Some effects of attitudinal similarity and exposure on attraction and aggression

Shuntich, Richard J.

doi:10.1016/0092-6566(76)90068-4

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Naturalistic data show that physical proximity and exposure are positively associated with the frequency of social interactions and friendship formations (Back et al, 2008;Latane´et al, 1995). The current study and others show that laboratory-based, mere-exposure manipulations also are associated with more positive evaluations of people (Bornstein, 1989;Bornstein et al, 1987;Claypool et al, 2007;Rhodes et al, 2005;Rhodes et al, 2001;Shuntich, 1976). There is ongoing debate, however, about the mechanism underlying this mere-exposure effect.…”

Section: Mere Exposure and Social Decision-making Modelssupporting

confidence: 51%

“…A common experimental method for creating visual familiarity is the mere-exposure procedure-repeated exposure to an image under passive observation conditions (Claypool, Hugenberg, Housley, & Mackie, 2007;Monahan, Murphy, & Zajonc, 2000;Zajonc, Wolosin, Wolosin, & Sherman, 1968). Generally, this mereexposure-based visual familiarity has been associated with more positive evaluations of objects and people (Bornstein, 1989;Claypool et al, 2007;Harrison, 1977;Kunst-Wilson & Zajonc, 1980), including more positive social evaluations (Bornstein, Leone, & Galley, 1987;Rhodes, Halberstadt, Jeffery, & Palermo, 2005;Rhodes, Halberstadt, & Brajkovich, 2001;Saegert, Swap, & Zajonc, 1973;Shuntich, 1976).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Alexithymia Tendencies and Mere Exposure Alter Social Approachability Judgments

Campbell

McKeen

2011

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People have a fundamental motivation for social connection and social engagement, but how do they decide whom to approach in ambiguous social situations? Subjective feelings often influence such decisions, but people vary in awareness of their feelings. We evaluated two opposing hypotheses based on visual familiarity effects and emotional awareness on social approachability judgments. These hypotheses differ in their interpretation of the familiarity or mere exposure effect with either an affective or cognitive interpretation. The responses of our 128-student sample supported the cognitive interpretation. Lower emotional awareness or higher alexithymia was associated with higher approachability judgments to familiarized faces and lower approachability judgments to novel faces. These findings were independent of the Big Five personality factors. The results indicate that individual differences in emotional awareness should be integrated into social decision-making models. The results also suggest that cognitive-perceptual alterations may underlie the poorer social outcomes associated with alexithymia.

show abstract

Section: Mere Exposure and Social Decision-making Modelssupporting

confidence: 51%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Alexithymia Tendencies and Mere Exposure Alter Social Approachability Judgments

Campbell

McKeen

2011

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On one hand, previous research has shown that downward comparison targets are perceived as more dissimilar than upward comparison targets (Huguet et al, 2009). On the other hand, previous research has shown that people are more aggressive against dissimilar others (e.g., Kaufmann, 1965; Shuntich, 1976). Hence, it could be that our participants aggressed more in the downward comparison condition because they felt more dissimilar with the comparison target.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Are People More Aggressive When They Are Worse Off or Better Off Than Others?

Michelet

Bushman

Subra

et al. 2012

Social Psychological and Personality Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Who is more likely to behave aggressively? Is it someone outperformed by others or is it someone who outperformed others? For safety reasons, it is important to know the answer to this question. In Studies 1 and 2, participants were told that they did worse or better than an ostensible partner on a first task. Then they aggressed against this partner on a second task using loud, painful noise blasts. Results showed that participants aggressed more against someone they outperformed (the loser) than against someone who outperformed them (the winner). However, these results do not indicate whether participants were especially aggressive against someone they outperformed, or whether they were especially nonaggressive against someone who outperformed them. Study 3 included a control group and showed it was the former. These studies suggest that one should pay particular attention to winners rather than losers, because winners tend to aggress against losers.

show abstract

“…These studies have documented robust and reliable findings. Taylor and colleagues (using the Taylor paradigm) determined that individuals who receive alcohol select higher shock intensity levels than those who receive a placebo or a nonalcohol control beverage (Bailey, Leonard, Cranston, & Taylor, 1983; Bailey & Taylor, 1991; Chermack & Taylor, 1995; Gantner & Taylor, 1992; Jeavons & Taylor, 1985; Laplace, Chermack, & Taylor, 1994; Leonard, 1984, 1989; Richardson, 1981; Schmutte & Taylor, 1980; Shuntich & Taylor, 1972; Taylor & Gammon, 1975, 1976; Taylor, Gammon, & Capasso, 1976; Taylor, Schmutte, & Leonard, 1977; Taylor, Schmutte, Leonard, & Cranston, 1979; Taylor & Sears, 1988; Weisman & Taylor, 1994). Using a modified version of the Taylor paradigm, Pihl and colleagues also found that men who receive alcohol administer higher shock intensity levels and longer shock durations compared with those who receive a placebo or a nonalcohol control beverage (Hoaken, Assaad, & Pihl, 1998; Lau & Pihl, 1994; Lau, Pihl, & Peterson, 1995; Pihl, Sita, & Gagnier, 1990; Pihl & Zacchia, 1986; Zeichner & Pihl, 1979, 1980; Zeichner, Pihl, Niaura, & Zacchia, 1982).…”

Section: Acute Effects Of Alcohol On Aggressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Executive functioning: A conceptual framework for alcohol-related aggression.

Giancola¹

2000

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

276

316

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The causal mechanisms underlying alcohol-related aggression are not well understood. This article presents a conceptual framework designed to guide thinking and generate new research in this area of study. According to the framework, executive functioning is both a mediator and a moderator of intoxicated aggression. Literatures describing associations between alcohol and aggression, executive functioning and aggression, and the acute effects of alcohol on executive functioning are reviewed. On the basis of these findings, it is proposed that (a) executive functioning mediates the alcohol-aggression relation in that acute alcohol intoxication disrupts executive functioning, which then heightens the probability of aggression, and (b) executive functioning moderates the alcohol-aggression relation in that acute alcohol consumption is more likely to facilitate aggressive behavior in persons with low, rather than high, executive functioning.

show abstract

Some effects of attitudinal similarity and exposure on attraction and aggression

Cited by 14 publications

References 11 publications

Alexithymia Tendencies and Mere Exposure Alter Social Approachability Judgments

Alexithymia Tendencies and Mere Exposure Alter Social Approachability Judgments

Are People More Aggressive When They Are Worse Off or Better Off Than Others?

Executive functioning: A conceptual framework for alcohol-related aggression.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About