Effects of Actual (Manipulated) and Perceived Similarity on Liking in Get-acquainted Interactions: The Role of Communication

Abstract

The effects of actual and perceived similarity on interpersonal outcomes (e.g., liking) in initial interactions were examined in a live interaction paradigm, which also included a pre-interaction manipulation of bogus similarity or dissimilarity. Pairs of previously unacquainted students engaged in a two-segment interaction using a structured self-disclosure task. One member of the pair was assigned to disclose while the other listened in the first segment; the two then switched roles in the second segment. Participants who received bogus information (prior to the interaction) that the other was similar expected to experience more liking toward the other and enjoyment of the interaction, relative to those who received bogus dissimilarity information. The pre-interaction manipulation of similarity/dissimilarity, however, did not generally affect liking and other affiliative outcomes once the pairs interacted. Perceived similarity was strongly associated with liking, closeness, and the other affiliative outcomes. Furthermore, more support was found that liking leads to similarity (Morry, 2005) than that similarity leads to liking in the initial interactions.

Keywords:

• Similarity
• Attraction
• Initial interactions
• Initial communication
• Closeness

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank all of the following students who assisted in the project: Sarah Nyquist, Kelley Jazdzewski, Travis Larivee, Brittany Snyder, Michelle Duda, Emily Gannon, and Miranda Hogersson.

Notes

[1] There were two other conditions in the original Byrne (1961) study, which involved a manipulation of whether the similarity or dissimilarity information was for important issues or unimportant issues.

[2] This was also after eliminating six pairs (12 participants) who reported some familiarity with each other.

[3] An additional dyad was eliminated from many analyses because the experimenter form was either not completed or misplaced that would have indicated the similarity condition in which they were in.

[4] Participants were told that if they did not want their responses shared with the other participant, they should inform the experimenter of this. No one made this request.

[5] A few items overlapped between the two versions of disclosure prompts administered in segments 1 and 2. These items were presented in different orders (i.e., last in segment 1 vs. first in segment 2). There were also unique items, which were randomly assigned to the different versions. Thus, the intimacy level of the sets in two versions can be considered to be approximately equivalent.