xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200385Ka 4500
controlfield tag 001 002064126
007 cr bnu|||uuuuu
008 100323s2009 flu s 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0003052
Weaver, Jonathan R.
My enemy's enemy is my friend
b why holding the same negative attitudes of others promotes closeness
h [electronic resource] /
by Jonathan R. Weaver.
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 44 pages.
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2009.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
ABSTRACT: Holding the same negative, as compared to positive, attitudes about a third party has been shown to predict increased liking for a future interaction partner (Bosson, Johnson, Niederhoffer, & Swann, 2006). The current work extended past research by examining two possible mediators of this effect: perceptions of "knowing" the future interaction party, and state self-esteem. Participants learned that they held the same positive or negative attitude of a professor with a future interaction partner, and then rated their feelings of "knowing" their partner, their own state self-esteem, and the closeness they felt to their future interaction partner. It was predicted that holding the same negative attitude about a third party, as compared to a positive attitude, would facilitate closeness to a future partner more effectively because it would (a) provide greater perceived insight into the partner's disposition, and (b) boost state self-esteem. Findings revealed an interaction in which a shared negative attitude toward a third party produced more closeness to a future partner than a shared positive attitude, but only when the attitude was strongly held. When the attitude was weakly held, attitude valence did not influence closeness to the future partner. Participants did not feel like they knew more about their partners if they shared a negative over a positive attitude, but they did feel like they knew their partners to a greater extent if they shared an attitude that was strongly held. In addition, the manipulations had no effect on state self-esteem. Therefore, predictions regarding the possible mediators were not supported. The results are discussed in the context of past findings, and the discussion focuses on the ecological validity of the current study. In addition, the discussion considers the implications of this work for understanding social relationship formation, and offers suggestions for future research.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Advisor: Jennifer Bosson, Ph.D.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
My EnemyÂ’s Enemy is My Friend: Why Holding the Same Negative Attitudes of Others Promotes Closeness by Jonathan R. Weaver A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Jennifer Bosson, Ph. D. Tammy Allen, Ph. D. Jamie Goldenberg, Ph. D. Date of Approval: November 25th, 2008 Keywords: Attitudinal Similarity, Self-E steem, In-group, Out-group, Balance Theory Copyright 2009, Jonathan R. Weaver
i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Abstract v Introduction 1 Balance Theory 2 The Attractiveness of Expressing Positive Attitudes 3 NegativityÂ’s Pull 4 Similarly held negative attitudes 5 Knowing Another Through Similarly Held Negative Attitudes 6 State Self-Esteem and Similarly Held Negative Attitudes 8 Overview of Proposal and Hypotheses 9 Hypothesis 1 11 Hypothesis 2 11 Hypothesis 3 11 Hypothesis 4 11 Hypothesis 5 11 Methods 12 Power Analysis 12 Participants and Design 12 Procedure and Materials 13 Manipulating attitude valance 15 Dependent measures 16 Manipulation check 17 Results 18 Closeness 18 Felt Knowing and State Self-esteem 21 Mediational Model 23 General Discussion 23 Limitations 24 Directions for Future Research 26 Conclusion 30
ii References 31 Endnotes 35 Appendices 36 Appendix A: Liked and Disliked Prof essors 37 Appendix B: Personal Information Exchange Sheet 41 Appendix C: End Questionnaire 42
iii List of Tables Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among all Variables 19
iv List of Figures Figure 1. Predicted closeness to a future interaction partne r as a function of similarly held attitude valance and at titude strength. 20 Figure 2. Predicted felt Â“knowingÂ” of a future interaction partner as a function of similarly held attitude valance and attitude strength. 22
v My EnemyÂ’s Enemy is My Friend: Why Holding the Same Negative Attitudes of Others Promotes Closeness Jonathan R. Weaver ABSTRACT Holding the same negative, as compared to positive, attitudes about a third party has been shown to predict increased liking for a future interaction partner (Bosson, Johnson, Niederhoffer, & Swann, 2006). The cu rrent work extended past research by examining two possible mediators of this e ffect: perceptions of Â“knowingÂ” the future interaction party, and state self-esteem. Par ticipants learned that they held the same positive or negative attitude of a professor with a future interaction partner, and then rated their feelings of Â“know ingÂ” their partner, their own state self-esteem, and the closeness they felt to their future interacti on partner. It was pr edicted that holding the same negative attitude about a third party, as compared to a positive attitude, would facilitate closeness to a fu ture partner more effectivel y because it would (a) provide greater perceived insi ght into the partnerÂ’ s disposition, and (b) boos t state self-esteem. Findings revealed an interaction in which a shared negative attitude toward a third party produced more closeness to a future partner than a shared positive attitude, but only when the attitude was strongly held. When the atti tude was weakly held, attitude valence did not influence closeness to the future partner. Participants did not feel like they knew more about their partners if they shared a negative over a positive attitude, but they did feel like they knew their partners to a greater extent if they shared an attitude that was
vi strongly held. In addition, the manipulati ons had no effect on st ate self-esteem. Therefore, predictions regarding the possibl e mediators were not supported. The results are discussed in the context of past findings and the discussion focuses on the ecological validity of the current study. In addition, the discussion consider s the implications of this work for understanding social relationship fo rmation, and offers suggestions for future research.
1 Introduction Â“If you havenÂ’t got anything nice to sa y about anybody, come sit next to me.Â” -Alice Roosevelt Longworth (as cited by Cordery, 2007) Alice Roosevelt Longworth, Theodore R ooseveltÂ’s oldest child, adopted the above quote as her personal motto after receiving a gift of a sofa pillow with this saying embroidered on it. Living by this motto, co mbined with her sometimes wild antics and acid-tongue, helped her become an influen tial figure in Washington. In fact, AliceÂ’s tendency to express negative and critical attitudes (usually pu blicly) about others helped her not only to gain stature in the Wa shington community, but to establish welldocumented friendships with prominent Washi ngton figures such as former Presidents Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. The above example illustrates the deliciousness of bonding over similarly held dislikes of others. By holding similar negative, as compared to positive, attitudes about another person, two people may even be more likely to form a bond. Indeed, this is precisely what Bosson, Johnson, Niederhoffer, and Swann (2006) expected when they manipulated the valence of similarly held at titudes toward an unfamiliar third party, and found that holding the same negative, as comp ared to positive, att itudes about the third party predicted increased liking a nd closeness for a stranger. Th is occurred in spite of the finding that folk beliefs about friendship fo rmation suggest similarity of positive, not negative, attitudes should be more ef fective in promoting closeness.
2 In the current proposal, I will expand on Bosson et al.Â’s (2006) finding by looking at two possible mediators of the negativity a nd closeness effect. Specifically, I will look at whether perceived Â“knowingÂ” of a partner and state self-esteem me diate the effects of similarly held negative attitudes about third parties on feelings of closeness to a future interaction partner. Balance Theory Like other cognitive consistency theori es (e.g., Cooper & Fazio, 1984; Festinger, 1957), HeiderÂ’s balance theory (1946, 1958) proposes that in dividualsÂ’ relationships are based on balanced attitudes held by both partie s. The desire for consistency among oneÂ’s thoughts, feelings, and social re lationships contributes to an attraction toward a balanced state in which two individuals either like or dislike each other. When a third party is thrown into the mix, psychological balance is achieved if two member s of the triad hold either a similar positive or ne gative attitude about this th ird party. Balance, in turn, promotes liking and friendship formation. For example, if you meet Alex and discover that you both hold a similar liking or disliking for Bob, you should like Alex. Conversely, systems in which a friendÂ’s friend is an enemy, or a friendÂ’s enemy is a friend, are what Heider (1946) called unbalanced Using the above example, your attraction toward Alex will be weaker if you like Bob, but Alex does not. However, which type of balanced sy stem should more readily facilitate interpersonal bonding? Is it a system in which you and Alex hold a similar liking for Bob, or a system in which you and Alex hold a similar disliking for Bob?
3 The Attractiveness of Expressing Positive Attitudes Theories of interpersonal attraction (Backman, 1990; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Jones, 1964; Rowatt, Cunningham, & Druen, 19 98; Stevens & Kristof, 1995) stress the use of socially desirable behaviors during the onset of friendsh ip formation. When encountering new possible friendship partners, people typically want to make a good first impression by putting their best foot forward. Following this logic, it would be optimal to express positive rather than negative att itudes about third partie s during interactions with potential friends because, compared to people who express a disliking for a third party, people who express a lik ing for a third party should be perceived themselves as more likable. This is exactly what Folk es and Sears (1977) found. In their classic demonstration of the power of positivity, th ey found a general tendency for people to like positive evaluators more than negative evaluators, regardless of the third party being evaluated (e.g., politicians, cafet eria workers), or whether the participant ostensibly held the same opinions as the evaluator. This sugge sts that, in general, people should be more drawn to form friendships with others who express positive evaluati ons than others who express negative evaluations of third parties. However, Folkes and SearsÂ’ (1977) met hods did not pin down the exact role that similarity of likes versus dislikes plays in friendship development. As pointed out by Bosson et al. (2006), participants did not expe ct to meet the evaluator they rated, much less think they would form a friendship with th e evaluator. In addition, Folkes and Sears operationalized attitudinal similarity by manipul ating the (fictional) evaluatorÂ’s political affiliation to match the participantÂ’s. As any election year would show, people might
4 have similar political party affiliation, but their specific attitudes towards particular politicians might differ dramatically. NegativityÂ’s Pull Folkes and SearsÂ’ (1977) findings notw ithstanding, a growing body of research suggests that people may be inclined to atte nd more to negative, than positive, social information (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finke nauer, & Vohs, 2001). For example, in a study of impression formation, Anderson ( 1965) had participants read a set of personality-trait adjectives th at described a person (a stra nger) and then rate how much they would like the stranger described. Anderson found that when confronted with negative information about the stranger, particip ants weighted it to a greater degree than they did positive information. More specifi cally, when presented with two highly and two moderately unfavorable adjectives, pa rticipants rated the stranger as closely resembling a stranger described with four highly unfavorable adjectives (rather than the average between strangers rated with four highly or four moderately unfavorable adjectives). Conversely, partic ipants rated strangers with two highly and two moderately favorable adjectives somewhere in the middle between strangers rated with four highly or four moderately favorable adjectives (an av eraging of each positive trait adjective). In other words, negative information tends to weigh more on oneÂ’s perceptions of another person than positive information does. Others have found this same result when participants were forming a first impre ssion of another person (e.g., DeBruin & Van Lange, 2000; Hamilton & Zanna, 1972; Peeters & Czapinski, 1990). In addition, when participants viewed photographs that depicted either positive or negative behaviors, Fiske (1980) found that the negative behaviors had a greater impact on ratings of the targetsÂ’
5 likeability than did the positive behaviors. Another study found that people process negative words more accurately and quickly th an positive words at the subliminal level (Dijksterhuis & Aarts, 2003). Based on this and other research, Baumeist er et al. (2001) concluded that Â“Bad emotions, bad parents, and bad feedback have more impact than good ones, and bad information is processed more thoroughly than goodÂ” (p. 323). Thus, a broad finding that ties together many different literatures is that bad (negative) inform ation tends to carry more psychological Â“weightÂ” than comp arable good (positive) information. Similarly held ne gative attitudes An additional area in which bad may be stronger than good is that of similarly held attitudes. Dunbar (2004) theorizes that negatively valenced gossip is an important evolved mechanism for bonding among social groups. This bonding occurs because talking ne gatively about others can help solidify a relationship (Derlega & Chai kin, 1977) by revealing pers onal information about the speaker, and communicating to the listener that he or she is trusted and valued (Hannerz, 1967). Thus, similarly held negative attitudes should increase feelings of closeness and solidarity in the initial stages of friendsh ips (Leaper & Hollida y, 1995) and Â“help cement and maintain social bondsÂ” (Baumeister, Zhang, & Vohs, 2004, p. 112). To go along with this idea that similarl y held negative, compared to positive, attitudes increase feelings of closeness, Bo sson et al. (2006) found that people recalled discovering more shared dislikes of others than liking for ot hers when first getting to know the people who eventually became their cl osest friends. In addition, Bosson et al. manipulated whether participants held the same positive or negative attitude about an unfamiliar third party with a future interaction partner who was ostensibly seated in an
6 adjacent lab room. They then had participants rate how much they liked and felt close to the future interaction partner. Their findings were the first to show that holding similar negative attitudes about others is especially effective in promoting closeness between people. More specifically, a similarly he ld negative attitude about a third party effectively promoted closeness whether the at titude was strong or weak, but only when the attitude was strong did holding the same positive attitude promote closeness as effectively as holding the same negative one. While Bosson et al. (2006) set the founda tion for the current proposal, they did not establish the underlying mechanisms th at explain why similarly held negative attitudes about others promot e closeness so effectively. Here, I ask what are the underlying psychological processes that cause increases in bonding/closeness for two people who hold the same dislike of a third pa rty? Does expressing a negative attitude about a third party reveal more information about the speaker than expressing a positive attitude? Or, do similarly held negative attitudes increase state self-esteem due to the formation of in-groups? Below, I explor e each of these possible mechanisms, and explain how each one could increase closeness to a stranger. Knowing Another Through Similarly Held Negative Attitudes A possible mediator of the association between similarly held negative attitudes and closeness to a future inte raction partner is perceptions of Â“knowingÂ” the other after the discovery of the similar dislike. When someone expresses a negative as compared to a positive attitude, they run the risk of be ing disliked, viewed unf avorably, and punished (Folkes & Sears, 1977). However, according to KelleyÂ’s (1971) augmentation principle, when there are known risks or costs involved in taking a certain action (the danger of
7 being viewed unfavorably when expressing a dislike), the action (e xpressing the dislike) is attributed particularly str ongly to the actorÂ’s disposition. Therefore, the expression of a dislike, as compared to the expression of a like, about a third party should reveal greater insight into the underlying dis position of the attitude holder (Kelley, 1973). For example, if Alex states that Â“I despise Bob,Â” you (as the observer) should make the assumption that Alex legitimately does dislike Bob. This is because Alex has expressed the negative attitude despite the known risk s involved in this type of behavior (i.e., Alex being disliked or being viewed unfavorably by others). Similarly, according to Jones and DavisÂ’ (1965) social desira bility hypothesis, a behavior that is low in social desirability ( going against social norms) is attributed more strongly to an actor than is a behavior high in social desi rability (going with social norms), because the former behavior occurs in the face of social norms that should discourage it. As discussed above, Â“people ar e motivated to create an attractive selfpresentationÂ” (Folkes & Sear s, 1977, p. 517). Given this motivation, along with the social pressure to only reveal Â“pleasantÂ” attitudes, listeners may assume that the expression of a dislike reveals the speakerÂ’s true underlying feelings. As a result, the listener gains (or at least perceives that s/he gains) more insight into the character of the speaker when the speaker reveals negative, as compared to positive, attitudes about a third party. The expression of a positive atti tude, on the other hand, leaves the listener with less information to use when formi ng an impression of the speaker. Thus, expressing a negative attitude about a third party should help the listener feel they Â“knowÂ” more about the source of the attitude and, to the exte nt that the listener holds the same negative attitude, intimacy between the two is more likely to take place (Byrne,
8 1971; Byrne, Clore, & Smeaton, 1986; Derl ega, Metts, Petroni o, & Margulis, 1993; Vittengl & Holt, 2000). State Self-Esteem and Similarly Held Negative Attitudes Another possible mediator of the link be tween similarly held negative attitudes and closeness is that holding similar negative attitudes may boost self-esteem. There are at least two possible reasons why this might o ccur. First, self-esteem may increase if discovering similar attitudes creates Â– at le ast momentarily Â– an in-group consisting of the speaker and listener. Go ssip theorists make this point by noting that negative gossip can help in the Â“formation and maintena nce of in-groups a nd out-groupsÂ” (Wert & Salovey, 2004, p. 122). To the extent that belongingness in social groups meets a fundamental human need (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), people might experience temporary increases in state self-esteem wh enever they perceive in-group connectedness with others (e.g., Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Do wns, 1995). Of course, a similarly held positive attitude toward a third party might al so boost self-esteem by establishing an ingroup that includes the speaker, the listener, and the third party. However, a similarly held negative attitude should provide an especially powerful boost to self-esteem because it offers not onl y acceptance, but also an opportunity for downward social comparison with a target pers on (the third party) who is viewed as inferior to the in-group (Taylor, Buunk, & Aspinwall, 1990; Wills, 1981; Wood, Taylor, & Lichtman, 1985). This is the second possible reason why holding similar negative attitudes might boost state self-esteem. Accord ing to social identity theory (SIT), an individualÂ’s self consists of a personal iden tity and a social identity, the latter of which refers to those aspects of th e self-concept that result from oneÂ’s in-groups (Tajfel, 1981;
9 Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Moreover, people de rive self-esteem from assessing their ingroups favorably in contrast to out-groups. From the SIT perspective then, high selfesteem is achieved by having a distinct a nd positive in-group iden tity. Therefore, communicating a dislike about a third party to a potential fr iend expresses to them that they are considered an in-group member, and al so casts the third part y in a negative light. Thus, similarly held negative attitude s can boost oneÂ’s self-esteem through the association with a valued in -group that is superior to the out-group (Gagnon & Bourhis, 1996; Tajfel & Forgas, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). To summarize, the discovery of a similarl y held negative attitude should increase state self-esteem more than the discovery of a similarly held positive attitude, through the establishment of an in-group boundary and subs equent downward social comparisons. In turn, if one associates an interaction partner with positive feelings such as increases in self-esteem, this should serve as a reward th at makes one feel clos er to the interaction partner (Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew, 1998; Thibaut & Kell ey, 1959). Therefore, if discovering a similarly held ne gative attitude temporarily in creases self-esteem, then it should increase feelings of closeness to th e other person (e.g., th e interaction partner) who holds the similar attitude. Overview of Proposal and Hypotheses Based on the reasoning outlined above, as well as the findings of Bosson et al. (2006), I hypothesize that holding similar nega tive attitudes about a third party (e.g., a college professor) will promote interpersonal closeness toward a future interaction partner more effectively than holding similar positive attitudes. I also predict, based on research on attitudinal similarity and liki ng (e.g., Byrne, 1971; Byrne et al., 1986), that
10 the more strongly the attitude is held, the mo re closeness will result, whether it is a negative or positive attitude. Finally, I pred ict an interaction of attitude valence and strength such that the bonding power of holding similar negative attitudes will be heightened when the attitude is one that participants feel strongly about. In sum, I am predicting that strongly held, similar, negative attitudes will promote the strongest feelings of closeness toward a future inte raction partner, compared to weakly held negative attitudes and both weakly and strongly held positive attitudes. To test these predictions, I will use a co llege professor as the evaluated third party. Note that Bosson et al (2006) used a fictitious third party in their tests of the bonding power of similar negative a ttitudes. The use of the fic titious third party is quite different from a third party person someone has encountered in person (e.g., a college professor). Using a college professor as the third party is a closer approximation of how people experience the start of friendships, by talking about situations or people they have experienced directly. Therefor e, I will use a more ecologica lly valid operationalization of the disliked third party. In addition, I predict that holding similar negative attitudes, more than holding similar positive attitudes, will promote intim acy because of its effects on two mediating variables. First, holding si milar negative attitudes unveils more perceived Â“informationÂ” about the person expressing the attitude than holding similar positive attitudes. Second, holding similar negative attitude s boosts state self-esteem by creating an in-group that does not include the disliked other. Therefore, felt Â“knowingÂ” of a partner and state selfesteem will both mediate the association betw een similar negative at titudes about a third
11 party and closeness to a future interaction partner. To summarize, I will test the following five hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: There will be a main effect of attitude valence, such that holding similar negative attitudes about a college pr ofessor will increase closeness toward a future interaction partner relative to holding similar positive attitudes. Hypothesis 2: There will be a main effect of attitude strength, such that the more strongly the attitude is held, the more cl oseness will occur, whether the attitude is negative or positive. Hypothesis 3: Attitude strength will moderate the effect of attitude valence on closeness. In other words, there will be an interaction of attitude valence and strength on closeness such that the effect of valence of attitude on closeness will be strongest when the similar attitude is one that participants feel strongly about. Hypothesis 4: ParticipantÂ’s felt Â“knowingÂ” of their partner will mediate the moderated effect of attitude valence on strengt h. In other words, I predict a pattern of mediated moderation in which felt Â“knowingÂ” mediates the association between the attitude valence-by-strength interaction and closeness to the interaction partner. Hypothesis 5: ParticipantÂ’s state self-esteem will mediate the moderated effect of attitude valence on strength. That is, I pred ict a pattern of mediated moderation in which state self-esteem mediates th e association between the at titude valence-by-strength interaction and closeness to the interaction partner. To test these hypotheses, I will conduct a study in which participants will learn that they and a future interac tion partner hold the same like or dislike of a professor (e.g., the third party) from whom they both take (or have taken) a cl ass. Participants will then
12 rate the strength of their att itude toward the professor, their Â“knowingÂ” of the future partner, their state self-est eem, and their feelings of cl oseness to the partner. Methods Power Analysis A power analysis was conducted (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) to determine the total number of participants needed to detect a moderate interaction effect size of f2 = .20 (Cohen, 1988). With an alpha of 0.05, setting power at 0.95, and assuming five predictors in the full model (strength, valence, the strength-by-valence interaction, felt knowing, and state self-esteem), a sample size of 105 would be needed. I therefore planned to recruit a total of 106 participants (53 in each experimental condition, to allow for detection of moderation by the continuous strength variable). However, I ended up recruiting more participants than planned, because an unexpectedly large number of participants were excluded for failing a crucial manipulation check. This is explained in more detail later. Participants and Design A total of 113 undergraduates participated in exchange for credit toward a course requirement. To be eligible participants ha d to indicate during prescreening that they had taken at least three large (100 people or more) introductory level classes at USF. This was done to increase the likelihood that pa rticipants had taken a class from at least one of the listed professors. Participants were ru n one or two at a time, seated alone in individual lab rooms. I excluded data from four participants (two pairs) because they knew each other beforehand, and from two who did not follow instructions (i.e., decided to select a professor they liked instead of disliked, wrote in a professor not from USF). In
13 addition, I excluded data from 17 participants for failing the manipul ation check (i.e., did not recall learning that their pa rtner shared the same liked or disliked professor with them). In total, 90 participants (14 men and 76 women) were in the final sample. Participants ranged from 18 to 30 years in age ( Mdn = 19), and 47.8% identified themselves as White, 23.3% as Hispanic/La tino(a), 20% as Black, 4.4% as Asian, 3.3% as Arabic/Middle Easter n, and 1.1% as other. Participants were randomly assigned to condition in a 2-cell (valence of similar attitude: negative vs. positive) between subjec ts design. The strength of participantsÂ’ attitude was included as a continuous mode rator variable. The dependent measures included: participantsÂ’ rating of Â“knowingÂ” their ostensible partner, their state selfesteem, and their feelings of closeness to their partner. Procedure and Materials Upon arriving at the lab, participants ga ve their informed consent to participate and then learned that they would be partak ing in two brief, unrelated studies. An experimenter explained that the first study involved studentsÂ’ impressions of their instructors, and the second study was about how people get to know someone theyÂ’ve never met before (i.e., the ostensib le future interaction partner). For the first task, participants received a Professor Selection Sheet that listed 44 professors who teach introductory level courses at the University of South Florida (USF), and the experimenter explaine d that Â“The first study invol ves collecting information on studentÂ’s impressions of their USF instructors. USF is in the pro cess of creating a large database of faculty evaluations, kind of like Rate My Professor or one of those online evaluation websites. So your first task toda y will involve making ratings of some of the
14 professors youÂ’ve had in large survey classes here at USF.Â” The participants were then asked to circle the names of every professo r they had taken or were currently taking a course with. Then, based on random assignment, participants were be asked to place an Â‘XÂ’ next to the one profe ssor they either liked ( positive attitude condition) or disliked ( negative attitude condition) the most. In addition, an option to write the name of a nonlisted professor was provided. After the selection of the professor they liked or disliked the most, participants answered three questions about the strength of thei r positive or negative attitude toward the professor: Â“How much do you like (dis like) the professor you selected?Â”; Â“How strongly do you like (dislike) the professor you selected?Â”; Â“How c onfident are you about your attitude toward the professor you select ed?Â” Each was rated on a scale ranging from 1 ( not at all ) to 9 ( very much ) (see Appendix A). To comput e strength scores, I averaged across these items ( = .79). The 44 USF professors were selected by scanning class listin gs and selecting those who taught introductory le vel courses with at least 100 students. The courses from which the professors were selected co vered a wide range of departments (e.g., Geography, Biology, Business, Accounting, Psyc hology, Religion) in hopes of capturing professors with whom the participants had or were currently taking classes. After collecting the participantÂ’s completed evaluations of the liked or disliked professor the (supposedly) unrelat ed second study begin and th e experimenter said Â“For this study, the researchers are interested in how people interact with someone they donÂ’t know well.Â” The experimenter then explained that the interaction wi th the partner would begin once the participant completed a shor t getting to know you questionnaire. To
15 obscure the true purpose of the experiment, a nd provide the participants with additional (mundane) information from which to extract an impression of their future interaction partner, the experimenter explained that: Â“You are going to fill out a short form where you share some information about yourself. Once you are done I will take your form to the other room and IÂ’ll bring back your part nerÂ’s form to look over. Then you will fill out a quick questionnaire right before you tw o meet.Â” The experimenter then had the participants fill out the Personal Informati on Exchange (see Appendix B) sheet and once they were done took the participantÂ’s filled out form with them to the ostensible partnerÂ’s room. Manipulating attitude valence. Approximately two minutes later, the experimenter returned to convey informati on about attitudinal similarity between the participant and future interacti on partner. Specifically, all participants learned that their future partner identified the same (liked or disliked) professor as them, thus holding in common with them either a positive or negati ve attitude toward th e same third party. Following Bosson et al.Â’s (2006) manipulation procedures, the experimenter said, Â“Seems that you and your partner both identified th e same professor (Dr._____) that you took a large class with and liked/dis liked. You both gave him/her similar ratings too.Â” Note that the participants selected only one individual (either a li ked or disliked professor). This is a critical difference from Bosson et al.Â’s procedure, in which participants generated two attitudes about a third party, bu t learned that they onl y held one of these attitudes in common with their future interaction partners. While the other attitude was not mentioned, participants might have assu med that their future interaction partner disagreed with them about the unmentioned at titude, causing weaken ed bonding effects.
16 The experimenter then handed the particip ants the Personal Information Exchange sheet ostensibly Â“filledÂ” out by the partner (all participants received the same information from the ostensible partner, see Appendix B) After letting the part icipant look over their partnerÂ’s sheet the experimenter had the par ticipants fill out the final questionnaire on the computer consisting of the dependent measures (see Appendix C). Dependent measures In counterbalanced order, participants responded to two sets of questions that measured the medi ator variables (perceptions of knowing the partner and state self-est eem). Four questions, rated on scales of 1 ( not at all ) to 7 ( very much ), assessed how much the participant felt like she or he Â“knewÂ” her/his partner (e.g., Â“To what extent do you feel like you know what kind of person your future partner is?,Â” Â“How much do you feel like you know about your future partner?,Â” Â“How much do you feel like you learned about your future part ner?,Â” and Â“To what extent do you feel like you know what kinds of attitudes your futu re partner holds?Â”). The use of these questions addressed if holding a similar negative attitude revealed something more about the source of the attitude than a positive attit ude would. An average Â“knowingÂ” score was computed to yield an indicator of how much a participant Â“knowsÂ” about their unmet partner ( = .87). Five items, modified from RosenbergÂ’s (1965) Self-esteem Scale, were used to indicate how participants curr ently feel about themselves. These items were: Â“Right now, I feel that IÂ’m a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with othersÂ”; Â“Right now, I feel that I have a number of good qualitiesÂ”; Â“Right now I am inclined to feel that I am a failureÂ”; Â“Right now, I am satisfied with myself Â”; Â“Right now, I feel I do not have much to be proud of.Â” Participants used a scale from 1 ( Not at all ) to 5 ( Extremely ). These
17 items clarify if holding a similar negative att itude, relative to a positive attitude, increases state self-esteem. The two negatively worded items were reverse coded and I computed a mean of all five items ( = .76). Seven questions borrowed from Bosson et al. (2006) measured participantsÂ’ feelings of closeness to their partners. On scales of 1 ( not at all ) to 7 ( very much ) participants indicated Â“To what degree do you think you and your future partner will Â‘clickÂ’?,Â” Â“To what extent is your future pa rtner someone with whom you could establish a friendship?,Â” Â“To what extent do you feel close to your fu ture partner?,Â” Â“Do you think that the interaction with your future partne r will go smoothly?,Â” Â“T o what extent are you looking forward to the interac tion task with your future partner?,Â” Â“To what degree are you likely to discuss personal in formation with your future partner during th e interaction task?,Â” and Â“How comfortable do you think the inte raction task with your future partner will be?Â” I averaged across these items ( = .80) to produce a closeness score. Manipulation check. The last section of the ques tionnaire asked pa rticipants to Â“jot down any details that you recall the expe rimenter having told you about your future partner.Â” These open-ended responses were coded for accurate recall of the specific similarly held attitude. Out of all participants, 84 % ( N = 90) correctly recalled that their partner selected the same liked/disliked professor as they did; the remaining 16 % ( N = 17) did not mention this detail. Including ve rsus excluding the data of participants who did not mention the shared attitude toward the professor does not change any of the patterns reported below, but it does cause several significant eff ects to drop to nonsignificance. These different significance le vels are indicated where relevant below.
18 Closer inspection of the data revealed th at the rates of mani pulation check failure differed by experimenter. A chi-square anal ysis revealed significant differences among the three experimenters, 2(2, N = 107) = 13.58, p < .01. Of Experimenter 1Â’s participants, 12.72% failed the manipulation ch eck; of Experimenter 2Â’s participants, 4.55% failed; and of Experimenter 3Â’s partic ipants, 69.23% failed. Therefore, it appears that the high rate of manipulation failure can perhaps be attributed to an idiosyncrasy of Experimenter 3, rather than a weakness in the manipulation itsel f. This issue is discussed in more detail in the Discussion. Participants were then asked a few de mographic questions, thoroughly probed for suspicion, debriefed, and given the assigned credit. Most pa rticipants did not indicate any suspicion and if they did it was only mild. Results Closeness Table 1 displays descriptive statistics for and correlat ions among all variables. Hypotheses 1 through 3 state that there will be main effects for both attitude valence and strength on closeness, and a valence-by-strength interaction. I hypothesized that strongly held, similar, negative attitudes of a third party (e.g., the professor) would promote the strongest feelings of closeness toward the futu re interaction partner, compared to weakly held negative attitudes and both weakly and stro ngly held positive attitudes. To test these hypotheses, I conducted a simultaneous multiple regression analysis in which I predicted participantsÂ’ feelings of closeness from attitude valence condition (coded as negative attitude = 0, positive attitude = 1), strength of similarly held attitude (zero centered; see Aiken & West, 1991), and the tw o-way interaction term.
19 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Co rrelations Among all Variables I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Primary Variables I. Felt Closeness II. Felt Knowing .36** III. State Self-Esteem .13 .01 IV. Strength .29** .28** .02 Covariates V. Professors Circled .28** .25* -.05 .28** VI. Gender -.04 .02 .17 -.13 -.11 Mean/Total 3.77 2.58 4.31 6.34 3.40 76 W 14 M Standard Deviation 0.85 1.07 0.53 1.86 1.23 Note. p < .05; ** p < .01. M = Men; W = Women In contrast to my predictions, the main effect of attitude valence was not significant. Participants who believed they shared a negative attitude about a professor did not anticipate greater closeness with their partners relative to participants who
20 believed they shared a positive attitude about a professor, = -.23, t (86) = -1.03, p = .31. However, participants with st ronger attitudes toward the professor felt closer to their future partners, = .29, t (86) = 3.62, p < .01, and a significant interaction emerged between attitude valence and attitude strength, = -.25, t (86) = -2.04, p = .04.1 Figure 1 displays the predicted values of closeness for participants who shared a positive or negative attitude that they held eith er very strongly or very weakly (calculated at 1 SD above and below the mean). Figure 1. Predicted closeness to a future in teraction partner as a function of similarly held attitude vale nce and attitude strength. Among participants with weak attitudes to ward the professor, the valence of the shared attitude did not affect th eir closeness to their partner, = .23, t (86) = .69, p = .49.
21 In contrast, among participants with strong attitudes toward the professor, those who learned that they shared a negative attitude expected greater closeness to their partners than did those who learned that they shared a positive attitude, = -.69, t (86) = -2.30, p = .02.2 Put another way, learning of a shared ne gative vs. positive at titude about a third party promoted greater closeness toward the fu ture partner when the attitude was strongly held; when the attitude was weakly held, vale nce of the attitude di d not affect closeness toward the future partner. In a follow-up analysis, I en tered gender of participant, number of professors the participant circled, and experime nter as covariates (gender: = .06, t  = .26, p = .80; number of professors: = .17, t  = 2.16, p = .03; experimenter: = -.06, t  = -.46, p = .65). Controlling for these variables allowe d me to rule out the possibility that the significant effects found here were caused by factors ot her than the independent variables. However, the main effect of attitude strength and the interaction between attitude valence and attitude strength remained significan t when the covariates were added into the model (all ps < .03). Felt Knowing and St ate Self-esteem Hypotheses 4 and 5 state my prediction of mediated moderation; that is, that felt knowing and state self-esteem will both mediate the link between the moderated effect of attitude valence on stength and closeness to th e partner. In other words, felt knowing of partner and state self-esteem will mediate th e association between the attitude valenceby-strength interaction and felt clos eness to the future interaction partner. To test this, I next conducted two simultaneous multiple re gression analyses in which I predicted participantsÂ’ felt knowing of their future pa rtner and state self-esteem from attitude
22 valence condition (coded as negative attitude = 0, positive attitude = 1), strength of attitude (zero centered; s ee Aiken & West, 1991), and the two-way interaction term. Participants who believed they shared a ne gative attitude about a professor did not feel like they knew significantly more about their partners than did participants who believed they shared a positive attitude about a professor, = .01, t (86) = .05, p = .96. However, participants with stronger attitudes toward the professor felt like they knew their future partner better than pa rticipants with weaker attitudes, = .24, t (86) = 2.31, p = .02,3 but the two-way interaction between attit ude valence and attit ude strength was not significant, = -.17, t (86) = -1.08, p = .28. Figure 2 displays th e predicted values of felt Â“knowingÂ” of future partner for participants who shared a positive or negative attitude of a professor about which they felt either very strongly or very weakly (calculated at 1 SD above and below the mean). Figure 2. Predicted felt Â“knowingÂ” of a future interaction partner as a function of similarly held attitude vale nce and attitude strength.
23 Participants who believed they shared a ne gative attitude about a professor did not experience a significant increase in state self-e steem relative to participants who believed they shared a positive att itude about a professor, = .11, t (86) = .717, p = .48. Neither did participants with stronger at titudes toward the professor, = -.04, t (86) = -.81, p = .42. In addition, the two-way in teraction was not significant, = .06, t (86) = .78, p = .44. Mediational Model To test Hypotheses 4 and 5, I planned to use the multiple mediation analysis (i.e., bootstrapping) procedure recommended by Preac her and Hayes (2004). However, since neither mediator was significantly associat ed with the attitude valence-by-strength interaction, I could not proceed as planned. General Discussion Heider (1958) demonstrated that both our friendÂ’s friend and our enemyÂ’s enemy are potential friends. An abundant amount of re search has shown that we are attracted to and like others who are similar to us (Byrne, 1971; Byrne & Nelson, 1965; Newcomb, 1961; Pinel, Long, Landau, & Pyszczynski, 2004) and prefer others who share our attitudes or beliefs (Swann, De La R onde, & Hixon, 1994; Swann & Pelham, 2002). However, not until recently did researchers ask if the valence of a shared attitude about a third party makes a difference in the amount of bonding or interper sonal attraction that will take place. Bosson et al. (2006) found th at similarly held negative attitudes about third party others facilitated closeness more powerfully than shared positive attitudes did. Here, taking into account Bosson et al.Â’s findings, I proposed two possible mediators (perceived felt Â“knowingÂ” of a partner and stat e self-esteem) that might give us a better understanding of the underlying psychological m echanisms involved in the negativity and
24 closeness effect. More specifically, I hypothe sized that holding a similar dislike of a familiar other increases closeness because it boosts self-esteem and provides people with greater insight into one anotherÂ’s dispositions. The findings from the study reported here show that a strongly held, shared, negative attitude toward a third party produ ced greater closeness to a stranger than a strongly held, shared, positive attitude. When the attitude was weakly held, positive and negative attitudes did not produce differences in closeness. Neither of the proposed mediators was significantly associated with th e independent variable s. However, there was a main effect of attit ude strength in predicating felt knowing. In particular, participants with stronger attitudes toward the chosen professor felt like they knew more about their future partner than part icipants with weaker attitudes. In what follows, I identify several lim itations of this study, and discuss some directions for future research. Limitations Although my findings are promising, ther e are several limitations that merit attention. The first limitation is that an une xpectedly large number of people failed the manipulation check that assessed their memory for the attitude valence manipulation. To inform participants about the shared attitude, the experime nter said, Â“Seems that you and your partner both identified the same profe ssor (Dr._____) that you took a large class with and liked/disliked. You both gave him/ her similar ratings too.Â” While more than 80% of the participants wrote that they remembered the e xperimenter noting that they shared a similar liked or dislik ed professor, the remaining di d not mention any details that the experimenter told them about their future interaction partner. This is both a good and
25 bad thing. On the one hand, it suggests that the manipulation was subtle enough that it escaped the attention of some participants, wh ich is consistent with my intentions (I wanted the comment to come across as an o ffhand comment). On the other hand, it is problematic that this many participants fa iled the manipulation check. However, as mentioned above, one experimenter seemed to be responsible for over half of the failed manipulation checks. His softspoken manner mi ght have been the reason so many people failed the manipulation check Â– th at is, he might have been too subtle when making the offhand comment to participants. Thus, rather than conclude that the manipulation itself was too subtle to be noticed, it appears that one particular experimenter was ineffective at conveying the crucial information. In addition, the current results differ from what Bosson et al. (2006) obtained. In their study, a shared negative attitude about a third party promoted closeness whether the attitude was strong or weak, but only when the attitude wa s strong did a shared positive attitude promote closeness as effectively as a shared negative attit ude. Here, I found that a negative, shared attitude toward a third pa rty promoted closeness to a stranger the most, but only when it was strongly held. The diffe ring results might have been caused by the different targets (i.e., the third parties) that were used in each study. In the current study a real professor was used as the third party target, which is quite different from the fictitious third party target used by Bosson et al. The use of a college professor that participants had encountered in person is a closer approximation of how people experience the beginning of friendships. That is, real-world friendshi ps most likely begin when people share information about situations or people they have experienced directly. Therefore, the use of a college professor incr eases the ecological validity of the shared
26 attitude manipulation in the current study. N onetheless, replicating the present findings using other third party others (i.e., cla ssmates, neighbors, etc.) would increase my confidence in the negativity a nd closeness effect found here. Another limitation of the current study c oncerns the null effects with the proposed mediators (i.e., state self-esteem, felt Â“knowingÂ” of future partner). However, it might be that the efforts to look at incr eases in state self-esteem were misguided. Participants in the current study were told from the experime nter, not the ostensible partner, about the shared negative or positive att itude about the college professo r. Therefore, participants received the information about the shared attitude by way of a third party, rather than from the source of the comment. Consequentl y, participants did not hear Â“straight from the horseÂ’s mouthÂ” (i.e., the future interaction partner) that they were trusted enough to learn this negative gossip, which might have in creased state self-esteem. Thus, perhaps it makes sense that increases in st ate self-esteem were not found. While felt knowing was not a significan t mediator, the results were in the predicted direction and the main effect of strength was signi ficant. Participants felt like they knew their partner more when their att itude was strongly held, compared to weakly held. In addition, while not si gnificant, participants in the strongly held, ne gative attitude condition felt like they knew more about th eir future interacti on partner than did participants in the strongly held, positive attitude condition. Thus, it is possible that a different measure of felt knowing might pr oduce findings that support my hypotheses. Directions for Future Research Future research should follow up on if so meone has had the opportunity to form their own attitude of someone they have personally observed. For example, would
27 similarly held negative attitudes promote closeness more effectively than similarly held negative attitudes about a third party neither has encountered? Manipulating how much social impact the third party has on the ra tersÂ’ lives (e.g., a professorÂ’s impact vs. a celebrityÂ’s impact; see Latan, 1981) would help clarify when a strongly held, negative attitude will promote closeness the most. Reexamining felt knowing as a potential medi ator to the negativity and closeness effect would be beneficial for future resear ch. As mentioned above, a different measure of felt knowing might get at the mediator more effectively. One suggestion is to have a list of social groups that partic ipants select from as potentia l groups the future interaction partner belongs to. This would be an unobtru sive measure of how much the participant feels they know about their pa rtner. The more groups the pa rticipant selects, the more they feel they know about the other person. I would predict participan ts would circle the most social groups for their fu ture partner when attitudes ar e strongly held and negative. In addition to asking which groups they believe their partner belongs to, having participants indicate the groups that they themselves ar e in would allow one to look at another possible mediator, in-groupness. From an SIT standpoint an expressed negative attitude should make someone feel like they are part of an in-gr oup, thus one should feel like they have more social groups in co mmon (increased in-groupness) with another person with whom they share a strong nega tive attitude. In addition, members of the same social group are assumed to share similar perspectives (Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Voci, 2006). In other words, a shared, str ongly held, negative at titude should make people feel like they are in an in-group with the pa rtner, and being in an in-group should make people think they have more in common w ith the partner. Thus, more shared social
28 groups with the partner (or amplified in-groupne ss) should follow from the discovery of a shared, strong, negative atti tude toward a third party. Another direction for future research i nvolves manipulating both attitude valence and whether or not attitudes are similarly he ld. As Folkes and S earsÂ’ (1977) findings suggest, when attitudes are not similarly held people should feel closer to a stranger who divulges positive, not negative attitudes. Thus, it is a gamble revealing negative attitudes about others because if they are shared by oneÂ’s listeners, closeness is enhanced; if they are not, the speaker might make an unfavorab le impression on potential friends. While not directly testing this idea, adding in a control group (where participants will not receive any information about a shared att itude) would help to determine if shared attitudes, positive or negative, increase bonding over non-sharing. It would be assumed that participants that do not learn of a shared attitude should feel the least closeness to their partner, regardless of attitude strength a nd valence. This would show that any sort of shared attitude, whether it is positive or negative, promotes closeness more than a nonshared attitude. Another fruitful direction would be to do a lab study where participants sit and talk with another person (po ssibly a confederate) during a structured interview. By controlling the valence of the attitude that is revealed by the confederate, one could reevaluate the state self-esteem mediator. As mentioned above, a possible reason state self-esteem was not a significant mediator in th e current study might have been due to the fact that the attitude was not revealed from the participantsÂ’ future interacti on partner, but from the experimenter. Communicating face-to -face a dislike about a third party to the participants should express to them that the speaker cl early chooses to convey the
29 negative attitude to them. In the current study and Boss on et al.Â’s (2006) it was the experimenter that chose to divulge the part nerÂ’s attitude. Being told directly should signal to the participant that they are consider ed a potential friend that can be trusted, thus boosting the participantÂ’ s state self-esteem. Additionally, future work would benefit by investigating if there is an important distinction between feeling like you Â“knowÂ” someone because they reveal a negative attitude that you also hold, and feeling Â“knownÂ” by someone because you reveal a negative attitude that they also hold. This raises the issue of whether the effects on closeness of similarly held negative attitudes are the same for both the speaker and the listener. I focused in the current proposal on the former type of shared attitude (the listener role), but future work should explore the latter type of shared attitude (the speaker role) to see if it relates to closene ss to the partner. It might be that the communication of a negative attitude does not make the speaker f eel closer to the listener, until the attitude is reciprocated from the listener. In fact it would be interesting to investigate when and how much bondi ng occurs by both speaker and listener throughout an exchange of attitudes (both positive and negative). Finally, as in all experimental studies, it would be ideal for future work to use a naturalistic, longitudinal design to look at friendship formations and similarly held dislikes of others across time. This coul d help determine how much and when holding similar negative attitudes about others is ne eded to form a true friendship, and when positive attitudes might be more useful.
30 Conclusion The current study showed that a shared negative attitude, wh en strongly held, promotes closeness to a future interaction part ner more effectively th an both strongly and weakly held positive attitudes and weakly held negative attitudes. While neither proposed mediator (i.e., felt Â“ knowingÂ” of partner and state self-esteem) predicted the attitude strength-by-valence interaction, both may still be viable underlying psychological mechanisms to the negativity and closeness e ffect. Future research should explore how a third partyÂ’s social impact promotes clos eness, other possible mediators (i.e., ingroupness), and the distinction between feeli ng like you Â“knowÂ” someone or are Â“knownÂ” by them. To close, just as Ms. Roosevelt L ongworth gained status in Washington by sharing negative attitudes about others, it seems that most pe ople can use shared negative attitudes as tools for bonding with potential friends. In fact, one researcher believes that gossip may be Â“the core of the human soci al relationshipÂ” (Dunbar, 2004, p. 100). By discovering the underlying mechanisms of the ne gativity and closeness effect we will be better able to understand friendship formation.
31 References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Te sting and interpretation interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Anderson, N. H. (1965). Averaging versus ad ding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 1-9. Backman, C. W. (1990). Attracti on in interpersonal relationshi ps. In M. Rosenberg & R. H. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Socio logical perspectives (pp. 235-268). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The mode rator-mediator variab le disctinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statis tical considerations. Journal of Perosnality and Social Psychology, 51 1173-1182. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529. Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learning. Review of General Psychology, 8, 111-121. Bosson, J. K., Johnson, A. B., Niederhoffer, K., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2006). Interpersonal chemistry through negativity: Bonding by sharing negative attitudes about others. Personal Relationships, 13 135-150. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Byrne, D., Clore, G. L., & Smeaton, G. ( 1986). The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect anything? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1167-1170. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32 Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 229-245. Cordery, S. A. (2007). Alice: Roosevelt Longworth, from White House princess to Washington Power Broker. New York: Viking. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new s cale of social desirabi lity independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. Debruin, E. N., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2000). What people l ook for in others: Influences of the perceiver and th e perceived on information selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 206-219. Derlega, V. J., & Chaikin, A. L. (1977). Privacy and self-dis closure in social relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 33 (3), 102-115. Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petr onio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self-disclosure Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dijksteruis, A., & Aarts, H. (2003). On wildebeests and human s: The preferential detection of negative stimuli. Psychological Science, 14, 14-18. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8, 100-110. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Bu chner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the soail, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: Th e impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Experimental Re search in Personality, 22, 889906. Folkes, V. S., & Sears, D. O. (1977). Does everybody like a liker? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 505-519. Gagnon, A., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1996). Discri mination in the minimal group paradigm Social identity or self-interest? Personality and Social psychology Bulletin, 22, 1289-1301. Hamilton, D. L., & Zanna, M. P. (1972). Differential weighting of favorable and unfavorable attributes in impressions of personality. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6, 204-212.
33 Hannerz, U. (1967). Gossip networks a nd culture in a Black American ghetto. Ethnos, 32, 35-59. Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Jounral of Psychology, 21, 107112. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interp ersonal relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From act s to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266), New York: Academic Press. Kelly, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. New York: General Learning Press. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The pro cess of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107128. Latan, B. (1981). Psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343-356. Leaper, C., & Holliday, H. (1995). Gossip in same-gender and cross-gender friendsÂ’ conversations. Personal Relationships, 2, 237-246. Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S, Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518-530. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS a nd SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717-731. Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Pos itive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 33-60), New York: Wiley. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolesce nt self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rowatt, W. C., Cunningham, M. R., & Drue n, P. B. (1998). Deception to get a date. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1228-1242.
34 Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfacti on level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence in tervals for indirect e ffects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290312). Washington DC: American Sociological Association. Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 587-606. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., & Forgas, J. P. (2000). Social cat egorization: Cognitions, values and groups. In C. Stangor (Ed.). Stereotypes and prejudice: Esse ntial readings. Key readings in social psychology (pp. 49-63). Philadel phia: Psychology Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrat ive theory of intergr oup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp.33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Taylor, S. E., Buunk, B. P., & Aspinwall, L. G. (1990). Social comparison, stress and coping. Personality and Social Ps ychology Bulletin, 16, 74-89. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Vittengl, J. R., & Holt, C. S. (2000). Getting familiar: The relationship of self-disclosure and social attraction to positive affect. Journal of Social and personal Relationships, 17, 53-66. Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A so cial comparison account of gossip. Review of General Psychology, 8, 122-137. Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245-271. Wood, J. V., Taylor, S. E., & Lichtman, R. R. (1985). Social comparison in adjustment to breat cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1169-1183.
35 Endnotes 1 When the 17 participants who failed th e manipulation check are included in analyses, the attitude valence-by-strengt h interaction drops to non-significance, = -.14, t (103) = -1.23, p = .22. However, the main effect of strength of attitude remains significant, = .18, t (103) = 2.59, p = .01. 2 Including the data of the participants who failed th e manipulation check makes this effect non-significant, = -.42, t (103) = -1.51, p = .13. 3 This effect becomes non-significant when the 17 participants who failed the manipulation check are included, = .13, t (103) = 1.44, p = .15.
37 Appendix A: Liked and Disliked Professors Below is a list of 44 professors at the U SF-Tampa campus. All teach introductory level courses like Geography, Biology, Business, Accounting, Psychology, Religion, etc. Please look over the list of th e professors and recall if you have ever taken, or are currently taking, a course from each. Then do two things. FIRST, circle the names of every professor from the list with whom you have ever taken a class, including this semester. SECOND, of all of the professors you circled, pla ce an Â‘XÂ’ next to the one you DISLIKE(D) the MOST. Even if you do not di slike this professor very strongly, please indicate the one you dislike(d) the most. If you have NEVER taken a class with any of these professors, please write in the name of a non-listed professor whom you dislike, in the line provided below. This information will not be shared with the professors and all identifying information will be removed from your ratings. Dr. Kevin ArcherGeography Dr Anne JeffreyArt History Dr. Sue BartlettBusiness Dr. Celina JozsiAccounting Dr. Daniel BelgradHumanities Dr Michael LevanCommunications Dr. Andrew BerishHistory of Music Dr. Kenneth MalmbergPsychology Dr. Jennifer BossonPsychology Dr Sean McAveetyMathematics Dr. Prisilla BrewerHumanities Dr. Karol McIntoshMathematics Dr. Allison ClevelandBiology Dr. Consta nce MizakEnvironmental Science Dr. Annette CozziHumanities Dr. Paul MorganHistory Dr. Walter DanielakHumanities Dr. Elizabeth MosesBiology Dr. Katie DavisAccounting Dr Suzanne MurrayHistory Dr. Karla Davis-SalazarAnthropol ogy Dr. Jane NollPsychology Dr. Dell DechantTheology Dr Christina PartinSociology Dr. Marc DefantGeology Dr Ken PothovenMathematics Dr. Roy DyeAmerican Studies Dr. Diana RomanGeology Dr. Frederick EilersBiology Dr. Brook SadlerPhilosophy Dr. Mary FournierArts Dr Thomas SanockiPsychology Dr. Jamie GoldenbergPsychology Dr. Paul SchneiderReligion Dr. Charles GuignonPhilosophy Dr. Mark StewartScience Dr. Gail HarleyReligion Dr. Peter StilingBiology Dr. Kathleen HeideCriminal Justice Dr. Elenica StojanovskiMathematics Dr. John HodgsonBusiness Dr. Ashok UpadhyayaBiology Dr. Frances HopfMathematics Dr. Rebecca WootenMathematics OTHER : __________________________
38 Appendix A: (Continued) How much do you dislike th e professor you selected? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Very much How strongly do you dislike th e professor you selected? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Very much How confident are you about your attitude toward the professor you selected? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Very much
39 Appendix A: (Continued) Below is a list of 44 professors at the U SF-Tampa campus. All teach introductory level courses like Geography, Biology, Business, Accounting, Psychology, Religion, etc. Please look over the list of th e professors and recall if you have ever taken, or are currently taking, a course from each. Then do two things. FIRST, circle the names of every professor from the list with whom you have ever taken a class, including this semester. SECOND, of all of the professors you circled, pla ce an Â‘XÂ’ next to the one you LIKE(D) the MOST. Even if you do not like this professor very strongly, please indicate the one you like(d) the most. If you have NEVER taken a class with any of these professors, please write in the name of a non-listed professor whom you like, in the line provided below. This information will not be shared with the professors and all identifying information will be removed from your ratings. Dr. Kevin ArcherGeography Dr Anne JeffreyArt History Dr. Sue BartlettBusiness Dr. Celina JozsiAccounting Dr. Daniel BelgradHumanities Dr Michael LevanCommunications Dr. Andrew BerishHistory of Music Dr. Kenneth MalmbergPsychology Dr. Jennifer BossonPsychology Dr Sean McAveetyMathematics Dr. Prisilla BrewerHumanities Dr. Karol McIntoshMathematics Dr. Allison ClevelandBiology Dr. Consta nce MizakEnvironmental Science Dr. Annette CozziHumanities Dr. Paul MorganHistory Dr. Walter DanielakHumanities Dr. Elizabeth MosesBiology Dr. Katie DavisAccounting Dr Suzanne MurrayHistory Dr. Karla Davis-SalazarAnthropol ogy Dr. Jane NollPsychology Dr. Dell DechantTheology Dr Christina PartinSociology Dr. Marc DefantGeology Dr Ken PothovenMathematics Dr. Roy DyeAmerican Studies Dr. Diana RomanGeology Dr. Frederick EilersBiology Dr. Brook SadlerPhilosophy Dr. Mary FournierArts Dr Thomas SanockiPsychology Dr. Jamie GoldenbergPsychology Dr. Paul SchneiderReligion Dr. Charles GuignonPhilosophy Dr. Mark StewartScience Dr. Gail HarleyReligion Dr. Peter StilingBiology Dr. Kathleen HeideCriminal Justice Dr. Elenica StojanovskiMathematics Dr. John HodgsonBusiness Dr. Ashok UpadhyayaBiology Dr. Frances HopfMathematics Dr. Rebecca WootenMathematics OTHER : __________________________
40 Appendix A: (Continued) How much do you like the professor you selected? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Very much How strongly do you like the professor you selected? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Very much How confident are you about your attitude toward the professor you selected? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Very much
41 Appendix B: Personal Information Exchange Sheet Please answer the following questions about your self. Your partner will answer the same set of questions about himself or herself, and the two of you will exchange your answers so that you can learn something about each other. NOTE: Inside the parenthesis ( ) is how the form will be completed by the ostensible future interaction partner. What is your age? ______ (22) _____________ What is your home town? ____ (Sarasota) ________ What is your favorite color? ____ (Blue) ___________ What is your favorite food? ____ (Pizza) ___________
42 Appendix C: End Questionnaire Before meeting your partner please fill out the following questions. To what extent do you feel like you know wh at kind of person your future partner is? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very Much How much do you feel like you kno w about your future partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very Much How much do you feel like you learne d about your future partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very Much To what extent do you feel like you know what kinds of attitudes your future partner holds? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very Much The following statements are designed to meas ure what you are thinking at this moment. The best answer is what you feel is true to yourself at this moment. Right now, I feel that IÂ’m a person of wort h, at least on an equal basis with others. 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all A little bit Somewhat Very muchExtremely Right now, I feel that I ha ve a number of good qualities. 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all A little bit Somewhat Very muchExtremely
43 Appendix C: (Continued) Right now, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all A little bit Somewhat Very muchExtremely Right now, I am satisfied with myself. 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all A little bit Somewhat Very muchExtremely Right now, I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all A little bit Somewhat Very muchExtremely The questions below are used to assess how first impressions are made. Please use the scales provided to answer each question. To what degree do you think you and your future partner will Â“clickÂ”? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very Much To what extent is your future partner someone with whom you could establish a friendship? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very Much To what extent do you feel cl ose to your future partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very Much
44 Appendix C: (Continued) Do you think that the interaction with your future partner will go smoothly? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very Much To what extent are you looking forward to the interaction task with your future partner? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very Much To what degree are you likely to discuss pe rsonal information with your future partner during the interaction task? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very Much How comfortable do you think the interacti on task with your future partner will be? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very Much Below please jot down any detail s that you recall the experime nter having told you about your future interaction partner. Demographic Information I am (circle one): Male Female I am ______ years old. What is your race /ethnicity? ____________________________________________