Reciprocity of Liking —1333

See also Communal Relationships; Equity Theory; addition, people who like us often want to con- Evolutionary Psychology and Human Relationships; tinue interacting with us in the future. Therefore, Exchange Orientation; Norms About Relationships; they may reward us by providing costly support in Self-Disclosure times of need, assuming that we ourselves might later reciprocate the support. In this sense, liking and helping are linked, and social exchange theo- Further Readings rists suggest that, because individuals tend to Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction reciprocate helping behaviors, this tendency should in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of extend to the reciprocation of other benefits such Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24. as liking. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A Balance theory, which emphasizes people’s preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, desire to maintain a cognitively consistent state, 25, 161–178. also predicts the emergence of reciprocity, at least Haig, D. (2003). On intrapersonal reciprocity. Evolution for people who like themselves. That is, cognitive and Human Behavior, 24, 418–425. consistency is achieved when self-likers like those Trivers, R. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. who like them. Intriguingly, cognitive consistency Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57. is also achieved when self-dislikers like people who Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New dislike them. Reciprocal liking should therefore directions in equity research. Journal of Personality be less pronounced for individuals with low self- and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176. esteem, and, in fact, some evidence for this predic- tion has been found among married couples. Finally, when someone likes us, it signals his or Re c i p r o c i t y o f Li k i n g her willingness to provide care and support; Attachment Theory predicts that we will like such supportive individuals and provide care and sup- Reciprocity is a central feature of human relation- port for them in turn. There is no shortage of theo- ships. The ethic of reciprocity is espoused by retical explanations for the existence of reciprocity nearly every major religion, and human culture of liking. would grind to a halt if people did not routinely exchange goods, services, and other benefits with one another. Reciprocity of liking (also called Experimental Evidence reciprocity of attraction or reciprocal liking) is a particular type of reciprocity that refers to the Researchers have tackled two central empirical tendency for people to like others who express lik- questions regarding reciprocity of liking. The first ing for them. Reciprocity of liking is a key prin- question is causal: If A expresses liking for B, does ciple of attraction; at times, it has even been called this cause B’s liking for A to increase? Psychologists a cultural truism. This entry reviews research and first derived support for this prediction almost theory about reciprocity of liking. half a century ago. In an initial study, participants were led to believe in advance of a group discus- Theoretical Explanations sion that certain members of the group (chosen at random by the experimenter) would probably like Many major social-psychological theories predict them. After the discussion, participants expressed the emergence of reciprocity of liking. When our more liking for the group members who they interaction partners like us, they treat us in ways believed liked them. Other research found evi- that maximize our rewards and minimize our dence for this causal pathway using the bogus costs. Interdependence Theory predicts that we stranger paradigm, in which participants did not will like people with whom we have such gratify- meet face to face, but instead viewed question- ing interactions. Indeed, the simple fact that naire responses from another “participant.” another person likes the self is rewarding because Participants’ liking for such an unknown stranger it validates that the self has likable qualities. In correlates positively with the amount of liking the 1334 Reciprocity of Liking stranger expresses for the participant on the ques- evidence that participants overwhelmingly assume tionnaire. In addition, the more attractive the reciprocity. That is, people tend to believe on aver- stranger is, the greater the impact that stranger’s age that their liking for someone is reciprocated, liking has on participants’ reciprocated desire. and many studies that professed to offer evidence That is, when we find out that an attractive per- for reciprocal liking used designs that offered son likes us, we are especially likely to reciprocate strong evidence for assumed reciprocity, but little that liking. Finally, there is also evidence that lik- evidence for actual reciprocity of liking. ers (i.e., people who like others, in general) are David Kenny, in developing the social relations themselves well liked by participants. In studies in model in the early 1980s, offered an explanation which targets express liking for many other indi- for the low naturally occurring reciprocity correla- viduals (e.g., politicians, cafeteria workers), par- tions. He noted that a simple correlation between ticipants tend to like those targets more than A’s liking for B and B’s liking for A actually con- targets who express liking for few other individu- founds two different kinds of reciprocity. The first als. In general, the experimental data support the is called generalized reciprocity: If A tends to like prediction that liking causes liking: We do indeed everyone on average, is A well-liked in return? In like people more when we learn or infer that they other words, there are individual differences in the might like us. tendency to like and to be liked, and these indi- In romantic contexts, the possibility of not vidual differences could be correlated and would being liked is often especially salient. People are therefore influence a simple reciprocity correlation. loath to risk romantic rejection, and experimental The second is called dyadic reciprocity: If A research has found that people are reluctant to uniquely likes B (above and beyond A’s tendency to initiate romantic overtures without some indica- like everyone and B’s tendency to be liked by every- tion that the desired other might like them in one), does B uniquely like A? When these two types return. For example, some evidence suggests that a of reciprocity are examined separately, the data small proportion of men (3 percent) would be will- typically reveal rather weak generalized reciprocity ing to ask a woman who they desired out on a date correlations, but strong dyadic reciprocity correla- if she had not indicated any interest in him. In a tions. That is, there is only a weak tendency for classic study conducted by Ted Huston, men who likers to be well-liked (which contrasts somewhat did not know for sure that an attractive woman with the experimental evidence described earlier), would say “yes” to a date with him were less will- but people’s unique liking for each other is likely to ing to risk asking her out (compared with men be reciprocated. Furthermore, it is the dyadic reci- who were assured acceptance). For many people, procity correlation in particular that increases with some evidence of reciprocal liking is a critical pre- the length of the relationship. When researchers cursor to initiating any overt romantic gesture. calculated the simple correlation between partici- pants’ liking for each other, this procedure inadver- tently combined a strong dyadic correlation with a Reciprocal Liking in Natural Social Contexts weak generalized correlation. Once individual dif- ferences in people’s tendency to like and be liked There is a second empirical question regarding are separated from the unique liking that people reciprocity of liking: Do the people we like in the experience for one another, we do find evidence for course of our everyday lives tend to like us as a healthy amount of (dyadic) reciprocity in people’s well? As it happens, many early studies found that naturally occurring relationships. such reciprocity correlations (A’s liking for B cor- To separate generalized from dyadic reciprocity related with B’s liking for A) were surprisingly using the Social Relations Model, researchers must low, often near zero. Reciprocity correlations did employ an intensive design in which participants appear to be larger for participants who had report their liking for many other participants and known each another for a longer (compared with are reported on many times. Until recently, all such a shorter) period of time, but even in these cases, studies had examined platonic liking; there were the correlations were small to moderate in magni- no data on naturally occurring reciprocity of tude. Adding to the confusion was the abundant romantic liking. However, with the advent of Reciprocity of Liking —1335 speed dating and its emergence as a research reciprocal liking can fluctuate dramatically, even method, scholars could now use the Social Relations from one moment to the next, especially during the Model to examine romantic reciprocity. Speed dat- early stages of a potential romantic relationship. In ing employs a design in which romantically avail- other words, just minutes after a desired romantic able individuals meet one another on brief dates partner signals that he or she might like us (e.g., by and decide whom they would or would not be returning a phone call), the same desired partner interested in meeting again. One recent speed-dat- could then signal that he or she might not like us ing study found evidence for dyadic reciprocity: after all (e.g., by ending the conversation abruptly). Even after a brief 4-minute date, speed daters’ The other principles of attraction, such as physical unique romantic liking for one another tended to attractiveness or proximity, probably only rarely be reciprocated. Curiously, generalized reciprocity fluctuate to such a degree. in this study turned out to be negative, indicating Perhaps for this reason, people often exhibit an that participants who experienced strong romantic intense desire for reciprocal liking in developing liking for the other speed daters on average were romances. In her research on limerence (a term not well-liked. These data suggest that, within roughly synonymous with high levels of passion- the romantic domain, only selective liking is recip- ate love or infatuation), Dorothy Tennov deter- rocated, whereas unselective liking is actually not mined that a central part of the falling-in-love reciprocated. experience is the yearning for one’s affections to be Finally, there is also evidence that reciprocal lik- reciprocated. People who are infatuated with a ing stands out for participants in their memories of desired partner frequently engage in fantasies falling-in-love experiences. People often report that where the partner professes his or her love in they learned that another person romantically return. In fact, in many cases, sexual contact is not desired them shortly before developing affectionate the ultimate object of infatuated individuals’ feelings in return. In fact, reciprocal liking plays a desires; instead, they fantasize about the reciproca- more prominent role in people’s falling-in-love tion of affection that will alleviate any concerns memories than any single other variable, including that their love is unrequited and lead to an similarity and the presence of desired characteris- ­emotional union with the love object. The desire tics (e.g., good looks, appealing personality) in the for reciprocity can be a consuming experience for partner. Reciprocal liking also plays a prominent infatuated individuals because they may frequently role in participants’ memories of falling in friend- spend time replaying interactions with the desired ship, although it is typically more pronounced in partner in their minds, sifting for evidence of falling-in-love experiences. Athough romantic lik- reciprocation. After all, reciprocal liking brings ing may only be reciprocated when it is selective, as great rewards in this context, but because it can discussed earlier, it still seems to be a critical ingre- also prove ephemeral, it is frequently a source of dient in sparking many, if not most, romances. considerable rumination for infatuated individu- als. For infatuated individuals’ emotional euphoria to be achieved, the reciprocity needs to be exclu- Desire for Reciprocal Liking sive; that is, the infatuated individual also must find evidence that he or she is selectively desired by Reciprocal liking is one of the central principles of the love object. As reviewed previously, selectivity attraction, along with similarity, familiarity, prox- is a central component of reciprocal liking within imity, and physical attractiveness. (Of course, this ­­ the first few minutes of romantic encounters; its is not to say that reciprocity is unimportant as role may well intensify as an initial encounter ­relationships mature. As mentioned earlier, dyadic grows into a full-blown infatuation. reciprocal liking becomes stronger as relationship length increases, and couples that reciprocate nega- Paul W. Eastwick and Eli J. Finkel tive affect are more likely to experience relationship See also Bogus Stranger Paradigm; Infatuation; Initiation dissatisfaction and dissolution.) But in the domain of Relationships; Interpersonal Attraction; Love, of initial romantic attraction, reciprocal liking Unreciprocated; Reciprocity, Norm of; Social exhibits a curious feature: People’s perceptions of Relations Model; Speed Dating 1336 Rejection

Further Readings act in ways that will earn them social acceptance Aron, A., Dutton, D. G., Aron, E. N., & Iverson, A. and avoid rejection. Rejection thwarts the need to (1989). Experiences of falling in love. Journal of belong. As such, the consequences of rejection are Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 243–257. consistent, strong, and mostly negative. Backman, C. W., & Secord, P. F. (1959). The effect of liking on interpersonal attraction. Human Relations, Rejection Inside and 12, 379–384. Outside of the Laboratory Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2007). Selective versus unselective romantic desire: Rejection is a common experience. People experi- Not all reciprocity is created equal. Psychological ence divorce, romantic breakups, or show romantic Science, 18, 317–319. interest in another person only to have their roman- Huston, T. L. (1973). Ambiguity of acceptance, social tic advances rebuffed. Some people seek membership desirability, and dating choice. Journal of in college fraternities and sororities, only to be told Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 32–42. that they are not wanted. Children are left out of Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social games on the playground, or they are told that they relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press. cannot sit by a person on the school bus. Rejection Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. is a common theme in television and movies. Most New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. reality television shows involve some sort of rejec- Tennov, D. (1979). Love and limerence. New York: Stein tion. Some reality television shows involve contes- and Day. tants being voted off an island, whereas others involve contestants experiencing eviction from an apartment or house for various reasons. These examples provide at least some suggestion that rejec- e j e c t i o n R tion is a familiar experience for most people. Psychologists use a variety of methods to study Rejection refers to being dumped, left out, the effects of rejection. The methods psychologists snubbed, or otherwise made to feel excluded. use to understand rejection involve exposing peo- People feel rejected when they are made to feel ple to situations that are considerably milder than that they do not belong in a relationship or to a the types of rejection people experience outside the group. Rejection tends to have negative effects on laboratory (e.g., divorce, breakups), mostly because behaviors, thoughts, and emotions. When people it would be unethical to expose people to those who are rejected feel that they are able to connect types of events for the purpose of research. with others, the negative effects of rejection usu- Although laboratory manipulations often involve ally are eliminated. This entry discusses how vague or impersonal experiences of rejection, the rejection thwarts a fundamental need for relation- effects of these manipulations are quite strong. ships, summarizes different types of rejection Listed next are the five most common methods people experience inside and outside of the labo- psychologists use to study rejection. In each ratory, and examines the effects of rejection— method, some people experience a type of rejec- both positive and negative—on behavior, thoughts, tion, and their responses are compared with those and emotions. of people who do not experience rejection. The first method (“group rejection”) involves Rejection Thwarts a Fundamental Need some participants being told that no one in a group wanted to work with them, whereas others are told Most psychologists agree that people are moti- everyone wanted to work with them. In a second vated to have positive and durable relationships method (“lonely future”), some participants receive with other people. Roy Baumeister and Mark false feedback that they have a personality type in Leary refer to this motivation as a “need to which they can expect to end up alone later in life, belong” and suggest that it is among the strongest whereas others are told they can expect a future and most basic of all human needs. From this per- filled with social acceptance or negative events spective, people naturally try to think, feel, and unrelated to their social relationships. A third