n e , 1967) , rcp res s ion-sens i t i za t ion (Byrne& Griffi tt, 1969 ; Byrne , Griffitt , & Stefan iak , 1967) ,a t t i t udes (By rne , 1961 , 1969) , EPPS i t em s ,3 an dsel f-concept (Gr if f i t t , 1966, 1970b). K a c h v a r i a b l e w asre p re s e n t e d by 10 i t ems w hich were chosen to rep re-sen t the least possible i n t e r c o r r c l a l i o n s w i t h i n d i-mens ions ; the rationale here was the desi re to max i -mize th e n u m b e r of independent scale respon ses onwhich match ing cou ld be based .Simulated StrangerCondition

In order to provide a base line for the s imilari tye f f e c t u n d e r c o n t ro ll e d c o n d i t i o n s , a s imula teds t ranger cond i t ion was run in which the o ther pe r sonw as rep resen ted on ly by h i s or h er p u r p o r t e d re-sponses to t he a t t i t ude -pe r sona l i t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h es tudy w as described as an investigation of th eeffect iveness of th e ma t c h i n g p ro c e d u re s of c o mp u t e rdat ing o rgan i z a t i o n s . Su b je c t s w e re ( o l d , In s tea d o fa r r a n g i n g an ac tual da te , we a re p rov id ing coup lesw i t h i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t on e a n o t h e r a n d a s k i n g f o rt he i r reac t ions . T h e s i mu la t e d scales were p re p a re dto prov ide c i t h e r a .33 or .67 p ro p o r t i o n of s imi l arresponses be tween s t r a n g e r a n d s u b j e c t . T he su b j e c tw as asked to read the responses of an opposi te-sexs t r an ge r and t he n to m a ke a series of e v a l u a t i o n s ona n expanded vers ion of the I n t e rp e r s o n a l J u d g m e n tScale. This scale consis t s of ten 7-point scales. Theme as u re o f a t t r ac t i o n w i t h i n t h i s e x p e r i me n t a l p a ra -digm ( B y r n e , 1969) cons i s t s of the sum of twoscales : l ik ing a nd des i rab i l i t y as a w o rk p a r t n e r .This a t t r a c t i on i n d e x r an ge s f r o m 2 to 1 4 and has asplit-half reliability of .85. In addi t ion , f o u r bufferscales deal w i t h evaluat ions o f t he o ther p e r s o n ' sinte ll igence, k n o w l e d ge o f c u r re n t e v e n t s , mo ra l i t y ,a n d a d j u s t m e n t . These var iab le s a re f o u n d to corre-late posi t ively with a t t r a c t i on , b u t they have some-w h a t dif ferent an teceden ts and are included in t h eanalys i s s imply as s u p p l e me n t a l i n f o r m a t i o n . Threenew scales , added for the present s tudy in order toexplore various responses to the opposi te sex, askedth e sub jec t to re ac t to the o t h e r pe r son as a poten-t ial dale, as a m a r r i a g e p a r t n e r , and as to sexua la t t r a c t i v e n e s s . Final ly , a ten th sca le w as ad d e d ino rd e r to assess a s t i m u l u s var i ab le , the p h y s i c a l a t-t ract iveness of the o t h e r person. In add i t ion , th ep h y s i c a l a t t r ac t i v e n e s s of each sub jec t was ra t ed bythe expe r im en ter on the same 7 - p o i n l scale o nwhich the su b j e c t s r a t e d on e a n o t h e r .

: U n p u b l i s h e d d a t a collected b y D o n n B y r n e an dJ o h n L a m b e r l h .


4/9

160 U. B Y R N E , C . R . ERVIN, AND J . L A M B E R T HComputer Dating Condition

Selection of dating couples. The a t t i tude-pe r s on -a l i ty ques t ionna i re w as administered to a g r oup of420 i n t r oduc t o r y p syc ho l og y s tu d en t s a t the Uni-versity of Texas, and each i tem was scored in ab i n a r y fash ion . By means of a specially preparedp r og r a m , th e responses of each male were comparedwi th those of each female; for any given couple,the number of poss ib le matching re sponses couldtheoret ical ly range f r o m 0 to SO. The actual rang ewas f r o m 12 to 37. From these dist r ibut ions ofmatches , male-female pairs were selected to representeither the greatest or the least n u m b e r of m a t c h ingresponses. There w a s a f u r t he r restriction that themale be as tall as o r taller t h an th e female . O f th eresulting pairs, a few were eliminated because (a)one of the ind iv idua l s w as marr ied, (b) the resultingp a i r was racial ly mixed, or (c) because of a fa i lu reto keep the experimentalappointment. The remain-in g K S sub j e c t s f o r m e d U high-s imi la r pairs, whosep ro p o r t i o n o f s imi la r r e sponses r anged f r o m .66 to.74, and 20 low-s imi la r pa i rs , w hose propor t ion ofs imi l ar re sponses r anged f rom .24 to .40.Levels o f information saliency. The e x p e r i me n tw as run wi th one of the selected couples a t a l ime .In the exper imenta l r o o m , they were in t roduced toone a no t he r an d to ld :

In recent yea r s , the re h as been a considerableamount of in te re s t in th e phenom enon of com-pute r da t ing a s a m e a n s fo r college students tomeet one a no t he r . At the present , t im e , we a reattempting to learn as much aspossible a b o u t thevariables which in f luence th e reac t ions of oneind iv idua l to anothe r .In orde r to create di fferen t ial levels of salicncyw i t h respect to the matching elements, subjects inth e salient condition were told:

Kaii ier this semester, one of the test f o r ms youtilled out was very much like those used by someo f th e compute r da t ing organiza t ions , in o r de r tore f re sh your memory about th i s test and theanswers you gave, we a rc going to ask you tospend a few m inu t e s l ook ing over the que s t i on sa n d you r a n swe r s to th em .Th e answers of severa l hundre d s tuden t s wereplaced on IBM cards and run t h r o u g h th e com-pute r to determine t he num b e r o f m a t c h ing a n -sw ers am ong the SO ques t ions for a l l possible pairsof male and female s tudent s . Accord ing to thecomputer, the two of you gave the same answerson approxim ate ly 07% (33%) of those ques t ions .In the nonsal ient condition, they were told:

I m ag in e for the purposes of the exper iment tha tyou had applied to one of the computer datingo r g a n i za t i on s and fi l led out some of their i n f o r m a -t ion forms . Then, imag inethat the two o f you hadbeen notified that, according to the compute r , y oum a t c h on a pp r ox im a t e l y 6 7% (3 3 %) of the f a c -t o r s c ons ide r e d im por t a n t .

All sub jec t s were then to ld :For our e xpe r im e n t , w e w o u l d like to c r e a t e as i tua t ion somewhat l ike that , of a compute r da te .That i s , you answered a se r ie s of ques t ions , th eco m p u te r ind ica ted that y o u tw o gave th e same

responses on som e of the ques t ions , and now wewould l ike for you to spend a sh o r t t ime toge the rgett ing acquainted. Specifically, we are asking youto spend th e n e x t 30 m inu t e s t og e t he r on a cokeda te at tin: S tu d e n t U n i o n . Here is 50^; to spendon whatever you would l ike. We hope that y ouwill lea rn as m uc h as poss ible a b o u t each o t he r inth e ne x t half hou r be c a use we wi ll be a sk ing youa num be r o f que s t i on s a bou t one a no t he r whe nyou r e t u r n .Measures of attraction. W he n t he y re tu rned f romth e date to receive their f in a l ins t ruc t ions , an u n o b -t r u s i ve m e a su r e o f a t t ract ion was obta ined: the

physical distance between the two subjects whiles tanding toge the r in f r o n t of th e e xpe r im e n t e r ' s de sk .The d is tance was no t e d on a s imple ord ina l sca ler a ng ing f rom 0 ( t o u c h i n g one a n o t h e r ) to 5 ( s t a n d -in g a t opposite c o r n e r s of the d e s k ) . T h e subjec t swere then separa ted a n d asked to eva lua te the i r da teon th e In te rpe r sona l Judgment Sca le .Follow-up measures. At the end of the semes te r(2-3 months after the date), it waspossibleto locate74 of the 88 or iginal s ub jects who wer e wil l ing toa n swe r five addi t iona l ques t ions . Each was asked towrite the n a m e of his or her compute r date and toi nd i c a t e whe t he r or no t they had ta lked to one an-other s ince the experiment , dated since th e exper i -m e n t , an d whe t he r a date w as desired or p l a nne d inth e f u t u r e . F i n a l l y , each w a s a ske d w h e t h e r t h e eva l -ua t ion of the da te w as inf luenced mo re b y phys i ca la t t r ac t iveness or by a t t i tudes .

R K S T J r/rsSimulated Stranger Condition

The meanattractionresponsesof two s imu-lated s t ranger condit ions* which w ere run* Originally, th e plan was to run th e s im u l a t e ds t range r g roups jus t a f te r th e c om pu t e r da t i ngg r o u p s . An unexpec ted f ind ing was t h a t almost, all of

the responses were positive and that the subjectswe r e a t t i red m o r e a t t rac t ive ly t h a n is u s u a l a m o n gunde r g r a dua t e s r e po r t i ng fo r exper imenta l se ss ions .From anecdotal olfactory evidence, even th e p e r f u m ean d shaving lo t ion level was not iceably elevated. Inre t rospec t , i t seemed clear that because th ec o m p u t e rda t ing s tu d y w as widely discussed and because t h i sexperiment wa s so labeled, the o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r -it y of the 34 subjects were expect ing to go on a d a t eas pa r t of the i r t a sk . C t t he n be c a m e ne c e s s a r y tore run the s im ula ted s t r ange r g rou ps a t the end ofth e semester w h e n the expectat ions of dates hadd imin ished . T he two levels of s imilar i ty were rununder two different exper imenta l titles, C o m p u t e rDating" and "Evaluational Processes. The da tarepor ted in th i s pape r a re f r o m t h e s e l a t t e r tw oexper iments .


5/9

ATTRACTION AND REAL LIFE COMPUTER DATING 161separate ly f rom th e computer dat ing experi-ment a re shown inTable 1. Analysis of vari -ance ind ica ted that th e similari ty variableyielded the only significant effect (F 4.00,d f 1/46, p approxim ately.05).

O n th e remain ing it ems of the InterpersonalJudgment Scale, th e only other signif icantsimilari ty effect was on the intelligence ra t ing(F =7.30,df=1/46,p


6/9

62 L B Y K N H , C. R. E U V I N , ANDJ. L A M B E K T HTABUC 3

C O R R E L A T I O N S B E T W E E N R A T I N G S O P P H Y S I C A LA T T R A C T I V E N E S S or D A T E ANDE V A L U A T I O N S o j' D A T E

Var i ab l e

A t t r a c t i o nD a t i n gM a r r i a g eSex

A t t r a c t i v e n e s s o fdateRated by .V s

Male .V s.39**.66**. 56**.77**

K e m a l c .V s.60**. 57**. 5 5**.70**

A t t i a c t i v e n e s s of dR al i - c

Male .S'.s.07.2 1.18.53**

by /.;Female

. 3 2 *.33*. 3 4 *.44**

With respect to the prediction of a t t rac-t i o n , it seems l ikely t ha t a combina t ion of thes im i lar i ty and a t t rac t iveness var iab les wo uldprovide th e o p t i m a l i n f o r m a t i o n . T n Table 4are shown the mean a t t rac t ion responses to-ward a t t rac t ive ( ra t ings of 5-7) a n d u n a t -t rac t ive ( ra t ings of 1-4) dates at two levelso f response s imi lar i ty . For both sexes, each ofthe two independent var iab les was f o u n d toa f f e c t a t t r ac t ion / ' T he physical a t t r ac t ivenes sva r i ab le w as s i g n i f i c a n t for both males (F - -3.85 , dj - 1/39, p


7/9

A T T R A C T I O N A N D R T C A L L ime C O M P U T K K D A T I N G 163were available and wil l ing to par t i c ipa te . Forthis analysis, each subject w asplaced in oneof three categories with respect to the twos t imu lu s var iab les of s imi la r i tya n d a t t rac t ive-ness. On the basis of the sam e divis ion s aswere used in the analysis in Table 4, subjectsw ere e i the r in a high-s imilar i ty condi t ion wi tha physically attractive date, a low-similar i tycond i t i on w i t h a physica l ly u nat t ra c t ive da te ,or in a mixed condit ion of high-low or low-high . To m a x i m i z e the possible effect, f r e -quency analys is was used in compar ing thetw o homogeneous g roups (A ' 40) . Tn re-sponse to the quest ion about thedate's n a m e ,the more posi t ive the s t imulus cond i t ions a tthe t im e of the date, the more l ikely was thesu b j ec t to remember cor rec t ly th edate's n a m ex2 =8.47, d f = 1, p


8/9

164 D . BYRNE, C. R. ERVIN, ANDJ. L A M B E K T Hcither one. I n addi t ion , th e follow-up proce-dure provided evidence of the lasting effect ofthe exper imental manipulat ions and of the re-la t ion of the attraction measures to such di-verse responses as remember ing th e other per-son ' s name and engaging in conversat ion inthe; weeks after the termin ation of the experi-ment .

The fai lure to confi rm the second hypothe-sis is somewhat puzz l ing . It is possible thatpresent procedures, designed to vary th e sali-ency of theelementso fsimilarity, wereinade-qua te and ineffective, that th e actual behav-iora l cues to s imilar i ty and dis s imilar i ty weresufficiently power fu l to nega te th e effects ofth eexper imenta l man ipula t ion , orthat the hy-pothesis was simply incorrect. There is nobasis wi th in th e present exper iment on whichto decide among these alternatives.

In conclusion, it m us t be emphasized thats t r ik ing continuity has been demonstra tedacrossexperiments usingpaper-and-pencilma-terials to simulate a s t ranger and to measureat t raction (By rne , 196 1) , more real is tic audioand audiovisual presentat ions of the s t imulusperson (By rne & Clore , 196 6) , e labora te d ra -matic confrontations in which a confederatepor trays the s t imulus pe r son (Byrne & Gr i f -fit t , 1966) , and a quasi-realis t ic experimentsuch as the present one, in which tw o genuines t r anger s interact and in which response mea-sures include nonverbal behaviors. Such find-ings suggest that attempts to move back aridfor th between th e controlled artif iciality ofth e laboratory and the uncont ro l led na tura lset t ing areboth feas ible and indicat ive of thepotential applications of basic attraction re-search to a var ie ty of in terperson al problem s.

R E F E R K N C E SA R O N S O N , E., & CAKLSMITH, J. M. E x p e r im en ta t io nin social psychology. Tn G. Lindzey & E. Ar onson( K r i s . ) , Th e handbook of social psychology. Vol .2. ( 2n d ed .) Read ing , Mass . : Addi son-W eslcy ,1968.B Y R N E , D . I n t e rp e r so n a l a t t ract ion an d attitudes imilari ty. Journal of Abnormal an d Social Psy-chology, 1961, 62, 713-715.B Y R N E , D. Att i tudes and a t t ract ion . In L. B e r ko -

wi tx ( E d . ) , Advances in experimental social psy-chology. Vol. 4.New York: Academic Press, 1969.B Y R N E , D., B A S K E T T , G. I)., & H O D G E S , L . B e ha v io r a lind ica to rs o f in terpersona l a t t ract ion . Paper pre-

sen ted a t mee t i ng of the Psy ch o n o m ic Society, S t.Louis, November 1969.B Y R N E , 1)., B O N D , M . II., & DIAMOND, M. J . Re-sponse to poli t ical candidates as a funct ion ofattitude sirni lar i ly-dissimilar i ty. Human Relations,1969, 22, 2S1-262 .B Y R N E , D., & C L O R E , G. L., Ji t. Predic t ing inte r -personal attraction tow a rd strangers presented inthree di fferent s t imulus m ode s . Psychonomic Sci-ence, 1966, 4, 239-240.B Y R N E , D ., CLORE, G. L ., J R . , & WORCIIFX, P. Effectof economic s imilari ty-diss imilari ty on interpersonala t t ract ion . Journal of Personality an d Social Psy-chology, 1966, 4, 220-224.B Y R N E , D., & ERVIN, C. R. A t t r a c t i on t o w a r d a Ne-g ro s t r a ng e r as a funct ion of prejudice , a t t i tudesimilarity, and the stranger's evaluation of thesub jec t . Human Relations, 1969, 22, 397-404.B Y R N E , D., & GRIFFITT, W . Similari ty versus l iking:

A clarification. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 6, 295-296.B Y R N E , D., & GRIEEITT, W . Similarity and awarenessof similarity of personality characteristics as de-t e rmi na n t s of a t t ract ion . Journal of ExperimentalResearch in Personality, 1969, 3, 179-186.BYRNE, D .> Giui'i'm, W ., & STEFANIAK, D. Attrac-tion and s imi la r i ty of personali ty characteris tics .Journal o f Personality an d Social Psychology,1967, 5,82-90.B Y R N E , D., LONDON, O., & REEVES, 1C. The effects ofphys ica l a t t rac t iveness , sex , an d atti tude s imilari tyon interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality,

1968, 36 , 25 9 - 27 1 .B Y R N E , IX, & RHAMEY, R . M a g n i t u d eo f positive andnegative re inforcements as a determinant of at-traction. Journal of Personality an d SocM Psy-chology, 1965, 2, 884-889.

EFRAN, M. G. Visual interaction and interpersonala t t ract ion . Unpubl i shed doctora l d i s ser ta t ion , Uni -vers i ty of Texas ,1969.GRIFFITT, W. B. Interpersonal attraction as a func-t ion of sel f-concept and personali ty similar i ty-diss imi la r i ty . Journal of Personality an d SocialPsychology, 1966,4, 581-584.GRIFFITT, W. B. E n v i r o n m e n t a l effects of i n te rpe r -sona l affect ive beha v i o r : A mbi en t effective tem-p e ra tu r e and a t t r a c t i on . Journal of Personalityan d Social Psychology, 1970, 15, 240-244. (a)GRIFFITT, W. B . Personali ty s imilari ty and sel f -con-cept as determinants of in terpersona l a t t ract ion .Journal of Social Psychology, 1970, in press , (b )HUFFMAN, D. M. In terpersona l a t t ract ion a s a func-t ion of behaviora l s imi la r i ty . Unpubl i shed doctora ld isser ta t ion , Universi ty of Texas, 1969.McWHiRTER, R . M ., JR . Interpersonal a ttrac tion in adyad as a func t ion of the physical a ttractiveness ofit s m em b e r s . Unpubl i shed doctora l d i s ser ta t ion ,Texas Tech Universi ty, 1969.M E G A R G E E , E. I. A s tudy of the sub jectiv e aspects ofg r o u p member s h i pat Amhers t . Unpubl i shed manu-script, Amherst College, 1956.Moss, M . K. Social desi rabi li ty, physical a ttractive-


9/9

ATTRACTION AND REAL LIFE COMPUTER DATING 165ness, and social choice. Unpublished doctoral dis- traction. Journal of Social Psychology, 1967, 71,sertation, Kansas State University, 1969. 117-123.

PEREIN, F. A. C. Physical attractiveness and re - T A Y L O R , M. J . Some objec t ive criteria of social classpulsiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, membership. Unpublished manuscript, Amherst1921, 4, 203-217. College, 1956.

PICHER, O . L. Attraction toward Negroes as a f u n c - WALSTER, E., A R O N S O N , V., A D R A H A M S , D., & ROTT-tion of prejudice, emotional arousal, and the sex MANN> L. Importance of physical attractiveness inof the Negro. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, dating behavior.Journal of Personality and SocialUniversity of Texas, 1966. Psychology, 1966,4 , 508-516.SHEFFIELD, J., & BYRNE, D. Attitude similarity-dis-s im i l a r i t y , a u t ho r i t a r i a n i sm , a nd interpersonal at- (Received December 11,1969)

Manuscripts Accep ted fo rPublication in theJournal of Personality and Social Psychology

Measurement ofRomantic Love:Zick Rubin*:Department of Social Relations, WilliamJamesHall, HarvardUniversity, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.Learning o fPaired-Associates Relevant to Differential ly Liked Persons: Albert J. Lott ,* Bernice K . Lott, a n dMichael L . Walsh: Department ofPsychology, University o f Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881.Personality-Trait Descriptionsof Differential ly LikedPersons: A l b e r t J. Loll,* Bc rn i c eE.Loll, Thomas R e e d ,and Terry Crow: Deparlmenl ofPsychology, Univers i ty o f Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881.Reciprocal Likingan d Attributions o f A b i l i t y :Mediating Effects o fPerceived Intent an d Personal I n v o l v e m e n t :Char le s A.Lowe*and Joel W . Goldstein:Deparlmenl ofPsychology, Carnegie-Mellon University, Schen leyPark,Piltsburgh,Pennsylvania 15213.Responsibility, Norms,andHelpingin anE m e r g e n cy :ShalomH.Schwar tz*and Gcra ld ineTaleClausen: Depart-

ment ofSociology, UniversityofWisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin5 3706.Luck isAlivea nd Well in NewHaven:ASerendipitous Finding on Perceived C o n t r o l ofReinforcementa f t e r theD r a f t Lottery:Leslie A n nMcArthur*:Department ofPsychology, Yale University,333 Cedar Street, NewHaven, Connecticut 06520.Insomnia and theAttributionProcess:Michael D. Stormsand Richard E.Nisbett*: D e p a r t m e n t ofPsychology,Yale University, 333 Cedar Street,NewHaven, Connecticut 06520.Differences in Conceptual Structures ofNations:AnExploratory Study: Myron Wish,* Morton Dcutsch, andLois B ie ne r :Bell Telephone Laboratories, Mountain A v e n u e ,Murray Hill,NewJersey 07974.Values of Indian and American Adolescent s : NormanD. Sundberg ,* Prilam K. Rohila, and L eo n a E. Tyler:WallaceSchoolofCommunilyService and Public Affairs, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon9740.1Black i s Beau t i fu l : AReexamination ofRacial [ ' reference and Ident if icat ion:Joseph Hraba*and Geoff rey Grant:Department of Sociology, University ofNebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508.ACross-CulturalStudyof the Strengthof the Muller-LyerIllusion as aFunctionofAttentionalFactors:ClivcM. Davis* and Julia A. Carlson: Department of Psychology,333 Huntington Hall, S y r a c use University,Syracuse,New York 13210.RacialDifferencesin aReactive versusSelf-PacedSportsActivities:Morgan Worthy*andAllanMarkle: Depart-ment ofPsychology, GeorgiaStateUniversity,33Gi lmer Street S.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.Conforming Behavior ofBlack and White C h i l d r e n :FrankW . S c hne ide r * :Deparlmenl ofPsychology,Un ive r s i tyof Windsor, Windsor, 11,Ontario, Canada.Role Playing versusDeception:AnExperimental Comparison:Richard H.Willis*andYolandaA. Wi l l i s : Depart-ment of Psychology, University ofPittsburgh, Pitlsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213.Nonnaively in Conformity Experiments: Sources, Effects, and Implications for Control: Richard J. Gl insk i ,Bernice C . Glinski, and GeraldT. S l a t i n * :Department of Sociology, Un ive r s i t y o f California,L os Angeles ,Cal i fornia 90024.FieldDependenceandPrior ReinforcementasDeterminantso fSocial In t e r a c ti on i n J ud g m e n t :Berna r d Ma usnc r *andJudithGraham:Department ofPsychology, Beaver College, Glensidc, Pennsylvania 19038.Co n fo rmi t y , A n t i c o n fo rmi t y , and Independence: Their Dimensionality and Generality: Lawrence J. Strieker,*Samuel Messick, an d Douglas N . Jackson:Division o f Psychological Slmlies, Educ a t i ona l Te s t i ngService,Princeton, NewJersey 08540.* Asler iskindicates author fo r whomaddress issupplied.

(Continued on page 174

R02 - Byrne 1970 - Continuity Between Experimental Study...

Documents

Transcript of R02 - Byrne 1970 - Continuity Between Experimental Study...