Interpersonal attraction
as
a function
of
the type
of
favorable and
unfavorable evaluation
JAY
HEWITT
University
of
Missouri·Kansas
City,
Kansas
City,
Mo.
64110
The
Ss received
personal
evaluations
from
three
confederates
and
then
rated
their
liking for
each
individuaL
Favorable
evaluations
produced
more
attraction
than
unfavorable
evaluations
regardless
of
whether
they
were
consistent
or
inconsistent
with
S's
perception
of
himself-
The
specific
content
of
the
evaluation
was
more
important
when
the
evaluation
was
unfavorable
than
when
it
was favorable.
Different
types
of
favorable
evaluation
were
not
associated
with
differential
degrees
of
liking.
Unfavorable
evaluations
that
were
inconsistent
with
S's
pereption
of
himself
produced
greater
hostility
than
those
that
were
consistent
with
S's
perception
of
himself-
According
to
the
reward
theory
of
interpersonal
attraction,
people
are
attracted
to
those
who
reward
or
reinforce
them.
One
type
of
reward
a
person
can
receive
from
others
is
esteem.
People
tend
to
be
more
attracted
to
those
who
evaluate
them
favorably
than
to
those
who
evaluate
them
unfavorably
(Aronson
&
Worchel,
1966;
Backman
&
Secord,
1959;
Byrne
&
Griffitt,
1966).
As
Aristotle
has
pointed
out:
"We
feel
friendly
toward
those
who
praise
such
good
qualities
as we possess
...
toward
those
who
are
not
evilspeakers
and
who
are
aware
of
neither
their
nieghbor's
bad
points
nor
our
own,
but
of
our
good
ones
only
([
translated
1924,
p.138]."
Although
reward
theory
has
been
shown
to
be
a viable
model
of
interpersonal
attraction,
reward
theory
does
not
s·pecify
the
type
of
favorable
evaluation
that
will
lead
to
the
greatest
attraction
or
the
type
of
unfavorable
evaluation
that
will
lead
to
the
greatest
hostility.
According
to
the
cognitive
consistency
theory
of
interpersonal
attraction,
the
attraction
of
one
person
(P)
to
another
person
(0)
is
a
function
of
the
similarity
between
O's
perception
of
P
and
P's
perception
of
himself
(Deutsch
&
Solomon,
1959).
People
are
most
attracted
to
those
who
see
them
as
they
see themselves.
Some
support
for
this
proposition
was
obtained
in a
study
by
Hewitt
(1969).
Ss received
evaluations
that
were
either
favorable
or
unfavorable
and
either
accurate
or
relatively
inaccurate.
Accurate
evaluations
consisted
of
traits
the
S
had
previously
used
to
describe
himself,
while
inaccurate
evaluations
consisted
of
traits
another
S
had
employed
to
describe
himself.
Accurate
evaluations
tended
to
generate
higher
attraction
ratings
than
inaccurate
evaluations.
The
present
study
was
designed
to
examine
the
generality
of
the
Psychon.
Sci.,
1971,
VoL
22
(4)
relationship
between
accuracy
of
evaluation
and
liking.
If
a
person
were
told
that
he
possessed
those
characteristics
he
was striving
to
possess
(but
currently
did
not
possess)
or
did
not
possess
the
undesirable
characteristics
he
felt
he
did
possess,
this
might
serve
to
enhance
his
perception
of
himself
and,
as a
consequence,
lead
to
a relatively high
degree
of
attraction
toward
the
evaluator.
Even
though
such
an
evaluation
would
be
inaccurate,
it
might
lead
to
more
attraction
than
an
evaluation
that
merely
reaffirmed
the
S's
perception
of
his desirable
characteristics.
Conversely,
there
may
be
some
situations
in
which
accurate
unfavorable
evaluations
would
generate
more
hostility
than
inaccurate
unfavorable
evaluations.
If
a
person
were
told
that
he
did
not
possess
those
characteristics
he
was
striving
to
possess,
this
might
be
a
source
of
need
frustration
and,
as a
consequence,
might
generate
a
high
degree
of
animosity
toward
the
evaluator.
DESIGN
Each
S received
three
evaluations
of
himself,
one
from
each
of
three
different
confederates,
and
then
rated
his liking for
each
evaluator.
A 2
by
3
design was
employed,
with
each
evaluation
being
either
favorable
or
unfavorable
and
based
on
(1)
the
S's
desirable
characteristics,
(2)
the
S's
ideal
characteristics,
or
(3)
the
S's
undesirable
characteristics.
Each
S was
told
that
he
either
possessed
or
did
not
possess
the
traits
he
had
employed
to
describe
his
desirable
characteristics,
that
he
either
possessed
or
did
not
possess
the
traits
he
had
employed
to
describe
his ideal
characteristics
(the
traits
he
would
most
like
to
possess
but
currently
did
not
possess),
and
that
he
either
possessed
or
did
not
possess
the
traits
he
had
employed
to
describe
his
undesirable
characteristics.
SUBJECTS
The
Ss
consisted
of
30
males
recruited
from
an
introductory
psychology
course.
Half
of
the
Ss
were
assigned
to
the
"favorable
evaluation"
condition,
the
remaining
to
the
"unfavorable
evaluation"
condition.
PROCEDURE
Upon
arriving for
the
experiment,
the
S was
seated
in a small
soundproof
cubicle
and
handed
three
lists
of
adjectives.
On
the
first list,
the
S was
told
to
put
a
check
mark
beside
the
five
adjectives
that
best
described
his
desirable
characteristics,
on
the
second
list, a
check
mark
beside
the
five
adjectives
that
best
described
the
characteristics
he
would
most
like
to
possess
(but
currently
did
not
possess),
and
on
the
third
list, a
check
mark
beside
the
five
adjectives
that
best
described
his
undesirable
characteristics.
The
S was
then
informed
that
there
were
three
other
people
participating
in
the
experiment
(Ss A, B,
and
C),
that
each
S was
located
in a
different
room,
and
that
all
rooms
were
connected
via
intercom.
(In
reality,
A, B,
and
C
were
confederates.
)
After
the
initial
instructions
had
been
given,
the
S
was
handed
a
sheet
which
summarized
the
procedure.
The
other
people
participating
in
the
experiment
would
each
be
given a list
on
which
there
were
five
checked
adjectives
(the
S's
desirable,
ideal,
or
undesirable
characteristics).
The
S
would
then
be
required
to
answer
four
questions
about
himself.
A, B,
and
C
would
be
able
to
hear
these
answers
over
their
intercom,
after
which
they
would
be
asked
to
give
their
impression
of
the
S.
The
actual
procedure
was
then
carried
out.
Each
confederate
was
given a list
on
which
there
were
five
checked
adjectives.
The
S was
then
asked
to
describe
his
interests,
his
goals in life,
the
kind
of
people
he
liked
and
disliked,
and
his
personal
problems.
After
this
information
had
been
delivered (via
intercom)
to
A, B,
and
C,
Person
A
was
asked
to
go
through
each
of
the
checked
adjectives
on
his list.
After
naming
each
trait,
Person
A was
asked
to
say
whether
or
not
that
trait
characterized
or
did
not
characterize
the
S.
When
A was
finished,
similar
instructions
were
given
to
B
and
then
to
C.
The
S was
able
to
hear
these
comments
over
his
intercom.
When
all
three
evaluations
had
been
delivered,
the
S was
asked
to
rate
his liking
for
A,
B,
and
C
on
a
scale ranging
from
+10
(strong
liking)
to
-10
(strong
dislike),
after
which
he
was
debriefed
and
then
dismissed.
EV
ALUATIONS
In
the
favorable
evaluation
condition,
Ss
were
told
that
they
possessed
the
two
sets
of
desirable
197
