Advances in Psychology
Vol. 14  No. 02 ( 2024 ), Article ID: 81154 , 11 pages
10.12677/AP.2024.142085

相似吸引效应理论研究述评

杨宇航

西南大学心理学部,重庆

收稿日期:2023年12月27日;录用日期:2024年2月14日;发布日期:2024年2月23日

摘要

相似吸引效应提出近60年,在态度、人格、爱好等领域得到了广泛的验证,而理论研究者围绕相似性为什么能够带来吸引力这一核心问题,形成了以强化–情绪模型为代表的强化观和以信息整合模型为代表的认知观。本文首先回顾了相似吸引的研究范式以及最广泛研究的相似性类型,随后对强化观与认知观的代表理论进行述评与对比,最后,我们讨论了建构一个更全面和更精细的相似吸引效应的理论模型应该把握的理论要点以及需要解决的问题,力图为相似吸引效应的理论研究者提供一定的启示与参考。

关键词

吸引力法则,相似吸引效应,人际吸引力

A Review of Theoretical Research on the Similarity-Attraction Effect

Yuhang Yang

Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing

Received: Dec. 27th, 2023; accepted: Feb. 14th, 2024; published: Feb. 23rd, 2024

ABSTRACT

It has been nearly 60 years since the similarity-attraction effect was proposed, and it has been widely verified in the fields of attitude, personality, hobbies, etc. Theoretical researchers have formed a reinforcement view represented by the reinforcement-emotion model and a cognitive view represented by the information integration model around the core issue of why similarity can bring attraction. This paper first reviews the research paradigm of similarity-attraction and the most widely studied similarity types, and then reviews and compares the representative theories of reinforcement view and cognitive view. Finally, we discuss the theoretical points to be grasped and the problems to be solved in constructing a more comprehensive and detailed theoretical model of similarity-attraction effect. This paper tries to provide some inspiration and reference for the theoretical researchers of similar attraction effect.

Keywords:Law of Attraction, Similarity-Attraction Effect, Interpersonal Attraction

Copyright © 2024 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 相似吸引效应

之所以“物以类聚,人以群分”,很可能是因为我们更喜欢与我们相似的人。社会心理学家Byrne等人(Byrne 1971, 1961; Byrne & Clore Jr., 1970)首先通过实验的方法观察到相似性与吸引力之间的因果关系,描绘了相似态度的比例与人际吸引力之间存在的正向线性关系,并将这一效应概括为吸引力法则(Law of Attraction) (Byrne & Rhamey, 1965)。后续研究不断给这一效应提供了多方面强有力的实证支持,除了相似的观点或态度(Byrne, 1961; Hampton et al., 2019; Singh, 1973; Singh & Ho, 2000),相似的兴趣爱好也促进吸引力产生(Aron et al., 2006; Jamieson et al., 1987; Lundy et al., 2013; Selfhout et al., 2009; Sprecher et al., 2015),同样,个体更喜欢与自己在人格层面相似的人(Byrne et al., 1967; Byrne & Griffitt, 1969; Grosz et al., 2015; Hudson & Fraley, 2014; Layton & Insko, 1974),也更喜欢与自己具有相似的社会文化背景的人(Bakar & McCann, 2014; Davison & Jones, 1976; Gillis & Avis, 1980),即使是实验室操纵的最小差异情况下个体对于相似组的吸引力评估依旧高于差异组(Chu & Lowery, 2023; Pinter & Greenwald, 2011)。

相似吸引作为人际互动领域之内最显著的研究成果之一(Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Berscheid & Walster, 1985),被广泛应用于社交媒体的人际互动促进(Kang & Liu, 2019; Rodrigues et al., 2017),工作场所的效率提升和雇佣关系改善(Bakar & McCann, 2014),商品促销中的消费意愿提升(Fu et al., 2018; Herjanto & Amin, 2020),交互系统中的说服技术开发等方面(Ruijten, 2021)。然而相似吸引的理论研究依旧是一个开放并值得进一步探索的问题,具体来说,为什么相似性会带来人际吸引力?自相似吸引效应作为吸引力法则被提出,理论研究便围绕该问题形成了主要两个类型的理论取向,其一是强调相似性具有强化属性的强化观(Byrne & Clore Jr., 1967; Byrne & Clore Jr., 1970; Clore & Byrne, 1974; Clore & Gormly, 1974; Singh, 1973, 1974),其二是强调相似性作为“信息源”影响个体进行认知评估从而影响吸引力的认知观(Ajzen, 1974; Aron & Aron, 1996a; Aron & Aron, 1996b; Berscheid & Hatfield, 1969; Condon & Crano, 1988; Insko, 1973; Kaplan & Anderson, 1973; Montoya & Horton, 2014)。

对“为什么相似性会带来人际吸引力”这一问题进行追问,具有重要的理论和现实意义。理论层面,研究相似吸引效应的潜在机制,实质上是对人际吸引的心理–行为机制进行探索,有助于推动研究者建构更全面的吸引力模型,同样,对于人际关系领域的理论研究者来说,在建构关于吸引力的理论模型时,就不可能避开对相似吸引进行解释,这也将进一步促进不同理论之间的交流对话。现实层面,理解相似性带来吸引力的心理过程,不仅能够指导个人建立和维护健康的人际关系,还能够影响工作场所的团队合作、消费者行为、教育方法和市场策略。此外,了解相似性与吸引力之间的关系也有助于促进社会多元性和包容性,同时提供了对心理健康和幸福感的深入理解。总体而言,相似吸引的理论研究为个人、组织和社会提供了宝贵的决策指导与见解,有助于推动建立更加和谐、高效和良性的人际互动和社会关系。

本文首先对相似吸引效应的实证研究进行回顾,介绍相似吸引效应的研究范式和最为广泛研究的相似性类型,而后将围绕相似吸引的理论研究展开述评,所包括的理论并不一定基于相似吸引效应所建构,但都围绕为什么个体更喜欢与自己相似的人做出了明确并且可检验的假设,最后,我们将讨论更全面的相似吸引效应理论模型应该把握的理论要点和需要解决的问题。

2. 相似吸引研究范式

2.1. 虚假陌生人范式

Byrne等人(Byrne, 1961; Byrne & Clore Jr., 1970; Byrne & Rhamey, 1965)开发了用于研究零相识(zero-acquaintance)关系阶段下吸引力评估的研究范式,称为虚假陌生人范式(bogus stranger paradigm)或虚拟人技术(phantom-other technique)。在该范式下,首先由被试来完成特定的态度或人格评定材料,一到两周后再让被试返回实验室,向被试呈现一份声称由别的参与者完成而实际由实验者根据被试的材料而定制的评定结果,该份评定结果通常包括被试先前所填写的态度或人格评定题项、以及特定的人口学变量如年龄、性别等,实验者通过控制呈现材料中的态度或人格评定题项与被试评定结果的一致或不一致程度来对相似性进行操纵,随后,再由被试根据虚假陌生人的材料来评估其吸引力,从而确定相似性对于吸引力的影响。虚假陌生人范式作为人际吸引研究的经典范式,因其实验设计的灵活性与便利性,并且能够对环境进行有效的控制,被广泛应用于相似吸引的理论研究中(Aron et al., 2006; Cann et al., 1997; Chu & Lowery, 2023; Hampton et al., 2019; Insko, 1973; Jellison & Mills, 1967; Montoya & Horton, 2004)。然而,该范式最突出的问题就是生态效度较低,被试在实验中得到的关于他人的高度概括性态度或人格评估结果往往与真实人际互动下个体得到的开放性信息不相符,因此,研究者开始关注于真实人际互动下的相似吸引效应。

2.2. 社会互动范式

社会互动范式(social interaction paradigm)或现场互动范式(live interaction paradigm)是用于研究初相识(get-acquaintance)关系阶段下吸引力的常用方法,用于研究浪漫兴趣时该范式也称为快速约会范式(speed-dating paradigm)。在该范式下,两个从未见过面的陌生将通过一次真实的人际互动中达到相互认识的目的,研究者可以安排被试进行结构化自我表露任务(Hampton et al., 2019; Sprecher, 2014; Sprecher, Treger, & Wondra, 2013a),由被试双方轮流扮演表露者与倾听者,针对某个问题进行轮流自述,也可以让被试围绕兴趣爱好、政治观点等特定话题展开自由讨论(Sprecher et al., 2015; Tidwell et al., 2013),随后被试可以完成包括相似性、吸引力等变量的测量。社会互动范式具有较高的生态效度,能够很大程度上对人际交往初期双方互动模式进行模拟,同时也可以和虚假陌生人范式结合,例如,Byrne (1961)最初发现的相似性与吸引力之间的正向线性关系,在社会互动范式中表现为明显削弱或消失(Montoya et al., 2008; Sprecher, 2014),而被试自我评定的感知到与互动对象的相似性却始终能够稳定预测吸引力(Hampton et al., 2019; Sprecher et al., 2015)。

3. 相似性的类型

3.1. 态度相似性与人格相似性

按照相似内容的层面进行分类,最为广泛研究的就是态度相似性与人格相似性。态度相似性包括同时测量政治、宗教、社会和文化等多方面问题的支持或反对态度(Byrne, 1961; Montoya & Horton, 2004),或特定方面的态度如性开放程度(Smith et al., 1993),或个人喜好的相似性(Aron et al., 2006; Hampton et al., 2019)。人格层面的研究包括基于依恋风格(Hudson & Fraley, 2014; Klohnen & Luo, 2003),大五人格(Cemalcilar et al., 2018),自恋人格二维度模型(Fu et al., 2018)等理论对相似吸引效应的验证。实证研究通过对比态度与人格相似性对吸引力预测强弱,发现相似的态度对吸引力的预测作用更强(Klohnen & Luo, 2003; Miller, 2017; Singh, 1973)。

3.2. 实际相似性与感知相似性

按照相似程度的评价者进行分类,可以将相似性分为实际相似性与感知相似性。实际相似性是指由实验者预先设定的相似度操纵或通过计算得到的相似度。在虚假陌生人范式中,实际相似性是指实际呈现被试的相似性操纵材料与被试作答之间的相似程度,一般以比例来计算(Byrne, 1961; Singh et al., 2017b)。而在社会互动范式中,实际相似性通过计算互动双方在人格或态度测量之间的相似程度(如相关系数)来表示(Cemalcilar et al., 2018; Hampton et al., 2019; Sprecher et al., 2015; Tidwell et al., 2013)。感知相似性是指由被试自己评定的与互动对象的相似程度,包括在特定层面如政治态度、兴趣爱好、人格类型上感知到的他人与自己的相似程度,或是用较为概括性的题项测量总体层面上感知到他人与自己的相似程度。然而无论是态度层面或是人格层面的相似度,实证研究都发现感知相似性相较于实际相似性对吸引力的预测作用更强(Cemalcilar et al., 2018; Montoya et al., 2008; Sunnafrank, 1992; Tidwell et al., 2013),但这也可能是由于感知相似性与吸引力二者存在双向的促进关系,也就是说,喜欢也能促进个体感知他人相似程度的上升(Collisson & Howell, 2014; Morry, 2005; Sprecher, 2014)。

4. 相似吸引理论模型

4.1. 相似吸引的强化观

相似吸引效应的强化观源于经典条件性作用理论,强调相似性或差异性本身具有的强化或惩罚特征,个体受强化或惩罚而自发产生的情绪反应进一步影响了吸引力。相似吸引效应的强化观理论主要指的是Byrne等人(Byrne & Clore Jr., 1967; Byrne & Clore Jr., 1970)提出的强化–情绪模型RAM (reinforcement-affect model)。

强化–情绪模型

Byrne和Clore Jr. (1967)指出对客观世界作出一致的、有条理的解释,并且保持对环境的预测与可控是个体的基本需求,这一倾向称为效能动机(effectance motive),而能够满足效能动机的事物具有强化效用,个体因此更喜欢能够满足效能动机的事物。而相似他人因为与我们具有相似的观点、态度或人格特征,因此能够带来人际互动双方的一致认同(consensual validation),从而满足个体的效能动机,并进一步来带来吸引力(Clore & Byrne, 1974),也就是说,因为相似性本身具有强化属性,所以个体对于相似的对象体验到了人际吸引。然而,与我们持有不同观点或态度的人,因为无法满足效能动机,因而不能带来吸引力(Byrne, 1971)。RAM强调强化的自动性以及情绪的作用,认知过程仅发生在体验到吸引力之后(Byrne & Clore Jr., 1970; Clore & Gormly, 1974)。

虽然Byrne等人开创了相似吸引效应研究的先河,但后续研究表明将认知过程排除在外无法全面解释相似吸引效应。Kaplan和Anderson (1973)指出在个体没有意识参与的情况下,相似吸引之间的关系无法成立。另外,把认知评估的测量置于吸引力评价之前发现相似吸引效应得到了增强(Montoya & Horton, 2004, 2013; Singh et al., 2007a)。另外,RAM也无法解释为什么对个人来说更重要的态度信息会产生更强的相似吸引效应(Berscheid & Hatfield, 1969; Montoya & Horton, 2013),相似的消极特质仅有在个体认可的时候才能带来吸引力(Slotter & Gardner, 2012),以及相似性与差异性对于吸引力具有不对称效应等现象(Singh & Ho, 2000)。

4.2. 相似吸引的认知观

相似吸引的认知观强调个体基于相似性进行认知评估,并进一步影响吸引力反应的过程,与强化观理论不同的是,这一类理论认为认知过程发生在吸引力的产生之前。主要包括信息加工模型IPM (information processing model),自我扩张理论SET (self-expansion theory),人际吸引二维度模型TDMA (two-dimensional models of attraction),以及自我本质主义推理(self-essentiallist reasoning)。

4.2.1. 信息加工模型

信息加工模型IPM (information processing model)将相似性视为一种“信息源”,并从信息的“质”与“量”说明了认知过程在相似吸引中的决定作用,IPM认为个体知觉到他人的态度、爱好、人格是吸引力产生的信息基础,信息的好坏与多寡二者共同决定了吸引力的强度。对于信息“质”的方面,IPM指出个体倾向于认为自己所持有的态度和人格特征是优良并且正确的(Insko, 1973),因此,个体也会认为与自己相似的人是“更好”“更有效”的(Ajzen, 1974; Kaplan & Anderson, 1973; Mclaughlin, 1970),并且认为与相似的人互动也是更加愉快和顺利的(Berscheid & Hatfield, 1969),这些人也更有可能喜欢自己(Aronson & Worchel, 1966; Condon & Crano, 1988)。而对于信息“量”的方面,IPM指出越多的信息越能影响吸引力(Kaplan & Anderson, 1973; Tesser, 1971),例如,更重要的态度相较于一般态度更能够影响吸引力(Montoya & Horton, 2013),增强对认知信息的注意程度也能够增强相似吸引效应(Montoya & Horton, 2004)。

IPM与RAM的差异体现在认知在相似吸引效应中的理论角色上。首先,在认知与吸引力的关系方面,IPM的理论将认知作为独立于吸引力的心理过程,而RAM的吸引力中则包含了认知的成分,Byrne等人(Byrne, 1961)开发的人际判断量表IJS (Interpersonal Judgement Scale)是吸引力的评估工具,其中最后两题测量了喜欢程度与进一步交往的意愿,而前四题测量了对他人知识、能力、道德水平、适应能力的评价,然而,后续研究指出IJS中与认知有关的题项并不能够作为吸引力的有效评估指标(Nesler et al., 1993),因为认知评估与吸引力是相互独立的心理过程(Montoya & Horton, 2004; Singh et al., 2007b)。其次,在认知与吸引力的顺序性方面,RAM认为对于他人的认知评估与吸引力同时发生或在体验到吸引力之后发生(Byrne & Clore Jr., 1970),而相似吸引的认知观将不同类型的认知过程置于吸引力之前(Aron et al., 2013; Aronson & Worchel, 1966; Kaplan & Anderson, 1973; Montoya & Horton, 2020),强调认知对于吸引力的决定作用。Montoya和Horton两位研究者(Montoya & Horton, 2013)对相似吸引效应的进行的元分析比较了IPM与RAM的证据强弱,通过会聚240个实验室研究,他们发现了相似性比例、态度的重要性、信息的显著性是相似吸引的调节变量,证明了IPM对于相似吸引效应更广泛的解释力。而认知的视角也成为了相似吸引效应理论研究的主要取向,不同理论力图从更精细的认知过程为相似吸引提供解释。

4.2.2. 人际吸引的二维度模型

Montoya和Horton (2014, 2020)提出了吸引力的二维度模型TDMA (two-dimensional models of attraction),强调个体对于他人与自身利益相关性的认知评估过程以及这种认知评估对吸引力产生的影响。TDMA指出吸引力源于两个维度的认知评估:能力(competence)和意愿(willingness),能力评估是指一个人具有能够促进感知者个人目标和个人利益实现的品质,而意愿评估是指一个人愿意帮助感知者的实现个人目标和个人利益的程度。TDMA认为个体会将相似的人评估为“更有能力”和“更好”的对象,并且相似的人更可能接受和喜欢自己,从而具有更高的意愿为个体目标实现提供善意、友好的帮助。因此,TDMA假设更高的能力评价和意愿评价使个体更喜欢与自己相似的人。

TDMA关于能力和意愿两个维度作为相似吸引潜在机制的假设具有丰富的实证支持。在能力评估方面,研究发现个体认为相似的人具有更出色的能力(Atkinson et al., 1981; Good, 1975; Mclaughlin, 1970),并且对他人的能力评估能够中介相似性与吸引力之间的关系(Montoya & Horton, 2004; Singh et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2007a; Singh et al., 2017b; Singh et al., 2007b)。在意愿评估方面,研究发现个体认为相似的人更有可能喜欢自己(Hampton et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2007b),并且更加信任相似的人(Singh et al., 2016; Singh, Wegener et al., 2017b; Singh et al., 2015),这也进一步带来了人际吸引力。

作为一个关于吸引力的新兴理论,TDMA对于相似吸引效应的机制研究具有重要意义,未来研究可以对TDMA认知评估两个维度的测量工具与指标进行完善。在能力评估方面,TDMA强调了能力与个人目标的关系,然而目前基于TDMA所使用的测量工具是尊重(respect) (Singh et al., 2016),其中题项包括“……有可能在生活中比较成功”“……有可能会成为一个出色的领导者”,我们认为体现他人能力与自身关系的题项表述能够更有效地体现这一概念的内涵,同时也能更好地预测吸引力。在意愿评估方面,TDMA认为意愿反映了个体对于他人愿意提供仁慈、友善行为与帮助的信念,这一定义与信任(trust)的定义高度相关,因此,实证研究将信任作为意愿的测量指标(Singh et al., 2017a),而同样作为意愿评估指标的包括推测他人对自己的喜欢(Singh et al., 2014),或基于形容词评定的温暖(Awale et al., 2019; Chen & Guo, 2021),Singh等人(2018)指出意愿的评估可能是多维度的,未来可以基于相似吸引效应的理论研究探索不同意愿评估指标之间的关系和对于吸引力预测的相对重要性。

4.2.3. 自我扩张理论

Aron夫妇(Aron & Aron, 1986; Aron & Aron, 1996b)提出了自我扩张理论SET (self-expansion theory),阐明了亲密关系中(包括浪漫伴侣、亲人、朋友)的动机和认知原则,为相似吸引效应提供了一种基于认知的理论解释。SET指出个体与生俱来便有自我扩张的动机和需求,自我扩张的目的在于提升完成目标的能力、增强自我效能感(Aron et al., 2013),而建立亲密关系就是一种通过将他人的资源、能力、知识、身份等内容纳入到自我概念中从而实现自我扩张的方式。SET声称,与自己不同的人能够更多的自我扩张机会,即拥有更大的自我扩张潜能,所以具有吸引力,但这与相似吸引效应并不矛盾,因为SET认为之所以个体会更喜欢相似的对象,是因为相似虽然不能带来相比于不同的人更多的自我扩张机会,然而却具有更高的实现自我扩张的可能性(Aron et al., 1998; Aron & Aron, 1986, 1996a; Aron & Aron, 1996b)。Aron等人(2006)发现当被试得知一段关系有可能建立的时候,相似吸引效应受到了削弱。

根据SET,相似性之所以产生吸引力,主要是由于相似的人有更高的可能性能够满足自我扩张的需求,而相似性却与自我扩张的潜能之间存在相反的关系。然而,实证研究却得到了自我扩张潜能(即预期能够从一段关系获得的自我扩张)对于相似吸引具有正向的中介作用(Hampton et al., 2019; Hilaire, 2013; Sprecher et al., 2015; Sprecher et al., 2013b),也就是说,个体认为与自己更相似的人建立亲密关系能够在未来实现更多的自我扩张。之所以出现与理论假设不一致的结果,可能因为相关研究中所使用的对于自我扩张潜能的测量工具同时混淆了Aron (1996a)在最初的理论中所区分的潜能与可能两个维度。与TDMA一样,SET也对针对于相似吸引效应提出了以认知为核心的两因素决定论,并且也都强调个人目标在认知评估中的决定作用,但是SET却没有阐明吸引力的两个决定因素之间的关系以及对于吸引力的相对影响强弱。然而,就我们所知,除了一篇针对于单恋动机的研究以外(Aron et al., 1998),鲜有研究基于SET假设的两个维度对吸引力进行研究,而这两个维度的严格区分对于相似吸引的解释却是十分重要的,因为SET预测了两个维度分别与相似性存在不同的关系,并进一步影响吸引力。

4.2.4. 自我本质主义推理

最近,Chu和Lowery (2023)两位研究者验证了自我本质主义推理(self-essentiallist reasoning)是相似吸引效应的潜在机制。自我本质主义推理是一种通过一系列深层内在的、稳定不易改变的特性来定义自我的过程,自我本质主义推理过程包括两个步骤,第一步,个体基于特质层面的相似进一步推断与他人自我本质层面的相似,第二步,个体基于与他人相似的自我本质,通过自我投射的方式推测他人与自己享有对现实共同的现实感知,共同的现实感知则进一步带来了人际吸引。该研究通过机制调节设计法(moderation-of-process approach)的实验技术验证了自我本质主义的二阶段推理过程是相似吸引的潜在机制,并且通过最小群体范式(minimal group paradigm)验证了这一推理过程同样存在于实验随机分配而产生的最小层面的相似性上。

在自我本质主义推理的第二个阶段,即通过推测他人与自己具有相同的对现实世界的感知从而产生人际吸引力,这样的假设似乎与Byrne和Clore Jr. (1967)的强化–情绪模型提出的相似性具有强化属性的核心假设具有内在共通性,强化–情绪模型认为,个体力图获得对于世界的解释、预测与控制的基本需求从相似他人身上获得了一致认同,而这一过程因为具有强化作用从而使相似性所依存的知觉对象具有了吸引力,这也说明相似吸引效应的强化观与认知观并非非此即彼,我们认为,对该效应尝试做出的一个全面理论解释,就应该阐明包括认知过程和情绪在吸引力产生中的具体作用。

5. 展望

综上,建构一个更全面的相似吸引理论模型,我们认为应该把握的理论要点和需要解决的问题包括:第一,避免以对立的视角对待相似吸引效应的强化观与认知观,Byrne (1997)指出除了情绪以外的因素也可能影响了相似吸引的过程,同样,在强调认知的理论中也强调相似吸引效应中存在奖赏性的动机过程(Aron & Aron, 1996b; Chu & Lowery, 2023; Montoya & Horton, 2014),实证研究也同样证明在考虑其余认知变量的情况下,积极情绪与一致认同在相似吸引过程中仍然具有独立的中介作用(Hampton et al., 2019; Singh et al., 2014; Singh, Wegener et al., 2017b; Singh et al., 2007b)。第二,理论与实证研究应该阐明各种机制变量之间的相互关系,包括不同变量是否具有顺序性或不同的权重,例如,Singh等人(2014)就同时比较了“相似–吸引”平行中介与链式中介下各变量的效应强弱,并通过多个研究验证信任是“相似–吸引”链式中介中距离吸引力最近的变量(Singh et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2017b; Singh et al., 2015),TDMA也通过吸引力的公式阐明意愿评估过程具有更大的影响作用(Montoya & Horton, 2014)。第三,有必要针对不同关系阶段与关系类型开展具体理论研究,相似吸引在不同关系阶段表现出不同的效应强弱(Amodio & Showers, 2005; Montoya et al., 2008; Sprecher, 2014),同样,相似吸引在不同关系阶段中可能受到不同变量的影响,例如,浪漫关系作为高度排他性的人际关系,可能具有相似但不同于一般人际关系中相似性与吸引力的潜在机制,然而,就我们所知,尚未有研究探索相似吸引在不同人际关系类型上的表现异同并建构相应的理论模型,因此,对相似吸引效应做出全面解释,同样不能脱离特定的关系阶段与关系类型。

6. 总结

吸引力法则提出将近60年,虽然相似吸引效应早已不证自明,然而其理论研究却依旧是一个开放的、复杂的问题,相似性究竟是一种强化物还是信息源并非是一个非黑即白的问题,强化观与认知观的两种视角对于一个更完善的理论模型都不可或缺。我们期望看到未来研究能够提供一个衔接两种理论取向,同时结合关系类型与阶段,对相似吸引效应做出更精细解释的理论模型。

文章引用

杨宇航. 相似吸引效应理论研究述评
A Review of Theoretical Research on the Similarity-Attraction Effect[J]. 心理学进展, 2024, 14(02): 672-682. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2024.142085

参考文献

  1. 1. Ajzen, I. (1974). Effects of Information on Interpersonal Attraction: Similarity versus Affective Value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 374-380. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036002

  2. 2. Amodio, D. M., & Showers, C. J. (2005). ‘Similarity Breeds Liking’ Revisited: The Moderating Role of Commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 817-836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505058701

  3. 3. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the Expan-sion of Self: Understanding Attraction and Satisfaction. Hemisphere Publishing Corp/Harper & Row Publish-ers.

  4. 4. Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1996a). Self and Self-Expansion in Relationships. In G. J. O. Fletcher, & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge Structures in Close Relationships: A Social Psychological Approach (pp. 325-344). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

  5. 5. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Allen, J. (1998). Motivations for Unreciprocated Love. Personality & So-cial Psychology Bulletin, 24, 787-796. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298248001

  6. 6. Aron, A., Lewandowski Jr., G. W., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The Self-Expansion Model of Motivation and Cognition in Close Relationships. In J. A. Simpson, & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships (pp. 90-115). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398694.013.0005

  7. 7. Aron, A., Steele, J. L., Kashdan, T. B., & Perez, M. (2006). When Similars Do Not Attract: Tests of A Prediction from the Self-Expansion Model. Personal Relationships, 13, 387-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00125.x

  8. 8. Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1996b). Love and Expan-sion of the Self: The State of the Model. Personal Relationships, 3, 45-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00103.x

  9. 9. Aronson, E., & Worchel, P. (1966). Similarity versus Liking as Determinants of Interpersonal Attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 5, 157-158. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03328329

  10. 10. Atkinson, D., Brady, S., & Casas, J. (1981). Sexual Preference Similarity, Attitude Similarity, and Perceived Counseling Credibility and Attractiveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 504-509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.28.6.504

  11. 11. Awale, A., Chan, C. S., & Ho, G. T. S. (2019). The Influence of Perceived Warmth and Competence on Realistic Threat and Willingness for Intergroup Contact. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 857-870. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2553

  12. 12. Bakar, H. A., & McCann, R. M. (2014). Matters of Demographic Similarity and Dissimilarity in Supervisor-Subordinate Relationships and Workplace Attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-tions, 41, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.04.004

  13. 13. Berscheid, E., & Hatfield, E. (1969). Interpersonal Attraction. Ad-dison-Wesley.

  14. 14. Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and Close Relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., pp. 193-281). McGraw-Hill.

  15. 15. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1985). Interpersonal Attraction. In G. Lindzeyand, & E. Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 413-484). Wiley.

  16. 16. Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal Attraction and Attitude Similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 713-715. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044721

  17. 17. Byrne, D. (1997). An Overview (and Underview) of Research and Theory within the Attraction Paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407597143008

  18. 18. Byrne, D. E. V. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. Aca-demic Press.

  19. 19. Byrne, D., & Clore Jr., G. L. (1967). Effectance Arousal and Attraction. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 6, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024829

  20. 20. Byrne, D., & Clore Jr., G. L. (1970). A Reinforce-ment Model of Evaluative Responses. Personality: An International Journal, 1, 103-128.

  21. 21. Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. (1969). Similarity and Awareness of Similarity of Personality Characteristics as Determinants of Attraction. Journal of Ex-perimental Research in Personality, 3, 179-186.

  22. 22. Byrne, D., & Rhamey, R. (1965). Magnitude of Positive and Nega-tive Reinforcements as a Determinant of Attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 884-889. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022656

  23. 23. Byrne, D., Griffitt, W., & Stefaniak, D. (1967). Attraction and Similarity of Personality Characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 82-90. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021198

  24. 24. Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Banks, J. S. (1997). On the Role of Humor Ap-preciation in Interpersonal Attraction: It’s No Joking Matter. HUMOR, 10, 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.1997.10.1.77

  25. 25. Cemalcilar, Z., Baruh, L., Kezer, M., Kamiloglu, R. G., & Nigdeli, B. (2018). Role of Personality Traits in First Impressions: An Investigation of Actual and Perceived Personality Similarity Ef-fects on Interpersonal Attraction across Communication Modalities. Journal of Research in Personality, 76, 139-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.07.009

  26. 26. Chen, F., & Guo, T. (2021). Effects of Competence Information on Perceptions of Warmth. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 524-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12452

  27. 27. Chu, C., & Lowery, B. S. (2023). Self-Essentialist Reasoning Underlies the Similarity-Attraction Effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125, 1055-1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000425

  28. 28. Clore, G. L., & Byrne, D. (1974). A Reinforcement-Affect Model of Attraction. In T. L. Huston (Ed.), Foundations of Interpersonal Attraction (pp. 143-170). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-362950-0.50013-6

  29. 29. Clore, G. L., & Gormly, J. B. (1974). Knowing, Feeling, and Liking: A Psychophysiological Study of Attraction. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 218-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(74)90033-6

  30. 30. Collisson, B., & Howell, J. L. (2014). The Liking-Similarity Ef-fect: Perceptions of Similarity as a Function of Liking. Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 384-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.914882

  31. 31. Condon, J. W., & Crano, W. D. (1988). Inferred Evaluation and the Relation between Attitude Similarity and Interpersonal Attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 789-797. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.789

  32. 32. Davison, M. L., & Jones, L. E. (1976). A Similari-ty-Attraction Model for Predicting Sociometric Choice from Perceived Group Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 601-612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.33.5.601

  33. 33. Fu, S., Yan, Q., & Feng, G. C. (2018). Who Will Attract You? Similarity Effect among Users on Online Purchase Intention of Movie Tickets in the Social Shopping Context. International Journal of Information Management, 40, 88-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.01.013

  34. 34. Gillis, J. S., & Avis, W. E. (1980). The Male-Taller Norm in Mate Selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 396-401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728063010

  35. 35. Good, L. R. (1975). Attitude Similarity and Attraction to a Psycho-therapist. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 707-709. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197510)31:4<707::AID-JCLP2270310433>3.0.CO;2-5

  36. 36. Grosz, M. P., Dufner, M., Back, M. D., & Denissen, J. J. (2015). Who Is Open to a Narcissistic Romantic Partner? The Roles of Sensation Seek-ing, Trait Anxiety, and Similarity. Journal of Research in Personality, 58, 84-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.05.007

  37. 37. Hampton, A. J., Boyd, A., & Sprecher, S. (2019). You’re Like Me and I Like You: Mediators of the Similarity-Liking Link Assessed Before and After A Getting-Acquainted Social Interaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36, 2221-2244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518790411

  38. 38. Herjanto, H., & Amin, M. (2020). Repurchase Intention: The Effect of Similarity and Client Knowledge. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 38, 1351-1371. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-03-2020-0108

  39. 39. Hilaire, N. M. (2013). Self-Expansion Motivation and Romantic Liking in Relationship Initiation. Illinois State University.

  40. 40. Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2014). Partner Similarity Matters for the Insecure: Attachment Orientations Moderate the Association between Similarity in Partners’ Personality Traits and Relationship Satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 112-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.09.004

  41. 41. Insko, C. A. (1973). Implied Evaluation and the Similarity-Attraction Effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 297-308. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034224

  42. 42. Jamieson, D. W., Lydon, J. E., & Zanna, M. P. (1987). Attitude and Activity Preference Similarity: Differential Bases of Interpersonal Attraction for Low and High Self-Monitors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1052-1060. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1052

  43. 43. Jellison, J. M., & Mills, J. (1967). Effect of Similarity and Fortune of the Other on Attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 459-463. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024407

  44. 44. Kang, J., & Liu, B. (2019). A Similarity Mindset Matters on Social Media: Us-ing Algorithm-Generated Similarity Metrics to Foster Assimilation in Upward Social Comparison. Social Media + Society, 5, 667382332. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119890884

  45. 45. Kaplan, M. F., & Anderson, N. H. (1973). Information Integration Theory and Reinforcement Theory as Approaches to Interpersonal Attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 301-312. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035112

  46. 46. Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. H. (2003). Interpersonal Attraction and Personality: What Is Attractive—Self Similarity, Ideal Similarity, Complementarity, or Attachment Security? Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 85, 709-722. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.709

  47. 47. Layton, B. D., & Insko, C. A. (1974). Anticipated Interaction and the Similarity-Attraction Effect. Sociometry, 37, 149-162. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786372

  48. 48. Lundy, D. E., Barker, B. C., & Glenn, A. J. (2013). The Role of Aesthetic Pref-erences Similarity in Attraction. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 31, 195-221. https://doi.org/10.2190/EM.31.2.e

  49. 49. Mclaughlin, B. (1970). Similarity, Recall, and Appraisal of Others. Journal of Personality, 38, 106-116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1970.tb00640.x

  50. 50. Miller, R. (2017). Intimate Relationships. McGraw-Hill Ed-ucation.

  51. 51. Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2004). On the Importance of Cognitive Evaluation as a Determinant of In-terpersonal Attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 696-712. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.696

  52. 52. Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2013). A Meta-Analytic Investi-gation of the Processes Underlying the Similarity-Attraction Effect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 64-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512452989

  53. 53. Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2014). A Two-Dimensional Mod-el for the Study of Interpersonal Attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 59-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313501887

  54. 54. Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2020). Understanding the Attrac-tion Process. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14, e12526. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12526

  55. 55. Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is Actual Similarity Necessary for Attraction? A Meta-Analysis of Actual and Perceived Similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-ships, 25, 889-922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700

  56. 56. Morry, M. M. (2005). Relationship Satisfaction as a Predictor of Similarity Ratings: A Test of the Attraction-Similarity Hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 561-584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505054524

  57. 57. Nesler, M. S., Storr, D. M., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1993). The Interpersonal Judgment Scale: A Measure of Liking or Respect? The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 237-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1993.9712141

  58. 58. Pinter, B., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). A Comparison of Min-imal Group Induction Procedures. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210375251

  59. 59. Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., Alexopoulos, T., & Goldenberg, L. (2017). A New Look at Online Attraction: Unilateral Initial Attraction and the Pivotal Role of Perceived Similarity. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 16-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.009

  60. 60. Ruijten, P. A. M. (2021). The Similarity-Attraction Paradigm in Per-suasive Technology: Effects of System and User Personality on Evaluations and Persuasiveness of an Interactive System. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40, 734-746. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1723701

  61. 61. Selfhout, M. H., Branje, S. J., TerBogt, T. F., & Meeus, W. H. (2009). The Role of Music Preferences in Early Adolescents’ Friendship Formation and Stability. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.11.004

  62. 62. Singh, R. (1973). Attraction as a Function of Similarity in At-titudes and Personality Characteristics. The Journal of Social Psychology, 91, 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1973.9922650

  63. 63. Singh, R. (1974). Reinforcement and Attraction Specifying the Effects of Affective States. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 294-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(74)90040-3

  64. 64. Singh, R., & Ho, S. Y. (2000). Attitudes and Attraction: A New Test of the Attraction, Repulsion and Similarity-Dissimilarity Asymmetry Hypotheses. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 197-211. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164426

  65. 65. Singh, R., Chen, F., & Wegener, D. T. (2014). The Similari-ty-Attraction Link: Sequential versus Parallel Multiple-Mediator Models Involving Inferred Attraction, Respect, and Positive Affect. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 281-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2014.912583

  66. 66. Singh, R., Goh, A., Sankaran, K., & Bhullar, N. (2016). Similar-ity and Liking Effects on Interpersonal Attraction: Test of the Two-Dimensional Trust-Respect Model. Psychologia, 59, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.2117/psysoc.2016.1

  67. 67. Singh, R., Ho, L., Tan, H. L., & Bell, P. A. (2007a). Attitudes, Personal Evaluations, Cognitive Evaluation and Interpersonal Attraction: on the Direct, Indirect and Reverse-Causal Effects. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 19-42. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466606X104417

  68. 68. Singh, R., Tay, Y. Y., & Sankaran, K. (2017a). Causal Role of Trust in Interpersonal Attraction from Attitude Similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34, 717-731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516656826

  69. 69. Singh, R., Teng, J. S. Q., Bhullar, N., & Sankaran, K. (2018). Posi-tive Affect as a Moderator of Liking Effects on Trust and Attraction. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12192

  70. 70. Singh, R., Wegener, D. T., Sankaran, K., Bhullar, N., Ang, K. Q. P., Chia, P. J. L., Cheong, X., & Chen, F. (2017b). Attitude Similarity and Attraction: Validation, Positive Affect, and Trust as Sequential Mediators. Personal Relationships, 24, 203-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12178

  71. 71. Singh, R., Wegener, D. T., Sankaran, K., Singh, S., Lin, P. K. F., Seow, M. X., Teng, J. S. Q., & Shuli, S. (2015). On the Importance of Trust in Inter-personal Attraction from Attitude Similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 829-850. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515576993

  72. 72. Singh, R., Yeo, S. E., Lin, P. K. F., & Tan, L. (2007b). Multiple Me-diators of the Attitude Similarity-Attraction Relationship: Dominance of Inferred Attraction and Subtlety of Affect. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701331007

  73. 73. Slotter, E. B., & Gardner, W. L. (2012). The Dangers of Dating the “Bad Boy” (Or Girl): When Does Romantic Desire Encourage Us to Take on the Negative Qualities of Potential Partners? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1173-1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.007

  74. 74. Smith, E. R., Becker, M. A., Byrne, D., & Przybyla, D. (1993). Sexual Attitudes of Males and Females as Predictors of Interperson-al-Attraction and Marital Compatibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1011-1034. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01019.x

  75. 75. Sprecher, S. (2014). Effects of Actual (Manipulated) and Perceived Similarity on Liking in Get-Acquainted Interactions: The Role of Communication. Communication Monographs, 81, 4-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2013.839884

  76. 76. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Wondra, J. D. (2013a). Ef-fects of Self-Disclosure Role on Liking, Closeness, and Other Impressions in Get-Acquainted Interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 497-514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512459033

  77. 77. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Fisher, A., Hilaire, N., & Grzybowski, M. (2015). Associations between Self-Expansion and Actual and Perceived (Dis)Similarity and Their Joint Effects on Attraction in Initial Interactions. Self and Identity, 14, 369-389. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2014.1003592

  78. 78. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Hilaire, N., Fisher Boyd, A., & Hatfield, E. (2013b). You Validate Me, You Like Me, You’re Fun, You Expand Me: “I’m Yours!”. Current Research in Social Psy-chology, 21, 22-34.

  79. 79. Sunnafrank, M. (1992). On Debunking the Attitude Similarity Myth. Communication Mono-graphs, 59, 164-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376259

  80. 80. Tesser, A. (1971). Evaluative and Structural Similarity of Attitudes as Determinants of Interpersonal Attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 92-96. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030711

  81. 81. Tidwell, N. D., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Perceived, Not Actual, Similarity Predicts Initial Attraction in A Live Romantic Context: Evidence from the Speed-Dating Paradigm. Personal Rela-tionships, 20, 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01405.x

期刊菜单