Information integration theory and reinforcement theory as approaches to interpersonal attraction.

Kaplan, Martin F.; Anderson, Norman H.

doi:10.1037/h0035112

Cited by 97 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been argued that attitudinal or background similarity may imply information about a target beyond just interpersonal similarity (e.g., the individual's personal characteristics), which, in turn may affect the perceiver's judgments (e.g., Ajzen, 1974;Kaplan & Anderson, 1973;Montoya & Horton, 2004). Therefore, in the current experiment we tried to minimize these implications by presenting participants with the exact same information regarding a target individual, except for the target individual's initials: In the similar condition the target had the same initials as the participant, whereas in the dissimilar condition the target had different initials.…”

Section: Experiments 3: Weighting Desirability and Feasibility Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

Liviatan

Trope

Liberman

2008

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

535

364

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building on the assumption that interpersonal similarity is a form of social distance, the current research examines the manner in which similarity influences the representation and judgment of others' actions. On the basis of a construal level approach, we hypothesized that greater levels of similarity would increase the relative weight of subordinate and secondary features of information in judgments of others' actions. The results of four experiments showed that compared to corresponding judgments of a dissimilar target, participants exposed to a similar target person identified that person's actions in relatively more subordinate means-related rather than superordinate ends-related terms (Experiment 1), perceived his or her actions to be determined more by feasibility and less by desirability concerns (Experiment 3), and gave more weight to secondary aspects in judgments of the target's decisions (Experiment 2) and performance (Experiment 4). Implications for the study of interpersonal similarity, as well as social distance in general, are discussed. Keywords interpersonal similarity; social distance; construal level theory; social judgment; mental representations Imagine a close friend giving a job talk. Now imagine a stranger giving the same job talk. What type of representation would you construct for this action? Would you represent it in terms of an abstract superordinate goal (for instance, communicating one's research ideas) or rather bring to mind the subordinate, concrete means by which to achieve the goal (such as presenting power point slides)? And would your representation include primary and central aspects related to this action (for instance, the research question) or more secondary information (such as the slides' background design)?

show abstract

Section: Experiments 3: Weighting Desirability and Feasibility Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

Liviatan

Trope

Liberman

2008

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

535

364

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the process tapped in the paired-comparisons paradigm would seem to be a pervasive one-we are often faced with a choice between two or more political candidates, roommates, tennis partners, etc . The findings here would seem to answer the criticisms of Byrne et al (1973) and Kaplan and Anderson (1973) regarding design characteristics.…”

mentioning

confidence: 71%

“…Byrne, Clore, Griffitt, Lamberth, and Mitchell (1973) have argued that the within-S designs are prone to demand chara cteristic problems, while single judgments represent the natural state of attraction. On the other hand, Kaplan and Anderson (1973) suggest that between-S designs are subject to errors due to the relativity of judgment, and to scalar requirements. Each S may adjust his subjective response scale to the range of stimuli presented, thus attenuating response differences between Ss.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The set-size effect in personality impression formation is not an artifact

Levin

Kaplan

1974

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The set-size effect in impression formation has been a highly reliable phenomenon when set size was varied as a within-S factor, but this effect has often been absent in between'S designs. Researchers have questioned the use of one or the other of these design techniq~es. and ha~e consequently labe~ed as artifactual either the presence or absence of set-size effects. ThIS IS a crucial matter for theories of impression formation. Studies are cited which have obtained the set-size eff~ct in a paired-co~paris,?ns paradigm where previous design criticisms would not seem to apply, and m between-S designs using specific procedural techniques. It is concluded that the set-size effect is not an artifact.

show abstract

“…However, using these explanations to interpret results from the affect-oriented procedures of the present study involves a peculiar though interesting hybridization of cognitive and affective theoretical notions. Although such hybridizations mayor may not be desirable (Byrne, Clore, Griffitt, Lamberth, & Mitchell, 1973;Kaplan & Anderson, 1973), in the interest of simplicity and theoretical purity an alternative (and possibly more parsimonious) explanation of the present results can be offered within the context of Byrne's reinforcement affect paradigm (Byrne, 1971).…”

Section: Proportion Of Similarity Within Blocksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal attraction as a joint function of primacy and recency effects

Bell

1975

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical primacy-recency inconsistencies between Byrne's reinforcement affect model of attraction and Anderson's information integration model of personality impression formation were explored. Thirty-six male and female Ss gave attraction responses to sequences of blocks of similar and dissimilar attitudes arranged in increasing or decreasing proportions of similarity and increasing or decreasing levels of topic importance. Results generally supported the hypothesis that attraction is a joint function of the proportion of similar attitudes within each block (recency) and cumulative proportion of similar attitudes before each response (primacy). This joint occurrence of primacy and recency effects was interpreted in terms of an affect neutralization hypothesis.

show abstract

Information integration theory and reinforcement theory as approaches to interpersonal attraction.

Cited by 97 publications

References 61 publications

Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

The set-size effect in personality impression formation is not an artifact

Interpersonal attraction as a joint function of primacy and recency effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About