Across four studies, people sat (or reported they would sit) closer to physically similar others. Study 1 revealed significant aggregation in seating patterns on two easily observed characteristics: glasses wearing and sex. Study 2 replicated this finding with a wider variety of physical traits: race, sex, glasses wearing, hair length, and hair color. The overall tendency for people to sit beside physically similar others remained significant when controlling for sex and race, suggesting people aggregate on physical dimensions other than broad social categories. Study 3 conceptually replicated these results in a laboratory setting. The more physically similar participants were to a confederate, the closer they sat before an anticipated interaction when controlling for sex, race, and attractiveness similarity. In Study 4, overall physical similarity and glasses wearing similarity predicted self-reported seating distance. These effects were mediated by perceived attitudinal similarity. Liking and inferred acceptance also received support as mediators for glasses wearing similarity.
Altonji, J.G., & Blank, R.M. ( 1999). Race and gender in the labor market. In O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (Vol. 30, pp. 3143-3259). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland. doi:10.1016/S1573-4463(99)30039-0
2.
Alvarez, L. ( 2004). Narcissism guides mate selection: Humans mate assortatively, as revealed by facial resemblance, following an algorithm of "self seeking like." Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 177-194. Retrieved from http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep02177194.pdf
3.
Ambady, N., Bernieri, F., & Richeson, J. ( 2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 201-271). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4.
Bauer, D.J., Preacher, K.J., & Gil, K.M. ( 2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations . Psychological Methods, 11, 142-163. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142
5.
Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G.W. ( 1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 7, 173-189. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(71)90065-5
6.
Bland, J.M., & Altman, D.G. ( 1995). Calculating correlation coefficients with repeated observations: Part 1-correlation within subjects. BMJ, 310, 446. Retrieved from http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/310/6977/446
7.
Borkenau, P. ( 1991). Evidence of a correlation between wearing glasses and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1125-1128. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90074-L
8.
Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F., & Angleitner, A. (2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 599-614. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.599
9.
Byrne, D. ( 1971). The attraction paradigm. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
10.
Byrne, D., & Clore, G.L. ( 1970). A reinforcement model of evaluative responses. Personality: An International Journal, 1, 103-128.
11.
Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. ( 1973). Interpersonal attraction. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 317-336. doi:10.1146/annurev .ps.24.020173.001533
12.
Cameron, J. ( 2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239-262. doi:10.1080/13576500444000047
13.
Campbell, D.T., Kruskal, W.H., & Wallace, W.P. ( 1966). Seating aggregation as an index of attitude. Sociometry, 29, 1-15. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786006
14.
Cash, T.F., & Derlega, V.J. ( 1978). The matching hypothesis: Physical attractiveness among same-sexed friends. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 4, 240-243. doi:10.1177/014616727800400213
15.
Clack, B., Dixon, J., & Tredoux, C. ( 2005). Eating together apart: Patterns of segregation in a multi-ethnic cafeteria. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology , 15, 1-16. doi:10.1002/casp.787
16.
Condon, J., & Crano, W. ( 1988). Inferred evaluation and the relation between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 789-797. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.789
17.
DeBruine, L.M. ( 2004a). Resemblance to self increases the appeal of child faces to both men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 142-154. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.03.003
18.
DeBruine, L.M. ( 2004b). Facial resemblance increases the attractiveness of same-sex faces more than other faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2085-2090. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2824
19.
DeBruine, L.M. ( 2005). Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: Context-specific effects of facial resemblance. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272, 919-922. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.3003
20.
Eagly, A., Ashmore, R., Makhijani, M., & Longo, L. ( 1991). What is beautiful is good, but . . .: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.109
21.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. ( 1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
Harris, M.B. ( 1991). Sex differences in stereotypes of spectacles. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1659-1680. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00497.x
23.
Harris, M.B., Harris, R.J., & Bochner, S. ( 1982). Fat, four-eyed, and female: Stereotypes of obesity, glasses, and gender. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 503-516. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1982. tb00882.x
24.
Høgh-Olesen, H. ( 2008). Human spatial behaviour: The spacing of people, objects and animals in six cross-cultural samples. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 8, 245-280. doi:10.1163/156853708X358173
25.
Koen, J., & Durrheim, K. ( 2010). A naturalistic observational study of informal segregation: Seating patterns in lectures. Environment and Behavior, 42, 448-468. doi:10.1177/0013916509336981
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J.M. ( 2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
28.
Montoya, R. ( 2008). I’m hot, so I’d say you’re not: The influence of objective physical attractiveness on mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1315-1331. doi:10.1177/0146167208320387
29.
Montoya, R., Horton, R., & Kirchner, J. ( 2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889-922. doi:10.1177/0265407508096700
30.
Murstein, B.I. ( 1972). Physical attractiveness and marital choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 8-12. doi:10.1037/h0032394
31.
Pearson, K., & Lee, A. ( 1903). On the law of inheritance in man. I. Inheritance of physical characters. Biometrika, 2, 357-462. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2331507
Rosenbaum, M.E. ( 1986). The repulsion hypothesis: On the nondevelopment of relationships . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1156-1166. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1156
34.
Rushton, J., Russell, R., & Wells, P. ( 1985). Personality and genetic similarity theory. Journal of Social & Biological Structures, 8, 63-86. doi:10.1016/0140-1750(85)90062-4
35.
Singh, R., Yeo, S., Lin, P.K.F., & Tan, L. ( 2007). Multiple mediators of the attitude similarity-attraction relationship: Dominance of inferred attraction and subtlety of affect. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 61-74. doi:10.1080/01973530701331007
36.
Sriram, N. ( 2002). The role of gender, ethnicity, and age in intergroup behavior in a naturalistic setting. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 251-265. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00090
37.
Takeuchi, S.A. ( 2006). On the matching phenomenon in courtship: A probability matching phenomenon of mate selection. Marriage & Family Review, 40, 25-51. doi:10.1300/J002v40n01_03
38.
Thiessen, D., Young, R.K., & Delgado, M. ( 1997). Social pressures for assortative mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 157-164. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00181-X
39.
van Straaten, I., Engels, R., Finkenauer, C., & Holland, R. ( 2009). Meeting your match: How attractiveness similarity affects approach behavior in mixed-sex dyads. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 685-697. doi:10.1177/0146167209332965
40.
Vitale, S., Cotch, M.F., & Sperduto, R.D. (2006). Prevalence of visual impairment in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association , 295, 2158-2163. Retrieved from http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/18/2158
41.
Voracek, M., Dressler, S.G., & Manning, J.T. ( 2007). Evidence for assortative mating on digit ration (2D:4D), a biomarker for prenatal androgen exposure. Journal of Biosocial Science, 39, 599-612. doi:10.1017/S0021932006001647
