Among friends? An examination of friendship and the self‐serving bias

Campbell, W. Keith; Sedikides, Constantine; Reeder, Glenn D.; Elliot, Andrew J.

doi:10.1348/014466600164444

Cited by 86 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…People blamed distant others, but not close others, for the dyad's failure: Closeness increased liking, and liking reduced attributions for failure (cf. Campbell, Sedikides, Reeder, & Elliot, 2000). Other research shows that liked others are spared the blame for one's own failure (Silvia & Duval, 2001).…”

Section: Similarity and Reactancementioning

confidence: 99%

Deflecting Reactance: The Role of Similarity in Increasing Compliance and Reducing Resistance

Silvia

2005

Basic and Applied Social Psychology

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the basis of the approach-avoid dynamics assumed by reactance theory (S. S. Brehm & J. W. Brehm, 1981) and other models (E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn, 2004), it was predicted that interpersonal similarity can reduce reactance by increasing compliance and by reducing resistance. A communicator's similarity to the participant was manipulated by identical first names and birthdays (Experiment 1) and by congruent values (Experiment 2). People then read essays in which the communicator did or did not threaten their attitudinal freedom. Threats caused boomerang effects only when the communicator's similarity was low or unknown. When the communicator was highly similar to the participant, people agreed strongly, regardless of threat. Similarity increased the force toward persuasion by increasing liking, and it decreased the force toward resistance by making the message seem less threatening. Implications for reactance theory and for resistance to persuasion are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Similarity and Reactancementioning

confidence: 99%

Deflecting Reactance: The Role of Similarity in Increasing Compliance and Reducing Resistance

Silvia

2005

Basic and Applied Social Psychology

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most notably, friendships extend across time and setting, whereas induced closeness exists only in the short duration of the RCIT (i.e., 9 min) and in the laboratory. (Campbell, Sedikides, Reeder, & Elliot, 2000) Although Reis et al (2011) noted this limitation, they then moved to a task in Study 2 that introduces a different but equally problematic source of induced closeness: online chatting. A large body of research has documented the ways in which the relative anonymity of online communication can lead to "hyperpersonal communication," in which the ambiguity of cues in online communication (a result of the lack of face-to-face contact) leads receivers to overperceive similarity in their partner and then to engage in strategic self-presentation to match that similarity, leading to relationships that become artificially close and intense in a very short period of time (Turner, Grube, & Meyers, 2001;Walther, 1996Walther, , 1997.…”

Section: Are the Paradigms Representative Of Everyday Social Interactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does familiarity breed contempt or liking? Comment on Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, and Finkel (2011).

Norton¹,

Frost²,

Ariely

2011

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, and Finkel (2011) conducted 2 studies that demonstrate that in certain cases, familiarity can lead to liking-in seeming contrast to the results of our earlier article (Norton, Frost, & Ariely, 2007). We believe that Reis et al. (a) utilized paradigms far removed from spontaneous, everyday social interactions that were particularly likely to demonstrate a positive link between familiarity and liking and (b) failed to include and incorporate other sources of data-both academic and real-world-showing that familiarity breeds contempt. We call for further research exploring when and why familiarity is likely to lead to contempt or liking, and we suggest several factors that are likely to inform this debate.Keywords: familiarity, person perception, impression formation, mere exposure, close relationshipsWe were both pleased and displeased to see the recent article by Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, and Finkel (2011) challenging the findings and account of our article (Norton, Frost, & Ariely, 2007)-pleased because it is always a compliment to have conducted research that irritated very smart people who we respect a great deal enough to want to follow-up on, but displeased because we believe that Reis et al. have overstated the generalizability of their results and underreported other streams of literature that are in conflict with their account (reviewed below) and, even more, that Reis et al. missed an opportunity to begin to construct an account that would integrate their findings, our findings, and the existing literature into a broader account of the link between knowledge and liking. Are the Paradigms Representative of Everyday Social Interactions?We absolutely agree with Reis et al. (2011) that our two very different methods of assessing whether more information leads to less liking-a trait-based paradigm in which we carefully control the amount of information presented, and a naturalistic experiment surveying online daters both before and after dates-are not fully representative of all of the ways in which people come to know each other. As a result, we are very much in favor of research that explores when and how information might lead to more liking rather than less liking-and in particular, research that explains why information might sometimes lead to more rather than less liking. In our mind, however, the results reported by Reis et al. fall short on both accounts, adding data from two experiments that take place in very specific settings with a specific participant population-but then using the data from these experiments to make the broad claim, as their title states, that "familiarity does indeed promote attraction."Their first claim is that our two methods of assessing the link between information and liking are not fully representative of what usually occurs in social interaction: "natural social interaction involves contexts and processes not present in Norton et al.'s research" (Reis et al., 2011, p. 557). We could not agree moreyet, we also disagree stron...

show abstract

“…As said, research has shown that people are less likely to demonstrate the self-serving bias when the bond with the partner is stronger. When individuals work together with friends rather than strangers, they are more eager to share credit as well as the blame (Campbell et al, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

User co-production of public service delivery: Effects on trust

Fledderus¹

2018

Bestuurskunde

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among friends? An examination of friendship and the self‐serving bias

Cited by 86 publications

References 31 publications

Deflecting Reactance: The Role of Similarity in Increasing Compliance and Reducing Resistance

Deflecting Reactance: The Role of Similarity in Increasing Compliance and Reducing Resistance

Does familiarity breed contempt or liking? Comment on Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, and Finkel (2011).

User co-production of public service delivery: Effects on trust

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About