Toward a more complete understanding of the reciprocity of liking effect

It is proposed that the reciprocation of interpersonal attraction is a multifaceted process involving affective, cognitive, and behavioral elements, and that reciprocation can be interpreted using interdependence theory. Two studies investigated whether expressed attraction implies benevolent intentions and whether such intentions are differentially critical to reciprocated affective and behavioral attraction. Study 1 (N1⁄4 52) demonstrated that (a) an admirer’s expressed attraction suggests an admirer’s benevolent intentions toward the target, and (b) that benevolent intentions mediate reciprocated affective and behavioral attraction. Study 2 (N1⁄4 173) found a difference between affective and behavioral attraction: affective attraction was reciprocated in all cases; but behavioral attraction was not reciprocated when stated behavioral intentions were not consistent with intentions implied by the expressed attraction. Results support an interdependence theory perspective as particularly important for understanding why and what type of reciprocated attraction will occur. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Extensive literature, beginning with Gouldner’s (1960) seminal treatise, has demonstrated that we like those who express liking for us. Reciprocated attraction (hereafter referred to as the reciprocity effect) has been demonstrated between individuals (e.g., Wilson & Henzlik, 1986), including among adolescents (e.g., Clark & Drewry, 1985; Tiwari, 1985), and between groups (Burleson, 1983). It is generally considered to be one of the more reliable phenomena in social psychology (e.g., McCroskey & Richmond, 2000; Sperling & Borgaro, 1995; Sprecher, 1998). Despite the prevalence of the phenomena, numerous exceptions have been reported: For example, attraction may not be reciprocated when the expressed attraction is insincere (Jones, 1964), restricts our freedom (Brehm, 1966), or is inappropriate (Kiesler, 1966; Schopler & Thompson, 1968). Inconsistencies in the findings may derive from an overly simplistic view of the attraction construct itself. Recent research has suggested that the interpersonal attraction attitude is in fact somewhat complex, containing different dimensions (cognitive, affective and behavioral) that respond differently to different situations. For example, European Journal of Social Psychology Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 477–498 (2008) Published online 12 April 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.431 *Correspondence to: R. Matthew Montoya, Center for Public Leadership, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 J.F.K. Street, Cambridge, MA 02143, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 20 September 2006 Accepted 14 February 2007 attraction dimensions differ under conditions of self-esteem threat (e.g., Amabile, 1983; Herbst, Gaertner, & Insko, 2003; Montoya & Horton, 2004) and specific goal orientation (e.g., Michinov & Monteil, 2002). Conditions under which individuals reciprocate attraction–as well as the reason for why individuals reciprocate attraction–may be better understood using social-exchange theory (Homans, 1961) that is encompassed by interdependence theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Interdependence theory has been successfully used to integrate affect and cognition into theory (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003; Rusbult, Van Lange, Wildschut, Yovetich, & Verette, 2000), to model interdependent relationships (Kelley et al., 2003), and to predict reciprocity in relationships (e.g., Ostrom & Walker, 2003). SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY AND THE NORM OF RECIPROCITY Gouldner’s (1960) seminal treatise on the norm of reciprocity was the initial foundation for research on the reciprocity effect. In its simplest form, the norm implies that individuals should help thosewho have helped them, and do no harm to those who have given to them. Such receipt of aid has been generalized to receiving a benefit in the form of another’s affections. If someone expresses affection for another, the recipient reciprocates the affection. Hecato (2nd century B.C.; as cited in Berscheid & Walster, 1969) stated, ‘‘I will show you a love potion without any witch’s spell; if you wish to be loved, love.’’ The norm of reciprocity, however, can also be conceptualized as a basic social exchange. A social exchange develops when two or more individuals interact such that each individual is rewarded (i.e., cooperation for mutual benefit; Emerson, 1976). Drawing on the basic notions of operant conditioning, social exchange theorists posit that individuals interact with others to the extent they are rewarded for doing so. Although it might be assumed that individuals should desire to increase the frequency of beneficial interactions, it is important to note that rarely are the benefits of a social exchange conferred simultaneously. Most commonly, one provides a benefit to another with the expectation that the promised reciprocated benefit will be provided in the future. One concern that then dominates such sequential social exchanges is whether the promised benefit will ever be exchanged. If the other fails to provide the promised benefit, the individual has been exploited and abandoned—a situation the individual is obviously motivated to avoid. As a result, one essential element to social exchange is trust that reciprocation will occur (Blau, 1964; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). The critical role of trust in facilitating successful social exchanges has been evidenced in studies of ad hoc exchanges (Cosmides & Tooby, 1989; Cosmides & Tooby, 1992; Sally, 2000), close relationships (e.g., Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985; Rempel, Ross, & Holmes, 2001), intergroup relations (Wildschut, Pinter, Vevea, Insko, & Schopler, 2003), and cross-cultural processes (Buchan, Croson, & Dawes, 2002). Role of Expressed Attraction How does the role of trust in social exchanges relate to the reciprocity effect? We propose that expressed attraction represents the admirer’s intent to act in a trustworthy and benevolent fashion during the social exchange. In other words, one cue to identify someone who is likely to act in a trustworthy fashion (i.e., act cooperatively) during a social exchange is if the other exhibits some Interdependence theory encompasses both exchange situations and coordination situations. Interdependence theory models coordination situations with matrices containing statistical interactions requiring that outcomes bemaximized through turn taking or alternation (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 477–498 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp 478 R. Matthew Montoya and Chester A. Insko