Do Relationship- and Self-Oriented Deceptions Impact the Effect of Attitude Alignment on Attraction?

Abstract

While individuals value honesty in relationships, disagreements can create discomfort and individuals tend to prefer partners who engage in attitude alignment (i.e., shift their attitude toward agreement when disagreement occurs). In order to maintain smooth interactions, partners may even deceive individuals by concealing their continued disagreement. In a 2 (Attitude Alignment Deception) x 2 (Partner Motivation) between-subjects design, we examined whether individuals would evaluate interaction partners who engaged in deceptive attitude alignment less favorably compared to interaction partners who engaged in honest attitude alignment, and we examined whether partner motivation (relationship- vs. self-oriented) impacted this effect. After a brief in-person discussion about a disagreed upon social issue, participants received written feedback, allegedly from their interaction partners, that their partners engaged in attitude alignment that was either honest (i.e., partner came to agree with the individual) or deceptive (i.e., partner pretended to reach agreement with the individual). Participants also received feedback that their partners actions were motivated by either a relationship-orientation (i.e., to be liked by the individual) or self-orientation (i.e., to be viewed as correct on the issue). Individuals evaluated (e.g., were less attracted to) partners who engaged in deceptive (vs. honest) attitude alignment less favorably, but deceptive partners were evaluated more favorably if their deception was relationship- vs. self-oriented.

Keywords:

• Interpersonal relations
• motivation
• values
• social interaction

Data availability statement

Materials and data available by request. We thank Mary Welch, Maisy Deans, Alison Gaffney, and Dr. Jody Davis.

Notes

1 Issues that are less important to the individual but more important to the partner produce relatively greater attitude alignment (vs. issues that are more important to the individual but less important to the partner) (Davis & Rusbult, 2001). Therefore, participants received feedback about their partner’s alleged response on the item that was less important to the partner and more important to the participant, because it is less likely that participants would believe feedback that the partner had shifted his/her attitudes if they learned during discussion that the issue was very important to the partner.

2 Seven questions assessed participant attention to survey directions (e.g., “This is a control question. Mark ‘not at all true’ and move on;” 1 = not at all true, 5 = very true). The items were embedded within the substantive scales of the survey. The total number of mistakes was determined for each participant; participants scoring three or higher were to be excluded from analyses. No participants warranted exclusion.

3 We first examined whether differences emerged in affective attraction, cognitive evaluation, and behavioral intention based on sex, sex pairing (same or opposite sex partners), and relationship status. No effects involving these variables were significant (ps ranged from .11 to .76). In SAS PROC MIXED, we used maximum likelihood estimation. Pairing was specified as a random effect, and degrees of freedom for the intercepts and slopes were estimated with the Satterthwaite (1946) approximation, as recommended by Campbell and Kashy (2002).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Chelsea A. Reid

Chelsea Reid is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the College of Charleston. She is a social psychologist who studies interpersonal relationships and the self, and her interests are underlain by the notion that humans have a fundamental need to belong. To date, her research has focused on attitude alignment and balance theory, nostalgia, and the intersection of social and positive psychology constructs within relationships (e.g., forgiveness, humility). Contact: Department of Psychology, College of Charleston, 66 George Street, Charleston, SC 29424; [email protected]

Hannah L. Shoemaker

Hannah Shoemaker is a Program Coordinator at the Medical University of South Carolina focusing on PTSD and alcohol use disorders. She is also currently enrolled in the Clinical Counseling Psychology Master’s Program at the Citadel. Contact: Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 125 Doughty Street, Charleston, SC, 29403; [email protected]

Delaney M. Wallace

Delaney Wallace is a Researcher and Statistical Analyst at ADoH Scientific, LLC, where she assists in the development of novel assessments of affects such as depression, anxiety, and loneliness. There, she also conducts research on how these affects impact individuals’ health behaviors, presenteeism in the workplace, and overall health and dysfunction. Contact: 33 Pitt St Apt 4 Charleston, SC 29401; [email protected]