Effect of Similarity of Personality. Interpersonal Attraction* Howard Rosenfeld and Jay Jackson. The University of Michigan and University of Kansas

Transcription

1 Effect of Similarity of Personality on Interpersonal Attraction* Howard Rosenfeld and Jay Jackson The University of Michigan and University of Kansas The identification of antecedents and consequences of interpersonal attraction has long been a central research problem in social psychology. An understanding of this basic process is necessary for an adequate explanation of a variety of problems, such as the nature of social structure and social process, and the formation of informal groups. Two opposed lines of theorising, each of which claims empirical support, have been proposed to account for the development of attraction between persons. The more traditional approach, which has antecedents in Freudian psychology, maintains the viewpoint that "opposites attract;" that is, friendship should develop between two persons i f they complement each other in some way. Some evidence for this theory has been claimed by studies of marital partners and intimate friends. A different group of theories, stemming from Gestalt psychology and Heider's original formulation of cognitive balance, state that, in effect, "birds of a feather flock together." These theories predict that persons are attracted to each other because they are similar in attitudes, ideas, or values. This emphasis on cognitive f i t is characteristic of recent homeostatic theories dealing with problems of "balance" or "consonance." Studies supporting the similarity theory of friendship tend to suffer from a common problem. Because they are often cross-sectional studies, and investigate relatively unstable attitudes, they may be exposed to the criticism of circularity. I t is difficult to determine whether similarity Paper presented to the Sixty-seventh Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1959.

2 2 of persons determines their association, or whether association is the cause of similarity. The present study attempts to overcome this d i f f i culty by utilizing stable characteristics of persona dimensions of their "personality." The assumption is made that friendship, especially when formed in adulthood, is an effect rather than a cause of personality configurations. The problem thus becomes: is there a greater tendency for persons with similar or different personality characteristics to become friends? The two theories of friendship we have discussed will be considered for their adequacy in predicting actual friendship relationships in a field setting. The subjects were 36 female white-collar workers in an office of a large utility company. Abundant opportunities for acquaintance were available during their respective periods of employment, which ranged from six months to fifteen years. Interaction was facilitated by an environment which included adjacent desks, a common washroom and cafeteria, and shared social activities. As part of a larger study of the organization, the Guilford- Zimmerman Temperament Survey was administered to the subjects. The present analysis utilizes two of its scales, Ascendance-Submissiveness and Sociability-Unsociability, and a third scale, Security-Insecurity, which was derived from the Guilford-Zimmerman for purposes of the larger research project. Test-retest correlations demonstrated that these characteristics remained relatively stable over an eighteen-month period in spite of changes in working conditions and job status of the respondents. Thus, in line with the assumption that personality relationships are a determinant of friendship, we have some evidence that our measures do correspond to relatively stable characteristics of persons.

3 The research also obtained sociometric choices by all subjects. They were asked to select those girls in the office who were their real friends. The analysis reported in this paper utilizes a method of "pairanalysis." All possible pairs of subjects are categorized according to whether they mutually chose each other for friends or failed to do so. Each person's scores on the three personality characteristics are labeled "high" or "low" depending an whether they fall in the top or bottom half of the distribution. Then each pair of persons is classified in terms of similarity or difference of personality characteristics of the two individual members. The most stringent test of the hypothesis that similars attract is to call a pair of subjects similar i f both members are either high or low on all three characteristics; and to label them dissimilar i f they differ on all three characteristics. Friendship pairs are defined in terms of each member of the pair identifying the other as a friend, while nonfriendship pairs consist of those who failed to choose each other. The results of this analysis are shown in Table I. I t can be seen that there is a significantly greater tendency for similar than different persons to select each other as friends. However, i t is possible that not a l l of the three personality characteristics make significant contributions to the finding in Table I. Thus, Tables I I, I I I, and IV report tests of relationship between personality and friendship for the characteristics considered separately. In each case the effects of the other two variables and of length of service are controlled. The results indicate that similarity on each of the given characteristics does contribute to friendship.

4 In Table V i t is seen that the relationship tends to be linear. As the degree of similarity, measured by the number of personality characteristics members of a pair have in common, increases, the tendency to select each other as friends also increases. I t may be concluded that when dealing with personality, as measured here, similarity between persons clearly leads to friendship formation, and dissimilarity leads to friendship avoidance. Thus evidence for a theory of complementarity which derives mostly from studies of marriage relationships, may not be general. This raises a question as to the underlying processes in selecting friends as compared to mates. Are married people really friends? I t may well be that mating relationships are more concerned with the gratification of basic needs than are friendship relationships. A partial explanation may be found in the fact that friendship tends to occur between members of the same sex, while marriage is a heterosexual phenomenon. A further indication of differences between mate and friend selection processes is seen in the fact that the only studies known to the authors which linked complementarity to friendship utilized a criterion of best friend. I t is probable that best friends, like mates, serve more need-fulfilling functions than more casual friends. The present finding that similar persons are more likely to become friends than are dissimilar persons suggests that friendship may be dependent upon a cognitive f i t between those who attract each other. I f so, these results are consistent with a number of current theories of balance or consonance in interpersonal relations those of Heider (3), Newcomb (4), Festinger (2) and Cartwright and Harary (1).

5 References (1) Cartwright, D., & Harary, F. Structural balance: a generalization of Heider 1 s theory. Psychol. Rev., 1956, 63, (2) Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson, (3) Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 195S. (4) Newcomb, T. M. An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychol. Rev., 1953, 60,

6 From Howard Rosenfeld and Jay Jackson, "Effect of similarity of personality on interpersonal attraction." TABLE I Friendship and Nonfriendship Pairs of Female Office Employees Who Are Similar or Different on Three Personality Characteristics Friendship Pair Is Similar Pair Is Dissimilar Status on All Three on All Three of Pair Characteristics Characteristics Mutual Choice 20 4 Mutual Noncholce X 2 «12.4 p <.001 The three characteristics are Sociability-Unsociability, Ascendance- Submissivene33, and Security-Insecurity, from the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (the latter a derived scale).

7 From Howard Rosenfeld and Jay Jackson, "Effect of similarity of personality on interpersonal attraction." TABLE I I Friendship and Nonfriendship Pairs of Female Office Employees Who Are Similar or Different on Ascendance-Subraissiveness 2 Friendship Pair Is Similar Pair Is Dissimilar Status on on of Pair Ascendance Ascendance Mutual Choice 12 Mutual Nonchoice X 2 a 4.39 P <.05 2 In this analysis the effect of length of employment and of the other two personality characteristics are controlled. Only pairs of S's are included whose members are similar in Tenure, Sociability, and Security. Similar controls are employed in the analyses presented in Tables I I I and IV.

8 From Howard Rosenfeld and Jay Jackson, "Effect of similarity of personality on interpersonal attraction." TABLE I I I Friendship and Nonfriendship Pairs of Female Office Employees Who are Similar or Different on Security-Insecurity Friendship Pair Is Pair Is Status Similar Dissimilar of Pair on Security on Security Mutual Choice 12 4 Mutual Nonchoice X 2 = 6.78 p <.01

9 From Howard Rosenfeld and Jay Jackson, "Effect of similarity of personality on interpersonal attraction." TABLE IV Friendship and Nonfrlendship Fairs of Female Office Employees Who Are Similar or Different on Sociability-Unsociability Friendship Pair Is Pair Is Status Similar Dissimilar of Pair on Sociability on Sociability Mutual Choice 12 7 Mutual Nonchoice X 2 = 2.12 p.15 approx.

10 From Howard Rosenfeld and Jay Jackson, "Effect of similarity of personality interpersonal attraction." TABLE V Degree of Similarity in Personality for Friendship and Nonfriendship Pairs Friendship Number of Similar Characteristics Status of Pair Mutual Choice (expected) (3.9) (25.7 (22.8) (8.6) Mutual Nonchoice (expected) (60.1) (173.3) (154.2) (58.4) X 2» 21.0 p <.001