Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
1961, Vol. 62, No. 3, 713-715
INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION AND ATTITUDE SIMILARITY1
DONN BYRNE2
University of Texas
N investigating the direction and the strength of
I the' affect engendered between the two partici-
pants in a dyad, we may arrange the expressed
feelings of each individual along a continuum
ranging from strongly positive to strongly negative.
The accurate prediction of interpersonal attraction
and repulsion in such relationships will undoubt-
edly require that we secure knowledge about
several classes of independent variables.
Probably the most obvious and also best docu-
mented variable is that of propinquity. Studies in
a wide variety of settings have shown that physical
and functional distance influence interaction and
interpersonal attraction (Byrne, in press). Once the
environmental situation permits or encourages
interaction, affiliation need should be helpful in
predicting individual differences in inteipersonal
behavior (Atkinson, Heyns, & Veroff, 19S4;
Schachter, 1959), A third class of variables con-
sists of the overt stimulus properties of each indi-
vidual to which other individuals would be ex-
pected to respond on the basis of generalization
from previous interpersonal interactions.
Once interaction has begun, reciprocal reward
and punishment is proposed as the crucial deter-
mining factor. It has been suggested (Newcomb,
1956) that attraction between persons is a function
of the extent to which reciprocal rewards are
present in their interaction; perhaps dislike is a
function of reciprocal punishments. A special sub-
class of this variable would be perceived similarity
and dissimilarity of the attitudes of two individ-
uals. It can be assumed that persons in our culture
have well established learned drives to be logical
and to make a correct report of the environment.
Those who seem deficient in this respect are
generally categorized as being uninformed, of low
intelligence, immoral, and/or as being out of
contact with reality. It is primarily through con-
sensual validation that we determine whether we
or anyone else is logical or correct in interpreting
environmental events. Hence, any time that
another person offers us validation by indicating
that his percepts and concepts are congruent with
ours, it constitutes a rewarding interaction and,
1
A portion of this paper was read at the meetings
of the Southwestern Psychological Association, Galves-
ton, 1960.
This investigation was supported in part by a re-
search grant (EF-140) from the University of Texas
Research Institute.
2
From the Laboratory for Personality Research.
713
hence, one element in forming a positive relation-
ship. Any time that another person indicates dis-
similarity between our two notions, it constitutes
a punishing interaction and thus one element in
forming a negative relationship. Disagreement
raises the unpleasant possibility that we are to
some degree stupid, uninformed, immoral, or
insane. An alternative possibility is that it is the
other person who is deficient in one or more of these
characteristics. Probably other variables, such as
the importance of the issue to each individual,
contribute to the effect.
A number of studies have found greater simi-
larity among friends than among nonfriends with
respect to a variety of issues (Bonney, 1946;
Loomis, 1946; Newcomb, 1956; Precker, 1952;
Richardson, 1940; Winslow, 1937). A few studies
of a more experimental nature also support the
notion of a relationship between attitude similarity
and interpersonal attraction (Jones & Daugherty,
1959; Smith, 1957).
In order to test the proposition that the effect
of attitude similarity is a causative one and to test
some implications arising from the preceding
speculations about the reason for the effect, it
was hypothesized that (a) a stranger who is known
to have attitudes similar to those of the subject is
better liked than a stranger with attitudes dis-
similar to those of the subject, (ft) a stranger who
is known to have attitudes similar to those of the
subject is judged to be more intelligent, better
informed, more moral, and better adjusted than a
stranger with attitudes dissimilar to those of the
subject, and (c) a stranger who is known to have
similar attitudes on issues important to the subject
and dissimilar attitudes on unimportant issues is
better liked and is evaluated more positively on
the other four variables than a stranger for whom
the reverse is true.
METHOD
Attitude measure.3 On the basis of a pilot study, 2C
issues were selected for inclusion in an attitude and
3
The attitude measure, response frequencies, and
the rating scales for interpersonal attraction and evalu-
ation have been deposited with the American Documen-
tation Institute. Order Document No. 6770 from ADI
Auxiliary Publications Project, Photoduplication Serv-
ice, Library of Congress; Washington 25, D. C., re-
mitting in advance $1.75 for microfilm or $2.50 for
photocopies. Make checks payable to: Chief, Photo-
duplication Service, Library of Congress.
714 CRITIQUE AND NOTES

opinion scale. Each issue was presented in a seven-
point scale. The issues ranged from those thought to be
extremely important by the pilot subjects (e.g., inte-
gration, God, premarital sex relations) to those con-
sidered to be of minor importance (e.g., western movies
and television programs, classical music, politics).
Procedure. The attitude scale was administered to
64 students (36 male, 28 female) enrolled in an intro-
ductory psychology course at the University of Texas.
Response heterogeneity differed from item to item, but
there was moderately wide diversity of opinion among
the 64 subjects. After filling out the attitude scale, the
subjects were asked to indicate which they believed to
be the 13 most important and 13 least important issues.
Two weeks later they were falsely informed that
the attitude scale had been given as part of a study in
interpersonal prediction. They were told that individ-
uals in another class had been given the same scale
that they took, students in the two classes were matched
on the basis of sex, and they were to be given each
other's tests (name removed) in order to determine how
much they could learn about one another from this
information alone.
Actually the questionnaire they received at this
time was a fake one made up by the experimenter. The
subjects had been randomly divided into four groups;
one group received attitude scales filled out exactly the
same as theirs had been, one received scales with ex-
actly opposite views expressed, one received scales
with similar opinions on the most important issues and
dissimilar on the least important, and the fourth re-
ceived scales with similar opinions on the least important
issues and dissimilar opinions on the most important.
The four groups of subjects did not differ significantly
in their initial responses to any of the 26 issues.
Interpersonal attraction and evaluation. A rating
scale was used as the measure of interpersonal attrac-
tion and evaluation with each dependent variable rep-
resented in a seven-point scale. As a measure of inter-
personal attraction, subjects were asked to indicate
how well they felt they would like this person and
whether they believed they would enjoy working with
him (or her) as a partner in an experiment. Four scales
dealt with evaluation; the subjects were asked for their
judgments as to the other student's intelligence, knowl-
edge of current events, morality, and adjustment.
RESULTS
First Hypothesis. Table 1 shows the comparisons
of the two groups on each of the dependent varia-
bles. The first hypothesis was overwhelmingly
confirmed for each of the two attraction scales. The
group with attitude scales filled out the same as
their own (SA) indicated significantly more posi-
tive feelings toward the "stranger" than did the
group which received scales indicating dissimilar
attitudes (DA). Each difference was significant at
less than the .001 level.
Second Hypothesis. As is indicated in Table 1,
the second hypothesis was also confirmed. The SA
group rated the "stranger" significantly higher
than did the DA group on intelligence, knowledge
of current events, morality, and adjustment.
Again, each difference reached a level of signifi-
cance beyond the .001 level.
Third Hypothesis. The third hypothesis, con-
cerning the influence of important vs. unimportant

TABLE 1
COMPARISON or THE SIMILAR ATTITUDE (SA) AND DISSIMILAR ATTITUDE (DA) GROUPS
ON INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION AND EVALUATION
SA DA
(2V =• 17) (2V = 17) D < df t
M SD M SD

Personal Feelings 6.53 .50 1.76 .73 4.77 21.46 32 <.001

Desirability as Work Partner 6.47 .50 2.65 1.88 3.82 7.88 32 <.001
Intelligence 5.65 .68 3.06 .87 2.59 9.37 32 <.001
Knowledge of Current Events 4.65 1.14 2.65 .91 2.00 5.51 32 <.001
Morality 5.76 .73 3.47 2.09 2.29 4.14 32 <.001
Adjustment 6.00 .84 2.71 1.13 3.29 9.36 32 <.001

TABLE 2
COMPARISON or THE SIMILAR ON IMPORTANT ATTITUDES (SIA) AND SIMILAR ON UNIMPORTANT
ATTITUDES (SUA.) GROUPS ON INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION AND EVALUATION
SIA SUA
(2V = 15) (2V = IS) D t df P
HT SD M SD

Personal Feelings 4.20 1. 51 2.60 1.,20 1.60 3,.10 28 <.01

Desirability as Work Partner 4.27 1.,44 3.33 1..40 .94 1.76 28 ns
Intelligence 4.13 ,62 3.73 1..34 .40 1.01 28 ns
Knowledge of Current Events 3.60 .95 3.53 .96 .07 .19 28 ns
Morality 5.33 l'.25 3.33 1.66 2.00 3 .60 28 <.01
Adjustment 4.07 1.57 2.93 1.18 1.14 2 .17 28 <.05
 CRITIQUE AND NOTES
issues, was only partially confirmed. As is shown
in Table 2, the Similar on Important Attitudes
Group (SIA) rated the "stranger" significantly
more positively than did the Similar on Unim-
portant Attitudes Group (SUA) with respect to
their personal feelings about him, his morality, and
his adjustment. On the other three variables, the
two groups did not differ.
DISCUSSION
The experimental confirmation of the first two
hypotheses is very encouraging for further research
designed to investigate other aspects of the rela-
tionship between interpersonal attraction and
attitude similarity. It should be possible now to
study the effect of attitude differences less extreme
than those in the present study and to combine
this variable with the others that influence inter-
personal attraction in order to determine interac-
tion effects.
Because of the fact that this group of subjects
showed a degree of homogeneity of opinion on
some of the attitude items, a possible alternative
interpretation is that they were responding nega-
tively to unusual and deviant beliefs rather than
to disagreement per se. On 19 of the 26 issues it was
possible for a subject to fall in the deviant one
fourth of the group by expressing a positive or a
negative opinion. The range among the subjects
was from no deviant attitudes to nine; they were
divided into high and low subgroups on the basis
of this score. Since these "conforming" and "devi-
ant" subgroups did not differ from one another in
responding to strangers with similar vs. different
attitudes, there is no evidence to support this
other interpretation of the results.
The partial failure of the third hypothesis led
to a comparison of all four groups on each of the
dependent variables. The results suggest that the
715
Personal Feelings scale is the most sensitive meas-
ure of interpersonal attraction. With the other five
interpersonal judgment scales, additional factors
apparently contribute to the variance.
REFERENCES
ATKINSON, J. W., HEYNS, R. W., & VEROEF, J. The
effect of experimental arousal of the affiliation
motive on thematic apperception. /. abnorm. soc.
Psychol., 1954, 49, 405-410.
BONNEV, M. E. A sociometric study of the relationship
of some factors to mutual friendships on the ele-
mentary, secondary, and college levels. Sociom-
etry, 1946, 9, 21-47.
BYRNE, D. The influence of propinquity and opportuni-
ties for interaction on classroom relationships.
Hum. Relat., in press.
JONES, E. E., & DATJGHERTY, B. N. Political orienta-
tion and the perceptual effects of an anticipated
interaction. /. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1959, 69,
340-349.
LOOMIS, C. P. Political and occupational cleavages in
a Hanoverian village, Germany: A sociometric
study. Sociometry, 1946, 9, 316-333.
NEWCOMB, T. M. The prediction of interpersonal at-
traction. Amer. Psychologist, 1956, 11, 575-586.
PRECKER, J. A. Similarity of valuings as a factor in
selection. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1952, 47, 406-
414.
RICHARDSON, HELEN M. Community of values as a
factor in friendships of college and adult women.
/. soc. Psychol., 1940,11, 303-312.
SCHACHTER, S. The psychology of affiliation. Stanford:
Stanford Um'ver. Press, 1959.
SMITH, A. J. Similarity of values and its relation to
acceptance and the projection of similarity. /,
Psychol., 1957, 43, 251-260.
WINSLOW, C. N. A study of the extent of agreement,
between friends' opinions and their ability to esti-
mate the opinions of each other. J. soc. Psychol.,
1937, 8, 433-442.
(Received May 25, 1960)