Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-5
Closeness and other affiliative outcomes generated from the Fast Friends procedure: A comparison with a small-talk task and unstructured self-disclosure and the moderating role of mode of communication
A Fast Friends procedure was created years ago as a method to generate closeness between people interacting for the first time and to provide an experimental procedure to test hypotheses about factors that may lead to initial closeness. In their original study, Aron et al. (1997) validated their closeness-generating task by comparing the degree of interpersonal closeness it generated versus that by a small-talk task. Few subsequent studies, however, have tested the validity of the closeness task by comparing the affiliative outcomes resulting from it with that from other activities. To further examine its validity, this study involved zero-history dyads randomly assigned to become acquainted through either Aron et al.’s closeness-inducing task, Aron et al.’s small-talk task, or an unstructured getting-acquainted task. The dyads were then compared on the closeness they experienced as well as on several other affiliative outcomes. In support of the validity of the closeness-inducing task, the task generated more closeness and other positive outcomes, relative especially to the small-talk task. A second manipulation in the study was the mode of communication (video-chat vs. face-to-face). No significant differences in outcomes (e.g., closeness, liking) were found based on mode of communication. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the closeness task (relative to the other tasks) for generating closeness and other affiliative outcomes was not moderated by the mode of communication.
AntheunisM. L.ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and interpersonal attraction: An experimental test of two explanatory hypotheses. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 831–836.
2.
AronA.AronE. N.SmollanD. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.
3.
AronA.MelinatE.AronE. N.ValloneR. D.BatorR. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 363–377.
4.
BerscheidE.SnyderM.OmotoA. M. (1989). The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792.
5.
BoothbyE. J.SmithL. K.ClarkM. S.BarghJ. A. (2016). Psychological distance moderates the amplification of shared experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1431–1444.
6.
ByrneD. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.
7.
ClarkM. S.BeckL. A.AragónO. R. (2019). Relationship initiation: Bridging the gap between initial attraction and well-functioning communal relationships. In FieseB. H.CelanoM.Deater-DeckardK.JourilesE. N.WhismanM. A. (Eds.), APA handbook of contemporary family psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 409–425). American Psychological Association.
8.
CollinsN. L.MillerL. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457–475.
9.
CroesE. A.AntheunisM. L.SchoutenA. P.KrahmerE. J. (2016). Teasing apart the effect of visibility and physical co-presence to examine the effect of CMC on interpersonal attraction. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 468–476.
10.
CroesE. A.AntheunisM. L.SchoutenA. P.KrahmerE. J. (2019). Social attraction in video-mediated communication: The role of nonverbal affiliative behavior. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 1210–1232.
11.
CroesE. A.AntheunisM. L.SchoutenA. P.KrahmerE. J. (2020). The role of eye-contact in the development of romantic attraction: Studying interactive uncertainty reduction strategies during speed-dating. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, 106218.
12.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2008). Speed-dating: A powerful and flexible paradigm for studying romantic relationship initiation. In SprecherS.WenzelA.HarveyJ. (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 217–234). Guildford.
13.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2009). Reciprocity of liking. In ReisH. T.SprecherS. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (pp. 1333–1336). SAGE.
14.
FinkelE. J.EastwickP. W. (2015). Interpersonal attraction: In search of a theoretical Rosetta Stone. In SimpsonJ. A.DovidioJ. F. (Eds.), Handbook of personality and social psychology: Interpersonal relations and group processes (pp. 179–210). American Psychological Association.
15.
FraleyB.AronA. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous experience on closeness in initial encounters. Personal Relationships, 11, 61–78.
16.
IckesW. (2009). Strangers in a strange lab: How personality shapes our initial encounters with others. Oxford University Press.
17.
IckesW.BissonnetteV.GarciaS.StinsonL. L. (1990). Implementing and using the dyadic interaction paradigm. In HendrickC.ClarkM. S. (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 11. Research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 16–44). SAGE.
18.
JoelS.EastwickP. W. (2018). Intervening earlier: An upstream approach to improving relationship quality. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 25–32.
19.
KashdanT. B.WenzelA. (2005). A transactional approach to social anxiety and the genesis of interpersonal closeness: Self, partner, and social context. Behavior Therapy, 36, 335–346.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.
22.
KetayS.BeckL. A. (2017). Attachment predicts cortisol response and closeness in dyadic social interaction. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 80, 114–121.
23.
KetayS.WelkerK. M.SlatcherR. B. (2017). The roles of testosterone and cortisol in friendship formation. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 76, 88–96.
24.
LeFebvreL. E. (2018). Swiping me off my feet: Explicating relationship initiation on Tinder. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 1205–1229.
25.
LundyB. L.DrouinM. (2016). From social anxiety to interpersonal connectedness: Relationship building within face-to-face, phone and instant messaging mediums. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 271–277.
26.
MallenM. J.DayS. X.GreenM. A. (2003). Online versus face-to-face conversations: An examination of relational and discourse variables. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 40, 155–163.
27.
McKennaK. Y. A.GreenA. S.GleasonM. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the internet: What’s the big attraction?Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9–31.
28.
Mendoza-DentonR.Page-GouldE. (2008). Can cross-group friendships influence minority students’ well-being at historically White universities?Psychological Science, 19, 933–939.
29.
MontoyaR. M.InskoC. A. (2008). Toward a more complete understanding of the reciprocity of liking effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 477–498.
30.
MontoyaR. M.HortonR. S. (2014). A two-dimensional model for the study of interpersonal attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 59–86.
31.
MontoyaR. M.KershawC.ProsserJ. L. (2018). A meta-analytic investigation of the relation between interpersonal attraction and enacted behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 673–709.
32.
OkdieB. M.GuadagnoR. E.BernieriF. J.GeersA. L.Mclarney-VesotskiA. R. (2011). Getting to know you: Face-to-face versus online interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 153–159.
33.
Page-GouldE.Mendoza-DentonR.TroppL. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1080–1094.
34.
PattersonM. L. (1990). Functions of non-verbal behavior in social interaction. In GilesH.RobinsonW. P. (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 101–120). John Wiley & Sons.
35.
RamirezA.BurgoonJ. K. (2004). The effect of interactivity on initial interactions: The influence of information valence and modality and information richness on computer-mediated interaction. Communication Monographs, 71, 422–447.
36.
ReisH. T.ClarkM. S. (2013). Responsiveness. In SimpsonJ. A.CampbellL. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 400–423). Oxford University Press.
37.
ReisH. T.ClarkM. S.HolmesJ. G. (2004). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. In AronA.MashekD. J. (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 211–236). Psychology Press.
38.
ReisH. T.ManiaciM. R.CaprarielloP. A.EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557–570.
39.
ReisH. T.O’KeefeS. D.LaneR. D. (2017). Fun is more fun when others are involved. Journal of Positive Psychology, 12, 547–557.
40.
RodriguesD.LopesD.AlexopoulosT.GoldenbergL. (2017). A new look at online attraction: Unilateral initial attraction and the pivotal role of perceived similarity. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 16–25.
41.
SedikidesC.CampbellW. K.ReederG. D.ElliotA. J. (1999). The relationship closeness induction task. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 23, 1–4.
42.
SlatcherR. B. (2010). When Harry and Sally met Dick and Jane: Creating closeness between couples. Personal Relationships, 17, 279–297.
43.
SprecherS. (2014). Initial interactions online-text, online-audio, online-video, or face-to-face: Effects of modality on liking, closeness, and other interpersonal outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 190–197.
44.
SprecherS. (2020). Creating closeness and interdependence: Results of laboratory-based studies involving getting-acquainted dyads. In VanderdriftL.AgnewC.ArriagaX. (Eds.), Interdependence, interaction, and relationships (pp. 343–367). Cambridge Publishers.
45.
SprecherS.HamptonA. J. (2017). Liking and other reactions after a get-acquainted interaction: A comparison of continuous face-to-face interaction versus interaction that progresses from text messages to face-to-face. Communication Quarterly, 65, 333–353.
46.
SprecherS.TregerS. (2015). The benefits of turn-taking reciprocal self-disclosure in get-acquainted interactions. Personal Relationships, 22, 460–475.
47.
SprecherS.TregerS.WondraJ. D. (2013). Effects of self-disclosure role on liking, closeness, and other impressions in get-acquainted interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 497–514.
48.
SunnafrankM.RamirezA.Jr. (2004). At first sight: Persistent relational effects of get-acquainted conversations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 361–379.
49.
TidwellL. C.WaltherJ. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317–348.
50.
TregerS.SprecherS.ErberR. (2013). Laughing and liking: Exploring the interpersonal effects of humor use in initial social interactions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 532–543.
51.
VacharkulksemsukT.FredricksonB. L. (2012). Strangers in sync: Achieving embodied rapport through shared movements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 399–402.
52.
WaltherJ. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 443–479). SAGE.
53.
WaltherJ. B.KashianN.JangJ. W.ShinS. Y. (2016). Overattribution of liking in computer-mediated communication: Partners infer the results of their own influence as their partners’ affection. Communication Research, 43, 372–390.
54.
YangC. C.BrownB. B.BraunM. T. (2014). From Facebook to cell calls: Layers of electronic intimacy in college students’ interpersonal relationships. New Media & Society, 16, 5–23.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
