Although it is generally acknowledged that psychological similarity influences the development of same-sex friendship, empirical studies often fail to delineate the differential impact of attitude, personality, value, construct and structural similarity as predictors of attraction. The present naturalistic study examines the discriminability of these similarity subtypes, and notes the impact of each upon friendship formation over 8 weeks of assigned dyadic interaction. Factor analyses of the similarity subtypes reflected the emergent nature of relationship development, with greater subtype differentiation occurring over time. Regression analyses suggested that similarity subtypes may be hierarchically related, with some being more accessible than others for purposes of social comparison. More specifically, attitude similarity was a significant predictor of initial attraction across pairs, whereas only personality and cognitive-structural similarity predicted later attraction. With regard to overall relationship success, analyses of variance indicated that attitudinally similar dyads moved in the direction of greater attraction across time, whereas attitudinally dissimilar dyads tended to deteriorate in their level of mutual attraction. Results are broadly consistent with a filtering model of relationship development, which suggests a movement from relatively more superficial to relatively deeper levels of social comparison over the course of acquaintance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams-Webber, J.R. (1979) Personal Construct Theory: Concepts and Applications. New York: Wiley.
2.
Ajzen, I. (1974) `Effects of Information on Interpersonal Attraction: Similarity Versus Affective Value', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology29: 374-380.
3.
Aron, A. & Aron, E.N. (1986) Love and the Expansion of Self. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
4.
Attneave, F. (1950) `Dimensions of Similarity', American Journal of Psychology63: 516-556.
5.
Bannister, D. & Mair, M. (1968) Evaluation of Personal Constructs. London: Academic Press.
6.
Baron, R.A. & Byrne, D. (1981) Social Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction. (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
7.
Berg, J.H. (1984) `Development of Friendship between Roommates', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology46: 346-356.
8.
Berger, C.R. & Calabrese, R.J. (1975) `Some Explorations in Initial Interaction and Beyond: Toward a Developmental Theory of Interpersonal Communication', Human Communication Research2: 99-112.
9.
Berscheid, E. (1985) `Interpersonal Attraction', in G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 413-484. New York: Random House.
10.
Blankenship, V. , Hnat, S.M., Hess, T.G. & Brown, D.R. (1984) `Reciprocal Interaction and Similarity of Personality Attributes', Journal of Social and Personal Relationships1: 415-432.
11.
Bonney, M.E. (1946) `A Sociometric Study of the Relationship of Some Factors to Mutual Friendship in the Elementary, Secondary and College Levels', Sociometry9: 21-47.
12.
Broome, B.J. (1983) `The Attraction Paradigm Revisited: Responses to Dissimilar Others', Human Communication Research10: 137-151.
13.
Byrne, D. (1971) The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
14.
Cattell, R.B. & Eber, H.W. (1966) The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
15.
Center for the Study of Higher Education (1962) Omnibus Personality Inventory: Research Manual. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
Duck, S.W. (1973) Personal Relationships and Personal Constructs: A Study of Friendship Formation. Chichester: Wiley.
17.
Duck, S.W. (1977a) The Study of Acquaintance. Farnborough: Gower Press.
18.
Duck, S.W. (1977b) `Inquiry, Hypothesis and the Quest for Validation', in S.W. Duck (ed.) Theory and Practice in Interpersonal Attraction. New York: Academic Press.
19.
Duck, S.W. & Craig, G. (1978) `Personality Similarity and the Development of Friendship: A Longitudinal Study', British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology17: 237-242.
20.
Duck, S.W. & Sants, H.K.A. (1983) `On the Origin of the Specious: Are Personal Relationships Really Interpersonal States?', Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology1: 27-41.
21.
Duck, S.W. & Spencer, C. (1972) `Personal Constructs and Friendship Formation', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology23: 40-45.
22.
Hoffman, L.R. & Maier, N.R.F. (1966) `An Experimental Reexamination of the Similarity-attraction Hypothesis', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology3: 145-152.
23.
Kandel, D.B. (1978) `Similarity in Real-life Adolescent Friendship Pairs', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology36: 306-312.
24.
Kelly, G.A. (1955) A Theory of Personality: The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.
25.
Latancc B. & Bidwell, L.D. (1977) `Sex and Affiliation in College Cafeterias', Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin3: 571-574.
26.
Lea, M. & Duck, S.W. (1982) `A Model for the Role of Similarity of Values in Friendship Development', British Journal of Social Psychology21: 301-310.
27.
McCarthy, B. & Duck, S.W. (1976) `Friendship Duration and Responses to Attitudinal Agreement-disagreement', British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology15: 377-386.
28.
Miller, G. (1981) Simultaneous Statistical Inference. New York: Springer-Verlag.
29.
Neimeyer, G.J. (1984) `Cognitive Complexity and Marital Satisfaction', Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology2: 258-263.
30.
Neimeyer, G.J. & Neimeyer, R.A. (1981) `Personal Construct Perspectives on Cognitive Assessment', in T. Merluzzi, C. Glass & M. Genest (eds) Cognitive Assessment. New York: Guilford.
31.
Neimeyer, G.J. & Neimeyer, R.A. (1985) `Relational Trajectories: A Personal Construct Contribution', Journal of Social and Personal Relationships2: 325-349.
32.
Neimeyer, G.J. & Neimeyer, R.A. (1986) `Personal Constructs in Relationship Deterioration: A Longitudinal Study', Social Behavior and Personality14: 253-257.
33.
Neimeyer, R.A. & Neimeyer, G.J. (1983) `Structural Similarity in the Acquaintance Process', Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology1: 146-154.
34.
Newcomb, T.M. (1961) The Acquaintance Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
35.
Newcomb, T.M. (1981) `Heiderian Balance as a Group Phenomenon', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40: 862-867.
36.
Schellenberg, J.A. (1957) `Social Choice and Similarity of Personal Values', Sociology and Social Research41: 270-273.
37.
Schuster, E. & Elderton, E.M. (1906) `The Inheritance of Psychical Characters'. Biometrika5: 460-469.
38.
Spranger, E. (1928) Types of Men (P.J. Pigors, Trans.). New York: Stechert-Hafner.
39.
Stephen, T.D. & Markman, H.J. (1983) `Assessing the Development of Relationships', Family Process22: 15-25.
40.
Sunnafrank, M.J. & Miller, G.R. (1981) `The Role of Initial Conversations in Determining Attraction to Similar and Dissimilar Strangers', Human Communication Research8: 16-25.
41.
Werner, C. & Parmelee, P. (1979) `Similarity of Activity Preferences Among Friends: Those Who Play Together Stay Together', Social Psychology Quarterly42: 62-66.
42.
Wetzel, C.G. , Schwartz, D. & Vase, E.S. (1979) `Roommate Compatibility: Is There an Ideal Relationship?'Journal of Applied Social Psychology9: 432-445.
43.
Wheeler, L. & Nezlek, J. (1977) `Sex Differences in Social Participation', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology35: 742-754.
44.
Wright, P.H. (1968) `Need Similarity, Need Complementarity and the Place of Personality in Interpersonal Attraction', Journal of Experimental Research in Personality3: 126-135.
45.
Wright, P.H. (1985) `The Acquaintance Description Form', in S.W. Duck & D. Perlman (eds) Understanding Personal Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
