When Does Familiarity Promote Versus Undermine Interpersonal

PPSXXX10.1177/1745691614561682Finkel et al.Familiarity and Interpersonal Attraction 561682research-article2014 Perspectives on Psychological Science 2015, Vol. 10(1) 3 –19 When Does Familiarity Promote Versus © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Undermine Interpersonal Attraction? DOI: 10.1177/1745691614561682 A Proposed Integrative Model From pps.sagepub.com Erstwhile Adversaries Eli J. Finkel1, Michael I. Norton2, Harry T. Reis3, Dan Ariely4, Peter A. Caprariello5, Paul W. Eastwick6, Jeana H. Frost7, and Michael R. Maniaci8 1Northwestern University; 2Harvard Business School; 3University of Rochester; 4Duke University; 5Stony Brook University; 6University of Texas at Austin; 7Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; and 8Florida Atlantic University Abstract This article began as an adversarial collaboration between two groups of researchers with competing views on a longstanding question: Does familiarity promote or undermine interpersonal attraction? As we explored our respective positions, it became clear that the limitations of our conceptualizations of the familiarity–attraction link, as well as the limitations of prior research, were masking a set of higher order principles capable of integrating these diverse conceptualizations. This realization led us to adopt a broader perspective, which focuses on three distinct relationship stages—awareness, surface contact, and mutuality—and suggests that the influence of familiarity on attraction depends on both the nature and the stage of the relationship between perceivers and targets. This article introduces the framework that emerged from our discussions and suggests directions for research to investigate its validity. Keywords familiarity, attraction, relationship stage model, adversarial collaboration This article began as an adversarial collaboration between proposing that some of the Norton group’s results were the Norton group (Michael Norton, Jeana Frost, and Dan due to use of artificial procedures that failed to capture Ariely) and the Reis group (Harry Reis, Michael Maniaci, the essence of social interaction (Reis, Maniaci, Peter Caprariello, Paul Eastwick, and Eli Finkel) on Caprariello, Eastwick, & Finkel, 2011a). The Norton group whether familiarity promotes versus undermines inter- countered with a commentary that raised serious con- personal attraction. We planned to establish where we cerns about the Reis group’s findings (Norton, Frost, & agreed and where we disagreed. Regarding the latter, we Ariely, 2011), to which the Reis group responded by rais- hoped to offer suggestions for future research that could ing serious concerns about the Norton group’s analysis help to determine whether, or the circumstances under (Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, & Finkel, 2011b). which, each position was correct. In short, we had geared All four of these articles appeared in a high-profile jour- up for a scholarly ultimate-fighting-style battle. But a nal (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology), and funny thing happened on the way to the octagon: We the disagreement culminated in a public debate at a ended up agreeing on most of the major issues, and recent meeting of the Society of Experimental Social working together led us to develop a new, integrative Psychology. model of the familiarity–attraction link. This outcome was far from preordained. The Norton group had published research suggesting that the near- Corresponding Author: Eli J. Finkel, Department of Psychology and Kellogg School of consensus positing that familiarity increases interpersonal Management, Northwestern University, 2029 Sheridan Rd., #102, attraction was wrong (Norton, Frost, & Ariely, 2007), Evanston, IL 60208 whereas the Reis group had published research E-mail: [email protected] Downloaded from pps.sagepub.com by Michael Norton on January 19, 2015 4 Finkel et al. The idea for this article sprang from the value we saw excludes the qualitative nature of the information pro- in prior adversarial collaborations (e.g., Kahneman & vided during that exposure. The empirical literature Klein, 2009). Such collaborations can be useful in clarify- encompasses a broad range of conceptualizations and ing the positions of competing camps, identifying areas operationalizations of familiarity. For example, familiarity of agreement and disagreement in a way that highlights has been operationalized in terms of the number of times the most productive paths for research that advances the a target’s face is viewed during a single experimental ses- state of knowledge. In discussing the framework for this sion (or “mere exposure”; Zajonc, 1968), the number of piece, our initial plan of having each group advocate for traits learned about an unknown target (Norton et al., its original position was superseded by a collaborative 2007), the number of daily instant-messaging chats with process oriented toward investigating how the two an unknown target (Reis et al., 2011a), the duration of groups’ findings could both be accurate. In doing so, we time living with a randomly assigned roommate (Norton discovered major limitations of the existing literature et al., 2011), and even the number of days that hostages (including our own contributions) that had obstructed spend with their captors before developing “Stockholm the development of a coherent answer to the question of Syndrome” (Bejerot, 1974). It has also been operational- whether, or when, familiarity promotes versus under- ized in terms of physical proximity (e.g., the physical mines attraction. In particular, conceptualizations and proximity of one’s home to the home of a target; Festinger, operationalizations of both familiarity and attraction have Schachter, & Back, 1950), although the conceptual analy- varied tremendously from one investigation to the next, sis underlying proximity measures is that physical prox- as have the research methods employed to investigate imity yields a larger amount of exposure. the familiarity–attraction link. Attraction refers to valenced affective, cognitive, or Although methodological diversity is not inherently behavioral tendencies toward the target person. The range troubling, it has created problems in the familiarity– of operationalizations of this construct is vast, although it attraction literature because its impact has gone largely is typically operationalized with self-report measures of undetected. That is, scholars rarely discuss methodologi- constructs such as liking, romantic attraction, or relation- cal variation in characterizing the literature, and they ship satisfaction. On occasion, it is operationalized in almost never seek to develop models that can integrate terms of implicit or behavioral measures, such as behav- findings across such variation. Consequently, the literature ioral affiliation or romantic approach behaviors. lacks a broad framework for delineating the intrapersonal and interpersonal processes afforded by distinct opera- The Relationship Stage Model of the tionalizations and research paradigms. Without such mod- Familiarity–Attraction Link els, a sophisticated—or even adequate— analysis of the familiarity–attraction link is unlikely to emerge. Our model begins with the observation that familiarity is Once the two groups came to appreciate the limita- likely to influence attraction in different ways as a func- tions of the existing literature, we jettisoned the intended tion of the stage of the relationship between the individ- adversarial nature of our collaboration in favor of a broad ual and the target (awareness, surface contact, or (albeit not comprehensive) review and preliminary inte- mutuality), and, more crucially, that the psychological gration of the research relevant to the familiarity–attrac- processes triggered by familiarity often differ depending tion link. We generally limit our analysis to social upon the nature of this relationship. For example, the measures of attraction—omitting, for example, the litera- increase in familiarity between two strangers in a danger- tures investigating liking for music (e.g., Szpunar, ous context, operationalized as the number of conversa- Schellenberg, & Pliner, 2004), art (Cutting, 2003), and tions they have, might promote attraction by reducing abstract shapes (De Vries, Holland, Chenier, Starr, & fear and uncertainty. In contrast, the increase in familiar- Winkielman, 2010)—but we otherwise adopt an expan- ity with one’s spouse over time, operationalized in terms sive focus. We seek to provide an initial framework of the number of years of marriage, is unlikely to have toward the development of a broad model of the famil- fear-reducing properties. iarity–attraction link, one that encompasses diverse oper- Building on Levinger and Snoek’s (1972) model, we ationalizations of familiarity and attraction and that can posit three distinct stages (or levels) of relatedness: foster a new generation of research. awareness, surface contact, and mutuality. These three stages allow us to impose structure on the diverse empiri- Definitions cal paradigms scholars have used to investigate the familiarity–attraction link. At the awareness stage, the Before introducing this model, we first define our two individual (“A”) is cognizant of the target (“B”), but the central constructs. Familiarity refers to an individual’s two have never interacted, and the probability of them quantitative level of exposure to the target person; it interacting in the future is low or uncertain. At the Downloaded

Load more