Interpersonal attraction as function of evaluative congruency, descriptive congruency and group balance.

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Interpersonal attraction as function of evaluative congruency, descriptive congruency and group balance.
Physical Description:
54 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Worthy, Morgan
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Interpersonal relations   ( lcsh )
Social interaction   ( lcsh )
Empathy   ( lcsh )
Empathy   ( fast )
Interpersonal relations   ( fast )
Social interaction   ( fast )
Psychology thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 51-53.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Morgan Worthy

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 021600276
oclc - 13180292
Classification:
System ID:
AA00026388:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Acknowledgments
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
    List of Tables
        Page iv
    Chapter 1. Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
    Chapter 2. Method and design
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Chapter 3. Results
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
    Chapter 4. Discussion
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
    Chapter 5. Summary
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
    Appendices
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
    References
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
    Biographical sketch
        Page 54
        Page 55
Full Text








INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION AS A

FUNCTION OF EVALUATIVE CONGRUENCY,

DESCRIPTIVE CONGRUENCY AND GROUP

BALANCE










/



By
MORGAN WORTHY











A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF TIE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
August, 1965
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS



Special gratitude is extended to Dr. Jack M. Wright, chair-

man of the author's doctoral committee, for the encouragement and

patience with which he has directed this study. Acknowledged also

are the contributions of the other committee members: Dr. Marvin E.

Shaw, Dr. Henry S. Pennypacker, Dr. James C. Dixon, and Dr. Robert

Wiegman. Special thanks are extended to my wife, Linda Hammond

Worthy, for her encouragement and her help with the preparation of

the manuscript.































ii


















TABLE OF CONTENTS



Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . ... . ii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . ... . iv

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION . . . . ... .. 1

Statement of the Hypotheses . . ... 12

II METHOD AND DESIGN . . . ... 16

Subjects . . . .... 16
Materials and Apparatus . . ... 16
Procedure . . . .... 17

III RESULTS . . . . ... . 22

IV DISCUSSION . . . . ... . 35

V SUMMARY . . . . ... .. .41

APPENDICES . . . . ... . .45

REFERENCES . . . . ... . 51

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . ... .. 54

















iii
















LIST OF TABLES



Table Page

1 Means of Evaluation and Liking Scores . . 24

2 Analysis of Variance of Evaluation Scores
(First Experiment) . . . . 25

3 Analysis of Variance of Liking Scores
(First Experiment) ... . . . .. 26

4 Analysis of Variance of Liking Scores
(Second Experiment) . . ... 33



































iv
















CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION



There is much popular interest in learning how to make oneself

attractive to others. Attraction has also been shown to be an impor-

tant independent variable influencing social behavior.4 Pepitone and

Sherberg (1957) point out that interpersonal attraction is a powerful

determinant of the strength of conformity pressures, the emergence

of communication channels, the level of productivity and the amount

of aggression directed toward an attacker. Since interpersonal

attraction is an important variable influencing behavior, it is

necessary to identify those variables which determine interpersonal

attraction.

Interpersonal attraction depends first of all on the oppor-

tunity to interact. If we assume that a group of individuals have

the opportunity to interact but are not required to interact, we can

analyze the reasons why an individual is attracted to one interaction

but not to another.v Thibaut and Kelly (1959) have proposed a theory

which states that an individual is attracted to those interactions

which allow him to maximize outcomes. Outcomes are rewards received

minus costs paid in the interaction. The individual will evaluate

outcomes in terms of his frame of reference of (a) outcomes being

received by others (comparison level), and (b) in terms of the


1






2


level of outcomes he can expect from other possible interactions

(comparison level for alternatives). Miller (1963) found that when

subjects interacted cooperatively with several different partners

for monetary rewards, the attraction of various partners was a func-

tion of outcome level minus comparison level. Interpersonal attrac-

tion, then, may be seen as requiring that two individuals have rewards

to exchange with each other.

Some students of interpersonal attraction sought the underlying

base of attraction by studying friendship pairs. It was found that

friends tend to have similar attitudes and values (Richardson, 1940;

Reader and English, 1947; Precker, 1952). 'This finding can be ex-

plained in terms of balance. Heider (1944, 1946, 1958) formulated a

theory of cognitive balance which viewed the perceiver (P), the other

(0) and a relevant object (X) as comprising a cognitive system. This

system is said to be balanced if the sum total of the perceived rela-

tionships fit together in a harmonious state without stress. It is

assumed that a system which is in a state of stress will be unpleasant

to P and therefore result in change toward a more balanced state. For

balance to exist in the triadic system, all three relationships between

the elements must be positive or else two of the three must be negative.

It follows from this theory that if the relationships between P and

X, and 0 and X are similar (both positive or both negative) balance

will require that the relationship of P to 0 be perceived as positive.

If the perceived relationships of P to X and 0 to X are dissimilar,

balance will require that the orientation of P to 0 be negative.

Several other theorists have proposed theories that are basically

balance theories. Newcomb (1953, 1956, 1963) has theorized that there






3


is a strain toward symmetry such that attraction toward a co-communi-

cator varies with perceived similarity of attitude toward the object

of communication. Osgood (1960) proposed a balance theory which

makes use of the semantic differential to measure the valence of the

positive or negative orientations. Cartwright and Harary (1956)

extend balance theory in such a way as to deal with more than three

elements and to measure the amount of imbalance in a system.

These theories have led to much research. There have been a

number of studies which provide empirical evidence for balance theory.

One experimental method that has been used is to have subjects react

to hypothetical balanced and imbalanced interactions. It has been

found that hypothetical imbalanced interactions are harder to learn

(Zajonc irin Eirnstein, i964) and are perceived as more unpleasant

(Runkel, 1956; Morrissette, 1958).

Other tests of balance theory have used real rather than hypo-

thetical situations. One approach is to obtain indications of liking

or disliking for each of the three links in a number of triadic systems.

Using this method, balance theory is supported if the number of balanced

systems in a sample exceeds chance expectations. Kogan and Tagiuri

(1958) had sailors indicate shipmates with whom thay would like to go

on liberty. Subjects were then asked to predict choices made by other

sailors. As predicted, shipmates who had been chosen by the subject

were perceived as choosing each other at a level exceeding chance.

Horowitz, Lyons and Perlmutter (1951) obtained measures, within a

discussion group, of liking and agreement on the topic being discussed.

It was found that agreement with and liking for group members was

positively related. Byrne and Blaylock (1963) found that married






4


couples are more similar on political attitudes than would be ex-

pected by chance. If married couples are assumed to like each other,

this finding is in line with balance theory.

One of the most extensive studies in this area was carried out

by Newcomb (1956). He observed a group of dorm mates over a period

of several months. Since free rent was being provided by the experi-

menter, it was possible to introduce certain controls. Only boys who

did not know anyone else in the group were selected. Periodic measure-

ment of values, attitudes and sentiments were taken. Newcomb's findings,

relevant to balance theory, were that they had similar attitudes.

This was especially true for attitudes toward each other and toward

the other boys in the dorm.

In addition to the above type studies, which dealt with rela-

tionships as they develop naturally, there have also been studies of

balance theory which manipulated the liking relationships between some

of the elements. In these experiments, two of the three links in the

triad are controlled and the third relationship taken as the dependent

measure. Studies can be carried out with each of the three links

(P 0, 0 X, or P X) as the dependent measure. The studies of

perceived attitudes of friends, already reported, are evidence that

P will tend to perceive the 0 X relationship in a manner consonant

with the other perceived relationships in the triad. That is, he will

perceive liked O's as having attitudes similar to his own.

Considering the P 0 relationship as a dependent measure,

Heider (1958) points out an earlier finding from the studies of per-

suasive communications that "where the assertion is repulsive to the

audience and the source is only mildly respected, there is a tendency






5


to change one's attitude toward the communicator in the direction of

attributing less credibility to him or otherwise becoming more nega-

tive toward him" (Hovland, Janis and Kelley, 1953, p. 45). In this

case, P changes his orientation toward 0 in order to balance the

system. Byrne (1961) had subjects fill out a comprehensive attitude

scale. Subjects were then shown the same scale supposedly filled out

by an anonymous student in another class. Forms were rigged to be

similar or dissimilar from the subject's own answers. Dependent

measures included the subjects' rating of how well they thought they

would like the other and their evaluation of him on several traits.

Results were that persons in the Similar group showed much more liking

for the other and evaluated him much more highly than subjects in the

Dissimilar group. Both of these studies concern the situation in

which the P 0 relation is predicted from known P X and 0 X rela-

tionships.

On the other hand, if the P X and 0 X relationships are

known, we can predict the P X relationship. Sherif (1935) had

subjects rank 16 authors. Subjects were then shown 16 passages,

supposedly one written by each author. (Actually, all were written

by R. L. Stevenson.) The correlation between the two rankings were

significantly positive. Sampson and Insko (1964) used the autokinetic

situation to test balance theory. Subjects were tested in pairs. One

of the subjects was a confederate of the experimenter and made it a

point to make himself either liked or disliked by the naive subject

before the testing began. The confederate estimated the length of

movement in a predetermined manner. It was found that, as predicted,

naive subjects tended to move their own estimates, which can be






6


thought of as a P X relationship, away from disliked O's and nearer

to liked O's.

Up to this point, no distinction has been made among attitude

objects. The importance or value of the attitude object is, however,

important. Newcomb (1963) has suggested that the discovery of in-

creased similarity is rewarding to the degree that the object with

which there is similarity of attitudes is valued, either positively

or negatively. Newcomb went on to suggest that one's self is a very

highly valued object to oneself. By "self" is meant the individual

as he sees himself. This includes his body, behavior, attitudes,

traits and in fact everything which he identifies as a part of him-

self. Since self is a maximally valued object, we can expect balance

theory to operate maximally in those systems in which the relevant X

is P's own self.

Before discussing further the triadic balance formulation with

self as the relevant X, let us consider the dyadic situation between

P and 0 with self considered as identical with P. The orientations

between P and 0 may be viewed as governed by a need for reciprocity.

Reciprocity calls for equivalence of exchanges. The exchanges may or

may not be concretely equivalent, but the tendency is for an indivi-

dual to establish and maintain interactions in such a way that per-

ceived exchanges are equivalent in value. Goulder (1962) has stated

that, ". a norm of reciprocity, in its universal form, makes two

inter-related minimal demands: (1) people should help those who have

helped them, and (2) people should not injure those who have helped

them" (p. 88). Reciprocity also requires that a negative response

from the other be responded to with equal negativity.






7


The research which has been done in the area of reciprocity is

relevant to balance formulation in which self is the relevant object.

A study of reciprocity of liking was carried out by Tagiuri, Blake,

and Bruner (1953). Discussion groups were formed and met for a number

of days. After each meeting subjects indicated those in the group

"liked best," "liked least," and which members liked them best and

least. Actual reciprocity did not reach significance, but perceived

reciprocity of choice and rejection was highly significant. Members

of the discussion group liked those whom they perceived as liking them

and disliked those whom they perceived as disliking them. These

authors suggest two possible explanations to account for the signifi-

cance of perceived reciprocity. One is that perceiving a liked other

as liking in return protects one from a feeling of rejection. The

other explanation offered is that the subject chooses others whom

he has perceived as liking him.

The above study interpreted liking scores in terms of recipro-

cal dyadic exchanges, but they could be handled in a triadic system

with the "self" of P as the relevant X. If the relationship of P

to X is assumed to be positive, the predictions derived from balance

theory are identical with predictions derived from a norm of recipro-

city, i.e., if it is known that the orientations of P to X and 0 to X

are both positive, balance theory predicts that P's orientation to 0

will be positive. Because of the importance of self to each indivi-

dual, it is especially important that he maintain all systems which

have self as the X in a state of balance.

Secord and Backman (1961, 1964) have proposed a balance theory

which deals exclusively with self as the relevant X. It is proposed






8


that an individual (S) attempts to maintain a state of congruency in

the system including himself, his self-concept and another person.

According to this theory, "a state of congruency exists when the

behavior of S and 0 imply definitions of self congruent with relevant

aspects of his self concept" (1964, p. 584). Two types of congruency

are proposed: cognitive congruency and affective congruency. It is

suggested that the individual strives to maintain congruency by means

of misperception, selective interaction, selective evaluation of the

other person, selective evaluation of self and response evocation. \

Two of these techniques, selective interaction and selective evaluation

of the other, are directly related to interpersonal attraction. Since

the experimental setting to be described later involves forced inter-

action, we will not concern ourselves in the present study with selec-

tive interaction as a way of maintaining congruency. Our concern

will be with selective evaluation of the other person. Another person

who defines one's self in a manner congruent with one's own self con-

cept will be highly evaluated and liked. Another person who does not

define self congruently will be evaluated low and will be disliked.

Secord and Backman make provision in the theory for persons

who have a negative self-concept. However, it is pointed out that the

percentage of such people in a normal population is very small. For

our purposes, then, let us assume that the relationship of a person to

his self-concept is positive. This is in line, again, with Goulder's

reciprocally operating dyad in which the subject and his "self" are

treated as one element. Having assumed a positive self-concept for

P, we can now state that congruency demands that P like (or give high

evaluation to) another who evaluates him (his self) positively and






9


dislike (or give low evaluation to) another who evaluates him (his

self) negatively.

Research findings have consistantly supported this statement.

Some studies have used liking for 0 as the dependent variable; others

have used evaluation of 0 as the dependent variable. Looking first

at liking as the dependent measure, Backman and Secord (1959) found

that if subjects were told before going into a discussion group that

certain of the group members would probably like them, the suggested

probable admirers tended, after the first meeting, to be chosen by

the subjects as members whom they liked best. It has also been found

that if a member of a group is given false feedback of group members'

evaluations of him, he will indicate liking for a group in which he

was positively evaluated and disliking for a group in which he was

negatively evaluated (Dittes, 1959; Jones and Dougherty, 1959;

Burke, 1962; Jones, Gergen and Davis, 1962). In addition to liking

as the dependent measure, it has also been demonstrated that there is

a positive relationship between evaluations received from another and

the evaluations made of that other (Harvey, Kelly and Shapiro, 1957;

Harvey, 1962).

The above studies manipulated the sign and/or valence of evalua-

tion or liking of the subject by others in the group. These studies

could be explained in terms of reciprocity of evaluation and liking.

There is another aspect to the congruency hypothesis which is not

identical with reciprocity. To this point we have talked only about

the amount of agreement in self description in terms of the valance of

the evaluation. It is also necessary to consider the agreement in

descriptions which is independent of evaluation. There has been some






10


consideration given to this variable. It has been found that subjects

perceive liked persons as using the same adjectives to describe him

that he uses to describe himself and disliked persons as using differ-

ent adjectives (Backman and Secord, 1962; Broxton, 1963; Newcomb,

1963). These findings suggest that it may be fruitful to manipulate

agreement on descriptive aspects of self definition. We will refer to

this variable as descriptive congruency.

We have now suggested two variables that influence interpersonal

attraction: evaluative congruency and descriptive congruency. /There

is another variable to be considered which might be called group

balance. This variable goes beyond the triadic formulation and simul-

taneously takes into account the orientations of more than one "other."

We have already considered how the orientation of 0 toward (the self

of) P will influence P's orientation toward 0. Now we are asking, if

there is more than one 0 in the situation, will P's response to given

others' evaluation of self be influenced by the orientations of the

relevant O's to each other. If we assume that there are two signifi-

cant others in the situation, one a negative evaluator of P and the

other a positive evaluator, we now have a system made up of four ele-

ments: P (perceiver), X (self), 01 (negative evaluator), and 02

(positive evaluator). The question, is there any reason to believe

that P's evaluation of and likings for the negative evaluator and the

positive evaluator will be different when the relationship of the two

others to each other is positive from when it is negative. Since

several studies have found strong evidence that subjects will tend

to react positively to the positive evaluator and negatively to the

negative evaluator, we can consider the amount of balance resulting






11


in the four-element system from this reaction in each of the two

group balance conditions. If the reciprocating reaction leads to

different levels of system balance in the two conditions (liking of

the two O's of each other vs. disliking of each other), we should

expect that the reciprocal process should be facilitated in the con-

dition that leads to greater balance.

The problem of measuring amount of balance in systems with

more than three elements has been addressed by Cartwright and Harary

(1956). Their system involves counting the number of positive and

negative cycles in the system. Negative cycles are those with an

uneven number of negative links. All other cycles are positive. The

amount of balance in a system, then, is the proportion of cycles that

are positive. Using the Cartwright and Harary technique, we can

measure the amount of balance in the four element system proposed

earlier. In the condition in which the relationship between 01 and

02 is negative, reciprocal responses by P to 01 and 02 will result in

all seven cycles in the system being positive; i.e., reciprocal

responses by P (negative 01 and positive 02) will result in a system

with 100 percent balance. We can refer then to the condition in which

the relationship between 01 and 02 is negative as the High Group

Balance Condition. In the other condition, in which the relationship

between 01 and 02 is positive, reciprocated evaluations by P result

in a system in which only three of the seven cycles are positive.

Since there would only be 43 percent balance in this condition, we

will refer to it as the Low Group Balance Condition. Using the Cart-

wright and Harary technique we can measure the amount of balance

present in the condition in which P makes other than reciprocal






12


responses. An analysis of the alternative orientations of P in the

system reveals that in the High Group Balance Condition, reciprocity

leads to 100 percent balance. All alternatives to reciprocal responses

lead to a system with 43 percent balance. The advantage, then, of

reciprocal responses in the High Group Balance Condition is a gain in

system balance of 57 percent. In the Low Group Balance Condition, all

combinations of responses, including reciprocal ones, lead to a system

with 43 percent balance. It can be seen then that in the High Group

Balance Condition, reciprocal responses, and only reciprocal responses,

will raise the level of group balance from 43 percent to 100 percent.

In the Low Group Balance Condition, neither reciprocal responses,

nor any other mode of responding, will change the amount of balance

in the system. If, in the paradigm proposed, a need for group balance

operates to influence responses, we could expect that the reciprocal

(evaluative congruent) process would be facilitated in the High Group

Balance Condition, but not in the Low Group Balance Condition.


Statement of the Hypotheses -_

The purpose of this study was to test the effects of the three

congruency variables: evaluative congruency, descriptive congruency

and group balance, on interpersonal attraction.

The evaluative component deals with the favorableness of O's

evaluation of P. Reciprocity theory and congruency theory predict

that evaluation of 0 will covary with O's evaluation of P. Our first

hypothesis then is as follows: -

H1--In a three person group, if member P perceives that he is

evaluated less highly by 01 than by 02, he will respond with more

liking for and higher evaluations of 02 than 01./






13


Descriptive congruency concerns the degree to which O's defini-

tion of P's personality is in agreement with P's conception of himself.1/

It is to be kept in mind that descriptive congruency is independent

of overall evaluation. Newcomb (1963) pointed out that the high

agreement between a subject's description of himself and his percep-

tion of his friends' descriptions of him was true for negative items

as well as positive items.J This seems to suggest that an individual

is attracted to those who validate his own self perceptions of what

are his weak points and strong points. Our hypothesis concerning

descriptive congruency, then, is as follows:

H2a- A subject will be more attracted to other group members if

their evaluations of him on a number of traits holding overall evalua-

tion constant show profile agreement with his own description of /j

himself.

In addition, descriptive congruency may interact with overall

evaluation. It may be that descriptive agreement has the effect of

increasing the liking for a positive evaluator and increasing the

disliking for a negative evaluator. Therefore, the second descrip-

tive congruency hypothesis is stated as follows:

H2b--In the positive evaluation condition subjects will be

more attracted to evaluators whose evaluations indicate high descrip-

tive agreement with subject than those indicating low agreement. J

Attraction will be lowest to evaluators in the negative evaluation

condition who show high descriptive agreement.

In addition to perceiving the orientation of others toward

highly relevant attitude objects such as self, the individual is

also conscious of the orientations of significant others to each other.






14


If the cognitive world of an individual is to be balanced, he must

perceive that a friend likes his other friends and dislikes his

enemies. The design of the experiment calls for P to be in a situation

in which he is negatively evaluated by 01 and positively evaluated by

02. We have hypothesized that P will like 02 more and evaluate him

more highly than he will 01. The present question is, can we facili-

tate or retard this difference by varying the responses of 01 and

02 toward each other?

SUsing the Cartwright and Harary technique we have shown that

conditions can be varied such that evaluative congruency will lead

to either high or low group balance. The fourth hypothesis deals

with the group balance variable and is stated as follows:

H3--The difference in amount of liking for 01 vs. 02 will be

greater when the relationship between 01 and 02 is negative than when

it is positive.

The rationale behind this hypothesis is, as explained earlier,

that when the relationship between 01 and 02 is negative (High Group

Balance Condition), P can, by reciprocating, achieve a system with

100 percent balance. If the relationship between 01 and 02 is nega-

tive (Low Group Balance Condition), neither the presence nor absence

of reciprocity will have an effect on the amount of group balance.

Another question to be answered was what effect the recipro-

cating or not reciprocating of high and low evaluations would have on

the way the subject perceived the importance of the evaluation period.

If it is assumed that reciprocation is one way of reducing dissonance

experienced in the evaluation period, it could perhaps be expected

that the degree to which this method was utilized would be related to






15


the degree to which the subject agreed with dissonance reducing items

on a postexperimental questionnaire. The last hypothesis is stated

as follows:

H4--The degree to which a subject reciprocates evaluations

will correlate positively or negatively with his agreement to state-

ments depreciating the meaningfulness of evaluations.

The direction was not predicted because two opposing reactions

seem plausible. It may be that those subjects who experienced the

most dissonance would reduce it by reciprocation and depreciation

of the evaluation period. This would result in a positive relation-

ship. On the other hand, one might expect that those subjects who

reciprocated during the evaluation period would feel less need to

depreciate its meaningfulness; this would result in a negative rela-

tionship.
















CHAPTER II


METHOD AND DESIGN



Subjects

The subjects used were undergraduate females in introductory

psychology courses. Participation in psychology experiments was

required as part of the course. The subjects were tested in groups

of three. The experimenter made sure that subjects in the same group

did not know each other prior to the experiment.


Materials and Apparatus

The printed materials consisted of five forms. Form 1 listed

three personal descriptions: "generous--willing to help others,"

"does a good job--efficient and dependable," and gets along well with

people--friendly." These three descriptions were chosen because a Q

sort of a number of descriptions had indicated that these three are

about equal in social desirability. A place was provided to check

which one of the three descriptions was most self descriptive and

which one least self descriptive. (Form 1 can be found in Appendix

A.) Form 2 (Appendix B) was an evaluation sheet. On this form was

listed six traits, derived from the descriptions on Form 1, and a

place to record evaluations made on each of these traits. Form 3

(Appendix C) was designed to measure the amount of liking that subjects

felt for the other two group members. Liking was indicated by marking a

16






17


17.2 centimeter continuum line which represented a range of liking

from "not at all" to "very much." Form 4 (Appendix D) was designed

to measure perceived liking relationships within the group. This

form provided for marking the liking continuums as it was estimated

they had been marked by the other two members of the group.

A postexperimental questionnaire was also used!(Appendix E).

On this form six statements are made. Under each statement there

was a continuum line on which one indicated the amount of agreement

with the statement.

The testing area consisted of two rooms. One was a discussion

room containing a table and three chairs. The other room contained

a modified Crutchfield conformity apparatus. This apparatus, as used

in this experiment, consists of four separate booths facing a screen.

In one booth was an opaque projector which was operated by the experi-

menter. The subjects sat in the other booths. In each subject's

booth there were three switches; these switches were labeled "above

average," "average" and "below average." Each booth also had a

panel of lights which supposedly revealed all responses made in all

of the booths.


Procedure

Upon arriving at the testing building, the subjects were taken

as a group to a discussion room. Here they were each given Form 1.

They checked which of the three descriptions was most like them and

which least like them.

After Form 1 was collected, the subjects were told that they

were taking part in a study of how people become acquainted. They

were advised that they would have ten minutes in which to become






18


acquainted. They were instructed to spend this time telling each

other about themselves. They were told that after the ten-minute

period, the experimenter would return and ask them some questions.

The experimenter then left the room. During this ten-minute period,

while the subjects were becoming acquainted, the experimenter used

the self description information from Form 1 to prepare the the next

stage of the experiment.

At the end of the ten-minute period the experimenter returned

to the discussion room. After making sure that the subjects had not

forgotten each other's names, he took them into another experimental

room. Each subject was given a slip of paper containing the names

of the three subjects and a "member number" (1, 2 or 3) assigned to

each. Each subject was led to believe, from the information on the

slip, that she was Member Number 1. One of the others girls was

supposedly Member Number 2 and the third was supposedly Member Number

3. The assignment of Member Numbers 2 and 3 were balanced in such a

manner that each name appeared once as Number 2 and once as Number 3.

Therefore, each possible 2-3 combination of names appeared once and

only once. This technique was used to minimize the effect of actual

differences in attractiveness of the three group members.

The subjects were told that they were to use the observations

they had made during the acquaintance period to evaluate the other

two subjects on a number of traits. Subjects indicated evaluations of

other group members on particular traits by throwing one of the switches.

Supposedly, they could tell by the panel of lights all evaluations

that were made. Actually the subjects saw no valid responses except

their own. The responses supposedly made by Members 2 and 3 were






19


made by the experimenter.

The order of evaluations was controlled by projecting on the

screen the number of the trait involved and the number of the member

to be evaluated. For instance, the first card read "Trait 1, Mem-

ber 1."

Before the evaluations began, each subject was given Form 2,

on which she was asked to record the evaluations made of her. This

form listed six traits numbered one through six. The order in which

the traits were listed was not consistent from subject to subject;

the order of listing the traits was manipulated in order to manipulate

the Descriptive Congruency variable. In the High Descriptive Congruency

Condition, each subject's list of traits was ordered in such a way

that she received high evaluations on those traits which she had indi-

cated as most descriptive of her and low evaluations on those traits

she had indicated as least like her. In the Low Descriptive Congruency

Condition, the traits were ordered in such a way that the opposite

result occurred--i.e., low evaluations on traits chosen as most self

descriptive and high evaluations on traits chosen as least self descrip-

tive.

Control over the Group Balance variable was accomplished by

varying the evaluations of Member 2 by Member 3. In the High Group

Balance Condition, the evaluations of Member 2 by Member 3 were mostly

negative. In the Low Group Balance Condition these evaluations were

mostly positive.

The first response in the Crutchfield apparatus was the evalua-

tion of Member 1 on Trait 1 by Member 2. Then Member 3 evaluated

Member 1 on Trait 1 (both of these responses were made, of course, by






20


the experimenter). Then Member 2 was evaluated by Members 1 and 3

on that trait. And then Member 3 was evaluated on that trait by

Members 1 and 2. This completed the evaluation of all members on

Trait 1. The same procedure was followed for the other five traits.

The subject saw herself and the other two members evaluated

on each of the six traits. Since the subjects did not evaluate them-

selves, the responses observed by each subject were evaluations by

two members of each of three members on six traits, for a total of

36 responses. Except for the 12 responses made by the subject her-

self, all observed responses were made by the experimenter. The 12

responses made by each subject consisted of six evaluations of Member

2 and six evaluations of Member 3. From these responses the evalua-

tion dependent data were derived.

After the evaluation period was completed, the subjects remained

in the booths and were given Form 3 to complete.

After completing Form 3, each subject completed Form 4. This

form required an estimation of how the other two members had answered

Form 3. This information was needed in order to evaluate the degree

to which the subjects perceived the intragroup relationships in a

manner consonant with the experimental manipulation.

After the completion of Forms 3 and 4, the subjects were taken

back to the discussion room where they answered the post experimental

questionnaire. Three of the questionnaire statements--those dealing

with the shortness of the acquaintance period, the selection of traits

to be used, and the meaningfulness of the evaluations--were included

because they allowed the subject to reduce dissonance she might be

feeling. Analysis of answers on these three items was used to test

Hypothesis 4.






21


After the postexperimental questionnaires were completed, the

subjects were debriefed. The technique and purpose of the deception

used was explained to them and their questions answered. Most sub-

jects expressed relief that the low evaluations of them which they

had seen were not actually made by a member of the group. After

being urged not to discuss the experiment with potential subjects,

they were dismissed.
















CHAPTER III


RESULTS



The first aspect of the data that was analyzed was that which

reflected how successfully the variables had been manipulated. Of

greatest concern was whether the group balance variable had been

successfully manipulated. The reason for concern was that this variable

involved the perception of evaluations which did not directly involve

the subject. The group balance variable involved differences in the

evaluation of Member 2 by Member 3. The subjects were instructed to

pay close attention to all evaluations, but it was feared that the

subjects might concentrate so strongly on the evaluations which they

were making and receiving that they would fail to pay sufficient

attention to other evaluations. In order to check this possibility,

the responses to Question 4 on Form 4 were analyzed. Since evaluations

of Member 2 by Member 3 were lower in the High Group Balance Condition

than in the Low Group Balance Condition, it was expected that the

subjects would perceive lower liking of Member 2 by Member 3 in the

High Group Balance Condition than in the Low Group Balance Condition.

This expectation was supported with the respective means being 8.870

and 10.173. A t test of the difference between the means, however,

revealed a t of only .587, which does not approach significance. It

must be kept in mind then that the Group Balance treatment, as judged



22






23


by the perception of the subjects, was weak.

The next question to be considered was how many of the six

evaluation traits were to be included in the dependent evaluation

scores. Analysis of the data indicated that there was a trials effect

such that the evaluations of Member 3 went up and the evaluations of

Member 2 went down. Since this effect was minimal in the last three

trials, the responses on those three trials were summed to provide a

single evaluation score.

The first hypothesis predicted that the subjects would be more

attracted to the positive evaluator (Member 3) than to the negative

evaluator (Member 2). This variable, Evaluative Congruency, was tested

(as were all of the first three hypotheses) by comparison of differen-

tial evaluation scores and differential liking scores. An analysis of

variance of evaluation scores (Table 2) revealed an F of 69.963 with

one and 77 degrees of freedom (p < .001) on the evaluative congruency

variable. Likewise an analysis of variance of liking scores (Table 3)

resulted in an F of 50.679 with one and 77 degrees of freedom (p < .001)

on that variable. By noting Table 1 it can be seen that the difference

in means was in the direction predicted. That is, the subjects tended

to evaluate higher and like more the positive evaluator than the nega-

tive evaluator.

Hypothesis 2a stated that greater attraction would result from

evaluations which revealed a profile in agreement with the subject's

own self description. The descriptive congruency variable tested this

hypothesis. Tables 2 and 3 reveal that the main effect, Descriptive

Congruency, did not approach significance in the analysis of either

evaluation or liking scores.













Table 1


Means of Evaluation and Liking Scores





High Descriptive Congruence Low Descriptive Congruence

High Group Balance Low Group Balance High Group Balance Low Group Balance



High Evaluative Congruency

Evaluation scores 7.25 7.30 7.35 7.85

Liking scores 12.17 12.31 11.69 13.08


Low Evaluative Congruency

Evaluation scores 5.70 5.80 5.15 5.60

Liking scores 8.80 8.52 8.62 9.69






25




Table 2


Analysis of Variance of Evaluation Scores

(First Experiment)





Sum of Mean
Source Squares df Square F


Independent observations:

Descriptive Congruence (DC) .026 1 .026 .019

Group Balance (GB) 3.026 1 3.026 2.225

DC x GB 1.598 1 1.598 1.175

Residual between subjects
(error) 103.350 76 1.360

Total independent 108.000 79


Correlated observations:

Evaluative Congruence (EC) 140.625 1 140.625 69.963*

EC x DC 4.899 1 4.899 2.437

EC x GB 0 1 0 0

EC x DC x GB .027 1 .027

Residual within subjects
(error) 150.449 76 2.033

Pooled error term (150.476 (77) 2.010

Total within subjects 296.000 80


Total for experiment 404 159


* p < .001






26




Table 3


Analysis of Variance of Liking Scores

(First Experiment)





Sum of Mean
Source Squares df Square F


Independent observations:

Descriptive Congruence (DC) 4.096 1 4.096 .575

Group Balance (GB) 13.340 1 13.340 1.872

DC x GB 17.031 1 17.031 2.390

Residual between subjects
(error) 541.625 76 7.127

Total independent 576.092 79


Correlated observations:

Evaluative Congruence (EC) 463.761 1 463.761 50.679*

EC x DC 1.225 1 1.225 .134

EC x GB 1.333 1 1.333 .146

EC x DC x GB .029 1 .029 .003

Residual within subjects
(error) 704.571 76 9.271

Pooled error term (704.600) (77) 9.151

Total within subjects 1170.919 80


Total for experiment 1747.011 159


* p < .001






27


Hypothesis 2b predicted an interaction of descriptive congruency

with evaluative Congruency such that high descriptive congruency would

result in greater attraction to the positive evaluator and greater

rejection of the negative evaluator. As revealed by Tables 2 and 3,

this hypothesis was not supported. The F of the Evaluative Congruency

by Descriptive Congruency interaction approaches significance in

neither the analysis of evaluation scores nor liking scores.

Hypothesis 3 was based on balance theory and predicted dif-

ferences in attraction to Member 2 and Member 3 by the subject as a

function of the attraction of Members 2 and 3 to each other. The

effect of liking (Low Group Balance Condition) vs. disliking (High

Group Balance Condition) by the other two group members was tested in

two ways. First, it was expected that group balance would interact

with evaluative congruency to increase the attraction toward the posi-

tive evaluator and to decrease the attraction toward the negative evalua-

tor. However, it can be seen in Tables 2 and 3 that this interaction

was not significant in the analysis of evaluation or liking scores.

This hypothesis was also checked in another manner. Since balance

could be achieved in opposition to the evaluative congruency variable

as well as in interaction with it, a test was used which dealt only

with discrepancy of responses to Member 2 vs. Member 3, regardless of

direction of difference. It was expected that the magnitude of

difference would be greater in the High Group Balance Condition than

in the Low Group Balance Condition. A t test of differences in magni-

tude of discrepancy in evaluation scores in the two group balance

conditions resulted in a t of .162 (not significant); a similar t test

of differences in liking scores resulted in a t of .164 (not significant).






28


An interesting observation concerning the group balance variable

was that evaluations, as can be noted in Table 1, were higher toward

both other group members in the Low Group Balance Condition than in

the High Group Balance Condition. This was true for both evaluation

scores and liking scores though the difference was not significant in

either case.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that those subjects who reciprocated

low and high evaluations to Members 2 and 3, respectively, would react

differently to dissonance reducing statements on a postexperimental

questionnaire. Questions 2, 3 and 4 on the'postexperimental question-

naire were used to test this hypothesis. Responses on these items

were correlated with a combined reciprocity score. This score was

derived in the following manner: First, a raw score of evaluation of

the positive evaluator by each subject minus her evaluation of the

negative evaluator was obtained. Then the liking for the positive

evaluator minus the liking for the negative evaluator was obtained.

These two raw scores for each subject were then converted to Z scores

and added together. A constant was added to the sum to eliminate

negative numbers.

This combined reciprocity score was correlated first with Item

2 of the postexperimental questionnaire. Item 2 states, "There was

not enough time provided to become acquainted." The correlation

coefficient of relationship between responses on this item and com-

bined reciprocity scores was .008 (not significant). Item 3 reads,

"I would probably have been evaluated higher if more important traits

had been chosen." Degree of agreement with this item correlated .117

(not significant) with the reciprocity score. Item 4 states,






29


"Evaluations of this kind are very meaningful." Responses on this

item correlated -.013 with the reciprocity score. In short, no signi-

ficant relationship was found between the subjects' reciprocation of

attraction and rejection and their utilization of an opportunity to

reduce dissonance.

Although the other questions in the postexperimental question-

naire did not bear directly on any of the hypotheses, responses on

these questions were also compared with the degree to which the sub-

ject reciprocated evaluation and liking. Item 1 in the postexperimental

questionnaire states, "I enjoyed the evaluation period." Expressed

agreement with statement correlated only .061 with the combined reci-

procity score. Item 5, which states, "I was evaluated carefully and

fairly," correlated only .058 with the combined reciprocity score.

Item 6 on the postexperimental questionnaire states, "I was influenced

in my evaluations of the others by their evaluation of me." Degree of

agreement with this statement correlated .270 (p < .02) with the com-

bined reciprocity scores.

Since two dependent measures of attraction, evaluations made and

liking indicated, were used in this experiment, it was of some interest

to determine the relationship between the two measures. This relation-

ship was analyzed by means of two product moment correlations. The

first correlated the evaluations made of the positive evaluator with

the liking indicated for this member. The correlation coefficient was

.591 (p < .01). Evaluation of and liking for the negative evaluator

was also correlated and resulted in a coefficient of .469 (p < .01).

The relationship then between evaluation scores and liking scores was

positive at a highly significant level.






30


After analyzing the resultsof the experiment it was decided

that a follow-up experiment should be conducted. There were several

reasons for making this decision. Although the evaluative congruency

variable had a very strong effect in the experiment, the descriptive

congruency and group balance variables had almost no effect at all.

Before concluding that these variables have no significant effect on

interpersonal attraction, possible reasons for their failure were con-

sidered. One possibility was that the evaluative congruency effect

was so strong that the influence of the other variables was greatly

reduced. Another possibility was that the subjects were so concerned

with the degree of favorableness of the evaluations which they were

receiving that they did not adequately perceive other aspects of the

evaluation period. This belief was supported by the finding stated

earlier that the amount of liking of Member 3 for Member 2 perceived

by subjects in the two group balance conditions did not significantly

differ. It was decided, therefore, to conduct a follow-up experiment

which eliminated some of the weaknesses necessary in the first experi-

ment. The second experiment was designed exclusively to provide an

improved test of the descriptive congruency and group balance variables.

The second experiment differed from the first experiment in

the following ways:


1. The evaluative congruency variable was dropped. Instead of

having one group member appear as a positive evaluator and the other

as a negative evaluator, the total evaluations across all traits

made of the subject by the two other group members were quantitatively

equal.






31


2. The treatment of the descriptive congruency variable was

greatly strengthened. Instead of varying descriptive congruency by

groups, it was oaried within each group. One member evaluated the

subject completely congruently (as far as profile of strong and weak

traits was concerned) with the subject's self description. The second

member's evaluations, though quantitatively equal overall with the

evaluations made by the first member, were completely opposite to the

self description given by the subject.


3. The group balance treatment was also greatly strengthened.

Whereas in the first experiment only the evaluations of Member 3 for

Member 2 were differed in the two conditions, in the second experiment

the evaluations of both 2 and 3 for each other were manipulated. In

the High Group Balance Condition, each supposedly evaluated the other

as "below average" on four of the six traits; in the Low Group Balance

Condition each supposedly evaluated the other "above average" on

four of the six traits. Also, to insure that the subjects paid atten-

tion to these evaluations, they were required to record all evalua-

tions except those which they made themselves.


In analyzing the data from the second experiment, the first

consideration was whether the subjects perceived greater liking between

Members 2 and 3 in the Low Group Balance Condition than in the High

Group Balance Condition. A greater degree of liking was perceived

in the Low Group Balance Condition. A t test of the differences be-

tween the means of liking perceived as evidenced by responses to

Questions 2 and 4 on Form 4 resulted in a t of 2.228 (p < .05). The

differences in perception of liking by the other two members for each






32


other attempted by the group balance treatment was achieved.

The dependent data in the second experiment consisted of the

liking scores of the subjects for Members 2 and 3. Table 4 presents

the analysis of variance of these scores. The descriptive congruency

variable resulted in an F of 1.332 which does not approach signifi-

cance.

The group balance variable was tested by noting the differences

in liking for the other two members. Since balance can be achieved

in the High Group Balance Condition only by dissimilar liking for the

other two members and in the Low Group Balance Condition by similar

liking, it was expected that there would be a larger magnitude of

difference, regardless of direction, between liking for Members 2 and

3 in the High Group Balance Condition than in the Low Group Balance

Condition. However, the mean difference in the High Group Balance

Condition was 3.38 as opposed to 3.78 in the Low Group Balance Condi-

tion. A t test of the difference between the means resulted in a t

of .249 (not significant).

At this point, it was decided to check the group balance

variable in an additional manner. First, each liking score was

assigned either a "+" or "-" depending upon whether the score was

above or below the midpoint (8.6) on the liking continuum. A "+"

was considered as liking and a "-" as disliking. There were two signs

for each subject--one for his liking or disliking of Member 2 and one

for his liking or disliking of Member 3. Balance theory would predict

that the two signs would be the same (either plus or minus) more often

in the Low Group Balance Condition than in the High Group Balance

Condition. There were 12 subjects in each of the two balance conditions.






33









Table 4


Analysis of Variance of Liking Scores

(Second Experiment)





Sum of Mean
Source Squares df Square F


Independent observation:

Group Balance (GB) 44.660 1 44.660 4.133

Residual between subjects
(error) 237.745 22 10.807

Total independent 282.405 23


Correlated observations:

Descriptive Congruency (DC) 12.710 1 12.710 1.332

DC x GB 0.100 1 0.100 .010

Residual within subjects
(error) 209.865 22 9.539

Total within subjects 222.675 24


Total for experiment 505.080 47






34


For nine of the subjects in the Low Group Balance Condition, the two

signs were the same. This was true for only three subjects in the

High Group Balance Condition. A X2 test of the differences in the two

frequencies resulted in a X2 of 3.0 (p < .10). This difference was

in the direction predicted by balance theory.

One further finding in the second experiment should be noted.

As can be seen in Table 4, the group balance main effect resulted in

an F of 4.133, which with one and 22 degrees of freedom, falls just

short of reaching the .05 level of significance. This F resulted from

the fact that subjects in the Low Group Balance Condition indicated

more liking for the other two members than subjects in the High Group

Balance Condition. The means were 8.86 and 10.81, respectively. It

should be noted that the direction of this effect is the same as

that found in the first experiment.
















CHAPTER IV


DISCUSSION



This study tested the contribution of three variables--evalua-

tive congruency, descriptive congruency, and group balance--to inter-

personal attraction. It was clear from the results that evaluative

congruency accounted for almost all of the non-error variance. That

member who consistently evaluated the subject positively was in turn

evaluated positively by the subject. On the other hand, the subject

reciprocated low evaluations to that member who evaluated him nega-

tively. Amount of liking expressed for the other person was likewise

a function of the overall positivity or negativity of the evaluations

received from that other person. This is in complete agreement with

the idea that a person tends to like those whom he feels evaluate him

favorably. The reasons that one would tend to like those whom he

feels evaluate him highly would seem to be many. First of all,

favorable evaluations of self are gratifying in their own right. By

seeking friendship interactions with a positive evaluator, one in-

creases the likelihood of enjoying further pleasant evaluations of self.

On the other hand, one might well avoid interaction with someone who

challenges one's favorable self concept. Such favorable self concepts

and their defenses have developed over a number of years. It would

seem that it is easier to reject the other person than to reappraise

radically one's self concept.

35






36


Another reason that a negative evaluator might be devalued is

that to devalue the source of evaluations tends to devalue the evalua-

tions as well. Low evaluations which might otherwise pose a threat to

self esteem lose much of their force if one has to "consider the

source."

There is also a matter of status which would cause one to re-

ciprocate low evaluations or disliking. To express liking for a per-

son who does not return the feeling may cause one to lose prestige

socially. Unrequited liking is usually thought of as directed upward

in the status hierarchy. To persist in this behavior would suggest

that the subject is in some way inferior to the person liked.

It should also be considered that in the experimental situation

the subject had to consider what effect his exchange with the negative

evaluator would have upon his interaction with the positive evaluator.

If the subject gives equal evaluations to both members, the positive

evaluator might see no advantage to extending positive evaluations.

In fact, he might feel somehow depreciated since he has obtained, by

offering very much, what the other memb'er has obtained by offering very

little.

There is also a realistic factor to keep in mind when considering

the evaluations made of the negative evaluator. The fact that a person

evaluates anyone below average on the experimental traits may be taken

as indication that he is neither a friendly nor a generous person. As

one subject expressed if after the experiment, "Everyone wants to be

at least average on all of those traits." To indicate that anyone falls

below the mean on desirable traits may be seen as logically necessary,

but socially unnecessary.






37


In contrast to the evaluative congruency variable which had a

very strong effect on attraction, the descriptive congruency variable

had no effect at all. Neither Hypothesis 2a nor 2b was confirmed.

This was true in the first experiment, in which both evaluative con-

gruency and descriptive congruency were varied and also in the second

experiment, in which evaluative congruency was held constant. The

failure of this variable suggests that cognitive or descriptive con-

gruency does not play the important part in interpersonal attraction,

as has been theorized by Secord and Backman (1964). Basic to their

theory is that attraction will result from perceiving that the other

person holds a congruent definition of self. Congruency is presented

as having two aspects--the cognitive and the affective. Affective con-

gruency is agreement about positivity of self; cognitive congruency

implies agreement about descriptive aspects of self in addition to the

evaluative or affective aspect. The effect of the affective component

was not apparent at all. This is in seeming contrast to the finding

that persons like those whom they perceive as choosing the same ad-

jectives or traits to describe them that they choose to describe

themselves (Newcomb, 1963; Broxton, 1963; Backman and Secord, 1962).

In these studies, however, the evaluative element was not controlled,

In our experiment the evaluative element was controlled by using

traits that had been judged as equivalent on a scale of social desire-

ability. This would suggest that the effect of congruent self

descriptions on attraction results from the evaluative rather than the

descriptive connotations of the trait chosen.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that the amount of group balance present

would influence attraction. Specifically it was expected that group






38


balance would interact with evaluative congruency in such a way as to

lower evaluations toward the positive evaluator. This expectation was

not supported. In another test of this hypothesis, the direction of

difference was not predicted, but only that the difference in liking

of the two members would differ more in the High Group Balance Con-

dition than in the Low Group Balance Condition. This expectation was

likewise not supported. However, when the liking scores were con-

verted to positive or minus signs based on whether the score was above

or below the midpoint of the liking continuum the results, though not

quite significant, were in the direction expected. The fact that

balance theory received slight support when a dichotomous sign score

was used but none when a discrepancy score was used has some theoreti-

cal significance. In the Heider and Newcomb balance systems liking

and disliking are treated dichotomously. In the Osgood system,

evaluations are not treated dichotomously, but as falling on a continuum.

Our results would suggest that equal intervals of the liking-disliking

continuum have different underlying values at different points of the

continuum. Differences in scores which involve differences in direc-

tion from the midpoint of the continuum probably have greater signifi-

cance than equal differences which do not involve changes in direction.

The treating of evaluation or liking in a balance formulation as

dichotomous may, though more crude, be more meaningful.

This interpretation is consonant with the position taken by

Cartwright and Harary (1956). Their system accounts for various de-

grees of balance but does not consider degrees of affection. In

retrospect, it can be seen that the signed scores rather than dis-

crepancy scores would have been in more accord with the Cartwright






39


and Harary theory.

One other finding concerning the group balance variable should

be considered. In both experiments, the tendency was for evaluations

of both other members to be higher in the Low Group Balance Condition

than in the High Group Balance Condition. It should be kept in mind

that the only difference between the two conditions was that the

evaluations of the other members for each other were higher in the Low

Group Balance Condition than in the High Group Balance Condition. The

difference in levels of evaluations by the subjects in the two con-

ditions may be interpreted as resulting from a difference in adaptation

level. Dependent evaluations were higher in the condition in which

independent or controlled evaluations were higher, which is in agree-

ment with adaptation level theory (Helson, 1948). Another possible

interpretation is that the subjects in the High Group Balance Condition

felt unattracted to both other members because of their negative

evaluations of each other. This interpretation is in accord with the

finding of Worthy, Wright and Shaw (1964) that when one member of a

group accuses another member without justification of poor performance,

the other members of the group become less willing to interact with

both the accused and the accuser.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that subjects who reciprocated low

evaluations and liking to the negative evaluator and high evaluations

and liking to the positive evaluator would react differently to disso-

nance reducing statements on a postexperimental questionnaire. No

relationship was found between reciprocation and the rationalizing

or dissonance reducing statements chosen. One conclusion that could

be reached is that reciprocation did not result in the lowering of






40


any dissonance felt in the evaluation situation. However, this can

not be stated with any certainty at all since we do not know that the

dissonance initially felt by those who reciprocated and those who did

not was equivalent.

Reciprocity was positively related to agreement with one

statement on the postexperimental questionnaire. This statement read,

"I was influenced in my evaluations of the others by their evaluations

of me." It is evident from this finding that reciprocity operated at

a relatively conscious level.

Another finding which is parenthetical to the testing of the

hypotheses was the finding that liking for a member of the group

correlated significantly with evaluation of that member. This finding

supports the assumption that evaluation and liking are not independent

aspects of interpersonal attraction. This tendency to evaluate highly

those whom one likes and to like those one evaluates highly may be

seen as rooted in the maintenance of a positive self concept. Since

one's friends may be viewed as a part of the extended self, it is

self enhancing to evaluate one's friends positively.

To conclude, the primary conclusion concerning determinants of

interpersonal attraction that is derived from this study is that inter-

personal attraction in a three person, ad hoc group of females depends

to a very great extent upon the perception that one is perceived by

the other person in a positive manner. Descriptive agreement, devoid

of its evaluative quality, has no effect on attraction. The effect of

group balance on attraction is not clear from this study but it is

clear that if there is any effect it is minor compared to the effect

of the positivity of evaluations, which a person perceives that he is

eliciting.
















CHAPTER V


SUMMARY



The present study investigated the effect of three variables,

evaluative congruency, descriptive congruency and group balance, upon

interpersonal attraction. Evaluative congruency deals with the amount

of agreement between how positively a person views himself and how

positively he is viewed by some other person. If a positive self

concept is assumed, evaluative congruency may be thought of as the

degree of positivity of the evaluation by the other. Descriptive con-

gruency deals with the amount of agreement in self description which

is non-evaluative in nature. These variables are equivalent to what

Secord and Backman (1964) have called affective congruency and cogni-

tive congruency. Group balance deals with the possibility of estab-

lishing a balanced state within the group. It was predicted that the

patterns of attraction which led to greater balance within the group

would be more likely to occur than other patterns. The balance theory

of Cartwright and Harary (1956) provides a method for measuring the

amount of balance present in a pattern of interpersonal orientations.

Another hypothesis which was tested was that persons who react

to evaluations of themselves by reciprocating the same level of evalua-

tion to the person who made the evaluation would react differently to

a chance to reduce dissonance by devaluating the episode than would


41






42


persons who had not reciprocated.

In order to test the hypotheses, three person groups of female

college students were brought together for an acquaintance period.

After the acquaintance period the members of the group evaluated each

other as "above average," "average," or "below average" on six traits.

The evaluations took place in a modified Crutchfield conformity

situation. The subjects saw by means of separate panels of lights

all apparent evaluations. Actually, all evaluations which the subject

saw were controlled by the experimenter. The evaluations were manipu-

lated such that the subject thought she was evaluated very high by

one member and very low by the other. This constituted the evaluative

congruency treatment. In half the groups, evaluations tended to follow

a profile in agreement with the subject's own self description as

obtained earlier. In the other half of the groups, evaluations were

manipulated to show profile disagreement. This difference constituted

the descriptive congruency treatment. The apparent evaluations between

the other two members of the group were manipulated such that with

half the groups the attraction between the other two members appeared

to be high and in the other half of the groups the attraction of the

other two appeared to be low. This constituted the group balance

treatment.

Two dependent measures of attraction of each subject for the

other two members were taken. One was the evaluations made of the

others on the last three traits. The other measure was amount of

liking for each other member indicated by marking a liking continuum

line after the evaluation period. Dependent data on the tendency to

reduce dissonance was obtained by means of a postexperimental question-

naire.






43


The results were analyzed by analyses of variance of evaluation

and liking scores, a t test of mean discrepancies in evaluations of

the other two members in the two group balance conditions, and corre-

lations between degree of reciprocity manifested and dissonance re-

ducing items on the postexperimental questionnaire. The result of

the analyses was that evaluative congruency had a very significant

effect on attraction, but that descriptive congruency and group balance

did not have a significant effect on attraction.

Degree of reciprocity manifested did not correlate with any of

the dissonance reducing items on the postexperimental questionnaire.

Serendipitous findings indicated that overall evaluations were

higher in the Low Group Balance Condition groups than in the other

groups. Also, it was found that the more subjects reciprocated high

or low evaluations to the members who evaluated them high or low, the

more willing they were to agree that they had been influenced by the

evaluations of them made by the others. Finally, it was found that

there was a significant positive relationship between evaluation scores

and liking scores.

A second experiment was conducted which was designed to strengthen

greatly the descriptive congruency and group balance variables by elimi-

nating the evaluative congruency variable and by increasing the dis-

crepancy between the High and Low Descriptive Congruency Conditions and

between the High and Low Group Balance Conditions. Again, however,

neither descriptive congruency nor group balance had a significant

effect on attraction. It was found, however, that if liking scores

were converted to plus or minus, depending on which half of the liking

continuum they fell, the group patterns which resulted tended to







44


support the group balance expectations.

The results were interpreted as giving strong support to the

theory that interpersonal attraction is a reciprocal process. The

failure of the descriptive congruency variable was interpreted as

resulting from experimental controls which kept descriptive congruency

independent from evaluative congruency. It was suggested that Secord

and Backman's (1964) treatment of cognitive congruency of self defini-

tions as a cause of interpersonal attraction, separate from affective

congruency, should be re-examined. The failure of the group balance

condition was interpreted as indicating that the effect of group

balance on interpersonal attraction is insignificant when viewed in-

dependent of reciprocity. In short, it was concluded that in three

person, ad hoc groups of females, one member is attracted to another

as a function of perceiving that she is perceived positively by the

other member.







































APPENDICES









APPENDIX A





FORM 1



Name Age


Below are three descriptions. Read them carefully.


1. "gets along well with people--friendly"

2. "does a good job--efficient and dependable"

3. "generous--willing to help others"



Which of the above descriptions is most like you? 1 2 3
(circle one)


Which of the above descriptions is least like you? 1 2 3




























46









APPENDIX B




FORM 2




Group No.


Member Rated: Member No.


Rated by:

TRAIT 1 Efficienty


TRAIT 2 Getting along with people


TRAIT 3 Generous


TRAIT 4 Friendliness


TRAIT 5 Dependability


TRAIT 6 Willing to help others










Note: There are other variations of Form 2 which have the traits
listed in different order.










47









APPENDIX C






FORM 3



Group No.

Member No.



Please answer the following questions. Indicate your answer

by marking the appropriate place on the line below each question. You

may mark anywhere on the line.



How much do you like Member No. ?



very much not at all




How much do you like Member No. ?



very much not at all




















48










APPENDIX D






FORM 4



On this form we would like for you to guess how the other two

members answered the questions on the last form. First guess how

Member No. answered the following questions:


How well do you like Member No. ?


very much not at all


How well do you like Member No. ?


very much not at all



Now answer the questions as you think they were answered by

Member No.


How well do you like Member No. ?


very much not at all


How well do you like Member No. ?


very much not at all










49









APPENDIX E




POSTEXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE



Now that the experiment is over, I would like to ask you some

questions that may help us in understanding the evaluations that were

made. Indicate the degree to which you agree with the following

statements.


1. I enjoyed the evaluation period.


Agree Disagree


2. There was not enough time provided to become acquainted.


Agree Disagree


3. I would probably have been evaluated higher if more important
traits had been chosen.


Agree Disagree


4. Evaluations of this kind are very meaningful.


Agree Disagree


5. I was evaluated carefully and fairly.


Agree Disagree


6. I was influenced in my evaluations of the others by their
evaluation of me.


Agree Disagree
50
















REFERENCES



Backman, C. W., and Secord, P. F. The effect of perceived liking on
interpersonal attraction. Hum. Relat., 1959, 12, 379-384.

Backman, C. W., and Secord, P. F. Liking, selective interaction,
and misperception in congruent interpersonal relations.
Sociometry, 1962, 25, 321-335.

Broxton, J. A. A test of interpersonal attraction predictions de-
rived from balance theory. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1963,
66, 394-397.

Burke, R. L. Ratings of self and others as a function of expecta-
tions and evaluations. Dissert. Abstr., 1962, 23, 1814.

Byrne, D. Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. J.
abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1961, 62, 713-715.

Byrne, D., and Blaylock, B. Similarity and assumed similarity of
attitudes between husbands and wives. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1963, 67, 636-640.

Cartwright, D., and Harary, F. Structural balance: a generalization
of Heider's theory. Psychol. Rev., 1956, 63, 277-293.

Dittes, J. E. Attractiveness of group as a function of self-esteem
and acceptance by group. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1959, 59,
77-82.

Goulder, A. W. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement.
In E. E. Sampson (Ed.) Approaches, contests and problems of
social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall,
Inc., 1962, pp. 78-95.

Harvey, 0. J. Personality factors in resolution of conceptual in-
congruities. Sociometry, 1962, 25, 336-352.

Harvey, 0. J., Kelly, H. H., and Shapiro, M. M. Reactions to un-
favorable evaluations of self made by other persons. J. Pers.,
1957, 25, 398-411.

Heider, F. Social perception and pehnomenal causality. Psychol.
Rev., 1944, 51, 358-374.


51






52


Heider, F. Attitudes and cognitive organization. J. Psychol., 1946,
21, 107-112.

Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.

Helson, H. Adaptation-level as a basis for a quantitative theory
of frames of reference. Psychol. Rev., 1948, 55, 297-313.

Horowitz, M. W., Lyons, J., and Perlmutter, H. V. Induction of
forces in discussion groups. Human Relations, 1951, 4, 57-76.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., and Kelly, H. H. Communication and
persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.

Jones, E. E., and Dougherty, B. N. Political orientation and the
perceptual effects of an anticipated interaction. J. abnorm.
soc. Psychol., 1959, 59, 340-349.

Jones, E. E., Gergen, K. J., and Davis, K. E. Some determinants of
reactions to being approved or disapproved as a person.
Psychol. Monogr., 1962, 76, (Whole No. 521) 17 p.

Kogan, N., and Tagiuri, H. Interpersonal preference and cognitive
organization. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1958, 56, 113-116.

Miller, A. L. Evaluation of prospective social relationships: a
function of comparison level and predicted outcome level.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1963, 67, 437-445.

Morrissette, J. An experimental study of the theory of structural
balance. Hum. Relat., 1958, 11, 239-254.

Newcomb, T. M. An approach to the study of communicative acts.
Psychol. Rev., 1953, 60, 393-404.

Newcomb, T. M. The prediction of interpersonal attraction. Am.
Psychol., 1956, 11, 575-587.

Newcomb, T. M. Stabilities underlying changes in interpersonal
attraction. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1963, 66, 376-386.

Osgodd, C. E. Cognitive dynamics in the conduct of human affairs.
Publ. Opin. Quart., 1960, 24, 341-365.

Pepitone, A., and Sherberg, J. Intentionality, responsibility and
interpersonal attraction. J. Pers., 1957, 25, 757-766.

Precker, J. A. Similarity of valuings as a factor in selection of
peers and near-authority figures. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1952, 47, 406-414.

Reader, N., and English, H. B. Personality factors in adolescent
female friendships. J. consult. Psychol., 1947, 11, 212-220.






53


Richardson, H. M. Community of values as a factor in friendships of
college and adult women. J. soc. Psychol., 1940, 11, 303-312.

Runkel, P. J. Equilibrium and "pleasantness" of interpersonal
situations. Hum. Relat., 1956, 9, 375-382.

Sampson, E. E., and Insko, C. A. Cognitive consistency and perfor-
mance in the autokinetic situation. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1964, 68, 184-192.

Secord, P. F., and Backman, C. W. Personality theory and the problem
of stability and change in individual behavior: an inter-
personal approach. Psychol. Rev., 1961, 68, 21-33.

Secord, P. F., and Backman, C. W. Social psychology. New York:
McGraw Hill Book Company, 1964.

Sherif, M. An experimental study of stereotypes. J. abnorm. soc.
Psychol., 1935, 29, 371-375.

Tagiuri, R., Blake, R. R., and Bruner, J. S. Some determinants of
the perception of positive and negative feelings in others.
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1953, 48, 585-592.

Thibaut, J. W., and Kelly, H. H. The social psychology of groups.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1959.

Worthy, M., Wright, J. M., and Shaw, M. E. Effects of varying degrees
of legitimacy in the attribution of responsibility for nega-
tive events. Psychon. Sci., 1964, 1, 169-170.

Zajonc, R. B., anc rnstein, E. Structural balance, reciprocity and
positivity as sources of cognitive bias. Technical Report
No. 29, Contract NONR-1224 (34) (NR 170-309). Ann Arbor,
Michigan: October 15, 1964.
















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH



Morgan Worthy was born March 8, 1936, at Spartanburg, South

Carolina. In May, 1954, he was graduated from Parker High School,

Greenville, South Carolina. In May, 1956, he received the Associate

of Arts degree from North Greenville Junior College. From January,

1957, until December, 1960, Mr. Worthy served with the United States

Air Force and was stationed for two years in Germany. In 1961, he

received the degree of Bachelor of Arts from Furman University.

During the 1961-62 school year, he taught history and democracy at

Slater-Marietta High School, Slater, South Carolina. In September,

1962, he enrolled in the Graduate School of the University of Florida.

In December, 1963, he received the degree of Master of Arts. Since

that time he has worked toward the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Morgan Worthy is married to the former Linda Pauline Hammond.

They have one daughter, Bonnie Lyn.



















54











This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the

chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been approved

by all members of that committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the

College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was

approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

of Doctor of Philosophy.



August 14, 1965







Dean, College of Arts and Sciences





Dean, Graduate School





Supervisory Committee:



Chrman




Full Text

PAGE 1

INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION AS A FUNCTION OF EVALUATIVE CONGRUENCY, DESCRIPTIVE CONGRUENCY AND GROUP BALANCE By MORGAN WORTHY A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA August, 1965

PAGE 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special gratitude is extended to Dr. Jack M. Wright, chairman of the author's doctoral committee, for the encouragement and patience with which he has directed this study. Acknowledged also are the contributions of the other committee members: Dr. Marvin E. Shaw, Dr. Henry S. Pennypacker, Dr. James C. Dixon, and Dr. Robert Wiegman. Special thanks are extended to my wife, Linda Hammond Worthy, for her encouragement and her help with the preparation of the manuscript.

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES iv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Hypotheses 12 II METHOD AND DESIGN 16 Subjects 16 Materials and Apparatus 16 Procedure 17 III RESULTS 22 IV DISCUSSION ..... 35 V SUMMARY 41 APPENDICES 45 REFERENCES 51 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 5i+ iii

PAGE 4

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Means of Evaluation and Liking Scores 24 2 Analysis of Variance of Evaluation Scores (First Experiment) ..... 25 3 Analysis of Variance of Liking Scores (First Experiment) ..... 26 Analysis of Variance of Liking Scores (Second Experiment) ... 33 iv

PAGE 5

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION There is much popular interest in learning how to make oneself attractive to others. Attraction has also been shown to be an important independent variable influencing social behavior.^ Pepitone and Sherberg (1957) point out that interpersonal attraction is a powerful determinant of the strength of conformity pressures, the emergence of communication channels, the level of productivity and the amount of aggression directed toward an attacker. Since interpersonal attraction is an important variable influencing behavior, it is necessary to identify those variables which determine interpersonal attraction Interpersonal attraction depends first of all on the opportunity to interact. If we assume that a group of individuals have the opportunity to interact but are not required to interact, we can analyze the reasons why an individual is attracted to one interaction but not to another. V Thibaut and Kelly (1959) have proposed a theory which states that an individual is attracted to those interactions which allow him to maximize outcomes. Outcomes are rewards received minus costs paid in the interaction. The individual will evaluate outcomes in terms of his frame of reference of (a) outcomes being received by others (comparison level), and (b) in terms of the 1

PAGE 6

2 level of outcomes he can expect from other possible interactions (comparison level for alternatives). Miller (1963) found that when subjects interacted cooperatively with several different partners for monetary rewards, the attraction of various partners was a function of outcome level minus comparison level. Interpersonal attraction, then, may be seen as requiring that two individuals have rewards to exchange with each other. Some students of interpersonal attraction sought the underlying base of attraction by studying friendship pairs. It was found that friends tend to have similar attitudes and values (Richardson, IGHO; Reader and English, 1947; Precker, 1952). "^This finding can be explained in terms of balance. Heider (1944, 1946, 1958) formulated a theory of cognitive balance which viewed the perceiver (P), the other (0) and a relevant object (X) as comprising a cognitive system. This system is said to be balanced if the sum total of the perceived relationships fit together in a harmonious state without stress. It is assumed that a system which is in a state of stress will be unpleasant to P and therefore result in change toward a more balanced state. For balance to exist in the triadic system, all three relationships between the elements must be positive or else two of the three must be negative. It follows from this theory that if the relationships between P and X, and 0 and X are similar (both positive or both negative) balance will require that the relationship of P to 0 be perceived as positive. If the perceived relationships of P to X and 0 to X are dissimilar, balance will require that the orientation of P to 0 be negative. Several other theorists have proposed theories that are basically balance theories. Newcomb (19 53, 1956, 1963) has theorized that there

PAGE 7

3 is a strain toward symmetry such that attraction toward a co-communicator varies with perceived similarity of attitude toward the object of communication. Osgood (1960) proposed a balance theory which makes use of the semantic differential to measure the valence of the positive or negative orientations. Cartwright and Harary (1956) extend balance theory in such a way as to deal with more than three elements and to measure the amount of imbalance in a system. These theories have led to much research. There have been a number of studies which provide empirical evidence for balance theory. One experimental method that has been used is to have subjects react to hypothetical balanced and imbalanced interactions. It has been found that hypothetical imbalanced interactions are harder to learn (Zajonc -in. B-irnstein, i96U) and are perceived as more unpleasant (Runkel, 1956; Morrissette, 1958). Other tests of balance theory have used real rather than hypothetical situations. One approach is to obtain indications of liking or disliking for each of the three links in a number of triadic systems. Using this method, balance theory is supported if the number of balanced systems in a sample exceeds chance expectations. Kogan and Tagiuri (1958) had sailors indicate shipmates with whom thay would like to go on liberty. Subjects were then asked to predict choices made by other sailors. As predicted, shipmates who had been chosen by the subject were perceived as choosing each other at a level exceeding chance. Horowitz, Lyons and Perlmutter (1951) obtained measures, within a discussion group, of liking and agreement on the topic being discussed. It was found that agreement with and liking for group members was positively related. Byrne and Blaylock (1963) found that married

PAGE 8

4 couples are more similar on political attitudes than would be expected by chance. If married couples are assumed to like each other, this finding is in line with balance theory. One of the most extensive studies in this area was carried out by Newcomb (1956). He observed a group of dorm mates over a period of several months. Since free rent was being provided by the experimenter, it was possible to introduce certain controls. Only boys who did not know anyone else in the group were selected. Periodic measurement of values, attitudes and sentiments were taken. Newcomb 's findings, relevant to balance theory, were that they had similar attitudes. This was especially true for attitudes toward each other and toward the other boys in the dorm In addition to the above type studies, which dealt with relationships as they develop naturally, there have also been studies of balance theory which manipulated the liking relationships between some of the elements. In these experiments, two of the three links in the triad are controlled and the third relationship taken as the dependent measure. Studies can be carried out with each of the three links (P-0,0-X, orP-X)as the dependent measure. The studies of perceived attitudes of friends, already reported, are evidence that P will tend to perceive the 0 X relationship in a manner consonant with the other perceived relationships in the triad. That is, he will perceive liked O's as having attitudes similar to his own. Considering the P 0 relationship as a dependent measure, Heider (1958) points out an earlier finding from the studies of persuasive communications that "where the assertion is repulsive to the audience and the source is only mildly respected, there is a tendency

PAGE 9

5 to change one's attitude toward the communicator in the direction of attributing less credibility to him or otherwise becoming more negative toward him" (Holland, Janis and Kelley, 1953, p. 45), In this case, P changes his orientation toward 0 in order to balance the system. Byrne (1961) had subjects fill out a comprehensive attitude scale. Subjects were then shown the same scale supposedly filled out by an anonymous student in another class Forms were rigged to be similar or dissimilar from the subject's own answers. Dependent measures included the subjects rating of how well they thought they would like the other and their evaluation of him on several traits. Results were that persons in the Similar group showed much more liking for the other and evaluated him much more highly than subjects in the Dissimilar group. Both of these studies concern the situation in which the P 0 relation is predicted from known P X and 0 X relationships On the other hand, if the P X and 0 X relationships are known, we can predict the P X relationship. Sherif (1935) had subjects rank 16 authors. Subjects were then shown 16 passages, supposedly one written by each author. (Actually, all were written by R. L. Stevenson.) The correlation between the two rankings were significantly positive. Sampson and Insko (196U) used the autokinetic situation to test balance theory. Subjects were tested in pairs. One of the subjects was a confederate of the experimenter and made it a point to make himself either liked or disliked by the naive subject before the testing began. The confederate estimated the length of movement in a predetermined manner. It was found that, as predicted, naive subjects tended to move their own estimates, which can be

PAGE 10

6 thought of as a P X relationship, away from disliked O's and nearer to liked O's. Up to this point, no distinction has been made among attitude objects. The importance or value of the attitude object is, however, important. Newcomb (1963) has suggested that the discovery of increased similarity is rewarding to the degree that the object with which there is similarity of attitudes is valued, either positively or negatively. Newcomb went on to suggest that one's self is a very highly valued object to oneself. By "self" is meant the individual as he sees himself. This includes his body, behavior, attitudes, traits and in fact everything which he identifies as a part of hirtself. Since self is a maximally valued object, we can expect balance theory to operate maximally in those systems in which the relevant X is P's own self. Before discussing further the triad ic balance formulation with self as the relevant X, let us consider the dyadic situation between P and 0 with self considered as identical with P. The orientations between P and 0 may be viewed as governed by a need for reciprocity. Reciprocity calls for equivalence of exchanges. The exchanges may or may not be concretely equivalent, but the tendency is for an individual to establish and maintain interactions in such a way that perceived exchanges are equivalent in value. Goulder (1962) has stated that, ". .a norm of reciprocity, in its universal form, makes two inter-related minimal demands: (1) people should help those who have helped them, and (2) people should not injure those who have helped them" (p. 88). Reciprocity also requires that a negative response from the other be responded to with equal negativity.

PAGE 11

7 The research which has been done in the area of reciprocity is relevant to balance formulation in vfhich self is the relevant object. A study of reciprocity of liking was carried out by Tagiuri, Blake, and Bruner (1953). Discussion groups were formed and met for a number of days. After each meeting subjects indicated those in the group "liked best," "liked least," and which members liked them best and least. Actual reciprocity did not reach significance, but perceived reciprocity of choice and rejection was highly significant. Members of the discussion group liked those whom they perceived as liking them and disliked those whom they perceived as disliking them. These authors suggest two possible explanations to account for the significance of perceived reciprocity. One is that perceiving a liked other as liking in return protects one from a feeling of rejection. The other explanation offered is that the subject chooses others whom he has perceived as liking him. The above study interpreted liking scores in terms of reciprocal dyadic exchanges, but they could be handled in a triadic system with the "self" of P as the relevant X. If the relationship of P to X is assumed to be positive, the predictions derived from balance theory are identical with predictions derived from a norm of reciprocity, i.e., if it is known that the orientations of P to X and 0 to X are both positive, balance theory predicts that P's orientation to 0 will be positive. Because of the importance of self to each individual, it is especially important that he maintain all systems which have self as the X in a state of balance, Secord and Backman (1961, 1964) have proposed a balance theory which deals exclusively with self as the relevant X. It is proposed

PAGE 12

8 that an individual (S) attempts to maintain a state of congruency in the system including himself, his self -concept and another person. According to this theory, "a state of congruency exists when the behavior of S and 0 imply definitions of self congruent with relevant aspects of his self concept" (196*+, p. 584). Two types of congruency are proposed: cognitive congruency and affective congruency. It is suggested that the individual strives to maintain congruency by means of misperception, selective interaction, selective evaluation of the other person, selective evaluation of self and response evocation. Two of these techniques, selective interaction and selective evaluation of the other, are directly related to interpersonal attraction. Since the experimental setting to be described later involves forced interaction, we will not concern ourselves in the present study with selective interaction as a way of maintaining congruency. Our concern will be with selective evaluation of the other person. Another person who defines one's self in a manner congruent with one's own self concept will be highly evaluated and liked. Another person who does not define self congruently will be evaluated low and will be disliked. Secord and Backman make provision in the theory for persons who have a negative selfconcept. However, it is pointed out that the percentage of such people in a normal population is very small. For our purposes, then, let us assume that the relationship of a person to his self-concept is positive. This is in line, again, with Goulder's reciprocally operating dyad in which the subject and his "self" are treated as one element. Having assumed a positive selfconcept for P, we can now state that congruency demands that P like (or give high evaluation to) another who evaluates him (his self) positively and

PAGE 13

9 dislike (or give low evaluation to) another who evaluates him (his self) negatively. Research findings have consistantly supported this statement. Some studies have used liking for 0 as the dependent variable; others have used evaluation of 0 as the dependent variable. Looking first at liking as the dependent measure, Backman and Secord (1959) found that if subjects were told before going into a discussion group that certain of the group members would probably like them, the suggested probable admirers tended, after the first meeting, to be chosen by the subjects as members whom they liked best. It has also been found that if a member of a group is given false feedback of group members' evaluations of him, he will indicate liking for a group in which he was positively evaluated and disliking for a group in which he was negatively evaluated (Dittes, 1959; Jones and Dougherty, 1959; Burke, 1962; Jones, Gergen and Davis, 1962). In addition to liking as the dependent measure, it has also been demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between evaluations received from another and the evaluations made of that other (Harvey, Kelly and Shapiro, 1957; Harvey, 1962). The above studies manipulated the sign and/or valence of evaluation or liking of the subject by others in the group. These studies could be explained in terms of reciprocity of evaluation and liking. There is another aspect to the congruency hypothesis which is not identical with reciprocity. To this point we have talked only about the amount of agreement in self description in terms of the valance of the evaluation. It is also necessary to consider the agreement in descriptions which is independent of evaluation. There has been some

PAGE 14

10 consideration given to this variable. It has been found that subjects perceive liked persons as using the same adjectives to describe him ^ that he uses to describe himself and disliked persons as using different adjectives (Backman and Secord, 1952; Broxton, 1963; Newcomb, 1963). These findings suggest that it may be fruitful to manipulate agreement on descriptive aspects of self definition. We will refer to this variable as descriptive congruency. We have now suggested two variables that influence interpersonal attraction: evaluative congruency and descriptive congruency .y^here is another variable to be considered which might be called group balance. This variable goes beyond the triadic formulation and simultaneously takes into account the orientations of more than one "other." We have already considered how the orientation of 0 toward (the self of) f will influence P's orientation toward 0. Now we are asking, if there is more than one 0 in the situation, will P's response to given others' evaluation of self be influenced by the orientations of the relevant O's to each other. If we assume that there are two significant others in the situation, one a negative evaluator of P and the other a positive evaluator, we now have a system made up of four elements: P (perceiver), X (self), Oi (negative evaluator), and O2 (positive evaluator). The question, is there any reason to believe that P's evaluation of and likings for the negative evaluator and the positive evaluator will be different when the relationship of the two others to each other is positive from when it is negative. Since several studies have found strong evidence that subjects will tend to react positively to the positive evaluator and negatively to the negative evaluator, we can consider the amount of balance resulting

PAGE 15

11 in the fourelement system from this reaction in each of the two group balance conditions. If the reciprocating reaction leads to different levels of system balance in the two conditions (liking of the two O's of each other vs. disliking of each other), we should expect that the reciprocal process should be facilitated in the condition that leads to greater balance. The problem of measuring amount of balance in systems with more than three elements has been addressed by Cartwright and Harary (1956). Their system involves counting the number of positive and negative cycles in the system. Negative cycles are those with an uneven number of negative links. All other cycles are positive. The amount of balance in a system, then, is the proportion of cycles that are positive. Using the Cartwright and Harary technique, we can measure the amount of balance in the four element system proposed earlier. In the condition in which the relationship between Oi and 02 is negative, reciprocal responses by P to Oi and O2 wiH result in all seven cycles in the system being positive; i.e., reciprocal responses by P (negative Oi and positive O2) will result in a system with 100 percent balance. We can refer then to the condition in which the relationship between Oi and O2 is negative as the High Group Balance Condition. In the other condition, in which the relationship between Oi and O2 is positive, reciprocated evaluations by P result in a system in which only three of the seven cycles are positive. Since there would only be 43 percent balance in this condition, we will refer to it as the Low Group Balance Condition. Using the Cartwright and Harary technique we can measure the amount of balance present in the condition in which P makes other than reciprocal

PAGE 16

If responses. An analysis of the alternative orientations of P in the system reveals that in the High Group Balance Condition, reciprocity leads to 100 percent balance. All alternatives to reciprocal responses lead to a system with 13 percent balance. The advantage, then, of reciprocal responses in the High Group Balance Condition is a gain in system balance of 57 percent. In the Low Group Balance Condition, all combinations of responses, including reciprocal ones, lead to a system with percent balance. It can be seen then that in the High Group Balance Condition, reciprocal responses, and only reciprocal responses, will raise the level of group balance from ^^3 percent to 100 percent. In the Low Group Balance Condition, neither reciprocal responses, nor any other mode of responding, will change the amount of balance in the system. If, in the paradigm proposed, a need for group balance operates to influence responses, we could expect that the reciprocal (evaluative congruent) process would be facilitated in the High Group Balance Condition, but not in the Low Group Balance Condition. Statement of the Hypotheses The purpose of this study was to test the effects of the three congruency variables: evaluative congruency, descriptive congruency and group balance, on interpersonal attraction. The evaluative component deals with the favorableness of O's evaluation of P. Reciprocity theory and congruency theory predict that evaluation of 0 will covary with O's evaluation of P. Our first hypothesis then is as follows: ^ Hx — In a three person group, if member P perceives that he is evaluated less highly by Oi than by Og, he will respond with more liking for and higher evaluations of Of than Oi.

PAGE 17

13 Descriptive congruency concerns the degree to which O's definition of P's personality is in agreement with P's conception of himself. It is to be kept in mind that descriptive congruency is independent of overall evaluation. Newcomb (1963) pointed out that the high agreement between a subject's description of himself and his perception of his friends' descriptions of him was true for negative items as well as positive items. This seems to suggest that an individual is attracted to those who validate his own self perceptions of what are his weak points and strong points. Our hypothesis concerning descriptive congruency, then, is as follows: H2aA subject will be more attracted to other group members if their evaluations of him on a number of traits holding overall ev aluation constant show profile agreanent with his own description of himself In addition, descriptive congruency may interact with overall evaluation. It may be that descriptive agreement has the effect of increasing the liking for a positive evaluator and increasing the disliking for a negative evaluator. Therefore, the second descriptive congruency hypothesis is stated as follows: H 2b — In the positive evaluation condition subjects will be more attracted to evaluators whose evaluations indicate high descriptive agreement with subject than those indicating low agreement \J Attraction will be lowest to evaluators in the negative evaluation condition who show high descriptive agreement In addition to perceiving the orientation of others toward highly relevant attitude objects such as self, the individual is also conscious of the orientations of significant others to each other.

PAGE 18

14 If the cognitive world of an individual is to be balanced, he must perceive that a friend likes his other friends and dislikes his enemies. The design of the experiment calls for P to be in a situation in which he is negatively evaluated by Oi and positively evaluated by 2. We have hypothesized that P will like O2 more and evaluate him more highly than he will Oi. The present question is, can we facilitate or retard this difference by varying the responses of Oi and O2 toward each other? Using the Cartwright and Harary technique we have shown that conditions can be varied such that evaluative congruency will lead to either high or low group balance. The fourth hypothesis deals with the group balance variable and is stated as follows: H3 — The difference in amount of liking for 0^ vs. O2 will be greater when the relationship between Oj and O2 is negative t han when it is positive The rationale behind this hypothesis is, as explained earlier, that when the relationship between Oi and O2 is negative (High Group Balance Condition), P can, by reciprocating, achieve a system with 100 percent balance. If the relationship between 0^ and O2 is negative (Low Group Balance Condition), neither the presence nor absence of reciprocity will have an effect on the amount of group balance. Another question to be answered was what effect the reciprocating or not reciprocating of high and low evaluations would have on the way the subject perceived the importance of the evaluation period. If it is assumed that reciprocation is one way of reducing dissonance experienced in the evaluation period, it could perhaps be expected that the degree to which this method was utilized would be related to

PAGE 19

15 the degree to which the subject agreed with dissonance reducing items on a post experimental questionnaire. The last hypothesis is stated as follows : Hu — The degree to which a subject reciprocates evaluations will correlate positively or negatively with his agreement to state ments depreciating the meaningfulness of evaluations ^ The direction was not predicted because two opposing reactions seem plausible. It may be that those subjects who experienced the most dissonance would reduce it by reciprocation and depreciation of the evaluation period. This would result in a positive relationship. On the other hand, one might expect that those subjects who reciprocated during the evaluation period would feel less need to depreciate its meaningfulness; this would result in a negative relationship

PAGE 20

CHAPTER II METHOD AND DESIGN Subjects The subjects used were undergraduate females in introductory psychology courses. Participation in psychology experiments was required as part of the course. The subjects were tested in groups of three. The experimenter made sure that subjects in the same group did not know each other prior to the experiment. Materials and Apparatus The printed materials consisted of five forms. Form 1 listed three personal descriptions: "generous — willing to help others," "does a good job — efficient and dependable," and gets along well with people--friendly These three descriptions were chosen because a 0 sort of a number of descriptions had indicated that these three are about equal in social desirability. A place was provided to check which one of the three descriptions was most self descriptive and which one least self descriptive. (Form 1 can be found in Appendix A.) Form 2 (Appendix B) was an evaluation sheet. On this form was listed six traits, derived from the descriptions on Form 1, and a place to record evaluations made on each of these traits. Form 3 (Appendix C) was designed to measure the amount of liking that subjects felt for the other two group members. Liking was indicated by marking a 16

PAGE 21

17 17.2 centimeter continuum line which represented a range of liking from "not at all" to "very much." Form k (Appendix D) was designed to measure perceived liking relationships within the group. This form provided for marking the liking continuums as it was estimated they had been marked by the other two members of the group. A postexperimental questionnaire was also used ((Appendix E). On this form six statements are made. Under each statement there was a continuum line on which one indicated the amount of agreement with the statement. The testing area consisted of two rooms. One was a discussion room containing a table and three chairs. The other room contained a modified Crutchfield conformity apparatus. This apparatus, as used in this experiment, consists of four separate booths facing a screen. In one booth was an opaque projector which was operated by the experimenter. The subjects sat in the other booths. In each subject's booth there were three switches; these switches were labeled "above average," "average" and "below average." Each booth also had a panel of lights which supposedly revealed all responses made in all of the booths. Procedure Upon arriving at the testing building, the subjects were taken as a group to a discussion room. Here they were each given Form 1. They checked which of the three descriptions was most like them and which least like them. After Form 1 was collected, the subjects were told that they were taking part in a study of how people become acquainted. They were advised that they would have ten minutes in which to become

PAGE 22

18 acquainted. They were instructed to spend this time telling each other about themselves. They were told that after the ten-minute period, the experimenter would return and ask them some questions. The experimenter then left the room. During this ten-minute period, while the subjects were becoming acquainted, the experimenter used the self description information from Form 1 to prepare the the next stage of the experiment. At the end of the ten-tninute period the experimenter returned to the discussion room. After making sure that the subjects had not forgotten each other's names, he took them into another experimental room. Each subject was given a slip of paper containing the names of the three subjects and a "member number" (1, 2 or 3) assigned to each. Each subject was led to believe, from the information on the slip, that she was Member Number 1. One of the others girls was supposedly Member Number 2 and the third was supposedly Member Number 3. The assignment of Member Numbers 2 and 3 were balanced in such a manner that each name appeared once as Number 2 and once as Number 3. Therefore, each possible 2-3 combination of names appeared once and only once. This technique was used to minimize the effect of actual differences in attractiveness of the three group members. The subjects were told that they were to use the observations they had made during the acquaintance period to evaluate the other two subjects on a number of traits. Subjects indicated evaluations of other group members on particular traits by throwing one of the switches. Supposedly, they could tell by the panel of lights all evaluations that were made. Actually the subjects saw no valid responses except their own. The responses supposedly made by Members 2 and 3 were

PAGE 23

19 made by the experimenter. The order of evaluations was controlled by projecting on the screen the number of the trait involved and the number of the member to be evaluated. For instance, the first card read "Trait 1, Member 1." Before the evaluations began, each subject was given Form 2, on which she was asked to record the evaluations made of her. This form listed six traits numbered one through six. The order in which the traits were listed was not consistent from subject to subject; the order of listing the traits was manipulated in order to manipulate the Descriptive Congruency variable. In the High Descriptive Congruency Condition, each subject's list of traits was ordered in such a way that she received high evaluations on those traits which she had indicated as most descriptive of her and low evaluations on those traits she had indicated as least like her. In the Low Descriptive Congruency Condition, the traits were ordered in such a way that the opposite result occurred — i.e., low evaluations on traits chosen as most self descriptive and high evaluations on traits chosen as least self descriptive. Control over the Group Balance variable was accomplished by varying the evaluations of Member 2 by Member 3. In the High Group Balance Condition, the evaluations of Member 2 by Member 3 were mostly negative. In the Low Group Balance Condition these evaluations were mostly positive. The first response in the Crutchfield apparatus was the evaluation of Member 1 on Trait 1 by Member 2. Then Member 3 evaluated Member 1 on Trait 1 (both of these responses were made, of course, by

PAGE 24

20 the experimenter). Then Member 2 was evaluated by Members 1 and 3 on that trait. And then Member 3 was evaluated on that trait by Members 1 and 2. This completed the evaluation of all members on Trait 1. The same procedure was followed for the other five traits. The subject saw herself and the other two members evaluated on each of the six traits. Since the subjects did not evaluate themselves, the responses observed by each subject were evaluations by two meniiers of each of three members on six traits, for a total of 36 responses. Except for the 12 responses made by the subject herself, all observed responses were made by the experimenter. The 12 responses made by each subject consisted of six evaluations of Member 2 and six evaluations of Member 3. From these responses the evaluation dependent data were derived. After the evaluation period was completed, the subjects remained in the booths and were given Form 3 to complete. After completing Form 3, each subject completed Form H. This form required an estimation of how the other two members had answered Form 3. This information was needed in order to evaluate the degree to which the subjects perceived the intragroup relationships in a manner consonant with the experimental manipulation. After the completion of Forms 3 and 4, the subjects were taken back to the discussion room where they answered the post experimental questionnaire. Three of the questionnaire statements--those dealing with the shortness of the acquaintance period, the selection of traits to be used, and the meaningfulness of the evaluations — were included because they allowed the subject to reduce dissonance she might be feeling. Analysis of answers on these three items was used to test Hypothesis ^.

PAGE 25

21 After the postexperimental questionnaires were completed, the subjects were debriefed. The technique and purpose of the deception used was explained to them and their questions answered. Most subjects expressed relief that the low evaluations of them which they had seen were not actually made by a member of the group. After being urged not to discuss the experiment with potential subjects, they were dismissed.

PAGE 26

CHAPTER III RESULTS The first aspect of the data that was analyzed was that which reflected how successfully the variables had been manipulated. Of greatest concern was whether the group balance variable had been successfully manipulated. The reason for concern was that this variable involved the perception of evaluations which did not directly involve the subject. The group balance variable involved differences in the evaluation of Member 2 by Member 3. The subjects were instructed to pay close attention to all evaluations, but it was feared that the subjects might concentrate so strongly on the evaluations which they were making and receiving that they would fail to pay sufficient attention to other evaluations. In order to check this possibility, the responses to Question 4 on Form 4 were analyzed. Since evaluations of Member 2 by Member 3 were lower in the High Group Balance Condition than in the Low Group Balance Condition, it was expected that the subjects would perceive lower liking of Member 2 by Member 3 in the High Group Balance Condition than in the Low Group Balance Condition. This expectation was supported with the respective means being 8.870 and 10.173. A t^ test of the difference between the means, however, revealed a ;t of only .587, which does not approach significance. It must be kept in mind then that the Group Balance treatment, as judged 22

PAGE 27

23 by the perception of the subjects, was weak. The next question to be considered was how many of the six evaluation traits were to be included in the dependent evaluation scores. Analysis of the data indicated that there was a trials effect such that the evaluations of Member 3 went up and the evaluations of Member 2 went down. Since this effect was minimal in the last three trials, the responses on those three trials were summed to provide a single evaluation score. The first hypothesis predicted that the subjects would be more attracted to the positive evaluator (Member 3) than to the negative evaluator (Member 2). This variable, Evaluative Congruency, was tested (as were all of the first three hypotheses) by comparison of differential evaluation scores and differential liking scores. An analysis of variance of evaluation scores (Table 2) revealed an F of 69.953 with one and 77 degrees of freedom (p < .001) on the evaluative congruency variable. Likewise an analysis of variance of liking scores (Table 3) resulted in an F of 50.679 with one and 77 degrees of freedom (p < .001) on that variable. By noting Table 1 it can be seen that the difference in means was in the direction predicted. That is, the subjects tended to evaluate higher and like more the positive evaluator than the negative evaluator. Hypothesis 2a stated that greater attraction would result from evaluations which revealed a profile in agreement with the subject's own self description. The descriptive congruency variable tested this hypothesis. Tables 2 and 3 reveal that the main effect. Descriptive Congruency, did not approach significance in the analysis of either evaluation or liking scores.

PAGE 28

2U M u o o w u c 0) bC c o CJ > •(-> a o w Q o 1) c rH pa a 3 O u o J o c (X) m PQ a 3 O u 00 o to IJ3 O U3 to CM 113 bC c X3 4 X) C m c o •H IT) 3 -I > w c 0) o c o 3 u tie c o o i) > •H •H ^4 u w 0) Q x: (U o o (U 0 u •H •H to > to +-I *-> •H H) M 4-1 m bO 3 3 C (0 3 c .H •H 3 .H •H rt) .H OJ > > •H (T3 > U w > x: bO •H 0 X

PAGE 29

25 Table 2 Analysis of Variance of Evaluation Scores (First Experiment) Source kJ Ulll \J X. Squares df Mean Square F Independent observations: Descriptive Congruence (DC) .026 1 .026 .019 Group Balance (GB) 3.026 1 3.026 2.225 DC X GB 1.598 1 1.598 1.175 Residual between subjects ( error ) 103.350 76 1.360 Total independent 108.000 79 Lorrexaxeu ODservaxions Evaluative Congruence (EC) 140.625 1 140.625 69.963" EC X DC 4.899 1 4.899 2.437 EC X GB 0 1 0 0 EC X DC X GB .027 1 .027 Residual within subjects ( error ) 150.449 76 2.033 Pooled error term (150.476 (77) 2.010 Total within subjects 296 000 80 Total fop experiment 404 159 p < .001

PAGE 30

26 Table 3 Analysis of Variance of Liking Scores (First Experiment) Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Independent observations: Descriptive Congruence (DC) U.096 1 4.096 .575 Group Balance (GB) 13,3140 1 13.340 1.872 DC X GB 17.031 1 17.031 2.390 Residual between subjects ( error ) 541.625 76 7.127 Total independent 576.092 79 Correlated observations: Evaluative Congruence (EC) 463.761 1 453.761 50.679'"' EC X DC 1.225 1 1.225 .134 EC X GB 1.333 1 1.333 .146 EC X DC X GB .029 1 .029 .003 Residual within subjects ( error ) 704.571 76 9.271 Pooled error term (704.600) (77) 9.151 Total within subjects 1170.919 80 Total for experiment 1747.011 159 p < .001

PAGE 31

27 Hypothesis 2b predicted an interaction of descriptive congruency with evaluative Congruency such that high descriptive congruency would result in greater attraction to the positive evaluator and greater rejection of the negative evaluator. As revealed by Tables 2 and 3, this hypothesis was not supported. The F of the Evaluative Congruency by Descriptive Congruency interaction approaches significance in neither the analysis of evaluation scores nor liking scores. Hypothesis 3 was based on balance theory and predicted differences in attraction to Member 2 and Member 3 by the subject as a function of the attraction of Members 2 and 3 to each other. The effect of liking (Low Group Balance Condition) vs. disliking (High Group Balance Condition) by the other two group members was tested in two ways. First, it was expected that group balance would interact with evaluative congruency to increase the attraction toward the positive evaluator and to decrease the attraction toward the negative evaluator. However, it can be seen in Tables 2 and 3 that this interaction was not significant in the analysis of evaluation or liking scores. This hypothesis was also checked in another manner. Since balance could be achieved in opposition to the evaluative congruency variable as well as in interaction with it, a test was used which dealt only with discrepancy of responses to Member 2 vs. Member 3, regardless of direction of difference. It was expected that the magnitude of difference would be greater in the High Group Balance Condition than in the Low Group Balance Condition. A t_ test of differences in magnitude of discrepancy in evaluation scores in the two group balance conditions resulted in a t^ of .162 (not significant); a similar t test of differences in liking scores resulted in a t of .164 (not significant).

PAGE 32

28 An interesting observation concerning the group balance variable was that evaluations, as can be noted in Table 1, were higher toward both other group members in the Low Group Balance Condition than in the High Group Balance Condition. This was true for both evaluation scores and liking scores thdugh the difference was not significant in either case. Hypothesis 4 predicted that those subjects who reciprocated low and high evaluations to Members 2 and 3, respectively, would react differently to dissonance reducing statements on a postexperimental questionnaire. Questions 2, 3 and "4 on the' postexperimental questionnaire were used to test this hypothesis. Responses on these items were correlated with a combined reciprocity score. This score was derived in the following manner: First, a raw score of evaluation of the positive evaluator by each subject minus her evaluation of the negative evaluator was obtained. Then the liking for the positive evaluator minus the liking for the negative evaluator was obtained. These two raw scores for each subject were then converted to Z scores and added together. A constant was added to the sum to eliminate negative numbers. This combined reciprocity score was correlated first with Item 2 of the postexperimental questionnaire. Item 2 states, "There was not enough time provided to become acquainted." The correlation coefficient of relationship between responses on this item and combined reciprocity scores was .008 (not significant). Item 3 reads, "I would probably have been evaluated higher if more important traits had been chosen." Degree of agreement with this item correlated .117 (not significant) with the reciprocity score. Item 4 states,

PAGE 33

29 "Evaluations of this kind are very meaningful." Responses on this item correlated -.013 with the reciprocity score. In short, no significant relationship was found between the subjects' reciprocation of attraction and rejection and their utilization of an opportunity to reduce dissonance. Although the other questions in the postexperimental questionnaire did not bear directly on any of the hypotheses, responses on these questions were also compared with the degree to which the subject reciprocated evaluation and liking. Item 1 in the postexperimental questionnaire states, "I enjoyed the evaluation period." Expressed agreement with statement correlated only .061 with the combined reciprocity score. Item 5, which states, "I was evaluated carefully and fairly," correlated only .058 with the combined reciprocity score. Item 6 on the postexperimental questionnaire states, "I was influenced in my evaluations of the others by their evaluation of me." Degree of agreement with this statement correlated .270 (p < .02) with the combined reciprocity scores. Since two dependent measures of attraction, evaluations made and liking indicated, were used in this experiment, it was of some interest to determine the relationship between the two measures. This relationship was analyzed by means of two product moment correlations. The first correlated the evaluations made of the positive evaluator with the liking indicated for this member. The correlation coefficient was .591 (p < .01). Evaluation of and liking for the negative evaluator was also correlated and resulted in a coefficient of .469 (p < .01). The relationship then between evaluation scores and liking scores was positive at a highly significant level.

PAGE 34

30 After analyzing the results of the experiment it was decided that a follow-up experiment should be conducted. There were several reasons for making this decision. Although the evaluative congruency variable had a very strong effect in the experiment, the descriptive congruency and group balance variables had almost no effect at all. Before concluding that these variables have no significant effect on interpersonal attraction, possible reasons for their failure were considered. One possibility was that the evaluative congruency effect was so strong that the influence of the other variables was greatly reduced. Another possibility was that the subjects were so concerned with the degree of favorableness of the evaluations which they were receiving that they did not adequately perceive other aspects of the evaluation period. This belief was supported by the finding stated earlier that the amount of liking of Member 3 for Member 2 perceived by subjects in the two group balance conditions did not significantly differ. It was decided, therefore, to conduct a follow-up experiment which eliminated some of the weaknesses necessary in the first experiment. The second experiment was designed exclusively to provide an improved test of the descriptive congruency and group balance variables. The second experiment differed from the first experiment in the following ways: 1. The evaluative congruency variable was dropped. Instead of having one group member appear as a positive evaluator and the other as a negative evaluator, the total evaluations across all traits made of the subject by the two other group members were quantitatively equal

PAGE 35

31 2. The treatment of the descriptive congruency variable was greatly strengthened. Instead of varying descriptive congruency by groups, it was toaried within each group. One member evaluated the subject completely congruently (as far as profile of strong and weak traits was concerned) with the subject's self description. The second member's evaluations, though quantitatively equal overall with the evaluations made by the first member, were completely opposite to the self description given by the subject. 3. The group balance treatment was also greatly strengthened. Whereas in the first experiment only the evaluations of Member 3 for Member 2 were differed in the two conditions, in the second experiment the evaluations of both 2 and 3 for each other were manipulated. In the High Group Balance Condition, each supposedly evaluated the other as "below average" on four of the six traits; in the Low Group Balance Condition each supposedly evaluated the other "above average" on four of the six traits. Also, to insure that the subjects paid attention to these evaluations, they were required to record all evaluations except those which they made themselves. In analyzing the data from the second experiment, the first consideration was whether the subjects perceived greater liking between Members 2 and 3 in the Low Group Balance Condition than in the High Group Balance Condition. A greater degree of liking was perceived in the Low Group Balance Condition. A t_ test of the differences between the means of liking perceived as evidenced by responses to Questions 2 and 1 on Form U resulted in a t^ of 2.228 (p < .05). The differences in perception of liking by the other two members for each

PAGE 36

32 other attempted by the group balance treatment was achieved. The dependent data in the second experiment consisted of the liking scores of the subjects for Members 2 and 3. Table H presents the analysis of variance of these scores. The descriptive congruency variable resulted in an F of 1.332 which does not approach significance The group balance variable was tested by noting the differences in liking for the other two members. Since balance can be achieved in the High Group Balance Condition only by dissimilar liking for the other two members and in the Low Group Balance Condition by similar liking it was expected that there would be a larger magnitude of difference, regardless of direction, between liking for Members 2 and 3 in the High Group Balance Condition than in the Low Group Balance Condition. However, the mean difference in the High Group Balance Condition was 3.38 as opposed to 3.78 in the Low Group Balance Condition. A t_ test of the difference between the means resulted in a t^ of .249 (not significant). At this point, it was decided to check the group balance variable in an additional manner. First, each liking score was assigned either a "+" or "-" depending upon whether the score was above or below the midpoint (8.5) on the liking continuum. A "+" was considered as liking and a "-" m disliking. There were two signs for each subject — one for his liking or disliking of Member 2 and one for his liking or disliking of Member 3. Balance theory would predict that the two signs would be the same (either plus or minus) more often in the Low Group Balance Condition than in the High Group Balance Condition. There were 12 subjects in each of the two balance conditions.

PAGE 37

33 Table 4 Analysis of Variance of Liking Scores (Second Experiment) Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Independent observation: Group Balance (GB) 44 660 1 44 .660 4.133 Residual between subjects ( error ) 237.745 22 10.807 Total independent 282. U05 23 Correlated observations: Descriptive Congruency (DC) 12.710 1 12.710 1.332 DC X GB 0.100 1 0.100 .010 Residual within subjects ( error ) 209.865 22 9.539 Total within subjects 222.675 24 Total for experiment 505.080 47

PAGE 38

34 For nine of the subjects in the Low Group Balance Condition, the two signs were the same. This was true for only three subjects in the High Group Balance Condition. A test of the differences in the two frequencies resulted in a of 3.0 (p < .10). This difference was in the direction predicted by balance theory. One further finding in the second experiment should be noted. As can be seen in Table 4^ the group balance main effect resulted in an F of 4.133, which with one and 22 degrees of freedom, falls just short of reaching the .05 level of significance. This F resulted from the fact that subjects in the Low Group Balance Condition indicated more liking for the other two members than subjects in the High Group Balance Condition. The means were 8.86 and 10.81, respectively. It should be noted that the direction of this effect is the same as that found in the first experiment.

PAGE 39

CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION This study tested the contribution of three variables-evaluative congruency, descriptive congruency, and group balance--to interpersonal attraction. It was clear from the results that evaluative congruency accounted for almost all of the non-error variance. That member who consistently evaluated the subject positively was in turn evaluated positively by the subject. On the other hand, the subject reciprocated low evaluations to that member who evaluated him negatively. Amount of liking expressed for the other person was likewise a function of the overall positivity or negativity of the evaluations received from that other person. This is in complete agreement with the idea that a person tends to like those whom he feels evaluate him favorably. The reasons that one would tend to like those whom he feels evaluate him highly would seem to be many. First of all, favorable evaluations of self are gratifying in their own right. By seeking friendship interactions with a positive evaluator, one increases the likelihood of enjoying further pleasant evaluations of self. On the other hand, one might well avoid interaction with someone who challenges one's favorable self concept. Such favorable self concepts and their defenses have developed over a number of years. It would seem that it is easier to reject the other person than to reappraise radically one's self concept. 35

PAGE 40

36 Another reason that a negative evaluator might be devalued is that to devalue the source of evaluations tends to devalue the evaluations as well. Low evaluations which might otherwise pose a threat to self esteem lose much of their force if one has to "consider the source." There is also a matter of status which would cause one to reciprocate low evaluations or disliking. To express liking for a person who does not return the feeling may cause one to lose prestige socially. Unrequited liking is usually thought of as directed upward in the status hierarchy. To persist in this behavior would suggest that the subject is in some way inferior to the person liked. It should also be considered that in the experimental situation the subject had to consider what effect his exchange with the negative evaluator would have upon his interaction with the positive evaluator. If the subject gives equal evaluations to both members, the positive evaluator might see no advantage to extending positive evaluations. In fact, he might feel somehow depreciated since he has obtained, by offering very much, what the other membfer has obtained by offering very little. There is also a realistic factor to keep in mind when considering the evaluations made of the negative evaluator. The fact that a person evaluates anyone below average on the experimental traits may be taken as indication that he is neither a friendly nor a generous person. As one subject expressed if after the experiment, Everyone wants to be at least average on all of those traits." To indicate that anyone falls below the mean on desirable traits may be seen as logically necessary, but socially unnecessary.

PAGE 41

37 In contrast to the evaluative congruency variable which had a very strong effect on attraction, the descriptive congruency variable had no effect at all. Neither Hypothesis 2a nor 2b was confirmed. This was true in the first experiment, in which both evaluative congruency and descriptive congruency were varied and also in the second experiment, in which evaluative congruency was held constant. The failure of this variable suggests that cognitive or descriptive congruency does not play the important part in interpersonal attraction, as has been theorized by Secord and Backman (1964). Basic to their theory is that attraction will result from perceiving that the other person holds a congruent definition of self. Congruency is presented as having two aspects--the cognitive and the affective. Affective congruency is agreement about positivity of self; cognitive congruency implies agreement about descriptive aspects of self in addition to the evaluative or affective aspect. The effect of the affective component was not apparent at all. This is in seeming contrast to the finding that persons like those whom they perceive as choosing the same adjectives or traits to describe them that they choose to describe themselves (Newcomb, 1963; Broxton, 1963; Backman and Secord, 1962). In these studies, however, the evaluative elenent was not controlled. In our experiment the evaluative element was controlled by using traits that had been judged as equivalent on a scale of social desireability. This would suggest that the effect of congruent self descriptions on attraction results from the evaluative rather than the descriptive connotations of the trait chosen. Hypothesis 3 predicted that the amount of group balance present would influence attraction. Specifically it was expected that group

PAGE 42

38 balance would interact with evaluative congruency in such a way as to lower evaluations toward the positive evaluator. This expectation was not supported. In another test of this hypothesis, the direction of difference was not predicted, but only that the difference in liking of the two members would differ more in the High Group Balance Condition than in the Low Group Balance Condition. This expectation was likewise not supported. However, when the liking scores were converted to positive or minus signs based on whether the score was above or below the midpoint of the liking continuum the results, though not quite significant, were in the direction expected. The fact that balance theory received slight support when a dichotomous sign score was used but none when a discrepancy score was used has some theoretical significance. In the Heider and Newcomb balance systems liking and disliking are treated dichotomously In the Osgood system, evaluations are not treated dichotomously, but as falling on a continuum. Our results would suggest that equal intervals of the liking -disliking continuum have different underlying values at different points of the continuum. Differences in scores which involve differences in direction from the midpoint of the continuum probably have greater significance than equal differences which do not involve changes in direction. The treating of evaluation or liking in a balance formulation as dichotanous may, though more Crude, be more meaningful. This interpretation is consonant with the position taken by Cartwright and Harary (1956). Their system accounts for various degrees of balance but does not consider degrees of affection. In retrospect, it can be seen that the signed scores rather than discrepancy scores would have been in more accord with the Cartwright

PAGE 43

39 and Harary theory. One other finding concerning the group balance variable should be considered. In both experiments, the tendency was for evaluations of both other members to be higher in the Low Group Balance Condition than in the High Group Balance Condition. It should be kept in mind that the only difference between the two conditions was that the evaluations of the other members for each other were higher in the Low Group Balance Condition than in the High Group Balance Condition. The difference in levels of evaluations by the subjects in the two conditions may be interpreted as resulting from a difference in adaptation level. Dependent evaluations were higher in the condition in which independent or controlled evaluations were higher, which is in agreement with adaptation level theory (Helson, IQ'+S). Another possible interpretation is that the subjects in the High Group Balance Condition felt unattracted to both other members because of their negative evaluations of each other. This interpretation is in accord with the finding of Worthy, Wright and Shaw (1964) that when one member of a group accuses another member without justification of poor performance, the other members of the group Become less willing to interact with both the accused and the accuser. Hypothesis ^ predicted that subjects who reciprocated low evaluations and liking to the negative evaluator and high evaluations and liking to the positive evaluator would react differently to dissonance reducing statements on a postexperimental questionnaire. No relationship was found between reciprocation and the rationalizing or dissonance reducing statements chosen. One conclusion that could be reached is that reciprocation did not result in the lowering of

PAGE 44

40 any dissonance felt in the evaluation situation. However, this can not be stated with any certainty at all since we do not know that the dissonance initially felt by those who reciprocated and those who did not was equivalent. Reciprocity was positively related to agreement with one statement on the postexperimental questionnaire. This statement read, "I was influenced in my evaluations of the others by their evaluations of me." It is evident from this finding that reciprocity operated at a relatively conscious level. Another finding which is parenthetical to the testing of the hypotheses was the finding that liking for a member of the group correlated significantly with evaluation of that member. This finding supports the assumption that evaluation and liking are not independent aspects of interpersonal attraction. This tendency to evaluate highly those whom one likes and to like those one evaluates highly may be seen as rooted in the maintenance of a positive self concept. Since one's friends may be viewed as a part of the extended self, it is self enhancing to evaluate one's friends positively. To conclude, the primary conclusion concerning determinants of interpersonal attraction that is derived from this study is that interpersonal attraction in a three person, ad hoc group of females depends to a very great extent upon the perception that one is perceived by the other person in a positive manner. Descriptive agreement, devoid of its evaluative quality, has no effect on attraction. The effect of group balance on attraction is not clear from this study but it is clear that if there is any effect it is minor compared to the effect of the positivity of evaluations, which a person perceives that he is eliciting

PAGE 45

CHAPTER V SUMMARY The present study investigated the effect of three variables, evaluative congruency, descriptive congruency and group balance, upon interpersonal attraction. Evaluative congruency deals with the amount of agreement between how positively a person views himself and how positively he is viewed by some other person. If a positive self concept is assumed, evaluative congruency may be thought of as the degree of positivity of the evaluation by the other. Descriptive congruency deals with the amount of agreement in self description which is non-evaluative in nature. These variables are equivalent to what Secord and Backman (1964) have called affective congruency and cognitive congruency. Group balance deals with the possibility of establishing a balanced state within the group. It was predicted that the patterns of attraction which led to greater balance within the group would be more likely to occur than other patterns. The balance theory of Cartwright and Harary (1956) provides a method for measuring the amount of balance present in a pattern of interpersonal orientations. Another hypothesis which was tested was that persons who react to evaluations of themselves by reciprocating the same level of evaluation to the person who made the evaluation would react differently to a chance to reduce dissonance by devaluating the episode than would

PAGE 46

42 persons who had not reciprocated. In order to test the hypotheses three person groups of female college students were brought together for an acquaintance period. After the acquaintance period the members of the group evaluated each other as "above average," "average," or "below average" on six traits. The evaluations took place in a modified Crutchfield conformity situation. The subjects saw by means of separate panels of lights all apparent evaluations. Actually, all evaluations which the subject saw were controlled by the experimenter. The evaluations were manipulated such that the subject thought she was evaluated very high by one member and very low by the other. This constituted the evaluative congruency treatment. In half the groups, evaluations tended to follow a profile in agreement with the subject's own self description as obtained earlier. In the other half of the groups, evaluations were manipulated to show profile disagreement. This difference constituted the descriptive congruency treatment. The apparent evaluations between the other two members of the group were manipulated such that with half the groups the attraction between the other two members appeared to be high and in the other half of the groups the attraction of the other two appeared to be low. This constituted the group balance treatment. Two dependent measures of attraction of each subject for the other two members were taken. One was the evaluations made of the others on the last three traits. The other measure was amount of liking for each other member indicated by marking a liking continuum line after the evaluation period. Dependent data on the tendency to reduce dissonance was obtained by means of a postexperimental questionnaire.

PAGE 47

43 The results were analyzed by analyses of variance of evaluation and liking scores, a t^ test of mean discrepancies in evaluations of the other two members in the two group balance conditions, and correlations between degree of reciprocity manifested and dissonance reducing items on the postexperimental questionnaire. The result of the analyses was that evaluative congruency had a very significant effect on attraction, but that descriptive congruency and group balance did not have a significant effect on attraction. Degree of reciprocity manifested did not correlate with any of the dissonance reducing items on the postexperimental questionnaire. Serendipitous findings indicated that overall evaluations were higher in the Low Group Balance Condition groups than in the other groups. Also, it was found that the more subjects reciprocated high or low evaluations to the members who evaluated them high or low, the more willing they were to agree that they had been influenced by the evaluations of them made by the others. Finally, it was found that there was a significant positive relationship between evaluation scores and liking scores. A second experiment was conducted which was designed to strengthen greatly the descriptive congruency and group balance variables by eliminating the evaluative congruency variaQjle and by increasing the discrepancy between the High and Low Descriptive Congruency Conditions and between the High and Low Group Balance Conditions. Again, however, neither descriptive congruency nor group balance had a significant effect on attraction. It was found, however, that if liking scores were converted to plus or minus, depending on which half of the liking continuum they fell, the group patterns which resulted tended to

PAGE 48

1+4 support the group balance expectations. The results were interpreted as giving strong support to the theory that interpersonal attraction is a reciprocal process. The failure of the descriptive congruency variable was interpreted as resulting from experimental controls which kept descriptive congruency independent from evaluative congruency. It was suggested that Secord and Backman's (1961) treatment of cognitive congruency of self definitions as a cause of interpersonal attraction, separate from affective congruency, should be re-examined. The failure of the group balance condition was interpreted as indicating that the effect of group balance on interpersonal attraction is insignificant when viewed independent of reciprocity. In short, it was concluded that in three person, ad hoc groups of females, one member is attracted to another as a function of perceiving that she is perceived positively by the other member.

PAGE 49

APPENDICES

PAGE 50

APPENDIX A FORM 1 Name Age Below are three descriptions. Read them carefully. 1. "gets along well with people — friendly" 2. "does a good job — efficient and dependable" 3. "generous — willing to help others" Which of the above descriptions is most like you? 12 3 (circle one) Which of the above descriptions is least like you? 12 3 U6

PAGE 51

APPENDIX B FORM 2 Group No. Member Rated: Member No. Rated by: TRAIT 1 Efficienty TRAIT 2 Getting along with people TRAIT 3 Generous TRAIT 4 Friendliness TRAIT 5 Dependability TRAIT 6 Willing to help others Note: There are other variations of Form 2 which have the traits listed in different order. 47

PAGE 52

APPENDIX C FORM 3 Group No. Member No. Please answer the following questions. Indicate your answer by marking the appropriate place on the line below each question. You may mark anywhere on the line. How much do you like Member No. ? very much not at all How much do you like Member No. very much not at all 48

PAGE 53

APPENDIX D FORM 4 On this form we would like for you to guess how the other two members answered the questions on the last form. First guess how Member No. answered the following questions: How well do you like Member No. very much not at all How well do you like Member No. ? very much not at all Now answer the questions as you think they were answered by Member No. How well do you like Member No, very much not at all How well do you like Member No. ? very much not at all 49

PAGE 54

APPENDIX E POSTEXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Now that the experiment is over, I would like to ask you some questions that may help us in understanding the evaluations that were made. Indicate the degree to which you agr*ee with the following statements 1. I enjoyed the evaluation period. Agree Disagree 2. There was not enough time provided to become acquainted. Agree Disagree 3. I would probably have been evaluated higher if more important traits had been chosen. Agree Disagree 4. Evaluations of this kind are very meaningful. Agree Disagree 5, I wa& evaluated carefully and fairly. Agree Disagree 6. I was influenced in my evaluations of the others by their evaluation of me. Agree Disagree 50

PAGE 55

REFERENCES Backman, C. W., and Secord, P. F. The effect of perceived liking on interpersonal attraction. Hum. Relat 1959, 12^, 379-38U. Backman, C. W., and Secord, P. F. Liking, selective interaction, and misperception in congruent interpersonal relations. Sociometry 1962, 25, 321-335. Broxton, J. A. A test of interpersonal attraction predictions derived from balance theory. vJ. abnorm soc Psychol 1963, 66, 394-397. Burke, R. L. Ratings of self and others as a function of expectations and evaluations. Dissert Abstr 1962, 23^, ISIU. Byrne, D. Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. J. abnorm soc Psychol 1961, 62^, 713-715. Byrne, D., and Blaylock B. Similarity and assumed similarity of attitudes between husbands and wives. J_. abnorm soc Psychol 1963, 67, 636-640. Cartwright, D., and Harary, F. Structural balance: a generalization of Heider's theory. Psychol Rev., 1956, 63, 277-293. Dittes, J. E. Attractiveness of group as a function of self-esteem and acceptance by group. J_. abnorm soc Psychol 1959, 59, 77-82. Goulder, A. W. The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. In E E Sampson ( Ed ) Approaches contests and problems of social psychology Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice HallT Inc. 1962, pp. 78-95. Harvey, 0. J. Personality factors in resolution of conceptual incongruities. Sociometry 1962, 25^, 336-352. Harvey, 0. J., Kelly, H. H., and Shapiro, M. M. Reactions to unfavorable evaluations of self made by other persons. J. Pers., 1957 2_5, 398-Ull. ~ Heider, F. Social perception and pehnomenal causality. Psychol Rev. 191+4, 51, 358-374. 51

PAGE 56

52 Heider, F. Attitudes and cognitive organization. J. Psychol IQUe, 21, 107-112. Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations New York: John Wiley £ Sons, Inc., 1958. Helson, H. Adaptation-level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psychol Rev. 1948, 5_5 297-313. Horowitz, M. W,, Lyons, J., and Perlmutter, H. V. Induction of forces in discussion groups. Human Relations 1951, 57-76. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., and Kelly, H. H. Communication and persuasion New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. Jones, E. E., and Dougherty, B. N. Political orientation and the perceptual effects of an anticipated interaction. J^. abnorm sot: Psychol 1959, 59^, 340-3U9. Jones, E. E., Gergen, K. J., and Davis, K. E. Some determinants of reactions to being approved or disapproved as a person. Psychol Monogr 1962, 76, (Whole No. 521) 17 p. Kogan, N., and Tagiuri, H. Interpersonal preference and cognitive organization. J_. abnorm soc Psychol 1958, 56^, 113-116. Miller, A. L. Evaluation of prospective social relationships: a function of comparison level and predicted outcome level. J. abnorm soc. Psychol 1963, 67_, 437-445. Morrissette, J. An experimental study of the theory of structural balance. Hum. Relat 1958, 11, 239-254. Newcomb, T. M. An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychol Rev 1953, 60, 393-404. Newcomb, T. M. The prediction of interpersonal attraction. Am Psychol 1956, 11, 575-587. Newcomb, T. M. Stabilities underlying changes in interpersonal attraction. J. abnorm soc Psychol 1963, 6£, 376-385. Osgood, C. E. Cognitive dynamics in the conduct of human affairs. Publ Opin Quart., 1950, 24^, 341-365. Pepitone, A,, and Sherberg, J. Intent ionality, responsibility and interpersonal attraction. J^. Pers 1957, 25^, 757-766. Precker, J. A. Similarity of valuings as a factor in selection of peers and near-authority figures. J. abnorm soc Psychol 1952, 47_, 406-414. Reader, N., and English, H. B. Personality factors in adolescent female friendships. J. consult Psychol 1947, 11, 212-220.

PAGE 57

53 Richardson, H. M. Community of values as a factor in friendships of college and adult women. J. soc Psychol 1940, 11, 303-312. Runkel, P. J. Equilibrium and "pleasantness" of interpersonal situations. Hum. Relat 1956, 9, 375-382. Sampson, E. E., and Insko, C. A. Cognitive consistency and performance in the autokinetic situation. J_. abnorm soc Psychol 19614, 68, 184-192. Secord, P. P., and Backman, C. W. Personality theory and the problein of stability and change in individual behavior: an interpersonal approach. Psychol Rev 1961, 68, 21-33. Secord, P. P., and Backman, C. W. Social psychology New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1964. Sherif, M. An experimental study of stereotypes. J. abnorm soc Psychol 1935 £9, 371-375. ~ Tagiuri, R,, Blake, R. R., and Bruner, J. S. Some determinants of the perception of positive and negative feelings in others. J. abnorm soc Psychol 1953 48_, 585-592. Thibaut, J. W. and Kelly, H. H. The social psychology of groups New York: John Wiley 6 Sons, Inc., 1959. Worthy, M., Wright, J. M., and Shaw, M. E. Effects of varying degrees of legitimacy in the attribution of responsibility for negative events, Psychon Sci 1964, 1, 169-170. Zajonc, R. B,, and^rnstein, E. Structural balance, reciprocity and posit ivity as sources of cognitive bias. Technical Report No. 29, Contract NONR-1224 (34) (NR 170-309). Ann Arbor, Michigan: October 15, 1964.

PAGE 58

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Morgan Worthy was born March 8, 1936, at Spartanburg, South Carolina. In May, 1954, he was graduated from Parker High School, Greenville, South Carolina. In May, 1956, he received the Associate of Arts degree from North Greenville Junior College. From January, 1957, until December, 1960, Mr. Worthy served with the United States Air Force and was stationed for two years in Germany. In 1961, he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts from Furman University. During the 1961-62 school year, he taught history and democracy at Slater-Marietta High School, Slater, South Carolina. In September, 1962, he enrolled in the Graduate School of the University of Florida. In December, 1963, he received the degree of Master of Arts. Since that time he has worked toward the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Morgan Worthy is married to the former Linda Pauline Hammond. They have one daughter, Bonnie Lyn. 54

PAGE 59

This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been approved by all members of that committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August 1^, 1965 Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Dean, Graduate School Supervisory Committee: