the repulsion hypothesis
DESCRIPTION
The Repulsion Hypothesis. Caitlan Webster. Overview. Alternative Explanation for Newcomb’s (1961) Results Methodological Flaws in Byrne’s (1971) E xperiment Experiment 1 (Modified Replication of Byrne) Experiment 2 (Iowa Caucus Study) Experiment 3 (Reinforcement-Affect Theory) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Repulsion HypothesisCaitlan Webster
![Page 2: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
OverviewAlternative Explanation for Newcomb’s
(1961) ResultsMethodological Flaws in Byrne’s (1971)
ExperimentExperiment 1 (Modified Replication of Byrne)Experiment 2 (Iowa Caucus Study)Experiment 3 (Reinforcement-Affect Theory)Discussion
![Page 3: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Alternative Explanation
for Newcomb’s
Results
![Page 4: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Newcomb’s (1961) resultsExamined 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.
![Page 5: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Newcomb’s (1961) resultsAn 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.
![Page 6: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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.
Newcomb’s (1961) results
![Page 7: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Flaws in Byrne’s
Experiment
![Page 8: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Byrne’s (1971) ExperimentSubjects 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.
![Page 9: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Byrne’s (1971) ExperimentHowever, 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.
![Page 10: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Byrne’s (1971) ExperimentThis “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.
![Page 11: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Byrne’s (1971) ExperimentThis “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.
![Page 12: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Byrne’s (1971) ExperimentWhen 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.
![Page 13: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Experiment 1: Modified
Replication of Byrne
![Page 14: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Experiment 1 Procedure168 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.
![Page 15: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Experiment 1 Procedure2 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.
![Page 16: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Experiment 1 ProcedureSubjects 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.
![Page 17: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Experiment 1 ResultsAttractive were
rated higher than unattractive.
Similar and control did not significantly differ.
Dissimilar was different from other conditions.
![Page 18: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Experiment 1 DiscussionThe 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.
![Page 19: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Experiment 2: Iowa Caucus
Study
![Page 20: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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.
![Page 21: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Experiment 2 ProcedureA 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.
![Page 22: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Experiment 2 Procedure2 X 2 X 3 design:
Traits X Party (Person) X Party (Participant)
309 participants. 240 Democrats, 69 Republicans.
![Page 23: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Experiment 2 ResultsDemocrats were
more attracted to very positive traits.
Republicans were equally attracted to either very positive or moderately positive traits.
![Page 24: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Experiment 2 ResultsDemocrats were
attracted equally to Democrats and controls.
Democrats were less attracted to Republicans.
![Page 25: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Experiment 2 ResultsRepublicans were
equally attracted to Republicans and controls.
Republicans were less attracted to Democrats.
![Page 26: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Experiment 2 DiscussionAnother study (Rosenbaum & Holtz, 1985)
adapted the caucus study in the context of arbitrary group categorization.
Participants were randomly assigned as “Phis” or “Gammas”.
![Page 27: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Experiment 2 DiscussionParticipants 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).
![Page 28: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Experiment 2 DiscussionHigh-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.
![Page 29: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Experiment 3: Reinforcement-Affect Theory
![Page 30: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Experiment 3 ProcedureBased 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.
![Page 31: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Experiment 3 ProcedureA 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.
![Page 32: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Experiment 3 ProcedureA 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.
![Page 33: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Experiment 3 ProcedureStimulus 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.
![Page 34: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Experiment 3 ProcedureFeedback 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.
![Page 35: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Experiment 3 ResultsSignificant increase
in performance for BXX-neutral and DXX-neutral conditions.
No significant increase in performance for BXX-DXX condition.
![Page 36: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Experiment 3 DiscussionHelson’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.
![Page 37: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Experiment 3 DiscussionHelson’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.
![Page 38: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
General Discussion
![Page 39: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
General DiscussionCases where similarity could lead to
attraction:Experience of similarity in the context of
dissimilarity.Experience of agreement.Relatively new and important attitudes.
![Page 40: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
General DiscussionThe 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.
![Page 41: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
General DiscussionThe 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.
![Page 42: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
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.
![Page 43: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
General DiscussionHowever, 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.
![Page 44: The Repulsion Hypothesis](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022081502/568166d7550346895ddaf212/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
ConclusionConsiderable
events suggests that attitudinal dissimilarity leads to repulsion but similarity does not enhance attraction.