UPI Study › Courses › Advanced Social Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 7.3 Free with a free account
Why We Like Who We Like: Similarity, Reciprocal Liking, and Ingratiation
Advanced Social Psychology · Chapter 7: Belonging, Attraction, and Interpersonal RelationshipsSection 7.3 · lesson 42 of 8510 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Advanced Social Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Advanced Social Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: The Role of Appearance: Physical Traits, Phenomena, and Ratios in Attraction →← The Pull Toward Others: How Attraction Works and What It MeasuresNext lesson: The Role of Appearance: Physical Traits, Phenomena, and Ratios in Attraction →
In this lesson
Similarity, reciprocity, strategic liking, and the disclosure that deepens it.
- State Byrne's law of attraction and its 4 mechanisms
- Explain reciprocal liking and the 3 conditions that kill it
- Map Jones's ingratiation tactics and their failure modes
- Trace self-disclosure from social penetration to fast friends
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,355 words). Read along, or search it.
Belonging, Attraction, and Interpersonal Relationships
Why We Like Who We Like
The last section gave you two engines: reward, and proximity. This one asks a narrower question. Given that two people have the chance to meet, what makes them like each other? Four answers, and they build on one another. Similarity is the first, and it is the most heavily replicated. Reciprocal liking is the second, and it is almost circular. We like people who like us. Ingratiation is the third, and it is the strategic version. Self-disclosure is the fourth, and it is the one that actually deepens things. By the end you should see them as one process, not four tricks.
The Law Of Attraction
Liking Tracks Proportion of Shared Attitudes
Donn Byrne, in nineteen seventy-one, gave the field something rare. A social psychological finding regular enough to be written as a function. He called it the law of attraction. Liking for a stranger is an approximately linear function of one variable. The proportion of attitudes that stranger is perceived to share with you. Two words in that sentence are doing quiet work. Proportion, first. Not the raw count of agreements. Ten agreements out of ten beats twenty out of forty. And perceived, second. The effect runs on your belief about the overlap. Not on the overlap itself. It earned the word law by holding its shape across stimuli, populations, and decades.
How Far It Travels
The Effect Generalizes, and the Methods Agree
The effect does not stay inside attitudes, which is the first surprise. It generalizes to values, and to demographics. To personality, and to leisure pursuits. And even to subtle perceptual styles, which nobody would predict. It also does not depend on one method, which is the second surprise. Survey couples on the street, and the pattern appears. Track friendship pairs across a semester, and it appears again. Hand strangers bogus attitude profiles in a laboratory, and there it is. That combination is what makes the finding hard to explain away. Those three methods have completely different weaknesses. When all three agree, the weaknesses stop being a good explanation.
Two Explanations
Drawn to the Similar, or Repelled by the Different?
Now, why does similarity produce liking? Two explanations have competed for decades, without one decisively winning. The first sits in the reward tradition: similar others validate our worldview. They make us feel our beliefs are reasonable, and our identity coherent. Validation is rewarding, and rewards produce liking. The second, championed by Rosenbaum in nineteen eighty-six, reverses the polarity. He argued the effect is driven by repulsion from the dissimilar. Those who threaten our worldview by their very disagreement. Most contemporary work concludes both processes are real. Their relative weights vary by domain. This is not a quibble, because the two prescribe opposite interventions.
Four Mechanisms
How Similarity Produces Attraction
Underneath those two accounts sit four more specific mechanisms, and they are not rivals. Consensual validation is the first. Similar others confirm our beliefs are reasonable, which reduces uncertainty and rewards us. Reduced conflict is the second, and it is purely practical. Similar others are less likely to disagree, criticize, or produce friction. Marital and friendship satisfaction rise with similarity in conflict-prone domains. Anticipated acceptance is the third, and it is the subtle one. We expect to be liked by similar others, so we behave more openly toward them. Notice that this mechanism is not about the other person at all. It runs through your own behavior, as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Identity confirmation is the fourth. Similarity effects are strongest on dimensions central to who you think you are.
The Folk Theory
Do Opposites Attract?
What about the folk theory, that opposites attract? As stated, it has weak empirical support. On the major dimensions, similarity is the rule, not complementarity. Attitudes, education, social class, worldview. Where complementarity does matter, it operates inside an envelope. An envelope of broad similarity. Partners who share core values often show useful differences in temperament or skills. The difference sits on top of the agreement, not instead of it. So why does the folk theory survive? Because the visible differences inside a matched couple are memorable. And the invisible agreement underneath them is not.
Reciprocal Liking
The Belief That They Like Us
The second lever is almost embarrassingly circular, and completely reliable. One of the best predictors of liking someone is believing that they like you. Backman and Secord demonstrated it in nineteen fifty-nine. Participants were assigned to discussion partners they were told favored them. They came to prefer those partners over the others. Regardless of objective characteristics. Hold onto that phrase, because it is the finding. The favored partners were not actually better in any way. The only thing that changed was what participants believed. Two routes carry the effect. Being liked is rewarding and esteem-enhancing, which is the reward route. And people who expect to be liked behave more warmly, which elicits warmth back.
Three Ways It Fails
When Being Liked Does Not Work
The effect has limits, and three conditions dampen or reverse it. First, if the perceiver suspects the regard is calculated, it stops working. That is ingratiation suspicion, and it turns a compliment into evidence of motive. Second, the perceiver's own self-esteem may be very low. Then praise feels inconsistent with their self-view, and it is rejected. This connects to Swann's self-verification work. It predicts something strange, and worth pausing on. People with low self-esteem may prefer feedback that confirms a poor self-view. Accuracy can beat kindness. Third, the regard can be offered too cheaply. Uniform liking of everyone is less attractive than selective liking that picks you out. Praise with no scarcity carries no information.
Ingratiation
The Strategic Pursuit of Liking
Now the strategic version, which has a formal literature. Edward Jones, in nineteen sixty-four, mapped it systematically. Ingratiation is the deliberate attempt to make yourself liked. Three families of tactics dominate the empirical work. Other-enhancement is the first: flattery and compliments. It works when sincere and credible, and risks reactance when transparent. Opinion conformity is the second. Agreeing strategically with the target's views, which is effective in small doses. Total agreement, though, is simply unconvincing. Self-presentation is the third: doing favors, and managing impressions. Powerful, but only when the favor appears uncalculated. Notice that all three fail in exactly the same direction.
The Dilemma
Tactics That Only Work Undetected
Jones gave that shared failure a name, and it is a structural problem. The ingratiator's dilemma. The tactics work only as long as the target does not perceive them as tactical. The more important the target, a boss or a romantic interest, the more vigilant they are. So ingratiation is hardest to pull off precisely where the payoff is largest. Subtlety, plausibility, and disclosing a mild flaw are the standard techniques. The status pattern is consistent, too. Flattery upward arouses more suspicion than flattery between equals. And yet, here is the twist that keeps the whole thing alive. Gordon's nineteen ninety-six meta-analysis in organizational psychology found something odd. Even suspected ingratiation still tends to produce a net positive effect. Perhaps the target enjoys the flattery while discounting its sincerity. So ingratiation persists in a stable equilibrium, despite being detected.
Self-Disclosure
From Acquaintance to Closeness
The fourth lever is the one that changes the relationship, not just the evaluation. Self-disclosure, the gradual sharing of personal information. Altman and Taylor gave it a framework in nineteen seventy-three, social penetration theory. Relationships grow by expanding breadth, more topics, and depth, more intimate topics. Both under norms of reciprocity, which is the constraint that matters. Pacing is the whole variable. Disclosure matched to the relationship's stage builds trust. Disclosure that is premature, or one-sided, reduces liking, sometimes sharply. Aron and colleagues, in nineteen ninety-seven, turned the gradient into a procedure. Thirty-six questions, escalating in intimacy over about forty-five minutes. Paired strangers reported significantly higher closeness than controls doing small talk. Popular accounts collect the pairs that went on to lasting relationships. It is duller than that: structured, reciprocal disclosure, moving along a known gradient.
Consolidate
Four Levers, One Process
Put the four together, because they are not independent levers. They are components of one general process, and they run in an order. Similarity supplies the initial reward. Reciprocal liking amplifies it. Modest ingratiation lubricates the early interaction. And reciprocated disclosure transforms the whole thing. That last step is qualitatively different from the first three. The first three produce surface attraction, which is real but thin. Only reciprocated disclosure builds a bond of the kind that satisfies the need. The need Baumeister and Leary's belongingness hypothesis identified. Which is why a stranger you like is not yet a person you belong with.
About Advanced Social Psychology at UPI Study
Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) is a self-paced online course of 85 video lessons in 12 chapters, from attitudes, persuasion and the self to prejudice, attraction and relationships, conformity and obedience, helping, aggression and social life online. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Social Psychology vs Sociology
Why take it here
Why students take Advanced Social Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Advanced Social Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Why We Like Who We Like: Similarity, Reciprocal Liking, and Ingratiation
Do people like others who are similar to them?
Do opposites attract?
Why do people like those who like them?
What is the repulsion hypothesis in attraction?
About the Advanced Social Psychology course
How many college credits is Advanced Social Psychology?
How much does Advanced Social Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Advanced Social Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Advanced Social Psychology.
85 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →