Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

1967, Vol. 5, No. 1, 82-90

ATTRACTION AND SIMILARITY OF

PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS 1
BONN BYRNE, WILLIAM GRIFFITT, AND DANIEL STEFANIAK
University oj Texas

It was hypothesized that attraction toward another individual is a positive

linear function of the proportion of his personality characteristics which are
similar to those of S. In the 1st experiment, 151 Ss examined the responses of
a stranger to the Repression-Sensitization (R-S) Scale. The stranger responded
as S did on .20, .50, or .80 of the items. Analysis of variance indicated that
attraction was affected by proportion of similar responses (p < .001) and by
repression-sensitization (p < .01). In a 2nd experiment, employing 149 Ss, atti-
tude similarity influenced attraction (p < .001), but repression-sensitization did
not. In the 1st experiment, subject-stranger discrepancy in R-S Scale scores
was found to influence attraction (p < .001) ; represser-sensitizer differences
were thus artifactual. The relationship between personality similarity and
attraction is entirely consistent with the findings of attitude-similarity studies.

Among the proposed determinants of inter- The applicability of this formulation to per-
personal attraction between any two indi- sonality similarity is theoretically contingent
viduals is the extent to which they are similar on the positive or negative reinforcing prop-
in personality, with personality operationally erties of information about another indi-
defined in terms of scores on one or more vidual's personality characteristics.
measures of individual differences. In the Festinger (1954, p. 118), in his theory of
present paper, an attempt is made to inte- social comparison processes, hypothesized that
grate personality similarity into the more gen- "To the extent that objective, non-social
eral framework of a reinforcement theory of means are not available, people evaluate their
attraction. opinions and abilities by comparison respec-
In a series of investigations in which atti- tively with the opinions and abilities of oth-
tudinal similarity between each subject and a ers." He goes on to suggest that "A person
stranger has been experimentally manipulated, will be less attracted to situations where oth-
a linear function between proportion of simi- ers are very divergent from him than to situ-
lar attitudes and attraction has repeatedly ations where others are close to him for both
been found (e.g., Byrne & Clore, 1966; Byrne abilities and opinions [p. 123]." The hy-
& Griffitt, 1966; Byrne & Nelson, 196S). pothesized positive relationship between simi-
Attitude statements are conceptualized as larity and attraction has been supported not
positive and negative reinforcements in that only with respect to opinions (Byrne & Nel-
they provide evidence of one's effectiveness in son, 1965) and abilities (Zander & Havelin,
perceiving and interpreting his stimulus world 1960), but also with emotional states (Zim-
(Byrne, Nelson, & Reeves, 1966; Golightly bardo & Formica, 1963), self-description
& Byrne, 1964; McDonald, 1962; Nelson, (Griffitt, 1966), evaluation of the subject's
1965). The empirically derived linear function performance (Deutsch & Solomon, 1959),
led to the postulation of the law oj attraction: economic status (Byrne, Clore, & Worchel,
attraction toward X is a positive linear func- 1966), and even with amount of paint con-
tion of the proportion of positive reinforce- sumption (Brock, 1965). Thus, the effects of
ments received from X: (Ax — mPRx + k ) . Festinger's (19SO, 1954) proposed self-eval-
1
This research was supported in part by Research uative drive and other related motivational
Grant MH-11178-01 from the National Institute of constructs (Byrne, Nelson, & Reeves, 1966)
Mental Health, United States Public Health Service. seem to extend beyond opinions and abilities.
The authors wish to thank Dennis Campbell, Rudy
Garcia, and Kay Wong for their assistance in this It is tentatively suggested that, with other
research. variables held constant, the behavior of an-
82
 ATTRACTION AND SIMILARITY
other individual is positively reinforcing to
the extent that it is similar to one's own be-
havior. Behavioral similarity to self, whether
involving attitudes or values or abilities or
emotional responses or tastes or adjustive re-
sponses or worries or need hierarchies or
whatever, provides evidence that one is func-
tioning in a logical and meaningful manner
(Byrne, 1961; Cohen, Stotland, & Wolfe,
1955), and it makes one's interpersonal en-
vironment more predictable and understand-
able (Brim & Hoff, 1957; Pervin, 1963). It
might be noted that in a sufficiently complex
situation, the activation of quite different
motive states could probably overshadow such
cognitive concerns.
On the basis of this general reasoning, the
law of attraction should be applicable to per-
sonality similarity at least within the delim-
ited laboratory setting. It is hypothesized,
then, that attraction toward another indi-
vidual is a positive linear function of the pro-
portion of that individual's personality char-
acteristics which are similar to the character-
istics of the subject. Before proceeding to an
experimental test of this hypothesis, it is nec-
essary to examine previous research on per-
sonality similarity and attraction and to indi-
cate the methodological inadequacies of such
research for testing the basic hypothesis,
PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON PERSONALITY
SIMILARITY
There has been a considerable degree of
theoretical controversy concerning the nature
of the relationship between personality simi-
larity and attraction. It has been proposed
that attraction is facilitated by either simi-
larity, complementarity, or both (e.g., Lev-
inger, 1964). The theoretical differences re-
main unresolved because the research findings
have been sufficiently inconsistent as to pro-
vide support for the similarity hypothesis
(Banta & Hetherington, 1963; Izard, 1960a,
1960b; Maisonneuve, 1954; Mehlman, 1962;
Miller, Campbell, Twedt, & O'Connell, 1966;
Murstein, 1961), for the complementarity hy-
pothesis (Cohen, 1956; Kerckhoff & Davis,
1962; Rychlak, 1965; Winch, Ktsanes, &
Ktsanes, 1955), and for some combination of
the two (Becker, 1964; Secord & Backman,
1964). There are additional findings which
83
give only partial support to the similarity
hypothesis in that similarity is positively
associated with attraction only under limited
conditions, or only in specific groups, or with
respect to only a few variables (Bonney,
1946; Bowerman & Day, 1956; Izard, 1963;
Katz, Glucksberg, & Krauss, 1960; Rosen-
feld & Jackson, 1965; Van Dyne, 1940). In
addition, a number of investigators have sim-
ply found no relationship between personality
similarity and attraction (Corsini, 1956; Gor-
don, 1957; Hoffman, 1958; Hoffman & Maier,
1966; Katz, Cohen, & Castiglione, 1963;
Pintner, Forlano, & Freedman, 1937; Reilly,
Commins, & Stefic, 1960; Thorpe, 1955).
One reason for empirical inconsistency is
the peculiar penchant of personality and so-
cial psychologists for methodological creativ-
ity such that almost every investigation rep-
resents an exploration in procedural novelty.
That is, different investigators employ dif-
ferent independent and dependent variables
in situations of varying complexity in which
a seemingly limitless array of parameters is
operative, Over and above this familiar prob-
lem, however, are basic design flaws which
make it literally impossible to determine the
effect of personality similarity on attraction.
Two general designs have been utilized. In
one approach, existing "real life" attraction
pairs (e.g., friends, fiances, spouses) are se-
lected and assessed with respect to one or
more personality variables, Then, the scores of
the pairs are correlated. These correlations
are often compared with similar correlations
for random pairs from the same population
or with pairs of mutually antagonistic or
mutually indifferent subjects. In the second
approach, the personality measure or meas-
ures are obtained, and then previously un-
acquainted subjects are selected on the basis
of test scores and placed in a situation re-
quiring some degree of interaction. Thus,
similar and dissimilar pairs or groups are
created, and their interpersonal responses are
assessed following the interaction. Two diffi-
culties are inherent in either approach.
First, attraction responses are known to be
multidetermined. For example, attraction
varies as a function of such determinants as
propinquity (e.g., Byrne & Buehler, 1955;
Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950), the re-
84 D. BYRNE, W. GKIFFITT, AND D, STEFANIAK
inforcing properties of the situation (e.g.,
Lott & Lott, 1960), attitude similarity-dis-
similarity (e.g., Byrne & Nelson, 1965; New-
comb, 19S6), perceived similarity (e.g., Lev-
inger & Breedlove, 1966; Lundy, 19S8), the
temporal length of the relationship (e.g.,
Morton, 1960), characteristics like boastful-
ness and self-depreciation (Pepitone, 1964),
the respective status of each individual (e.g.,
Jones, 1964), etc. In the investigations of
personality similarity, all such variables plus
an unknown number of as yet unidentified
variables are potentially operative, but are
not consistently controlled. Further, person-
ality similarity itself is defined in terms of
similarity on one or at best a small subgroup
of personality variables so that similarity
along all other personality dimensions is also
not controlled. The situation, then, is one in
which the effect of a very limited number of
independent variables on attraction is deter-
mined in a context where 1—n uncontrolled
independent variables are operating. Only if
the variable under investigation were of suf-
ficient strength to override all other inde-
pendent variables or if a sufficient number of
the other independent variables happened to
covary with it or if the other variables were
accidentally controlled through randomization
would the hypothesized relationship be ob-
served. Since the obtained findings lack con-
sistency, these special circumstances do not
appear to occur regularly. It should be noted
that the research approach just described is
a perfectly suitable one for answering the
limited question concerning the role of simi-
larity along a given personality dimension in
a specific uncontrolled realistic situation. This
approach is inappropriate, however, for an-
swering the prototypic question concerning
the effect of personality similarity on attrac-
tion. The solution lies either in employing a
multivariate methodology in the uncontrolled
situation or in moving to a traditional experi-
mental situation. The latter choice means, of
course, a narrow specification in terms of the
variables which are employed, the parameters
which are investigated, and the situations to
which the findings may reasonably be gen-
eralized. Strangely enough, the history of sci-
ence suggests that the apparent artificiality
and narrowness of the laboratory provide the
most useful means whereby the complexities
of the nonlaboratory world may be clarified.
Even if extraneous stimulus variables are
brought under experimental control (e.g.,
Altrocchi, 1959), a second difficulty remains.
The relationship between scores on a person-
ality measure and behavior in an interper-
sonal situation is crucial. Presumably, per-
sonality variables influence attraction only in
terms of the effect of such variables on
behavior in a given situation; it is the behav-
ioral stimuli to which the subjects are re-
sponding and not to the hypothesized person-
ality dimension. But, the relationship between
scores on a personality test and behavior in
various eve^day life encounters or behavior
in a controlled laboratory situation is for the
most part unknown. It seems a safe bet that
a 1:1 relationship does not hold. Thus, one
is in the position of defining personality simi-
larity in terms of Behavior A (responses to
the test) and determining its effect on at-
traction in a situation involving Behavior B
(responses in the interaction) with no knowl-
edge of the relationship, if any, between Be-
haviors A and B. In other words, it is
necessary to identify the stimulus to which
subjects are expected to respond. One must
move from an interest in similarity of person-
ality to an interest in similarity of specific
personality characteristics.
It follows from this analysis that an ap-
propriate test of the proposed relationship
between personality similarity and attraction
will require an experimental design in which
(a) there is control of the stimulus determi-
nants other than the independent variable,
and (b) there is a known relationship be-
tween the personality-relevant behavior of the
subject and the personality-relevant behavior
of the person to whom he responds. It also
follows that any single such investigation
cannot be interpreted as indicating the rela-
tionship between any other personality char-
acteristics and attraction or the relationship
which might be found in quite different situa-
tions in which different variables operate.
The first experiment to be reported repre-
sents one such solution to the design problem
and an initial step in establishing a more
general relationship between "personality
similarity" and attraction.
 ATTRACTION AND SIMILARITY
EXPERIMENT I: SIMILARITY IN DEFENSIVE
BEHAVIOR AND ATTRACTION
The personality dimension is that of repres-
sion-sensitization, which describes a behav-
ioral continuum involving characteristic re-
sponses to anxiety-evoking stimuli. At one
extreme are behaviors such as denial, avoid-
ance, and repression, while at the other ex-
treme are behaviors such as intellectualiza-
tion, approach, and sensitization. Much of
the research on this personality dimension
has been reviewed elsewhere (Byrne, 1964).
To investigate personality similarity with
respect to repression-sensitization or any other
dimension, either of two behavioral samples
may be employed. First, one might determine
the characteristic responses of a subject in a
series of quite specific situations and then
expose him to the behavior of a stranger in
those same situations. Second, the subject's
behavior might consist of his specific test re-
sponses which were utilized to measure the
dimension, and the observed behavior of the
stranger would consist of his responses to the
same instrument. The latter approach was
utilized in the present investigation.
Method
The personality dimension was measured by means
of the Repression-Sensitization (R-S) Scale (Byrne,
Barry, & Nelson, 1963) which consists of 182 MMPI
items of which 111 are scorable while 55 serve as
buffers, A special version of the test was constructed
for this experiment. In order to limit the stimulus
information about the stranger to personality-rele-
vant material, only the 127 cross-validated scorable
items were used. In order to facilitate the association
between item content and the stranger's responses,
answers were made directly on the test booklet with
checks in T and F boxes to the left of each item
rather than on an IBM answer sheet. The sampled
behavioral domain of both subject and stranger thus
consisted of 127 responses to the same set of test
items. Examples are: "Once in a while I think of
things too bad to talk about"; "I have very few
quarrels with members of my family"; "I am happy
most of the time"; "At times I feel Hke picking
a fist fight with someone." For each item, the re-
sponses of the subject and the stranger could either
be identical or opposite.
The modified R-S Scale was administered to ap-
proximately 450 male and female students enrolled
in a section of the introductory psychology course
at the University of Texas. On the basis of scores
obtained on the test, three groups of subjects were
selected: 48 sensitizers (scores of 59-110), 54 neutrals
85
(scores of 38-45), and 49 repressers (scores of 2-25).
There were 151 subjects in all.
Several weeks after the initial test administration,
the subjects were seen in small groups for the experi-
ment itself. As in previous investigations, they were
told that the experiment dealt with the accuracy of
interpersonal judgment. They received a test, pur-
portedly that of another student (name removed) of
their same sex. The "stranger's" test was actually
filled out by the experimenter. The task was to read
through each of the 127 items and study the re-
sponses made by the other person. Afterward, sub-
jects were asked to evaluate on the Interpersonal
Judgment Scale (six 7-point rating scales) the
stranger's intelligence, knowledge of current events,
morality, and adjustment and were asked to indicate
how much they would like the person and how much
they would enjoy working with him. Responses to
the latter two items are summed to yield the measure
of attraction which ranges from 2 to 14 with a
split-half reliability of .85 (Byrne & Nelson, 1965).
Within each of the three repression-sensitization
groups, subjects were assigned to one of three experi-
mental conditions, consisting of three levels of
subject-stranger similarity in responding to the R-S
Scale. In the .20 condition, subjects received a test
on which the stranger responded exactly as the sub-
ject did to 25 items and exactly the opposite to 102
items. In the .50 condition, there were 64 similar
and 63 dissimilar responses. In the .80 condition,
there were 102 similar responses and 25 dissimilar
ones. Within each condition, a different random pat-
tern of specific items of similarity and dissimilarity
was devised for each subject; for example, in the
,20 condition each subject responded to a stranger
like himself on 25 items, but the actual items
comprising the 25 were different for each subject.
Results
The means and standard deviations of the
attraction responses for the three repression-
sensitization groups in the three experimental
conditions are shown in Table 1. The results
of a 3 X 3 factorial analysis of variance, cor-
rected for disproportionality (Wert, Neidt, &
Ahmann, 19 54), are shown in Table 2. As
hypothesized, there is a highly significant ef-
fect attributable to differences in the propor-
tion of similar responses to the personality
items. In a previous investigation in which
subjects responded to strangers who had writ-
ten a combination of attitudinal and neutral
statements of fact (Byrne, Young, & Griffitt,
in press), the relationship between proportion
of positive reinforcements and attraction was
found to be Y = 5.36X + 5.06. The present
data, involving proportion of similar re-
sponses to personality items, are found not
86 D. BYRNE, W. GEIFFITT, AND D. STEFANIAK
TABLE 1
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS or ATTRACTION RESPONSES OF REPRESSERS, NEUTRALS, AND
SENSITIZERS TOWARD STRANGERS DIFFERING IN PROPORTION OF SIMILAR
RESPONSES TO R-S SCALE

Proportion of similar responses made by stranger

R-S Scale level .20 .so .80 Total

of Ss

Jtf SD .!/ SD M SD M SD

Repressers 5.06 2.48 7.SO 2.29 8.67 2.30 6.96 2.81

Neutrals 6.24 2.16 8.37 2.48 10.33 2.16 8.35 2.81
Sensitizers 7.22 2.12 8.94 2. IS 10.00 1.88 8.58 2.36
Total 6.17 2.43 8.29 2.39 9.70 2.2S

to depart significantly from that predicted by
the above formula (F=1.84, df = 3/148,
ns).
The analysis of variance also indicated un-
expected personality differences in that re-
pressers gave the most negative attraction
responses and sensitizers the most positive
ones.
Discussion
At least with respect to the repression-
sensitization dimension and within the limits
of the present design, there is clear evidence
that the relationship between personality simi-
larity and attraction is a rectilinear one. In
fact, proportion of similar personality re-
sponses influences attraction in precisely the
same fashion as does proportion of similar
attitude responses.
How may we account for the other signifi-
cant finding? The most obvious possibility is
that repression-sensitization influences attrac-
tion either in terms of pervasive differences in
the characteristic level of need for affiliation
or with respect to differences specifically in
response to similarity and differences in
TABLE 2
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE or ATTRACTION RESPONSES OF
REPRESSERS, NEUTRALS, AND SENSITIZERS TOWARD
STRANGERS DIFFERING IN PROPORTION OF
SIMILAR RESPONSES TO R-S SCALE
others. If the dissimilar responses of the
stranger represent some degree of threat to
the subject, the response might be analogous
to represser-sensitizer differences found else-
where. A number of investigators report that
threatening situations evoke more verbalized
anxiety in sensitizers than in repressers (e.g.,
Davison, 1963; Lazarus & Alfert, 1964;
Lomont, 1965; Pomeranz, 1963), but there
is some evidence that such situations evoke
more hostility in repressers than in sensitizers
(e.g., Byrne & Sheffield, 1965) even though
they attribute less hostility to themselves
(e.g., Altrocchi, Shrauger, & McLeod, 1964).
It is conceivable that it is the threat-hostility
pattern in repressers which is responsible for
their relatively more negative response to the
strangers. If so, it would follow that these
same represser-sensitizer differences would be
found in responses to attittidinal differences
in strangers. A second experiment provides a
test of that hypothesis.
EXPERIMENT II: RESPONSE OF REPRESSERS,
NEUTRALS, AND SENSITIZERS TO
SIMILARITY IN ATTITUDES
It was hypothesized that attraction re-
sponses toward strangers differing in attitude
similarity-dissimilarity are a positive func-
tion of sensitizing as opposed to repressing
defenses.

Source df Adjusted MS F
Method
The regular 182-item R-S Scale was administered
Response similarity 2 156.56 29.26*** to over 400 male and female students enrolled in a
Repression-sensitization 2 37.55 7.02** section of the introductory psychology course at
Interaction 4 2.24 .42
Within 142 5.35 the University of Texas. On the basis of test scores,
three groups of subjects were selected: 49 sensitizers
** p < .01.
(scores of 70-115), 51 neutrals (scores of 40-48),
*** f < .001. and 49 repressers (scores of 6-29). The cutting point?
 ATTRACTION AND SIMILARITY
TABLE 3
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS or ATTRACTION RESPONSES OF REPRESSERS, NEUTRALS,
AND SENSITIZERS TOWARD STRANGERS DIFFERING IN PROPORTION OF
SIMILAR ATTITUDES
Proportion of similar attitudes held by stranger
R-S Scale level .00 .50
of Ss
M SD AT
Repressers 6.47 2.12 8.00
Neutrals 6.61 2.4S 9.13
Sensitizers 5.14 2.33 8.05
Total 6.14 2.39 8.35
for the personality groups differed somewhat from
the first investigation primarily because the present
group yielded higher scores on the R-S Scale, pos-
sibly as a function of differences attributable to
the 127-item versus the 182-item forms.
At another class session, a 12-item attitude scale
was administered. Each item consisted of a 6-point
scale dealing with such issues as integration, political
parties, necking and petting, and strict discipline for
children. Subjects in each personality group were
randomly assigned to one of three experimental
conditions varying in proportion of similar attitudes
attributed to a bogus stranger: .00, .50, and 1.00. In
the .50 condition, the specific items of similarity and
dissimilarity were selected by means of a table of
random numbers and were different for each subject.
As in previous attitude studies, similarity and dis-
similarity are defined by responses falling on the
same or on the opposite side of the neutral point
with respect to the subject's response.
The experimental session followed essentially the
same procedure as described in the previous investi-
gation. In small groups, subjects were informed of
the "interpersonal judgment" task, were given the
attitude scale of an anonymous "stranger," and
were asked to evaluate the stranger on the Inter-
personal Judgment Scale.
Results
The means and standard deviations of the
attraction responses are presented in Table 3.
A 3 X 3 factorial analysis of variance, cor-
rected for disproportionality (Wert et al.,
19S4), indicated a highly significant similarity-
dissimilarity effect (^ = 82.18, df = 2/140,
p < .001). Neither the personality variable
nor the interaction significantly affected at-
traction. The hypothesis was not confirmed.
Dlsciission
The explanation for the represser-sensitizer
differences in Experiment I in terms of dif-
ferential response to similarity-dissimilarity
does not appear to be an accurate one.
87
1.00 Total
SD ,vr SD M SD
1.28 11.62 1.87 8.65 2.81
2.19 11.89 2.31 9.22 3.21
3.06 12.20 .65 8.49 3.60
2.42 11.90 1.81
How else might the obtained differences be
explained?
There is an additional source of variance
in the stimuli presented to the subjects which
has not yet been discussed. In preparing the
R-S Scale of each stranger, different random
patterns of items were prepared for each
subject within a given level of similarity.
With such a procedure, the repression-sensiti-
zation score of each stranger varies widely
within each cell. It seemed possible that (a)
the discrepancy between subject and stranger
on the repression-sensitization dimension
might fortuitously have been different for
repressers, neutrals, and sensitizers, and (b)
this discrepancy might influence attraction in
addition to the effects of proportion of similar
item responses.
The absolute R-S Scale discrepancy score2
for each subject of Experiment I was deter-
mined, and it was found that the mean for
repressers was 47.59, for neutrals 21.24, and
for sensitizers 10.94. A simple one-way analy-
sis of variance indicated that these differences
are highly significant (F = S6.88, df = 2/148,
2><.001). Thus, the first proposition was
confirmed: the discrepancy differences paral-
leled the represser-sensitizer differences. This
2
Since a stranger with a given magnitude of dis-
crepancy could be either more sensitizing or more
repressing than the subject, the problem of the
direction of the subject-stranger discrepancy was
investigated before testing these propositions. For the
46 subjects (representing repressers, neutrals, and
sensitizers) who could be approximately matched in
terms of magnitude of plus or minus discrepancy
with the stranger, a 2 X 3 analysis of variance was
carried out with the 2 directions of discrepancy
versus the 3 experimental conditions. The direction
of discrepancy did not significantly affect attraction
(F = 3.16, df = 1/40, ns).
 D, BYRNE, W. GRIFFITT, AND D. STEFANIAK
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF MEAN PREDICTED AND OBTAINED ATTRACTION RESPONSES IN EXPERIMENT I
Proportion of similar responses made by stranger
R-S Scale level .20
of Ss
Predicted Obtained
Repressers 4.96 5.06
Neutrals 6.61 6.24
Sensitizers 7.23 7.22
suggests the possibility that the findings with
respect to personality differences were arti-
factual.
To test the effect of discrepancy on at-
traction, a correlational analysis was em-
ployed. For the total group of 1S1 students,
the subject-stranger discrepancy score corre-
lated -.52 (p < .001) with attraction. To
control for the confounding effects of experi-
mental conditions, correlations were also ob-
tained separately within each condition, yield-
ing coefficients of —.39 (p < .01) in the .20
condition, -.28 (p < .05) in the .SO condi-
tion, and —.34 (p < .05) in the .80 condition.
It seems that subjects are responding to R-S
Scale discrepancy as well as to proportion of
similar item responses. The two stimulus vari-
ables are not completely independent because
discrepancy tends to decrease as proportion of
similar items increases (r = —.56, p < .001).
Nevertheless, each stimulus dimension does in-
fluence attraction even with the other dimen-
sion controlled. The correlation between pro-
portion of similar items and attraction with
R-S Scale discrepancy partialed out is .33
(p < .001), and the correlation between R-S
Scale discrepancy and attraction with propor-
tion of similar items partialed out is —.33
(p < .001). In order to provide more con-
clusive evidence that it is subject-stranger dis-
crepancy rather than subject repression-
sensitization which accounts for these find-
ings, it was necessary to utilize double partial
correlations. The relationship between R-S
Scale discrepancy and attraction with both
proportion of similar items and subject's R-S
Scale score held constant is a significant one
(^12-34 = .20, p < .02), while the analogous
relationship between subject's R-S Scale score
.50 .80
Predicted Obtained Predicted Obtained
7.22 7.50 9.60 8.67
8.16 8.37 9.96 10.33
8.74 8.94 10.08 10.00
and attraction is not significantly different
from zero (f 12.3.1 = .11, ns).
The situation, then, is one in which the
dependent variable is affected by two inde-
pendent variables, one of which was varied
as part of the experimental design and one
of which was accidentally manipulated. It is
possible, therefore, to conceptualize attrac-
tion as a function of both variables, each of
which represents a different aspect of per-
sonality similarity. One way of describing this
relationship is by means of a multiple-
correlation coefficient which is found to equal
.59 (p < .001).
Returning to the original problem of ac-
counting for represser-sensitizer differences in
attraction, it would seem that they may be
explained simply in terms of group differ-
ences in discrepancy scores. This can be
demonstrated rather convincingly by predict-
ing each subject's attraction response on
the basis of a multiple-regression equation
(AY = -.04AT2 -f- 3.88X3 +7.16). In Table
4, the attraction scores as predicted by this
equation are presented along with the ob-
tained attraction scores. The obviously close
correspondence is confirmed by the fact that
the mean difference between predicted and
obtained responses was found to be —.004,
yielding a t of .02 (dj = ISO, ns).
The methodological approach utilized here
confirmed the proposed positive relationship
between personality similarity and attraction
and has shown that subjects are surprisingly
sensitive to the similarity cues presented by
the stranger. They respond not only to spe-
cific response similarity, but also to similarity
at a more abstract or generalized level, that
is, to the personality dimension itself. While
 ATTRACTION AND SIMILARITY
the problem of awareness has not been ex-
plored in the attraction studies, it appears
unlikely that the typical subject would be
able to verbalize the degree to which he and
a stranger responded in the same or opposite
ways on 127 T-F items. It appears even less
likely that the typical subject could verbalize
the discrepancy dimension when the dimen-
sion itself, the scoring system, and both his
and the stranger's scores are all unknown to
him. Nevertheless, attraction is responsive to
variation in both stimulus dimensions, and
the nature of the relationship is entirely
consistent with the findings in the attitude
studies.
REFERENCES
ALTROCCHI, J. Dominance as a factor in interpersonal
choice and perception. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 303-308.
AI/TROCCHI, J., SHRAUGER, S., & McLEOD, M. A.
Attribution of hostility to self and others by ex-
pressors, sensitizers, and repressers. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 1964, 20, 233.
BANTA, T. J., & HETHERINGTON, M. Relations be-
tween needs of friends and fiance's. Journal of Ab-
normal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 401-404.
BECKER, G. The complementary-needs hypothesis,
authoritarianism, dominance, and other Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule scores. Journal of
Personality, 1964, 32, 45-56.
BONNEY, M. E. A sociometric study of the relation-
ship of some factors to mutual friendships on the
elementary, secondary, and college levels. Sociom-
etry, 1946, 9, 21-47.
BOWERMAN, C. E., & DAY, B, R. A test of the theory
of complementary needs as applied to couples
during courtship. American Sociological Review,
1956, 21, 602-605.
BRIM, O. G., JR., & HOPE, D. B. Individual and
situational differences in desire for certainty.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957,
54, 225-229.
BROCK, T. C. Communicator-recipient similarity and
decision change. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1965, 1, 650-654.
BYRNE, D. Interpersonal attraction and attitude simi-
larity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1961, 62, 713-715.
BYRNE, D. Repression-sensitization as a dimension of
personality. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in
experimental personality research. Vol. 1. New
York: Academic Press, 1964. Pp. 169-220.
BYRNE, D., BARRY, J., & NELSON, D. Relation of the
revised Repression-Sensitization Scale to measures
of self-description. Psychological Reports, 1963, 13,
323-334.
BYRNE, D., & BUEHLER, J. A, A note on the influ-
ence of propinquity upon acquaintanceships. Jour-
89
nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51,
147-148.
BYRNE, D., & CLORE, G. L., JR. Predicting inter-
personal attraction toward strangers presented in
three different stimulus modes. Psychonomic Sci-
ence, 1966, 4, 239-240.
BYRNE, D., CLORE, G. L., JR., & WORCHEI, P. Effect
of economic similarity-dissimilarity on interper-
sonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1966, 4, 220-224.
BYRNE, D., & GRIFFITT, W. A developmental investi-
gation of the law of attraction. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 699-703.
BYRNE, D., & NELSON, D. Attraction as a linear
function of proportion of positive reinforcements.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965,
1, 659-663.
BYRNE, D., NELSON, D., & REEVES, K. Effects of
consensual validation and invalidation on attrac-
tion as a function of vcrifmbility. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 98-107.
BYRNE, D., & SHEFFIELD, J. Response to sexually
arousing stimuli as a function of repressing and
sensitizing defenses. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-
ogy, 1965, 70, 114-118.
BYRNE, D., YOUNG, R. K., & GRIFFITT, W. The re-
inforcement properties of attitude statements.
Journal of Experimental Research in Personality,
in press.
COHEN, A. R. Experimental effects of ego-defense
preference on interpersonal relations. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 19-27.
COHEN, A., STOTLAND, E., & WOLFE, D. M. An ex-
perimental investigation of need for cognition,
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955,
51, 291-297.
CORSINI, R. J. Understanding and similarity in mar-
riage. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1956, 52, 327-332.
DAVISON, L. A, Adaptation to a threatening stimulus.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley, 1963.
DEUTSCH, M., & SOLOMON, L. Reactions to evalua-
tions by others as influenced by self-evaluations.
Sociometry, 1959, 22, 93-112.
FESTINGER, L. Informal social communication. Psy-
chological Review, 1950, 57, 271-282,
FESTINGER, L. A theory of social comparison proc-
esses. Human Relations, 1954, 7, 117-140.
FESTINGER, L., SCHACHTER, S., & BACK, K. Social
pressures in informal groups: A study of human
factors in housing. New York: Harper, 1950.
GOLIGHTLY, C., & BYRNE, D. Attitude statements as
positive and negative reinforcements. Science, 1964,
146, 798-799.
GORDON, J. E. Interpersonal predictions of repressers
and sensitizers. Journal of Personality, 1957, 25,
686-698.
GRIFPITT, W. B. Interpersonal attraction as a func-
tion of self-concept and personality similarity-
dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1966, 4, 581-584.
90 D. BYRNE, W. GEIFFITT, AND D. STEFANIAK
HOFFMAN, L. R. Similarity of personality: A basis
for interpersonal attraction? Sociometry, 1958, 21,
300-308.
HOFFMAN, L. R., & MAIER, N. R. F. An experimental
reexamination of the similarity-attraction hypothe-
sis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1966, 3, 145-152.
IZARD, C. E. Personality similarity and friendship.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960,
61, 47-51. (a)
IZARD, C. E. Personality similarity, positive affect,
and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 484-485. (b)
IZARD, C. E. Personality similarity and friendship: A
follow-up study. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1963, 66, 598-600.
JONES, E. E. Iiigratiation: A social psychological
analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1964.
KATZ, I., COHEN, M., & CASTIOLIONE, L. Effect of
one type of need complementarity on marriage
partners' conformity to one another's judgments.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963,
67, 8-14.
KATZ, I., GLTJCKSBERG, S., & KRAUSS, R. Need satis-
faction and Edwards PPS scores in married
couples. Journal of Consulting Psychology, I960,
24, 205-208.
KERCKHOFF, A. C., & DAVIS, K. E. Value consensus
and need complementarity in mate selection. Amer-
ican Sociological Review, 1962, 27, 295-303.
LAZARUS, R. S., & ALFERT, E. Short-circuiting of
threat by experimentally altering cognitive ap-
praisal. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol-
ogy, 1964, 69, 195-205.
LEVINGER, G. Note on need complementarity in mar-
riage. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 61, 153-157.
LEVINGER, G., & BREEDLOVE, J. Interpersonal attrac-
tion and agreement: A study of marriage part-
ners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 1956, 3, 367-372.
LOMONT, J. F. The repression-sensitization dimen-
sion in relation to anxiety responses. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 84-86.
LOTT, B. E., & LOTT, A. J. The formation of posi-
tive attitudes toward group members. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 297-
300.
LUNDY, R. M. Self-perceptions regarding masculinity-
femininity and descriptions of same and opposite
sex sociometric choices. Sociometry, 1958, 21, 238-
246.
MAISONNEUVE, J. A contribution to the sociometry
of mutual choices. Sociometry, 1954, 17, 33-46.
MCDONALD, R. D. The effect of reward-punishment
and affiliation need on interpersonal attraction.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Texas, 1962.
MEHLMAW, B. Similarity in friendships. Journal of
Social Psychology, 1962, 57, 195-202.
MILLER, N., CAMPBELL, D. T., TWEDT, H., & O'CoN-
NELL, E. J. Similarity, contrast, and complemen-
tarity in friendship choice. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 3-12.
MORTON, A. Similarity as a determinant of friend-
ship: A multidimensional study. Dissertation Ab-
stracts, 1960, 20, 3857-3858.
MURSTEIN, B. I. The complementary need hypothesis
in newlyweds and middle-aged married couples.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961,
63, 194-197.
NELSON, D. The effect of differential magnitude of
reinforcement on interpersonal attraction. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas,
1965.
NEWCOMB, T. M. The prediction of interpersonal
attraction. American Psychologist, 1956, 11, 575-
586.
PEPITONE, A. Attraction and hostility. New York:
Atherton, 1964.
PEEVIN, L. A. The need to predict and control under
conditions of threat. Journal of Personality, 1963,
31, 570-587.
PINTNER, R., FORLANO, G., & FREEDMAN, H. Person-
ality and attitudinal similarity among classroom
friends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1937, 21,
48-65.
POMERANZ, D. M. The repression-sensitization di-
mension and reactions to stress. Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, University of Rochester, 1963.
REILLY, M. S. A., COMMINS, W. D., & STEFIC, E. C.
The complementarity of personality needs in friend-
ship choice. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology, 1960, 61, 292-294.
ROSENFELD, H. M., & JACKSON, J. Temporal media-
tion of the similarity-attraction hypothesis. Jour-
nal of Personality, 1965, 33, 649-656.
RYCHLAK, J. F. The similarity, compatibility, or
incompatibility of needs in interpersonal selection.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1965, 2, 334-340.
SECORD, P. F., & BACKMAN, C. W. Interpersonal con-
gruency, perceived similarity, and friendship. So-
ciometry, 1964, 27, 115-127.
THORPE, J. G. A study of some factors in friendship
formation. Sociometry, 1955, 13, 207-214.
VAN DYNE, V. E. Personality traits and friendship
formation in adolescent girls. Journal of Social
Psychology, 1940, 12, 291-303.
WERT, J. E., NEIDT, C. 0., & AHMANN, J. S. Sta-
tistical methods in educational and psychological
research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
1954.
WINCH, R. F., KTSANES, T., & KTSANES, V. Empiri-
cal elaboration of the theory of complementary
needs in mate-selection. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 508-513.
ZANDER, A., & HAVELIN, A. Social comparison and
interpersonal attraction. Human. Relations, 1960,
13, 21-32.
ZIMBARDO, P., & FORMICA, R. Emotional comparison
and self-esteem as determinants of affiliation.
Journal of Personality, 1963, 31, 141-162.
(Received April 1, 1966)