Effects of Proximity on Character Ratings in Relation to Attribution, Self-perception and Gender

Imagine a wife screaming at her husband. If observers were present, they would propose that the wife is difficult, shrill, insufferable, and fruitless. But does this wife really embody such characteristics? Does she exemplify this type of behavior seldom or constantly? Why do the observers suggest such personality traits from simply viewing the wife in that situation? Could it have been the environment that prompted the wife to act in such an aggressive manner? Also, does the gender of the antagonistic spouse (in this case, the wife) affect the way observers adduce her general attitude? Some of these answers may be found through the examination of the fundamental attribution theory and error, the self-perception theory, and gender differences. The goal of the experiment conducted is to determine whether attribution, self-perception, and gender differences play a role when two subjects, each of a different gender, participate in different proximity settings that draw on varied degrees of intimacy.

The fundamental attribution theory posits that people tend to give a casual explanation for someone's behavior, often crediting either a situation or the person's disposition. The fundamental attribution error, on the other hand, states that people tend to overestimate personal disposition of others and underestimate the impact of the actual situation. The above imagined circumstance serves as a good example. The wife is seen in an unpleasant light because the observers over-emphasized personality based explanations for her conduct rather than exploring situational explanations. Subjects' attribution of attitude corresponding to behavior is seen in a variety of tests and research, which support the attribution theory. Jones and Harris (1967) first conducted an experiment showing that subjects feel that participants believe the attitudes they express even when they are forced to express the attitude. To further explore and modify such findings, Schneider and Miller (1975) conducted a similar experiment but with the added variable of enthusiasm. They videotaped participants giving a speech of either "pro" or "anti" a given subject, with the variable of enthusiasm. Some participants were enthusiastic and some were not. The observers of the videotapes were told either that that the side that the speech was given on was forced or unforced. Schneider and Miller hypothesized that they expect "less difference between attribution to the pro and anti speakers when they are enthusiastic, particularly when they have no choice". However, they found that the attribution towards the content of the speech is just as strong for unenthusiastic as enthusiastic speeches. Although they found no significance in the variable of enthusiasm, they concluded that in strong situational forces, behavior might still be taken as evidence of what the person really believed. Therefore, when two people interact, there is a large probability that attribution will occur. Conversely, there is a strong possibility that the interaction between these two people and the attribution that follows differs in regards to gender.

Gender difference is the disparity between male and female humans. This "disparity" is broad, and since the difference is gender rather than sex, biological dissimilarities are not included and accordingly, only the interactions between people and their environment is considered. Manifest gender differences include males being more aggressive than females and males performing better on tests of spatial and mathematical ability, while females perform better on tests of verbal ability and memory. Such differences are supported by extensive research, but are there other differences that affect the way males and females react to a certain situation? Guadagno and Cialdini (2007) executed a study that investigated gender differences, more specifically, in the evaluation of computer-mediated persuasive messages (persuasive emails). In this study, participants conversed about a debatable topic with a same-sex confederate. Those participants made to feel a sense of shared identity with the partner were more likely to favor the side the partner was arguing while those participants made to feel a sense little shared identity were the least favorable of the side the partner was arguing. However, the results differed for males and females depending on the communication method. Guadagno and Cialdini (2007) argue "communication via text-based computer-mediated communication (CMC) may enhance or diminish the effectiveness of a persuasive communication depending on the gender of the interactants and the nature of the relationship between them". Guadagno and Cialdini (2007) produced results that indicated that females who discussed the debatable topic by means of email reported less agreement with the message than did females in the face-to-face situation. In males, however, there was no communication style difference. They also concluded that women were likely to form connections with others because the label that women are communal was prominent, whereas men were oriented towards establishing independence because the stereotype that men are proficient was prominent. Guadagno and Cialdini (2007) also reported that participants' ratings of the confederate's agreeability were related to persuasion only for the face-to-face condition for women. Men, conversely, made their judgments based chiefly on the arguments. Immediacy and character of the confederate did not have an impact on their attitude. Finally, Guadagno and Cialdini (2007) concluded that "individuals who experience high oneness with another individual may see themselves as being of the same in-group and this may lead participants in to be more open to persuasion under certain circumstances". In broad terms, these conclusions suggest that women, in general, are more likely to create a bond and see another partner as more agreeable in closer proximities, whereas men do not. Does this mean that a man is less likely to look favorably upon a woman than a woman upon a man? This circumstance could potentially occur depending on the "oneness" that one partner feels for the other. According to this research if oneness is high, then women are more likely to give higher ratings to their partner, especially if the partner is female, than men are. Also, "oneness" experienced by subjects could even affect his/her self-perception.

Self-perception theory suggests that people sometimes infer their own attributes by observing their freely chosen actions. Goldstein and Cialdini (2007) hypothesized that in addition to the self-perception theory, "people sometimes infer their own attributes by observing the freely chosen actions of others with whom they feel a sense of merged identity-almost as if they had observed themselves performing the acts". They induced a sense of shared identity, similar to the idea of "oneness" discussed earlier, with an interviewee in the participants. Goldstein and Cialdini (2007) produced results that suggested that participants came to perceive themselves as possessing attributes related to the interviewee's behavior. If this is so, then when the participant observes behavior carried out by the other, the attributes the participant infers from the other's behavior should lead him/her to believe that such behaviors are deductions about one's own attributes. Subsequently, if two subjects interacted in some manner and develop some kind of relationship linking them together, then one subject will most likely believe that the other feels the same way about him/her and similar characteristics exist between them. This, in turn, allows one subject to place high ratings on the other subject's character.
The two theories dealing with attribution and self-perception, alongside gender differences, allow for an interesting analysis of the interactions between college students, especially those of different genders. This study examines such interactions and how they relate to attribution, self-perception, and gender. This was done through creating three different situations, each varying in degrees of intimacy. According to the fundamental attribution theory, the subjects will attribute an attitude towards their partners simply through the behavior of their partner. This will allow the subjects to fill out a survey asking them to rate specific character traits their partners embody. According to the self-perception theory and related research (described earlier), subjects are able to infer their own attribute through the actions of their partner. This allows the subject to fill out a second survey asking them to guess how their partner rated their own character traits. According to gender differences and related research, greater levels of intimacy increase the likelihood of subjects finding their partner more agreeable, especially if the pair is a same gender dyad. By combining the three areas of research, a hypothesis is formed for this study, stating that with higher degrees of intimacy, women are more likely to give higher personality ratings than men.

Method

Participants

Forty Hamilton College students (30 females, 10 males) from a Social Psychology course participated in this study. All participants ranged from 17-22 years of age and they completed the study as a requirement for a class lab and therefore were not compensated in any way for their participation.

Materials

Each condition required different materials. For the utensil condition, a pen was used. The other two conditions did not require the writing utensil. Each condition included a stopwatch, directions and two surveys. There were three different direction sheets, one dealing with the utensil, one dealing with the eyes, and one dealing with the wrists. The two surveys were similar in each condition. The survey asked the subjects to write what role they played in the experiment and to specify their gender. Next, a scale was given, ranging from 1-7, used to rate the partner's personality characteristics, with 1 implying none, 4 meaning average or unable to tell, and seven being extremely. This scale was applied to 15 adjectives related to personality characteristics. Next, the survey asked the subjects to express how interested they are in being their partner's friend. The subject had to circle a number, ranging from 1-7, with 1 being not interested at all to 7 being extremely interested. The second survey mimicked the first in all aspects except the directions. The second survey commanded the subjects to rate how they thought their partner rated them on the given personality characteristics.

Procedure

The given directions commanded the students to find a partner of the opposite sex that they do not know very well. If a female could not find a male partner, she was asked to find a female partner that she does not know very well. Once the partner was found, the subjects were asked to find a quiet secluded space. Two thirds of the pairs were asked to find such a space outside of the classroom while the remaining one third continued in the classroom. To figure out which one third would stay in the classroom, each pair was directed to count off, starting with 1 and ending with 3. Pairs that counted a 2 or a 3 were asked to find a space outside the classroom, while the pairs that counted 1 remained inside the classroom. Before the pairs left the classroom, they were given directions, 2 data sheets and a stopwatch. Each pair was asked to bring a utensil. The dyads designated with the number 2 were given the utensil directions while the pairs with the number 3 were given the wrist directions. The pairs that remained in the classroom were given the eyes directions. Each pair in each condition was asked to perform a task seriously. This task would last for two minutes, timed with the stopwatch. During this time, the subjects were asked to refrain from speaking to each other. After two minutes passed, the subjects were asked to fill out the two surveys. The utensil condition prompted the subjects to play a role of either the utensil giver or the utensil receiver. The role was assigned randomly: the subject whose first letter in their first name was closest to the letter A was the utensil giver. This utensil giver would give the utensil to the receiver, and the receiver was to hold the utensil for the two minutes. The eye condition directed the subjects to look into each other's eyes for two minutes. The wrist condition required the subjects to play the role of 'touching' or 'being touched', with the toucher being the one whose first letter of his/her first name was closest to the letter A. The toucher was asked to take two fingers (point and middle finger together) and place them on his/her partner's wrist (underside, near the palm) for the two-minute time period. The control variable in all three conditions was the two-minute time span. By setting the control as the time, we are able to eliminate lurking variables that deal with the level of intimacy as related to duration of actions. By setting all three conditions to the same time, we are able to accurately collect data. Another control includes separating the pairs and assigning them to a secluded, quite place. This eliminates the possibility of other pairs influencing the subjects. The dependent variable was the personality of the partner, while the independent variables were the conditions (utensil, wrist, eye). All subjects 18 and older signed a consent form, while those under 18 had their parents or guardians sign the consent form for them.

Results

The hypothesis for this study states that with higher degrees of intimacy, women are more likely to give higher personality ratings than men. The results, however, did not agree with the hypothesis. We analyzed the main effects and interaction with the mean, which was the personality rating of the partner. The main effect of the condition was not statistically significant, F(2,40) = .77, p = .47. The main effect of sex was also not statistically significant, F(1,40) = 1.59, p = .22. Last, the interaction of the condition and sex was not statistically significant, F(2,40) = .52, p = .60. For females in the utensil condition, the mean personality rating was 4.82 with a standard deviation of .72, a standard error of mean .23, and N=10. Females in the wrist condition gave a mean personality rating of 4.85 with a standard deviation of .67, a standard error of mean .21, and N=10. Females in the eye condition gave a mean personality rating of 4.91 with a standard deviation of .68, a standard error of mean .20, and N=12. For males in the utensil condition, the mean personality rating was 4.81 with a standard deviation of .22, a standard error of mean .22, and N=6. Males in the wrist condition gave a mean personality rating of 5.28 with a standard deviation of .14, a standard error of mean .07, and N=4. Males in the eye condition gave a mean personality rating of 5.27 with a standard deviation of .26, a standard error of mean .13, and N=4. The data suggests that the findings are statistically insignificant and therefore do not support our hypothesis.

Discussion

The data from the study suggests that our findings were statistically insignificant and that no correlation exists. Since the findings were insignificant, our hypothesis, which stated that with higher degrees of intimacy, women are more likely to give higher personality ratings than men, is not supported. By looking at the data and the graph, certain information can be easily extracted. For females, the mean personality rating remained consistent through every type of exchange. This insinuates that women do not give higher personality ratings with deeper levels of closeness. The research described earlier conflicts with these findings, because it states that as women experience higher levels of contact, they are more likely to find their partner agreeable. With this increased likelihood, a higher mean personality rating is expected. Our results, however, were not consistent with our prediction. Men, on the other hand, had slightly different results. The mean personality rating given by men to their partner was similar to the one given by women. The mean for the wrist and eye condition, on the other hand, was slightly higher than the means given by the women. This suggests that as the type of exchange requires increased contact, men are more likely to give higher personality ratings to their partner. The results, nevertheless, are not momentous. This finding was surprising due to the fact that past research proposes women as having a greater likelihood of finding their partner agreeable than men do.

The fundamental attribution theory clearly exists in this study solely because the participants were able to fill out the surveys after the experiment. By spending the two minutes with the partner, the subject was able to gather enough information from their partner's behavior to be able to ascribe a rating to their partner's personality characteristics.

Goldstein and Cialdini (2007) affirmed that when the participant observes behavior carried out by the other, the attributes the participant infers from the other's behavior should lead him/her to believe that such behaviors are deductions about one's own attributes. Our study exemplifies such an affirmation when the subjects fill out the second survey, which prompts them to rate themselves on the basis of how they thought their partner rated them. Since the two minutes forced some type of intimacy, the subjects were able to connect with their partners on some level. This connection is enhanced by the fact that they both are students at Hamilton College enrolled in a Social Psychology course.

Three major limitations exist in this study, one of which is the shortage of males in the Social Psychology course. This posed a problem because many females were paired with females, which dramatically alters the data. The level of intimacy felt between two people of opposite sex is much different than that felt between two people of the same sex. Another limitation includes how well people in the class know each other. Since all participants attend Hamilton College, a small liberal arts school in New England, many students know each other, or have developed attitudes towards their classmates before the study was conducted. The third limitation is the size of the sample. Although 35 is statistically the minimum sample number, a sample greater than 40 (preferably in the hundreds) would have produced more accurate and reliable results.

Many additional questions generate from this study, one of which is the relationship between men and women and the opportunity of further contact. Also, does the attractiveness of the partner alter the results in any way? For example, if a male subject finds his female partner unattractive immediately, would that alter the mean personality ratings? This provides an opportunity for further research regarding attractiveness in relation to attribution. Does attractiveness reduce the effects of the fundamental attribution error? If this was better understood and researched, many lurking variables would be eradicated. It is possible that magnetism could have acted as a variable not accounted for in this experiment and influenced the results.

These findings, although insignificant, allow the observer to gather important information about his/her environment, relationships and surroundings. How we perceive and judge our own and others' behavior has real consequences in our lives. Humans are social creatures and interactions with others occur daily. Therefore, knowing how we react to people or situations is crucial. For example, major political choices we make are dependent upon how we attribute the behaviors and actions of the running party. Regarding blame, an individual can either internalize or externalize it. Internalization causes guilt while externalization creates anger. Neither of these outcomes is welcomed and therefore act as stressors and may become very taxing on an individual's health. Therefore seeing attribution patterns in others and ourselves is important. Understanding the way we attribute attitudes to ourselves and others helps us rethink the scenario of the screaming wife. Is she really that shrill, or did the husband drive her mad?

References

Goldstein, N. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). The spyglass self: A model of vicarious self-

perception. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92, 402-417.

Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Persuade him by email, but see her in person:

Online persuasion revisited. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 999-1015.

Schneider, D. J., & Miller, R. S. (1975). The effects of enthusiasm and quality of

arguments on attitude attribution. Journal of personality, 43, 693-708.