The Role of Assumed Reciprocation of Sentiment and Assumed Similarity in the Production of Attraction and Agreement Effects in p-o-x Triads

Transcription

1 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1979, Vol. 37, No. 5, The Role of Assumed Reciprocation of Sentiment and Assumed Similarity in the Production of Attraction and Agreement Effects in p-o-x Triads Chester A. Insko University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Akanbi Adewole University of Lagos Lagos, Nigeria Two experiments were conducted to explore the adequacy with which balance theory can account for attraction and agreement effects in p-o-x triads. The first experiment provided evidence for the importance of assumed reciprocated sentiment in the production of attraction effects, and the second experiment provided evidence for the importance of assumed p-o similarity in the production of agreement effects. In addition, both experiments replicated past results concerning the importance of contact for attraction and agreement effects and also found that attraction and agreement effects were more apparent with affective scales (pleasantness and harmony) than with more cognitive scales (expectancy, consistency, and stability). An unexpected finding of the second experiment was that the p-o similarity (or social comparison) interpretation of the agreement effect held only for the more cognitive scales. The present article addresses the general issue of the extent to which balance theory can be elaborated to account for subjects' reactions to hypothetical social situations, like Heider's (1946, 19S8) p-o-x (or self-other - inanimate object) triad. What is the reason for studying the subjects' reactions to hypothetical social situations? There are at least two possible answers to such a question. One is that such studies are important because they are role-playing simulations of recurrent social situations. (See the Summer, 1977, issue of the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin for a series of articles arguing the pros and cons of such role-playing methodology.) A second, and more compelling, answer to the question asked above relates to the fact that such studies provide an arena for theory development. There is a tendency to downgrade the importance of research in hypothetical situations because it is "irrelevant." To some extent such a reaction is based on a negative Requests for reprints should be sent to Chester A. Insko, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina reaction to balance theory, and to some extent it is based on the failure to recognize that from a balance theory perspective, phenomenology is phenomenology whether it relates to actual or hypothetical situations. There is thus the possibility of working out principles that may generally apply. Research on hypothetical triads can be conceived of as playing a role for the balance theorist that is analogous to the role played by the Skinner box for the operant psychologist. The Skinner box, like the hypothetical triad, holds little intrinsic interest or "relevance." On the other hand, the Skinner box does provide a situation in which variables believed to be of theoretical importance can be easily manipulated and behavior can be easily measured. Thus, principles may be worked out that can be applied to other situations. Insko, Songer, and McGarvey (1974) have argued that Heider's p-o-x triad can best be conceptualized from the perspective of a three-factor analysis of variance model. The first factor is the positive or negative sign of the p-o relation, the second is the positive or negative sign of the p-x relation, and the third is the positive or negative sign of the Copyright 1979 by the American Psychological Association, Inc S14/79/370S-0790$00.7S 790

2 ASSUMED RECIPROCATION AND SIMILARITY 791 o-x relation. Within-subjects ratings of the eight possible triads (typically for degree of pleasantness) give seven possible orthogonal effects (three main effects, three double interactions, and a triple interaction). Numerous studies (see Zajonc, 1968, for a review) have found evidence for three of the seven effects. These are the main effect for the p-o relation, or attraction effect; the interaction between the p-x and o-x relations, or agreement effect; and the triple interaction, or three-sign balance effect. 1 The attraction effect is a tendency for subjects to rate />-likes-o triads as more pleasant than />-dislikes-o triads. The agreement effect is a tendency for subjects to rate triads in which p and o both like or both dislike x as more pleasant than triads in which p and o do not agree about x. The three-sign balance effect is a tendency for subjects to rate the triads in which the product of the three signs is positive as more pleasant than triads in which the product of the three signs is negative. Stated another way, it is the tendency to rate triads in which p likes an o with whom there is agreement, or dislikes an o with whom there is disagreement, as more pleasant than the triads in which p likes an o with whom there is disagreement, or dislikes an o with whom there is agreement. It can be argued that attraction and agreement effects are embarrassing to balance theory (cf. Zajonc, 1968). Insko et al. (1974), however, have pointed out that various balance interpretations are possible. These interpretations are based on the general assumption that subjects supply additional cognitive bands beyond the three that are experimentally given. For example, according to Aderman (1969), when subjects consider the p-o-x triad, there is a tendency for some of them to think about a specific o with whom they interact or have contact. In the language of balance theory, such social interaction is a positive unit relation between p and o. Insko et al. argued that the addition of this positive unit relation to the p-o-x triad (or cycle) produces two additional cycles that provide balance interpretations of attraction and agreement effects. Counting the research in Insko et al. as one experiment, and including the two experiments reported by McGarvey (1974) as well as an additional unpublished experiment (LaTour et al., Note 1), there are four experiments that have studied the important contact conditions. There are four such conditions: standard (with no mention of contact), future contact, no contact, and breaking contact. According to the unit-relation interpretation, the algebraic magnitudes of the attraction and agreement effects should be as follows: future contact > standard > no contact > breaking contact. Furthermore, the direction of the effects should be positive in the future contact and standard conditions, neither positive nor negative in the no-contact condition, and negative in the breakingcontact condition. With regard to the attraction effect, results have been generally consistent with the predictions given above. The exception is a significant attraction effect in the no-contact condition in one of the four experiments. With regard to the agreement effect, results have been less supportive of the unit-relation interaction. All experiments have obtained the same rank order of conditions: future contact standard > no contact > breaking contact. Furthermore, three of the four experiments obtained a significant agreement effect in the no-contact condition, and one failed to find a significant negative (or reversed) agreement effect in the breaking contact condition. Clearly the contact interpretation does not adequately account for all of the reliable variance in the agreement effect. One further complication relates to the fact that some of the studies mentioned above had two future contact conditions: future contact with discussion of x and future contact without discussion of x. The difference between these two conditions does not obviously reflect either contact or similarity, and the reason for the previously obtained finding of a greater agreement effect with than without discussion (e.g., Insko et al., 1974) is not 1 Insko, Songer, & McGarvey (1974) refer to attraction effects as "positivity" effects. Since usage seems to be following Zaj one's precedent, we will conform.

3 792 CHESTER A. INSKO AND AKANBI ADEWOLE clear. Perhaps the explicit elimination of discussion regarding x decreases the importance or weight of the agreement cycle, or perhaps discussion of x produces greater concern with the consequences of disagreement. As previously indicated, there are several possible interpretations of the attraction effect. One relates to contact, another to reciprocated sentiment. Existing evidence (Mc- Garvey, 1974) indicates that at least some subjects do assume same-sign reciprocation of the p-o relation, and research by Mc- Garvey (1974) indicates that a manipulation of reciprocated sentiment alters the magnitude of the attraction effect. Why should this be? Reciprocated positive sentiment produces a balanced cycle, as does also reciprocated negative sentiment. Thus, there would seemingly be no basis for predicting an attraction effect. On the other hand, to the extent that the self, or self-concept, is positively valued, reciprocated positive sentiment produces agreement regarding the worth of the self, and reciprocated negative sentiment produces disagreement regarding the worth of the self. Thus, from the perspective of reciprocated sentiment, the attraction effect is an agreement effect. A crucial issue, therefore, is the extent to which there are balance theory explanations of agreement effects. These explanations may depend on various types of p-o unit relations (contact, assumed similarity, etc.). Experiment 1 was primarily designed to explore the reciprocated sentiment interpretation of attraction effects. Thus, one of the factors was a manipulation of reciprocated sentiment. Beyond this, however, this experiment was also designed to explore the relationship between reciprocated sentiment and other factors of possible theoretical importance. One of these factors relates to the type of rating scale. Existing research by Crockett (1974); Gutman and Knox (1972); Gutman, Knox, and Storm (1974); and Miller and Norman (1976) suggests that pleasantness scales reveal larger attraction effects than do consistency and/or expectancy ratings. Experiment 1 contains a scales factor that includes five different rating scales: pleasantness, harmony, expectancy, consistency, and stability. It is reasonable to assume that affect is self-related and that an affective rating makes the self more salient than does a more cognitive rating, such as consistency. Pleasure and pain are self-related and cannot exist apart from persons (or organisms). Consistency, however, need not be self-related and certainly can exist apart from persons (e.g., between logical symbols). Thus, to the extent that the attraction effect results from assumed reciprocated sentiment (with its implication of agreement or disagreement regarding the worth of the self), affective ratings will produce a larger attraction effect than will cognitive ratings. In terms of the present design, this is a prediction that a contrast effect comparing affective (pleasantness and harmony) scales with cognitive (expectancy, consistency, and stability) scales will be significant. Recall that McGarvey (1974) found a main effect of reciprocation on attraction using just a pleasantness scale. We predicted that in the present study there would be an interaction between reciprocation and rating scales such that the effect of reciprocation would be more apparent for the affective scales (pleasantness and harmony) than for the relatively more cognitive scales (expectancy, consistency, and stability). The theoretical rationale for this prediction was that reciprocated sentiment produces agreement or disagreement regarding the self-concept, and the affective scales are more directly relevant to cycles including the self-concept as an element (e.g., p interacts with o, p approves of his/her self-concept, o disapproves of p's self-concept). We are assuming that the affective scales are most relevant to cycles that include the self-concept as an element (i.e., cycles in which p's self-evaluation provides one of the signs that determines balance or imbalance in the cycle). A third factor having a bearing on the reciprocated sentiment interpretation of attraction effects is involvement, or a comparison of p-o-x and q-o-x triads. With p-o-x triads, the subject is told that p, or "I" is the subject himself/herself. With q-o-x triads, the subject is asked to assume that q is some person

4 ASSUMED RECIPROCATION AND SIMILARITY 793 who is known but has never been met. Subjects are asked to rate the q-o-x triads according to how they as outside observers would find the situation. In view of the argument detailed above regarding the role of self-relevancy in the production of the attraction effect, high-involvement (p-o-x) triads should produce a greater attraction effect than low-involvement (q-o-x) triads. However, a study by LaTour et al. (Note 1) did not support this prediction. It is possible, however, that subjects tend to judge q-o-x triads by vicariously identifying with q. Some evidence for vicarious identification in the context of p-o-q (three-person) triads was obtained by Insko et al. (1974). In that study, o-to-<7 attraction was found under the special circumstances of <7-to-o same-sign reciprocation. Since same-sign reciprocation also increased the magnitude of p-q attraction, it was argued that o-q attraction resulted from p's vicarious identification with o. Thus, it is plausible that subjects judge the interpersonal situation through at least partial vicarious identification. We believed it unlikely that vicarious identification would be sufficient to explain all of the subtleties present in p-o-x triads. If this is true, it is reasonable to suppose that the prediction given above regarding the greater effect of reciprocation with affective than cognitive scales would be more apparent for p-o-x than q-o-x triads. This is a triple interaction: Involvement X Reciprocation X Scales. To the extent that this interaction occurs, we would have further support for the supposition that the self-concept is important in an adequate conceptualization of attraction effects. Finally, we come to the three-sign balance effect. Past results have uniformly indicated a greater effect in the standard condition than in the remaining contact conditions. Such results possibly indicate an attentional shift away from the three-sign balance cycle (that does not include the unit relation) to the attraction and agreement cycles (that do include the unit relation). No further predictions regarding three-sign balance were made. Experiment 1 contained four between-subjects factors: reciprocation (standard no mention, or explicitly mentioned), scales (pleasantness, harmony, expectancy, consistency, or stability), involvement (p-o-x or q-o-x triads), and contact (standard, future contact with discussion of x, future contact without discussion of x, no contact, or breaking contact). The contact factor was included in order to examine the extent to which contact results would generalize across scales. Experiment 1 did not include a manipulation of triad order. This was not done for two reasons. First, the existing design of four between-subjects factors generates 100 cells, and that is the capacity of the available multivariate analysis of variance program. Second, past research (Insko et al., 1974; Mc- Garvey, 1974) has not found any interactive effects between triad order and other manipulated factors. Subjects Experiment 1 Method The subjects were 1,000 male and female students from the introductory psychology course at the University of North Carolina. Independent and Dependent Variables Each subject rated eight triads. These ratings can be conceived of as generating three within-subjects factors: positive or negative sign of the first relation (p to o or q to o), positive or negative sign of the second relation (p to x or g to x), and positive or negative sign of the third relation (o to x). These within-subjects factors were used to generate seven orthogonal difference scores corresponding to the main effects and interactions of these factors. Three of these difference scores, the attraction, agreement, and three-sign balance effects, were used as the main dependent variables in a multivariate analysis of variance that included four between-subjects factors. The four between-subjects factors were involvement (p-o-x or q-o-x triads), reciprocation (standard no mention of reciprocation, or same-sign reciprocation of p- or q-to-o relation), contact (standard, future contact with discussion of x, future contact without discussion of x, no contact, or breaking contact), and rating scales (pleasantness, expectancy, harmony, stability, or consistency). Procedure Subjects were tested in small groups of up to approximately 20 people. In any given group, every

5 794 CHESTER A. INSKO AND AKANBI ADEWOLE subject was in a different one of the 100 conditions or cells. After subjects had been briefly instructed regarding the procedure for rating each hypothetical situation, they were given a nine-page booklet. Subjects were asked to regard each situation as independent of the others and not to alter a previous response after a page had been turned. It was emphasized that they should rate each of the eight situations and not leave any of the rating scales blank. Remarkably, this instruction was followed by all 1,000 subjects, and no subjects were eliminated from the final sample. The first page of the booklet contained instructions regarding the experimental procedure and introduced two of the between-subjects factors, involvement and rating scales. For example, the selfinvolved-consistency instruction was as follows: On each of the following eight pages is a description of a situation involving two persons, I and 0, and an impersonal object or issue, X. As you read each situation, try and imagine yourself as Person I. Think about what it would be like to be involved in the situation described. Then rate each situation according to the extent to which you as a person, I, would find such an interpersonal situation consistent or inconsistent. Make the rating by circling the number on the scale corresponding to how you as Person I find the situation. Below is an example of the scale. Most inconsistent Most consistent For the self-uninvolved-harmonious-scale condition, the instruction was the following: On each of the following eight pages is a description of a situation involving two persons, Q and O, and an impersonal object or issue, X. Imagine that you have never met Q and 0 but that you know of them and how they feel about X. Rate each situation according to the extent to which you as an outside observer would find such an interpersonal situation harmonious or unharmonious. Make the rating by circling the number on the scale that corresponds to how you as the outside observer find the situation. Below is an example of the scale. Most discordant Most harmonious As previously indicated, five different rating scales were used (most unpleasant - most pleasant, most unexpected - most exepected, most inconsistent - most consistent, most discordant - most harmonious, most changeable - most stable). These rating scales were repeated on each of the eight pages. Each page stated one of the triadic situations, indicated reciprocation (in the appropriate condition), stated assumptions regarding contact (in the nonstandard conditions), and finally gave a rating scale. Here is an example. Situation: I like O. I like X. O dislikes X. O likes I (me). Assume: I and 0 have not had personal contact in the past and will never have personal contact in the future. However, I and 0 know enough about each other to form some feelings about each other. Rating of situation: Most unpleasant Most pleasant Reciprocation was manipulated by stating O's feeling for I (or Q) as the same as I (or Q's) feeling for 0, or by not mentioning anything about O's feelings. Contact was manipulated by stating (in all but the standard condition) an assumption regarding contact. The assumptions were as follows: I and O have had contact in the past and will have contact in the future and will discuss X; I and 0 have had personal contact in the past and will have personal contact in the future but will not discuss X; I and 0 have not had personal contact in the past and will never have personal contact in the future. However, I and O know enough about each other to form some feelings about each other; and I and 0 have had personal contact in the past but will never have personal contact in the future. At the conclusion of the experiment, subjects were told about the purposes of the study. Dependent Variables It is worth emphasizing that the dependent variables were the seven orthogonal difference scores created by taking the difference between the mean of the ratings for a given four triads and the ratings of the remaining four triads. It is true that the subjects rated the triads for pleasantness, consistency, and so forth. The dependent variables, however, were not pleasantness and consistency, but rather the difference scores. From this perspective the rating scales constituted an independent variable. Grand Mean Tests Results The initial analysis involved a test of the difference from zero for each of the seven orthogonal difference scores (or contrasts). This analysis revealed the usual significant effects for attraction, F(l, 900)= , p <.01; agreement, F(l, 900)= , p<.01; and three-sign balance, F(l, 900) = , p <.01. In addition there was also a significant effect for the second sign (p-x or q-x), F(l, 900) = 11.36, p <.01. This effect indicates a tendency for the p-likes-x and q- likes-x triads to be rated as more favorable (pleasant, etc.) than the triads in which p dislikes x and q dislikes x. Insko et al. (1974)

6 ASSUMED RECIPROCATION AND SIMILARITY 795 Table 1 Multivariate A nalysis of Variance for Experiment 1 Source Attraction F Agreement F Three-sign balance F Multivariate F Involvement (I) Reciprocation (R) Contact (C) Scales (S) I XR I X C I XS R X C R XS C XS I X R X C I X R XS I X C XS R X C XS Quadruple interaction 13.48** 4.79* 80.39** 36.60** ** 4.32** * * ** 22.44** ** **.87 22,44** 6.73** * ** ** 2.01* 21.36** 9.70** * 1.79** 1.77** * *p <.05. **p <.01. found a similar effect. A possible balance interpretation of this effect would involve a conceptualization of an x with which p or q has a positive unit relation a recently purchased bicycle, for example. However, since none of the between-subjects factors were designed to explore this matter, since the effect was small relative to the other three effects, and since the analysis is already complex, reported results will relate solely to the attraction, agreement, and three-sign balance effects. Multivariate Analysis of Variance A four-factor multivariate analysis of variance of the attraction, agreement, and three-sign balance effects is presented in Table 1. This analysis revealed significant multivariate Fs for all four main effects, as well as for four of the interactions. Discussion of the significant univariate Fs accompanying the significant multivariate Fs is complex. This material will be presented under three subheadings: rating scales main effect, involvement and reciprocation, and contact. Rating Scales Main Effect There was a significant main effect for rating scales. Table 2 contains the marginal means. A contrast comparing the affective scales (pleasantness and harmony) with the more cognitive scales (expectancy, stability, and consistency) was significant for both attraction and agreement. As expected, attraction, P(l, 900) = , /><.01, and Table 2 Rating Scale Means for Experiment 1 Condition Pleasantness Harmony Expectancy Consistency Stability Attraction Agreement Three-sign balance 5.71** 3.59** 2.28** 5.90** 3.84** 2.08** ** 1.02*.94** 2.14** ** 3.92** Note. Each subject rated eight triads on one of five 7-point scales. These ratings were then converted to attraction, agreement, and three-sign balance scores by taking the difference between the mean of the appropriate four triads and the mean of the remaining four triads. These difference scores (with a possible + 7 to 7 range) were then averaged across subjects to give the tabled means. * p <.05, df = 1, 900. ** p <.01, df = 1, 900.

7 796 CHESTER A. INSKO AND AKANBI ADEWOLE agreement, F(l, 900) = 89.06, p <.01, effects were greater with the affective scales than with the cognitive. Grand mean tests were conducted on each of the cell means in Table 2. The significance of these tests of differences from zero is indicated by the asterisks above each mean. All of the means except three (expectancy ratings for attraction and agreement and stability ratings for attraction) differ from zero. The cognitive scales tend to show smaller attraction and agreement effects, with almost no effects at all appearing in ratings of expectancy. Involvement and Reciprocation Involvement main effect. There was a significant involvement effect for both attraction and three-sign balance. The marginal means indicated that the attraction effect was greater with self-uninvolved triads (q-o-x) than with self-involved (p-o-x) triads (M q- o-x = 3.52, M p-o-x ), while just the opposite was true for the three-sign balance effect (M p-o-x-2.75, M q-o-x =2.16). This finding suggests a tendency for subjects to react more to the simpler aspects of the triads when they are not personally involved and to react more to the complex aspects of the triads when they are personally involved. Attraction involves one relation, and threesign balance involves three relations. Reciprocation main effect. The only significant reciprocation main effect was for attraction. Consistent with McGarvey's (1974) results (which related only to pleasantness ratings of p-o-x triads), same-sign reciprocation of the p-o or q-o relation increased the magnitude of the attraction effect (3.21) over standard (no stated) reciprocation (2.31). As previously indicated, assuming a positively evaluated self-concept, reciprocated positive sentiment produces agreement regarding the self, and reciprocated negative sentiment produces disagreement regarding the self. Thus, from the perspective of reciprocated sentiment the attraction effect can be regarded as an agreement effect. Reciprocation X Scales interaction. The main effect for reciprocation on attraction was qualified by several interactions, one of which was the Reciprocation X Scales interaction. The cell means and the significance of the grand mean tests for the Reciprocation X Scales X Involvement interaction are given in Table 3. The Reciprocation X Scales interaction for attraction was explored by testing the interaction involving reciprocation and the contrast between affective scales (pleasantness and harmony) and cognitive scales (expectancy, stability, and consistency). The contrast was significant, F(l, 900) = 23.85, p <.01. The interaction involving this contrast indicates that the main effect for reciprocation is a resultant of the affective scales. The pattern can be seen in Table 3. An alternative view of this interaction is a qualification of the tendency for affective scales to produce a larger attraction effect than cognitive scales. This aspect of the main effect for rating scales is more apparent Table 3 Involvement X Reciprocation X Scales Attraction Means for Experiment 1 Involvement and reciprocation Pleasantness Harmony Expectancy Consistency Stability p-o-x triad Standard (no mention of) reciprocation Reciprocation q-o-x triad Standard (no mention of) reciprocation Reciprocation 3.28** 7.04** 4.90** 7.60** 2.06* 7.74** 6.32** 7.50** * 1.90* **.58 Note, p-o-x triad indicates high personal involvement; q-o-x triad indicates low personal involvement. * p <.05, df = 1, 900. ** p <.01, df = 1, 900.

8 Table 4 Contact Means for Experiment 1 ASSUMED RECIPROCATION AND SIMILARITY 797 Condition Standard (no mention of) contact Future contact with discussion Future contact without discussion No contact Breaking contact Attraction Agreement Three-Sign Balance 2.86* 2.75* 4.58* 7.45* 4.79* 2.06* 4.20* * 3.19* 2.94* 3.43* -3.88* * 'p <.01, df = 1, 900. with stated reciprocation than with standard (no stated) reciprocation. Even with standard reciprocation, however, the effect was still significant, F(l, 900) = 30.49, p <.01. The Reciprocation X Scales interaction is consistent with our theoretical argument regarding the effect of reciprocation on attraction. One of the arguments advanced to explain the existence of attraction effects relates to the assumption of reciprocated sentiment. Reciprocated positive sentiment produces agreement regarding the worth of the self, whereas reciprocated negative sentiment produces disagreement regarding the worth of the self. Given that the affective scales are most self-related, it is reasonable that they would most clearly reveal an attraction effect and would also most clearly show an alteration in this effect as a function of the reciprocation manipulation. Involvement X Reciprocation X Scales interaction. The reasoning outlined above implies that the double interaction pattern shown in Table 3 would reveal itself most clearly in self-involved (p-o-x) triads rather than in self-uninvolved (q-o-x) triads. This, in fact, occurred. The reciprocation main effect was strongest with affective scales and self-involved triads. This interpretation of the Involvement X Reciprocation X Scales interaction was supported by a significant triple interaction involving the affective versus cognitive scales contrast, F(\, 900) =5.12, p<.05. Contact The remaining results all relate to contact. Consistent with past results, there was a significant contact main effect on attraction, agreement, and three-sign balance. Table 4 contains the marginal means. Four contrasts were planned for both attraction and agreement. For attraction, all contrasts were significant. The first contrast indicated that the three conditions in which contact was either implicitly or explicitly positive showed a greater attraction effect than the two conditions in which contact was either null or negative, F(l, 900) = 77.12, p <.01. The second contrast indicated that the standard condition, in which contact was implicit, showed a smaller attraction effect than the two futurecontact conditions, in which contact was explicit, F(l, 900) = , p <.01. The third contrast indicated that attraction was greater with than without discussion, F(l, 900) = 26.82, p <.01, and the fourth contrast indicated that attraction was algebraically greater in the no-contact condition than in the breaking-contact condition, F(l, 900) = , p <.01. The asterisks in Table 4 indicate the significance for grand mean tests (tests of difference from zero) for each of the cell means. As Table 4 indicates, all of the cell means for attraction were significantly different from zero. Except for the significant mean in the no-contact condition, these results are consistent with the contact interpretation of attraction. The same planned contrasts that were used for attraction were used for agreement. The first contrast indicated that the three conditions in which contact was either implicitly or explicitly positive showed more agreement than the two conditions in which contact was either null or negative, F(l, 900)

9 798 CHESTER A. INSKO AND AKANBI ADEWOLE Table 5 Contact X Rating Scales Attraction Means for Experiment 1 Contact Pleasantness Harmony Expectancy Consistency Stability Standard (no mention) Future contact with discussion Future contact without discussion No contact Breaking contact 7.18** 7.85** 8.00** 7.70** -2.10* 5.50** 8.95** 7.60** 7.30** ** ** ** ** ** 3.70** ** * p <.05, df = 1, 900. ** p <.01, df = 1, 900. = , p <.01. This contrast was significant in spite of the unexpectedly low mean for future contact without discussion. Furthermore, this unexpectedly low mean appears responsible for the nonsignificance of the second contrast comparing the standard and two future-contact conditions. The third and fourth contrasts revealed the expected results. There was a greater agreement effect with than without discussion, F(l, 900) , p <.01, and agreement was algebraically greater with no contact than with breaking contact, F(l, 900) = 78.51, p <.01. The grand mean tests indicated that all of the cell means, except the ones for breaking contact and future contact without discussion, were significantly different from zero. The only planned contrast for three-sign balance was a comparison of the standard condition with the four remaining conditions. Consistent with past results, this contrast was significant, F (1,900) = 16.1, p <.01. The effect was larger in the standard condition. As Table 1 indicates, the large contact main effect was qualified by two descriptively smaller interactions: the Reciprocation X Contact interaction for agreement only and the Contact X Rating Scales interaction for attraction and three-sign balance. The Reciprocation X Contact interaction indicates that the contact predictions for agreement were more strongly supported in the standard condition than in the reciprocation. Theoretically, reciprocation relates most directly to attraction, not agreement. This unexpected interaction may have resulted from an attention shift away from agreement and the bearing of contact on agreement when there was explicit reciprocation. The potentially most important interaction, Contact X Rating Scales, was not significant for agreement, and the effects for attraction and three-sign balance were not replicated in Experiment 2. The attraction means are contained in Table 5.- One of the more interesting aspects of this interaction relates to the means in the no-contact condition. Note that the pleasantness and harmony means in the no-contact condition both differed significantly from zero contrary to the contact interpretation. Furthermore, they were significantly greater than the means for the cognitive scales, F(l, 900) = 6.20, p <.01. Such a result makes sense, if it is recalled that it is the affective scales that make the self-concept most salient and thus provide for the production of a positive attraction effect through reciprocated sentiment. The effect was not predicted, but it is consistent with the initially stated theoretical orientation. Discussion Experiment 1 had two general purposes, one descriptive and one theoretical. The descriptive purpose was to look simultaneously at the differential effects of five scales (pleasantness, harmony, consistency, expectancy, and stability). Although there is no previous literature for the harmony scale (Heider's term for balance), the existing studies were interpreted as indicating that affective scales (pleasantness and harmony) 2 An analysis of this interaction by a set of orthogonal contrasts is available from the authors.

10 ASSUMED RECIPROCATION AND SIMILARITY 799 would produce larger attraction and agreement effects than cognitive scales (consistency, expectancy, and stability). This, in fact, occurred. Such results may suggest that only the cognitive scales are accurate measures of balance. It should be recognized, however, that all five scales produced significant threesign balance effects, that the consistency scale produced significant attraction and agreement effects, and that the stability scale produced a significant agreement effect (see Table 2). Only the expectancy scale exhibited a total absence of attraction and agreement effects. On the other hand, the means in the final column in Table 2 descriptively indicate that the expectancy scale produced the smallest three-sign balance effect. What is the meaning of the term balance? Heider (1958) described balanced relations as "harmonious" (p. 180). Clearly he was expressing himself metaphorically. Nonetheless, the metaphor does have an interesting double meaning. For the layman, harmony means affectively pleasing, but for the musician, harmony has more of a cognitive, rational meaning. To the extent that balance has both rational and affective connotations, the term harmony may be an appropriate metaphor. The theoretical purpose of Experiment 1 was to provide support for the reciprocated sentiment interpretation of the attraction effect (the greater pleasantness, consistency, and so forth of the ^-likes-o than the />-dislikes-o relations). When McGarvey (1974) interviewed a small sample of subjects after they had rated the eight triads, he found that some of them did in fact report that they had considered what the other person might think of them (i.e., considered the nonspecified o-top relation). Furthermore, many of these subjects assumed same-sign reciprocation of sentiment (i.e., o likes p when p-\ikes-o was specified, and o dislikes p when p-dislikes-o was specified). McGarvey went on to show that a direct manipulation of reciprocated sentiment increased the magnitude of the attraction effect (on pleasantness ratings). From a balance theory perspective, the problem is to understand why reciprocated same-sign sentiment should increase the magnitude of the attraction effect. Insofar as attention is directed solely toward the p-o, o-p cycle or dyad, both reciprocated liking and reciprocated disliking are balanced. Thus, for this one cycle, there is no way for balance theory to predict McGarvey's results. However, Heider assumed that p likes p: that the typical individual holds himself/herself in high regard. If the second p is regarded as a self-concept with which the first p has a positive unit relation, it is balanced for p likes p (Wiest, 1965). Thus, it follows that reciprocated positive sentiment produces agreement regarding the worth of the self and that reciprocated negative sentiment produces disagreement regarding the worth of the self. This means, of course, that from the perspective of reciprocated sentiment, the attraction effect is an agreement effect. For balance theory the problem is one of whether agreement effects can be reduced to cycles that are consistent with the multiplicative rule. These matters will be discussed in greater detail in the context of Experiment 2, which was more directly concerned with the agreement effect. Whatever is the correct account of the agreement effect, the discussion above does make obvious that reciprocated sentiment relates directly to self-evaluation. For that reason, the finding in the current study that the main effect of reciprocation on attraction only occurred with more affective scales (pleasantness and harmony) is hardly surprising. The means for this Reciprocation X Scales interaction are contained in Table 3. The occurrence of this interaction provides assurance that the effect of reciprocated sentiment on attraction is indeed mediated by self-relevancy considerations. (This assertion rests on the assumption that pleasure and pain are more obviously self-related than are consistency, stability, and expectancy.) The self-relevancy perspective also provides a partial explanation for the finding that the affective scales produced a larger attraction effect than did the cognitive scales. (Note that this scales effect was present even in the standard condition, in which there was no explicit statement of reciprocation.) To the extent that some subjects assumed reciprocated sentiment with its implications for self-evaluation, it

11 800 CHESTER A. INSKO AND AKANBI ADEWOLE makes sense that affective scales would be more sensitive to attraction. One potential problem with this line of argument is the finding of LaTour et al. (Note 1) that the attraction effect in a highinvolvement (p-o-x) triad was not greater than in a low-involvement (q-o-x) triad. The present study, in fact, found that the attraction effect was larger with q-o-x than p-o-x triads. This result is exactly opposite to what one would expect on the basis of a simple selfrelevancy perspective on attraction effects. It is possible that subjects did not realize that q was someone other than themselves. We were, however, sensitive to the problem, and made the instructions as explicit as possible. Subjects were twice instructed to rate the situations according to how "you as the outside observer" would find the situation. We initially theorized that subjects judged q-o-x triads through partial, vicarious identification. To the extent that such identification does occur, the comparison of p-o-x and q-o-x triads is less obviously a manipulation of selfinvolvement. It was further theorized that vicarious identification would not be sufficiently complete to detect all of the subtleties in p-o-x triads, and thus the interaction of reciprocation and affective versus cognitive scales should be more apparent with p-o-x than with q-o-x triads. This triple interaction occurred. The means in Table 3 indicate that the tendency for reciprocation to increase the magnitude of the attraction effect was most apparent with affective scales and p-o-x triads. The occurrence of this triple interaction is the heart of the present study and strongly implies that some of the variance in attraction effects is mediated by self-relevancy considerations. A further finding that in retrospect appears consistent with the argument detailed above is that the three-sign balance effect was larger with p-o-x than with q-o-x triads. The attraction effect was larger with q-o-x triads, but the three-sign balance effect was larger with p-o-x triads. The vicarious identification tendency does rather well in reproducing the simpler effects, but less well in reproducing the more complex effects. (Attraction is a main effect and three-sign balance a triple interaction.) The remaining results all related to contact. Past studies of these matters had used only pleasantness and expectancy scales (LaTour et al., Note 1) or only pleasantness scales (Aderman, 1969; Insko et al., 1974; Mc- Garvey, 1974). The present results add generality to the contact-cycle analysis of Insko et al. Despite the fact that half of the cells involved an explicit statement of reciprocation that appears to have partially distracted attention from the contact cycles, the results by and large were consistent with past results. As the means in Table 4 indicate, attraction was maximized by the explicit statement of future contact and was reversed, or negative, in the breaking-contact condition. The major finding that was not consistent with the contact-cycle analysis was the fact that the nocontact mean of 3.19 (see Table 4) was significantly greater than zero. According to the contact-cycle analysis, this mean should be within error variance of zero. This theoretical analysis relates most directly to p-o-x triads in which there is no stated reciprocation. However, even within this condition, the mean of 2.42 still differed from zero, F(l, 900) = 5.25, p<.01. A further possibility is that some of the subjects in the standard-reciprocation-nocontact condition assumed reciprocation that produced an attraction effect. Some circumstantial evidence for this possibility comes from the finding that the affective scales (pleasantness and harmony) were responsible for the attraction effect under no contact. This pattern can be clearly seen along the nocontact row of Table 5. Experiment 2 The general purpose of the present line of research was to examine the extent to which balance theory is capable of providing interpretations of attraction and agreement effects in the perception of hypothetical situations. Experiment 1 provided support for the hypothesis that contact and cycles containing the contact unit relation can account for at least some of the variance. Previous research (Aderman, 1969; Inskoetal., 1974; McGarvey, 1974; LaTour et al., Note 1) has consistently demonstrated the importance of contact when

12 ASSUMED RECIPROCATION AND SIMILARITY 801 subjects respond on pleasantness scales. Experiment 1 found that although there were differences among various scales (see Table 5), the effects of contact were evident for all scales. Experiment 1 went further and produced evidence that reciprocated sentiment and self-relevancy considerations were also important in explaining attraction effects. The theoretical account provides a possible explanation for the fact that affective scales revealed a larger attraction effect than did more cognitive scales. The major remaining problem relates not to attraction, but to agreement. The abovecited studies, and also Experiment 1, all found that the agreement effect was altered in theoretically predictable ways by the manipulation of contact. In general, however, the contact predictions for the agreement effect have been confirmed less frequently than has been the case for the attraction effect. Experiment 1 is a case in point. Note that the contact prediction of a reversed (negative) attraction effect with the breaking-contact condition was supported, but the analogous prediction of a reversed agreement effect with breaking contact was not supported. The agreement mean in this condition was.06 (see Table 4). Even within the more appropriate standard-reciprocation condition, the breaking-contact mean was.73 still not significantly less than zero. Another way of making this point is to note that the contact F for agreement (37.68) was descriptively smaller than the contact F for attraction (80.39). It is clear that contact does affect agreement. It is, of course, intuitively compelling that disagreement with an o with whom there is direct contact has more impact than disagreement with an o with whom there is no direct contact. Milgram's (1965) "immediacy"-of-the-victim finding is a possible illustration of an analogous effect. On the other hand, it is also intuitively compelling that disagreement has an impact even when there is no contact with o. Why is this? Experiment 2 was designed to explore one possible explanation. The best known theory of social influence is, of course, social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954). Social comparison posits a self-evaluative drive that results in a motivational force to validate opinions. Validation of opinions (or more specificially, nonverifiable opinion) is sought through agreement with others. Thus, social comparison theory provides a possible explanation of the agreement effect. Acceptance of the social comparison theory explanation of agreement effects would involve an admission that balance theory could not account for the no-contact variance in the agreement effect. This would not mean that balance theory was incorrect; but it would mean that balance theory was of more limited generality. Balance theory explanations proceed by identifying some implicit aspect of p's phenomenology that can be reduced to a balanced cycle. The theory itself does not specify the important aspect of the phenomenology, and the subject himself/herself may not be explicitly aware of the process that is causally important (cf. Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). This matter is illustrated by previously obtained results regarding contact. When McGarvey interviewed a sample of 18 subjects after they had rated the standard eight triads for pleasantness, he found that 13 of the subjects reported thinking about an o with whom there was interaction. Heider's (1958) statement of balance theory does not indicate that subjects will so concretize the situation, and it is rather doubtful that subjects recognized the importance of assumed contact in the production of attraction and agreement effects (although McGarvey did not specifically ask about this). The current challenge is to identify some implicit aspect of p's phenomenology. Examination of McGarvey's interview results indicates that in 8 out of 18 instances, the subjects imagined o to be a specific acquaintance, usually a friend or a peer. It is interesting that these subjects conceptualized o as someone who was similar similar in cultural experience and in reasoning capacity. They did not conceptualize 0 as a "man from Mars," a member of another culture or subculture, a resident of a mental institution, or a child. From a balance theory perspective, similarity is a unit relation. Therefore, even under conditions of no contact, there would be an agreement cycle p agrees with a

13 802 CHESTER A. INSKO AND AKANBI ADEWOLE similar o or p disagrees with a similar o and also an attraction cycle p likes a similar o or p dislikes a dissimilar o. The analysis parallels Insko et al.'s (1974, p. 56) cycles interpretation of contact, except that in this instance the unit relation involves similarity and not contact. It is intriguing that social comparison theory appears to take an analogous position regarding similarity. According to Festinger (1954), "a person who believes that Negroes are the intellectual equals of whites does not evaluate his opinions by comparison with the opinion of a person who belongs to some very anti-negro group" (p. 21). Why does social comparison theory make this assumption? Social comparison theory itself does not answer this question. Festinger appears to have intuited a balance implication without being explicit about it. The manipulation of similarity in Experiment 2 had three levels: a standard condition (with no mention of similarity), a similar condition ("O generally has interests and attitudes similar to yours"), and a dissimilar condition ("O generally has interests and attitudes dissimilar to yours"). In addition, there were manipulations of scales (pleasantness, harmony, consistency, expectancy, and stability) and contact (standard, future contact, no contact, and breaking contact). Since the theoretical import of future contact with and without discussion of x is not clear, reference to discussion of x was simply omitted. Altogether the design involved 60 betweensubjects cells (3X5X4). The scales factor was included to gain some information regarding the generality of the similarity manipulation, and the contact factor was included to examine the extent to which similarity produced effects beyond those resulting from positive, absent, or negative contact. The factorial combinations produced by the present design present a theoretical dilemma regarding the effects of contact across the levels of similarity. It is possible that the effects of contact may summate (or average) with those of similarity, or that the effects of contact will be more apparent with standard similarity (when there is no explicit mention of similarity). The latter possibility could be the result of attention shifts and/or of information overload. Previous research has obtained results that appear to be the result of attention shifts. First, Experiment 1, in agreement with previous research (Aderman, 1969; Insko et al., 1974; McGarvey, 1974; LaTour et al., Note 1), found that the explicit mention of contact reduced the magnitude of the three-sign balance effect from its magnitude in the standard condition (with no mention of contact). Second, Experiment 1 found that the explicit statement of reciprocation reduced the magnitude of the agreement effect from its magnitude in the standard-reciprocation condition in which there was no mention of reciprocation. Third, manipulations of triad order by Insko et al., and also McGarvey, found that the magnitude of the three-sign balance effect was greater if the first triad was three-sign imbalanced (and thus more atypical and attention getting) rather than three-sign balanced. Subjects Method The subjects were 600 male and female students from the introductory psychology course at the University of North Carolina. Independent and Dependent Variables As in Experiment 1, each subject rated the standard eight triads, and these ratings were used to generate seven orthogonal effects. The major analyses, however, concerned the attraction, agreement, and three-sign balance effects. There were three between-subjects factors: similarity (standard, similar, or dissimilar), contact (standard, future contact, no contact, or breaking contact), and rating scales (pleasantness, expectancy, harmony, stability, or consistency). 3 The basic design involved 60 between-subjects cells and three dependent variables with 10 subjects per cell. Procedure The procedure closely paralleled that of Experiment 1. Subjects were tested in groups of approxi- 3 Through an oversight the negative endpoint of the stability scale was changed from "Most changeable" to "Most unstable," and the negative endpoint of the harmony scale was changed from "Most discordant" to "Most unharmonious."

14 ASSUMED RECIPROCATION AND SIMILARITY 803 Table 6 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Experiment 2 Source Attraction F Agreement F Three-sign balance F Multivariate F Similarity (S) Contact (C) Scales (L) sxc S XL C XL S X C X L 6.65** 65.21** 17.93** 3.17* 4.10** ** 9.50** 24.19** 2.45* 2.20* * 5.99** ** 11.05** 6.40** 1.92** 1.96** *p <.05. **p <.01. mately 25 people, and no two subjects in any group were in the same experimental condition. Each subject received a nine-page booklet, the first page of which gave general instructions and the remaining pages of which listed each of the eight triads (one per page), along with a statement of one or more assumptions and a rating scale. The similarity assumptions were stated as follows. Assume: O generally has interests and attitudes similar to yours. Or Assume: O generally has interests and attitudes dissimilar to yours. As in Experiment 1, no subjects failed to rate all eight triads, and thus no subjects were eliminated from the analysis. Grand Mean Tests Results Grand mean tests of the seven analysis of variance contrasts for the eight triads revealed the usual attraction, F(l, 540) = , p <.01; agreement, F(l, 540) = , p <.01; and three-sign balance effects, F(l, 540) = , p <.01. This analysis also found an unexpected First X Second Sign interaction, F(l, 540) = 6.70, p <.01. Triads in which the p-o and p-x relation were of the same sign were rated higher than triads in which these two relations were of unlike sign. Subsequent analyses focused on the descriptively larger attraction, agreement, and threesign balance effects. Multivariate Analysis oj Variance A three-factor multivariate analysis of variance of the attraction, agreement, and threesign balance effects is presented in Table 6. This analysis revealed significant multivariate Fs for all three main effects, as well as for two of the interactions. Since both of the interactions involve similarity, we will begin with a description of the main effects for rating scales and contact. Rating Scales Main Effect There was a significant rating scales main effect for both attraction and agreement. Table 7 contains the marginal means. A contrast comparison of the affective scales (pleasantness and harmony) with the more cognitive scales (expectancy, stability, and consistency) was significant for both attraction, F(l, 540) = 60.16, p <.01, and agreement, F(l, 540) = 71.50, p <.01, indicating a greater effect with the affective scales and replicating a similar finding in Experiment 1. A second contrast comparing expectancy and consistency scales with the stability scale indicated a greater effect with stability for both attraction, F(l, 540) = 15.66, p <.01, and agreement, F(l, 540) = 25.10, p <.01. This contrast, which was significant for agreement but not attraction in Experiment 1, possibly means that stability has a more affective connotation than do expectancy and stability. Grand mean tests were conducted on each of the cell means in Table 7, which also includes the means for three-sign balance. Except for the failure of consistency to reveal significant attraction and agreement effects and the presence of a significant attraction effect for stability, the results replicated the findings of Experiment 1.

15 804 CHESTER A. INSKO AND AKANBI ADEWOLE Table 7 Rating Scale Means for Experiment 2 Condition Pleasantness Harmony Expectancy Consistency Stability Attraction Agreement Three-sign balance 4.34** 4.21** 3.44** 5.52** 4.44** 2.39* * ** 3.02* 2.97* 2.40* 'p <.05, df = 1, 540. ** p <.01, df = 1, 540. Contact Main Effect In agreement with Experiment 1 and all past results, there was a significant contact main effect on attraction, agreement, and three-sign balance. Table 8 contains the marginal means. Three contrasts were planned for attraction and agreement. First, attraction was greater in the standard and futurecontact conditions than in the no-contact and breaking-contact conditions, F(l, 540) = 55.54, p <.01, as was also agreement, F(\, 540) = 18.57, p<.01. Second, attraction was greater in the future-contact than in the standard condition, F(l, 540) = 84.23, p <.01, but the contrast was not significant for agreement. Third, attraction was greater with no contact than with breaking contact, F(l, 540) = 55.86, p <.01, as was also agreement, F(l, 540) = 7.83, p <.01. The asterisks in Table 8 indicate the significance of the grand mean tests (tests of differences from zero) for each of the cell means. The failure of the attraction mean in the standard condition to reach significance is inconsistent with the results of Experiment 1 (see Table 4) and is not in agreement with the general assumption that some subjects in a standard condition implicitly assume contact. As is indicated below, however, the standard contact mean was significantly greater than zero within the standard similarity condition (see Table 10). The only planned contrast for three-sign balance was a comparison of the standard condition with the four remaining conditions. In agreement with Experiment 1, the contrast was significant, F(l, 560) = 10.24, p <.01. Similarity Main Effect There was a significant similarity main effect for attraction, agreement, and three-sign balance; the marginal means for attraction and agreement are in the right-hand column of Table 9. A contrast of the standard condition (with implicit similarity) and similar condition with the dissimilar condition was significant for both attraction, F(l, 540) = 13.25, p <.01, and agreement, F(l, 540) = 27.69, p <.01. A second contrast of the standard and similar conditions was significant for agreement only, F(l, 540) = 15.51, p <.01. According to the similarity interpretation of attraction and agreement, all four of these contrasts should have been significant. The agreement results were more in accord with prediction than were the attraction results (in contrast to the contact results, in which the opposite occurred). Grand mean tests (see Table 8 Contact Means for Experiment 2 Condition Standard (no mention of) contact Future contact No contact Breaking contact Attraction Agreement Three-sign balance * 3.65** 7.88** 3.68** 2.23* 3.47** 2.35* 3.60** -1.91* * " p <.05, df = 1, 540. ** p <.01, df = 1, 540.

16 Table 9 Similarity X Rating Scales Means ASSUMED RECIPROCATION AND SIMILARITY 805 Condition and similarity Pleasantness Harmony Expectancy Consistency Stability Marginal Attraction Standard (no mention) Similarity Dissimilarity Agreement Standard (no mention) Similarity Dissimilarity 2.88* 4.00** 6.15** 3. S3** 5.00** 4.10** 6.08** 5.60** 4.90** 4.63** 5.00** 3.70** ** 2.60* 3.05** -3.33** ** -1.78* 3.93** 4.78** * 5.58** ** 3.41** * 4.12**.95 * p <.05, df = 1, 540. ** p <.01, df = 1, 540. Table 9) indicated that significant attraction and agreement effects occurred in all but the dissimilar condition. According to the similarity interpretation, the attraction and agreement effects should have been negative in the dissimilar condition. In reality, of course, contact and reciprocation also have some bearing on these means. The results for three-sign balance indicated that only the first contrast was significant, /? (!, 540) = 5.66, p <.05. Three-sign balance was greater in the standard and similar conditions than in the dissimilar condition. Similarity X Rating Scales Interaction Unfortunately for the sake of both initial prediction and simplicity of discussion ; the main effect for similarity mentioned above was qualified by a Similarity X Rating Scales interaction. The attraction and agreement means are contained in Table 9. A series of contrasts was calculated to explore this pattern of results. 4 These contrasts indicated that greater attraction and agreement effects with the standard and similar conditions than with the dissimilar condition were only found for the cognitive scales (expectancy, consistency, and stability). For attraction the effect for pleasantness and harmony was even in the wrong direction, although only slightly. For agreement, the effect was in predicted direction, although not significantly so. These results indicate that the social comparison theory perspective is only supported by the more cognitive scales. Put less technically, the subjects indicated that they regarded agreement with a dissimilar other as inconsistent but not unpleasant. Similarity X Contact Interaction There was a significant Similarity X Contact interaction for both attraction and agreement. As the means in Table 10 indicate, the interaction implies that the contact predictions were more strongly supported in the standardsimilarity condition. Such a result is in agreement with the anticipation that the factorial combination of similarity and contact might result in attention shifts and/or information overload. It is, furthermore, reassuring to find that the attraction effect with standard contact is significantly greater than zero when there is standard similarity. Across all levels of similarity the standard contact mean was not significantly greater than zero (see Table 8). Scales Within the No-Contact Condition One further finding should be mentioned. This finding is relevant to the argument that assumed reciprocation and self-relevancy considerations are important in accounting for attraction variance in the no-contact condition. To the extent that self-relevancy con- 4 A detailed summary of these analyses is available from the first author.

17 806 CHESTER A. INSKO AND AKANBI ADEWOLE Table 10 Similarity X Contact Means Condition and similarity Standard (no mention of) contact Future contact No contact Breaking contact Attraction Standard (no mention) Similarity Dissimilarity Agreement Standard (no mention) Similarity Dissimilarity- 2.76* ** 4.80** ** 7.36** 6.36* 3.32** 5.56** 2.16* 4.12** 4.04** 2.26* 2.04* 3.56** ** * *.32 * p <.05, df = 1, 540. ** p <.01, df = siderations are important in the no-contact condition, the affective scales should produce greater attraction than the more cognitive scales. This happened in Experiment 1 (see Table S). A planned test of the same contrast in Experiment 2 was also significant, F(\, 540) = 35.60, p <.01. Mean attraction effects for the pleasantness, harmony, expectancy, consistency, and stability scales were 4.47, 8.60, -.03, 1.53, and 2.80, respectively. Postexperimental Questionnaire Finally, we should like to mention that Experiment 2 also collected some self-report data data that will only be briefly described. Since the one variable that appears to be most consistently important in a balance account of attraction and agreement effects is contact, and since McGarvey's informal postexperimental interviews on this matter were only done with 18 subjects, we were interested in collecting data from a somewhat larger sample. The first question, which was asked only in the standard contact condition, inquired whether the subjects thought of a specific o (another person) with whom they had contact. The results were even more striking than Mc- Garvey's since 136 of 150 subjects (90.7%) answered in the affirmative. The second question, which was also asked in the nonstandard conditions, inquired about the time duration of the contact. All but one subject in the standard condition specified present contact. In the nonstandard conditions, the question constituted a manipulation check on past and future contact and overwhelmingly yielded the expected results. The final set of questions was directed at a matter with which we were most concerned. This is the potential criticism that the previously obtained contact results were an artifact of choice. Perhaps when subjects were told to assume no more contact or continued contact in the future they imagined that this change was the result of their own free choice. A set of questions designed to get at this problem revealed that some subjects imagined that their contact was the result of p's choice; some, of o's choice; some, of mutual choices; some, of no-choice circumstances; and some, of a combination of choice and circumstances. Since the modal response category was "circumstances," this category was compared with all of the other choice categories. Except in two instances, this analysis revealed no significant effects. In the future-contact condition, the agreement effect was greater for nochoice than for choice subjects; and in the breaking-contact condition, the attraction effect was more negative for no-choice than choice subjects. In general, the results do not seem to indicate that the usual contact results are an artifact of choice. Discussion Experiment 2 generally replicated the Experiment 1 results relating to rating scales and contact. The two experiments agreed in the major finding that the affective scales (pleasantness and harmony) produced larger

18 ASSUMED RECIPROCATION AND SIMILARITY 807 attraction and agreement effects than did the cognitive scales (expectancy, consistency, and stability). It is also interesting that in neither Experiment 1 nor Experiment 2 did expectancy ratings reveal significant attraction or agreement effects. The means in Experiment 2 are, in fact, slightly negative. LaTour et al. (Note 1) also did not find that expectancy ratings produced significant attraction or agreement effects. All three experiments found that expectancy ratings did not reveal significant attraction or agreement effects, but did reveal significant three-sign balance effects. These results possibly indicate that when subjects make expectancy judgments, they rely to a great extent on the relative frequencies of past social experiences (i.e., they rely on something analogous to the long-run relative frequency interpretation of probability). From this perspective, subjects do not regard p- dislikes-0 or />-disagrees-with-o situations as infrequent. On the other hand, three-sign imbalanced situations in which p likes someone and disagrees with that person or dislikes someone and agrees with him/her may have a relatively low frequency of past occurrence possibly because past group relationships tend to be ones in which there is both attraction and agreement (cf. Newcomb, 1978). The results for contact were generally in accord with the findings of Experiment 1. It is again apparent that more of the contact predictions were supported for attraction than for agreement. In view of the fact that the explicit mention of similarity and/or dissimilarity appeared to lessen the magnitudes of some of the predicted contact effects, this general replication of basic results is gratifying. The main focus of Experiment 2 was on the anticipated effect of similarity on attraction and agreement. Experiment 2 can be regarded as a test of the social comparison theory perspective on agreement and attraction effects. This perspective is that we seek agreement with and are attracted to similar others. The anticipated main effect of similarity on both attraction and agreement occurred. Both attraction and agreement effects were greater in the standard and similar conditions than in the dissimilar condition. Furthermore, the agreement effect was greater in the similar condition than in the standard condition. Beyond this, however, the attraction and agreement effects were not significantly less than zero in the dissimilar condition, and, most important of all, the main effect of similarity was qualified by the rating scales factor. With the affective scales, the manipulation of similarity had no significant effect on either attraction or agreement (see Table 9). Agreement with similar and dissimilar others was equally pleasant, but not equally consistent. Although this finding is intuitively plausible, it was not anticipated. There does not seem to be anything in social comparison theory that would have indicated such results. Indeed, the basic assumption of a drive for self-evaluation might be interpreted as implying a greater effect on the affective than on the cognitive scales certainly not a lesser effect. From the perspective of our initial expectations, Experiment 2 was a qualified success. Some additional agreement variance, beyond that explained by contact, was accounted for, but there was obviously unexplained variance, particularly on the affective scales. The problem becomes acute when it is recognized that it was the affective scales that produced the most agreement variance. Also it is important to note that a balance account of the reciprocated sentiment results for attraction is dependent on the adequacy with which balance theory can account for agreement variance. At the present time it is apparent that the balance theory is better able to account for variance on the cognitive scales than for variance on the affective scales. We regard the results of the two experiments as sufficiently encouraging to warrant continued investigation of the possibility that balance theory can account for the reliable variance in the phenomenology of hypothetical social situations. As previously indicated, the rationale for studying hypothetical social situations is not necessarily to learn about actual social situations. Although the phenomenology of actual social situations may bear some resemblance to the phenomenology of hypothetical social situations (cf. Sampson & Insko, 1964, for a study of nonhypothetical

19 808 CHESTER A. INSKO AND AKANBI ADEWOLE p-o-x triads), there are some important differences. At the very least the phenomenology of actual situations will be more complex and span a greater period of time. Hypothetical social situations are studied because the ease of manipulating variables makes these situations a convenient arena for testing specific balance hypotheses. Balance theory should be able to account for certain aspects of human thought, whatever their basis in reality. Reference Note 1. LaTour, et al. Pleasantness and expectancy ratings in p-o-x and q-o-x triads: The partially overlapping predictions of psychological hedonism and balance theory. Unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina, 1Q7S. References Aderman, D. Effects of anticipating future interaction on the preference for balanced states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 11, Crockett, W. H. Balance, agreement, and subjective evaluations of the P-O-X triads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, Festinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 1954, 7, 117^140. Gutman, G. M., & Knox, R. E. Balance, agreement, and attraction in pleasantness, tension, and consistency ratings of hypothetical social situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, Gutman, G. M., Knox, R. E., & Storm, T. F. Developmental study of balance, agreement, and attraction effects in the ratings of hypothetical social situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, Heider, F. Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 1946, 21, Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 19S8. Insko, C. A., Songer, E., & McGarvey, W. Balance, positivity, and agreement in the Jordan paradigm: A defense of balance theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1974, 10, McGarvey, W. E. Beyond three-sign balance: Balance theory predictions for more than three bands in the Jordan paradigm. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Milgram, S. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 1965, 18, Miller, C. E., & Norman, R. M. G. Balance, agreement, and attraction in hypothetical social situations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1976, 12, Newcomb, T. M. The acquaintance process: Looking mainly backward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, Sampson, E. E., & Insko, C. A. Cognitive consistency and performance in the autokinetic situation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 68, Wiest, W. M. A quantitative extension of Heider's theory of cognitive balance applied to interpersonal perception and self-esteem. Psychological Monographs, 1965, 7P(14, Whole No. 607). Zajonc, R. B. Cognitive theories in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, Received June 19, 1978