Models for affiliative and conformity behavior.

Abstract

This study reviews and integrates findings and measures available in the area of affiliation and the related field of conformity. Affiliative characteristics are represented in terms of a two-dimensional scheme, based on generalized expectation of the positively and negatively reinforcing quality of interpersonal relationships. Treating each of these dimensions dichotomously, four categories of affiliator are obtained. These four categories are related to existing measures of affiliative tendency. Implications of available research are used to elaborate a model in which affiliative behavior, the dependent variable, is a function of affiliative characteristics, and attributes of the target of affiliation or the situation in which affiliation occurs. Conformity behavior, in a related model, is then expressed as a function of affiliative characteristics and target attributes.

Factors of Interpersonal Behavior and Judgment in Social Groups

“…It is therefore not surprising that factors relating to another's potency (or status) and activity (or responsiveness) were not obcained. The first two factors which were obcained, however, were consistent with the two-dimensional model of Mehrabian and Ksionzky (1970) : Judgments of another's positively reinforcing quality are indeed independent of judgments of his negatively reinforcing quality, and further, these two dimensions identify important aspects of social judgment (or alternately, of social behavior).…”

“…The relative importance of these three (or other) dimensions in the judgmental process is dependent upon the context in which judgments are made (Tagiuri, 1969). Among persons who frequently interact in a work sinlation or among athletes on a team, level of skill ( a correlate of potency or sran~s) would be a salient attribute, while in social-affiliative contexts, positivenegative evaluations of others become the more important aspects of the judgmental process (e.g., Homaos, 1961;Mehrabian & Ksionzky, 1970;Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Finally, characteristic level of activity (speech race, intonation, facial activity, and speech volume), which conveys responsiveness to another (Mehrabian, 1970b), becomes significant within institutional settings.…”

“…Thibaut and Kelley ( 1959) hypothesized that the types of interchanges selected in a social relationship are those which maximize the total positive and minimize the total negative reinforcements exchanged. A review of the literature on affiliation led to the hypothesis that judgments in social contexts, rather than consisting of evaluations on a single positive-negative dimension, involve independent judgments of another's positive and negative reinforcing qualities (Mehrabian & Ksionzky, 1970).…”

The effects of facial‐head cue combinations on interpersonal evaluations

“…A number of the theoretical viewpoints predominant in the area of attraction (e.g., learning and reinforcement theories, both classical and operant, and exchange theory) would suggest that such cues function as rewards and reinforcers in social interaction (Altaian, 1974;Argyle, 1972;Byrne, 1971;Lott & Lott, 1974;Mehrabian & Ksionzky, 1970). Further, several recent communication models have been based in part on learning theory postulates that specify that both verbal and nonverbal cues are used as social reinforcers and rewards (e.g., Burgoon, 1978;Knutson, Sorenson, & Andriate, 1979).…”

Perception of friendship rewards and affiliation arousal

“…Studies on affiliation arousal, as reviewed by Mehrabian & Ksionzky (1970), indicate that sociometric ratings typically induce anxiety over the possibility of rejection. It was predicted that arousal should interact with the kind of social need in determining the perception of the amount of reward obtained and have little effect on how much "should" be obtained or the value of the rewards.…”