We are attracted to people who like the same things as us: politics, music, books. But why? And could it mean we’re judging those who aren’t like us too harshly?
Summary Self-essentialist reasoning underlies the similarity-attraction effect. We propose that self-essentialist reasoning is a foundational mechanism of the similarity-attraction effect . Our argument is that similarity generates attraction in two steps: (a) people categorize someone with a shared attribute as a person like me based on the self-essentialist belief that one’s attributes are caused by an underlying essence and (b ) then apply its essence (and the other attributes it elicits) to the similar individual to infer agreement about the world at large (i.e., a generalized shared reality). We tested this model in four experimental studies (N = 2290) using individual difference and process moderation approaches. We found that individual differences in self-essentialist beliefs amplified the effect of similarity on perceived generalized shared reality and attraction on significant (Study 1) and minimal (Study 2) dimensions of similarity. We then found that manipulating (i.e., disrupting) the two crucial steps of the self-essentialist reasoning process, i.e., severing the connection between a similar attribute and one’s essence (Study 3) and discouraging people from applying their essence to form an impression of a similar other (Study 4)—attenuated the effect of similarity on attraction. We discuss implications for research on the self, similarity-attraction, and intergroup phenomena. |
Comments
Sometimes the most meaningful relationships in life emerge from the briefest connections. Like when you go to a party and meet someone who’s wearing your favorite band’s t-shirt, or who laughs at the same jokes as you, or who has that unpopular snack that you just (or so you thought) loved. A little shared interest sparks conversation – it’s my favorite too! - and blossoms into lasting affection.
This is called the similarity-attraction effect : we generally like people who are like us. Now, new findings from a Boston University researcher have uncovered one reason.
In a series of studies, Charles Chu, assistant professor of management and organizations at the BU Questrom School of Business , tested the conditions that shape whether we are attracted to, or repelled by, each other. He discovered that a crucial factor was what psychologists call self-essentialist reasoning , where people imagine that they have a deep inner core or essence that shapes them. Chu discovered that when someone believes that an essence drives his interests, likes, and dislikes, he assumes that it is the same for others as well; If they find someone with a matching interest, they reason that person will share their broader worldview. The findings were published in the American Psychological Association’s Journal of Personality and Social Psychology .
"If we were to find an image of our sense of self, it would be this nugget , an almost magical inner core that emanates and provokes what we can see and observe about people and ourselves," says Chu, who published the article with Brian S. Lowery of the Stanford Graduate School of Business. "We argue that believing that people have an underlying essence allows us to assume or infer that when we see someone who shares a single characteristic, they must also share my entire deep-seated essence."
But Chu’s research suggests that this rush to embrace a fundamental, indefinable similarity with someone because of one or two shared interests may be based on faulty thinking, and could restrict who we find a connection with. Working alongside the pull of the similarity-attraction effect is a counterattack: we dislike those we don’t think are like us, often because of one small thing: they like that politician, band, book or TV show we hate.
"We’re all so complex," Chu says. "But we only have a complete view of our own thoughts and feelings, and the minds of others are often a mystery to us. What this work suggests is that we often fill in the blank spaces in the minds of others with our own sense of ourselves and that can sometimes lead us to some unwarranted assumptions ."
Trying to understand other people
To examine why we are attracted to some people and not others, Chu prepared four studies, each designed to uncover different aspects of how we make friends or enemies.
In the first study, participants were told about a fictitious person, Jamie, who had either complementary or contradictory attitudes toward them. After asking participants their views on one of five topics (abortion, capital punishment, gun ownership, animal testing, and physician-assisted suicide), Chu asked how they felt about Jamie, who agreed. or disagree with them on the objective issue. They were also questioned about the roots of his identity to gauge his affinity with self-essentialist reasoning .
Chu found that the more a participant believed that their worldview was formed by an essential core, the more they felt connected to the Jamie who shared their views on a topic.
In a second study, he analyzed whether this effect persisted when the target topics were less substantive. Instead of investigating whether people agreed with Jamie on something as divisive as abortion, Chu asked participants to estimate the number of blue dots on a page and then classified them, and the fictional Jamie, as overestimators or underestimators. Even with this small connection, the findings held: the more someone believed in an essential core, the closer they felt to Jamie as a fellow overestimator or underestimator.
"I found that with both fairly significant dimensions of similarity and arbitrary, minimal similarities, people who have a higher belief that they have an essence are more likely to be attracted to these similar others rather than dissimilar others," he says. Chu.
In two complementary studies, Chu began to disrupt this attraction process, eliminating the influence of self-essentialist reasoning. In one experiment, he labeled attributes (such as liking a certain painting) as essential or nonessential; In another, he told participants that using their essence to judge another person could lead to an inaccurate evaluation of others.
"It breaks this essentialist reasoning process, it cuts off people’s ability to assume that what they’re seeing reflects a deeper similarity," Chu says. "One way I did it was to remind people that this dimension of similarity is actually not connected or related to your essence at all ; the other way was to tell people to use their essence as a way to understand other people "It’s not very effective ."
Negotiation psychology and politics at work
Chu says there is a key tension in their findings that shapes their real-world application. On the one hand, we are all looking for our community : it’s fun to hang out with people who share our hobbies and interests, love the same music and books as us, don’t disagree with us on politics. "This type of thinking is a really useful heuristic psychological strategy," Chu says. "It allows people to see themselves more in new people and strangers." But it also excludes people, establishes divisions and limits, sometimes for very flimsy reasons.
"When you hear just one fact or opinion being expressed that you agree or disagree with, it’s really worth taking an extra breath and just slowing down," he says. "Not necessarily taking that one piece of information and extrapolating it, using this kind of thinking to get to the end, that this person is fundamentally good and like me or fundamentally bad and not like me."
Chu, whose background combines the study of organizational behavior and psychology, teaches negotiation classes at Questrom and says his research has many implications in the business world, particularly when it comes to making deals.
“I define negotiations as conversations, agreements and disagreements about how power and resources should be distributed between people,” he says. "What inferences do we make about the other people we’re having these conversations with? How do we experience and think about agreement versus disagreement? How do we interpret when someone gets more and someone else gets less? These are all really central questions to the process." of negotiation.”
But in an era when political division has invaded nearly every sphere of our lives, including the workplace, the applications of Chu’s findings go far beyond corporate bargaining. Staff management, project collaboration, team bonding – it’s all determined by the judgments we make about others. Self-essentialist reasoning can even influence society’s distribution of resources, Chu says: who we consider worthy of support, who receives funding and who doesn’t, could be driven by "this belief that people’s outcomes are caused by something." very deep within them. That’s why I advocate pausing before judging someone who, at first glance, doesn’t look like you."
"There are ways to go through life and meet other people, and form impressions of other people, without constantly referring to ourselves ," he says. "If we’re constantly trying to figure out who’s like me, who’s not like me, that’s not always the most productive way to try to form impressions of other people. People are a lot more complex than the things they’re told about make us believe." we give credit."
