The Reciprocity of Liking Effect R. Matthew Montoya...

Reciprocity Effect 1

RUNNING HEAD: THE RECIPROCITY EFFECT

The Reciprocity of Liking Effect

R. Matthew Montoya

University of Dayton

Robert S. Horton

Wabash College

Appears in: Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2012). The reciprocity of liking effect. In Paludi,

M. (Ed.). The Psychology of Love (pp. 39-57). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.


The Reciprocity of Liking Effect

Extensive research demonstrates that receiving information that another is attracted to

you is a powerful determinant of liking. Such reciprocated liking (hereafter referred to as the

reciprocity effect) is generally considered to be one of the more reliable phenomena in social

psychology (e.g., Sprecher, 1998), one that has been demonstrated between individuals (e.g.,

Wilson & Henzlik, 1986), including among adolescents (e.g., Clark & Drewry, 1985), between

groups (Burleson, 1983), and even in psychiatric populations (Martindale, Ross, Hines, &

Abrams, 1978). Further, a meta-analysis of various ingratiation processes found a positive, but

moderate, effect of expressed liking on reciprocated attraction (Gordon, 1996).

On the other hand, introspection, casual observations, and even entire research paradigms

(e.g., unrequited love; Baumeister, Wotman, & Stillwell, 1993) suggest that liking is not always

reciprocated to an admiring other. More specifically, research suggests that liking is unlikely to

be reciprocated if the expressed liking is insincere (Jones, 1964), restricts our freedom (Brehm,

1966), or is inappropriate (e.g., Schopler & Thompson, 1968). The purpose of this chapter is to

describe and evaluate a model of the reciprocity effect based on a two-dimension model of

person perception (e.g., Peeters & Czapinski, 1990; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). This

model is grounded in principles of evolutionary psychology in that it locates the origins of the

reciprocity effect in psychological mechanisms evolved as a solution to problems faced by

ancestral humans. To this end, we outline the theoretical foundation for the two-dimensional

model, evaluate critically the fit between the predictions of the model and the extant research that

explores the limitations of the reciprocity effect, and then discuss additional processes that may

be associated with reciprocated attraction.

Two Dimensional Approaches to Attraction

A number of two-dimensional models of person perception have been described, but


these models agree that evaluations of others, as disparate and varied as they can be, originate

with common fundamental assessments that humans make about others. Further, though

researchers have used different labels to describe the common dimensions on which these

assessments take place (e.g., competence, power, morality, warmth, etc.), the dimensions

invariably describe an evaluation of a person's (a) ability to facilitate one's goals and (b)

help/harm orientation. Thus, the two dimensions of person perception can be simplified down to

(a) ability and (b) willingness assessments. The ability assessment considers the other's capacity

to satisfy/fulfill the individual's goals/interests, and the willingness assessment considers the

other's intentions to satisfy/fulfill the individual's goals/interests. These two dimensions have

their roots in early investigations of warm-cold versus competence-related dimensions (Asch,

1946, see also Hamilton & Fallot, 1974), have been confirmed using both multidimensional

scaling methods (Rosenberg, Nelson, & Vivekananthan, 1968; Jamieson, Lydon, & Zanna, 1987)

and anthropological assessment (White, 1980), and continue to be observed and to drive new

research in different research laboratories (e.g., Reeder, Pryor, &Wojciszke, 1992).

Recent work has confirmed that these two dimensions dominate one's perception of

others. For example, in a study in which participants were asked to categorize traits by the degree

to which they were associated with morality (willingness) and competence (ability), Wojciszke,

Dowhyluk, and Jaworski (1998) found that these two dimensions accounted for 97% of the

variance of global evaluations. Similarly, Oosterhof and Todorov (2008), in a study of facial

perception, asked participants to generate trait descriptions of emotionally neutral faces. A

principal component analysis of these descriptions revealed two components: trustworthiness

(which accounted for 63% of the variance), which the authors labeled "valence" (willingness),

and dominance (18% of the variance), which the authors labeled "power" (ability). Similarly,

Wojcizke (1994) found that over 75% of our experiences with others are based on morality and


competency judgments, and Wojciszke, Bazinska, and Jaworski (1998) discovered that morality

and competence explained over 80% of the variance in global evaluations of others.

From this perspective, person perception flows from a two-dimensional consideration of

an individual: to what extent is the individual able to meet one's needs and to what extent is the

individual willing to meet one's needs. Further, this perspective posits that both assessments are

critical to facilitating the survival of the individual, and thus, critical to the degree of experienced

attraction. As will be outlined below, we posit that the reciprocity effect operates via a simple

manipulation of only one of these assessments; specifically, the willingness assessment. As a

result, it is on that assessment that we focus our attention.

Importance of the Willingness Assessment

The importance of an evaluation of another's intent to help/harm (i.e., the willingness

assessment) is proposed to have evolved under the pressures of group living, which represented a

fundamental survival strategy for ancestral humans. A group context provided mating

opportunities, help with care for offspring, protection from predators (Van Schaik, Van

Noordwijk, Warsono, & Sutriono, 1983), and improved hunting efficiency (McGrew & Feistner,

1992). In this way, living in the group context necessitated the exchange of benefits with others

to maximize the use of available resources. However, rarely are the benefits of an 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 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 motivated to avoid. As a result, one essential

element to exchanges is trust that reciprocation will occur (Blau, 1964; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978).

The critical role of trust in facilitating successful social exchanges has been documented


extensively. To start, it has been evidenced in different types and durations of relationships,

including ad hoc exchanges (e.g., Cosmides & Tooby, 1992), 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; Cohen, Montoya, & Insko, 2006). Relatedly, humans have developed

psychological processes to detect violations in a wide array of exchanges and interactions with

others, including basic social exchanges (cheater detection, Cosmides & Tooby, 1992; preference

for predictability, Kurzban & Leary, 2001; derogation of freeriders, Fehr & Gächter, 2002), mate

selection (jealousy, Buss, Shackelford, Choe, Buunk, & Dijkstra, 2000; parental certainty, Dale,

1995), and intergroup relations (outgroup distrust, Insko, Schopler, & Sedikides, 1998). In this

way, evaluations of trust are vital to successful exchanges with others.

Of course, emphasizing trust and detecting its violations are not sufficient to lead to

effective exchanges. Such emphasis and detective ability must also translate into affective and

behavioral response patterns. That is, due to the increased likelihood that a trustworthy other will

uphold their side of an exchange, one should experience increased attraction for such individuals

as compared to individuals one deems untrustworthy.

Trust and Reciprocated Liking

What is the relationship between expressions of liking and evaluations of trust in the

admirer? If the reciprocity effect is a function of a willingness assessment, two different

empirical relations must first hold. First, expressed attraction must be a cue to willingness (i.e.,

lead to trust). Second, trust must lead to liking of the admirer. Importantly, research supports

both contentions.

With respect to the first point, past theorizing and results have posited the link that

attraction is reciprocated to the extent that the expressed attraction is meaningful of another's


trust. This proposition is consistent with various theories of relationship development. Ellis

(1998), for example, proposed that symbolic acts of investment (e.g., "I love you," or other

expressions of attraction) convey cues to the individual's willingness to continue investing in the

relationship. Similarly, the Commitment Model (Frank, 2001) argued that cooperative systems

between individuals were facilitated by having identifiable marks--such as nonverbal behaviors,

blushing, or the expression of positive emotions--to help differentiate between those who would

cooperate from those who were less likely. Expressed attraction, then, can be regarded as such an

"identifiable mark" (see also, Jones, Jones, & Gergen, 1963; Nemeth, 1970). Such theories are

also consistent with Rempel, Ross, and Holmes's (2001) perspective that perceptions of trust are

a consequence of attraction in long-term relationships.

Second, recent empirical evidence also supports the contention that expressed attraction

leads to trust. Montoya and Insko (2008), for example, manipulated the presence of expressed

liking to the participant, then assessed the degree of trust in the other and reciprocated attraction.

The researchers found that the expression of liking increased attraction, and that trust mediated

the increased attraction generated by the expression of liking.

With respect to the second point, theorizing and empirical work similarly support the idea

that trust in an individual leads to liking for that individual. For instance, in a paper about how to

improve rapport with clients, Nicholson, Compeau, and Sethi (2001) postulated that a customer's

attraction to the salesperson resulted in trust in the salesperson because of the more favorable

motives attributed to those who are trusted. Doney and Cannon (1997) found that the degree to

which a person was liked was correlated positively with the degree of interpersonal trust the

person expressed. Moreover, in a series of studies investigating various degrees of trust in

another person and interpersonal behavior, Rotter (1980) noted a positive correlation between

likeability and trust. In addition, several researchers have noted that assessments of the expected


positivity of the future interactions covaried with reciprocated attraction (e.g., Jones, Stires,

Shaver, & Harris, 1968; Schopler & Thompson, 1968; Nadler, Fisher, & Itzhak, 1983).

Alternatively, in the laboratory context, Ayers, Nacci, and Tedeschi (1973) manipulated

the perceived credibility of a confederate with whom a participant interacted in a mixed-motive

game. The researchers demonstrated that, compared with participants who interacted with

untrustworthy confederates, participants who interacted with trustworthy confederates gave more

money and, more importantly, were more attracted to the confederates. It is also noteworthy that

participants evaluated future interactions with the trustworthy partner as more beneficial than

interactions with the untrustworthy partner, a result that confirms the link between trust and the

assessment of willingness to meet one's needs. Overall, there is theoretical and empirical

evidence that the reciprocity effect is a function of perceptions of willingness. Indeed, expressed

attraction seems to lead to an inference of willingness and the accompanying trust in the admirer;

trust, in turn, leads to attraction for the admirer.

Tests of the Reciprocity Effect

To this point, we have argued that a willingness assessment is one part of a fundamental

evaluation we make of others. We further have described how this willingness assessment is

likely to have evolved due to the considerations of early group living, and presented evidence

that the reciprocity effect flows directly from this assessment of the willingness. In the following

section, we not only review research that establishes the limits of the reciprocity effect, but other

attraction research that explores reciprocated attraction (i.e., the similarity effect, pratfall effect,

matching hypothesis), and argue that this research establishes these limits by undercutting the

inference of willingness to which another's liking naturally leads.

Research on the Reciprocity Effect

Ed Jones (1964), in his famous short book on ingratiation, discussed numerous


limitations and facilitators of the reciprocity effect. The list included many of the most pervasive

real-world concerns associated with the receipt of an expression of liking, namely, the perceived

sincerity of the expressed liking, the presence of ulterior motives for the expression of the liking,

and the amount of sacrifice the other has made for the admired, among others. Although some of

the extant research into these phenomena does not always directly manipulate the presence of

expressed attraction, the research still speaks clearly to the role of willingness to the experience

of attraction to another and is, thus, relevant to the current model of the reciprocity effect.

Amount of sacrifice. Jones (1964) posited that the reciprocity effect would be more

potent if an individual perceived that the other had made a costly sacrifice of his/her self-interest

(e.g., Nadler, Fisher, & Streufert, 1974). If another gives up a great deal to (or as a part of an)

exchange with an individual, the individual is more likely to perceive that the other will act in a

trustworthy fashion in the future. From an evolutionary biological perspective, perceived

sacrifice operates as a cue to the other's honesty. Zahavi (1975) proposed that displays tend to be

evaluated to be honest if, and only if, they are costly to display. If a display is presented without

cost, the display is unreliable because it is too easily mimicked and the chances of being cheated

increases (see also, Grafen, 1990).

As an example, Pruitt (1968), had participants interact with a confederate who had

resources of either $1 or $4 (versus the participants' $2). During the exchange period,

confederates gave the participants either 20% or 80% of their money. Those participants who

received 80% of the confederate's $1 gave more money back to the confederate than those who

received 20% of $4. Although all participants received the same amount of money, attraction

was greater when the participant received 80% of $1 compared with 20% of $4. Pruitt found that

participants rated those confederates who gave a greater percentage of their monies as more

willing to provide good future outcomes; and participants were also more attracted to these


confederates.

Fisher and Nadler (1976) similarly noted that attraction was greatest toward partners who

offered aid when they possessed low, rather than high, resources. In this study, attraction

covaried with participants' ratings of the expected positivity of the future interactions with their

partner. In other words, attraction increased in so far as it indicated that the partner was

perceived as willing to be a good interaction partner in the future. Those who sacrificed greatly

(had low resources but who offered aid anyway) were perceived as better future partners, and

thus, were liked more by participants. This mediational finding, which emphasizes the

importance of the willingness assessment in the reciprocity effect, has been replicated multiple

times (e.g., Nadler, Fisher, & Streufert, 1974; Tesser, Gatewood, & Driver, 1968).

Perceived motives/sincerity. The power of the reciprocity effect is also affected by the

perceived motives of the target. Jones (1964) posited that liking is less likely to be reciprocated

when there are perceived to be ulterior motives for the expression of the liking. As suggested

previously, before interacting with another, individuals need to determine whether the other will

exploit the interaction or will act benevolently (Loomis, 1959). If the other person is judged to be

motivated by liking, the individual can come to believe that the interaction will be successful,

and attraction (or benefits) can be reciprocated. One problem with the receipt of liking, though, is

determining the authenticity of that expression. If the other is judged as possessing alternative

motives or as lacking sincerity, attraction will not be experienced despite fulfillment of the other

requirements of a social exchange (e.g., positive ability assessment).

The dominant explanation in the extant literature for reduced attraction given a possible

ulterior motive is psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966). A classic study by Brehm and Cole

(1966) demonstrated how reactance affects reciprocated liking. In their study, participants were

told to form an impression of another participant. Participants in a high-importance condition


were told that the study's goal was to predict the other participant's future success in life and that

accuracy of one's prediction was critical. Participants in the low-importance condition were

simply told that the study's goal was the completion of a student project. Next, the other

participant (whose outcomes the participants thought they were predicting; actually a

confederate) then either brought the participant a coke (favor) or not (no favor). After the

participant rated the confederate, participants were given the opportunity to help the confederate.

Results revealed that, compared to participants in the low-importance condition, fewer

participants in the high-importance condition helped after receiving a favor. According to the

reactance explanation, the favor in the high-importance condition threatened participants'

freedom to evaluate the confederate accurately. Only by restoring freedom (by not reciprocating

help) could the participants restore freedom and evaluate the confederate accurately.

Important for the two-dimensional approach, Worchel, Andreoli, and Archer (1976) later

conducted a study to further address the causal processes associated with the reciprocation of

attraction as observed in the original Brehm and Cole (1966) study. Worchel et al. (1976)

replicated the Brehm and Cole procedure but also manipulated the attributions participants could

make after the high-importance versus low-importance manipulations. The researchers noted that

perceptions of ulterior motives were greatest in the high-importance condition, which covaried

with attraction assessments. In other words, the other was liked to the extent that ulterior motives

for the expression of liking could not be made.

Although we have argued that the expression of liking is an excellent indicator of trust, a

better, more sincere, source of information regarding another's trust comes from their behavior,

rather than simply their words (i.e., "Actions speak louder than words"; Hardin, 2002; McArthur

& Baron, 1983). In such a case, we would expect behavioral cues, when available, to be more

influential than verbal expressions of liking.


In a laboratory investigation of the effects of favor giving and liking on compliance, D. T.

Regan (1971) manipulated whether or not a confederate purchased a soft drink for the participant

(favor or not), and whether or not the confederate was likable. Regan found that when a favor

was present, it affected reciprocated attraction but the likability of the confederate did not.

Alternatively, when the favor was absent, likability predicted reciprocated liking and favor-

giving. When a favor was presented, participants used the favor, exclusively, to infer the

confederate's trustworthiness, and reciprocated attraction. When no favor was present,

participants went by the only cue they had about the confederate's intent, his likability.

Potential Rejection and the Reciprocity Effect

An alternative test of the reciprocity effect's link to the willingness assessment is to

investigate whether people experience a reduction in attraction to those whom they expect

rejection. In the language of two-dimensional models, do individuals experience less liking

toward those who they view as low in willingness? Indeed, there are two well-known phenomena

that allow for such investigation: the matching hypothesis and the pratfall effect.

Matching hypothesis. Despite overwhelming evidence that we are most attracted to the

most physically attractive others, the matching hypothesis posits that we will end up dating

others who match our level of physical attractiveness. The tendency for individuals to mate with

a partner who approximates their own physical attractiveness (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, &

Rottman, 1966) has been documented numerous times (Cash, 1981). Indeed, a meta-analysis of

the matching hypothesis found a reliable correlation between the physical attractiveness of

relationship partners (r = .39; Feingold, 1988). According to the original explanation for this

effect, a perceivers' subjective self-evaluation was critical for differentiating between realistic

mate choices--choices determined by the objective desirability of the date while constrained by

the perceived likelihood of attaining the date--from idealistic mate choices--choices that are


determined solely by the objective desirability of the date. Idealistic preferences result in

preferences for maximally attractive partners, whereas realistic preferences result in matching for

physical attractiveness. "Realistic" individuals consider the other's physical attractiveness and the

probability of acceptance, and then attempt to date the most attractive other who will accept

them. Thus, realistic individuals, due primarily to equity and market processes, end up dating

others who approximate their own physical attractiveness.

In the context of the two-dimensional model, matching is a function of the tendency for

ability and willingness assessments to be inversely related: Participants regard attractive targets,

either directly or by inference, as more able to meet their needs, but less willing to do so (see

Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972). Huston (1973), for example, noted that men generally

estimated that the more attractive targets were less likely to accept them, but when induced to

think that acceptance of the proposal was certain, men chose more attractive partners. Similarly,

Montoya (2008) found as target's physical attractiveness increased, participants' expectations of

rejection increased and judgments of the likelihood of a relationship occurring decreased. In this

case, the matching effect seems to arise, at least partially, from the preemptive rejection (e.g.,

avoidance) of potential partners that individuals assume will reject them. Such prediction of a

rejection is grounded in the evaluation of potential partners, typically high quality ones, as

unwilling to meet one's needs.

Role of self-esteem. The argument regarding the role of willingness assessments in the

matching phenomenon is further bolstered by matching studies that explore the role of self-

esteem. From our perspective, self-esteem alters the way willingness information is interpreted,

such that those with high self-esteem (or whose esteem has been temporarily inflated) should

regard romantic targets as more willing to meet their needs than do those with low self-esteem

(or whose esteem has been temporarily deflated). Such a claim is consistent with past theorizing


and empirical investigations in which self-esteem affects mate selection choices and preferences.

Subjective self-evaluations, which have been central to a diverse set of mate-preference

models (e.g., Feingold, 1988; Huston, 1973; Kiesler & Baral, 1970; Sloman & Sloman, 1988;

Walster et al., 1966), are hypothesized to be important because they represent one's belief that

one can acquire a desired goal. In the dating realm, individuals with a poor self-evaluation regard

themselves as less able and thus, less likely to attract a desirable target (Lewin, Dembo,

Festinger, & Sears, 1944). Such an approach is consistent with an evolutionary perspective,

which posits that self-esteem reflects a self-evaluation of one's mate value (e.g., Dawkins, 1982;

Todd & Miller, 1999; Wright, 1994). Kirkpatrick and Ellis (2001) similarly proposed that a

function of self-esteem is to facilitate approach toward others who are high in mate quality, but

not too high so that they would not reciprocate benefits (see also Kavanagh, Robins, & Ellis,

2010).

Empirical evidence is consistent with such theorizing. Kiesler and Baral (1970), for

example, found that men whose self-esteem had been lowered displayed more romantic approach

behaviors toward a moderately physically attractive woman than toward a very attractive one. In

contrast, men whose self-esteem had been raised showed the reverse pattern. Similarly, research

indicates that participants with higher self-rated mate value express higher mate preferences than

those with lower self-rated mate value (e.g., Pawlowski & Dunbar, 1999; P. C. Regan, 1998).

Pratfall effect. In their famous pratfall study, Aronson, Willerman, and Floyd (1966)

found that attraction toward a competent target was greater when the target committed an

embarrassing blunder than when the target did not. Helmrich, Aronson, and LeFan (1970) later

reasoned that the blunder "humanized" the confederate and made him more approachable. By our

reasoning of two-dimensional approaches, the blunder "humanized" the confederate by

decreasing, in the participants' minds, the possibility that this confederate might evaluate them


negatively (i.e., might be unwilling to meet their needs, reject them).

This reasoning is supported with multiple lines of research. To start, Morse and Gergen

(1970) concluded that comparisons with another whose performance surpasses one's own

reduces one's self-esteem, ostensibly because participants compared themselves unfavorably

with the other. In the face of such threat to the self, self-protective motives guide decreased

attraction to an exceptional individual who could evaluate the self negatively (Fromkin, 1972;

Sedikides, 1993; Sigall & Landy, 1973). As such, an exceptional blunder-less confederate would

represent a more damaging comparison for the participant, one of which the participant would

assume the confederate is keenly aware and could use as a basis for rejection. As such, the

blunder's impact on attraction resulted from the real change in the nature of the self-comparison

with the confederate (i.e., the comparison became less "upward" than it was before) and the

resultant change in the perceived probability that the participants would be be evaluated

negatively by the target (see Stapel & Tesser 2001).

By this thinking then, one's attraction to a target is influenced by the extent to which we

expect the other to like us. If we expect a person to not like us (as we might expect when

confronted by a flawless person), we will be less attracted to this target than to a target who is

competent but who is less likely to reject us. In effect, the blunder increases attraction toward a

competent other because it alleviates the danger of a negative evaluation to one's self-esteem.

Consistent with this thinking, Herbst, Gaertner, and Insko (2003) manipulated the degree to

which a target other fell short of, matched, or exceeded, one's own ideal self on a self-relevant

attribute. They found that attraction rose as the target's ability increased but that attraction fell

when the target person's ability exceeded one's own ideal self. Similarly, Montoya and Horton

(2004) found that when participants were not faced with the possibility of a negative evaluation

from the partner (e.g., in the "minimal interaction" condition with a superior other or in an


intense interaction with a poor or average partner), attraction increased as the ability assessment

of the partner increased. In contrast, when a negative evaluation was made possible (e.g., by an

expected intense interaction with a highly competent partner), attraction decreased. Similarly,

Amabile (1983) found that although participants regarded individuals who criticized others as

more intelligent, these individuals were also rated as less likable. Each of these studies

demonstrates that as a target's ability level increases, there is an increased perception that the

target will not like us. Such expected rejection leads to a lack of trust in the target, which then

leads to reduced liking.

Similarity Effect

One of the most robust phenomena in attraction literature is the "similarity effect"

(Byrne, 1971): Increased similarity to a target--with respect to attitudes, personality traits, or a

number of other attributes--is associated with increased attraction to the target. The similarity

effect has been observed in a multitude of different populations (e.g., Tan & Singh, 1995) and

has been observed for personality traits (e.g., Carli, Ganley, & Pierce-Otay, 1991), attitudes

(Bond, Byrne, & Diamond, 1968), hobbies (Jamieson, Lydon, & Zanna, 1987), among other

attributes (e.g., Spuhler, 1968). Indeed, a meta-analysis of the similarity effect observed that

similarity produces a positive, moderate, effect on attraction (Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner,

2008).

Although there are multiple competing explanations for the similarity effect (e.g.,

affective processes, Byrne, 1971; cognitive evaluations, Montoya & Horton, 2004), one

prominent interpretation proposes that the similarity effect is mediated by the individual's belief

that the similar other will accept/like the individual (Aronson & Worchel, 1966; Condon &

Crano, 1988). One step further, Singh and colleagues have explored the influence of the trust

inferred from similarity on attraction. For example, Singh, Ho, Tan, and Bell (2007) argued that


it was the trust "built" by the acceptance inferred from similarity that generated attraction to

similar others (also see Singh et al., 2009). Indeed, other work has found that inferred attraction

mediates the similarity effect and that such mediation persists even when controlling for the

other assessment of the target (Singh, Yeo, Lin, & Tan, 2007). As a further test of this

interpretation, McWhirter and Jecker (1967) manipulated similarity and asked participants to

estimate the degree to which they believed that the target person would like him/her. McWhirter

and Jecker found that similarity led to greater expectations of acceptance and more liking for the

target, as compared with dissimilarity. They further noted that acceptance and similarity were

highly correlated (r = .87), providing additional evidence of the role of perceived acceptance in

the similarity effect.

Additional Processes

To this point, we have argued that an assessment of a target's willingness to meet one's

needs is fundamental to the reciprocity effect. That argument is grounded, at least in part, in

person perception literature that identifies assessments of willingness and ability as foundational

to human interaction. However, there is additional evidence that points to an evolved, critical

role for willingness in such interaction. First, non-human species display similar sensitivity to

trust, and second, humans appear to possess physiological mechanisms specialized for trust

consideration.

Cross-species presence of similar mechanisms. The need to exchange resources with

others is not a uniquely human problem. Thus, other species should display the same

mechanisms as humans when determining who will be a good exchange partner. For instance, it

may be unsurprising that chimpanzees display abundant evidence of trust-based behaviors. Quite

generally, chimps can recognize specific other chimpanzees (Parr, 2003), can discriminate

intentional from accidental intentions (Call, Hare, Carpenter, & Tomasello, 2004), can


discriminate between different partners dependent on the specific task required (Melis, Hare, &

Tomasello, 2006), and will engage in altruistic behavior (Warneken & Tomasello, 2006). More

importantly for the current argument, chimps also understand when a distribution of resources

are not equitable (Brosnan, Schiff, & de Waal, 2005) and determine whether they will cooperate

by gauging reciprocity potential. Indeed, chimps are more inclined to share food with another

chimp if that chimp had previously groomed him/her (de Waal, 1997; see also Koyama, Caws, &

Aureli, 2006) and display direct exchange of grooming, coalitionary support, and meat sharing

(Mitani, 2006). Additional research identifies somewhat less sophisticated reciprocity in other

primates (e.g., Silk, 1992) and in lower species (Wilkinson, 1984).

Physiological Processes

If the willingness assessment is universal across species and people, an evolved

adaptation, there should be physiological structures present to support such an assessment.

Below, we discuss two structures necessary for the link between trust and reciprocated liking:

One structure that allows humans to determine the intent of others, and a second structure that

facilitates the development of trust/distrust in others.

Superior temporal sulcus. One critical localized neurological structure important for

processing trust information is the superior temporal sulcus (STS). Research into the role of the

STS postulates that the STS processes the intentions of others. More specifically, the STS has

been linked to inferring another's intentions, rather than to more general cognitive cues, such as

precautionary reasoning (Fiddick, Spampinato, & Grafman, 2005) or descriptive rule reasoning

(Canessa, Gorini, Cappa, Piatelli-Palmarini, Danna, Fazio, et al., 2005). Indeed, the STS is active

when people make judgments of facial emotion (Narumoto, Okada, Sadato, Fukui, & Yonekura,

2001), trustworthiness (e.g., Winston, Strange, O'Doherty, & Dolan, 2002), and intentions (e.g.,

Castelli, Happe, Frith, & Frith, 2000). A similar wealth of studies has noted that the STS, along


with its proximate neural cortices (including the medial prefrontal cortex, anterior temporal

cortex, posterior temporal cortex, superior temporal gyrus, and temporo-parietal junction), is

engaged by inferring another's intentions (e.g., Apperly, Samson, Chiavarino, & Humphreys,

2004; Saxe & Kanwisher, 2003).

Oxytocin. Oxytocin is a neuropeptide hormone released by the posterior pituitary and

found throughout the limbic system and brainstem. Oxytocin receptors are especially prevalent

in brain regions regulating memory, reproduction, and social behavior; and thus, oxytocin is

important to regulating social exchanges and assessments relevant to trust (Bartz & Hollander,

2006; Carter, 1998). For example, oxytocin attenuates anxiety aroused by social stimuli.

Relatedly, Kirsch et al. (2005) observed that an intranasal administration of oxytocin was more

effective at reducing participants' anxiety responses to social (e.g., angry faces), as compared to

non-social (e.g., snakes), anxiety-producing stimuli. Similarly, Heinrichs, Baumgartner,

Kirschbaum, and Ehlert (2003) found that men who received intranasal oxytocin produced less

stress hormone in response to social stressors than men who did not receive oxytocin. In general,

then, oxytocin provides a physiological buffer against social anxiety.

The clearest link, though, between oxytocin and trust comes from research that

investigates trust between unacquainted individuals participating in a social dilemma. Zak,

Kurzban, and Matzner (2005) found that oxytocin levels increased when participants received

trust signals (in the form of monetary allocations) from their opponents and that such increases

predicted increased reciprocation from the participants. Similarly, Kosfeld, Heinrichs, Zak,

Fischbacher, and Fehr (2005) observed that individuals who inhaled oxytocin invested more

money in their opponent, indicating more trust in their opponent to reciprocate later rewards. It is

important to note that these findings resulted when participants interacted with another "live"

partner, but did not occur when participants interacted with a computer, indicating that human


contact is important for the release and influence of oxytocin.

In sum, the STS and Oxytocin seem to be specialized for responding to and/or regulating

trust information. The presence of such mechanisms is consistent with the notion that a

sensitivity to trust is an evolved component of our social wiring, wiring that we seem to share

with only those species with whom we share significant evolutionary heritage.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we posited that the key determinant of reciprocated attraction derives

from the fundamental evaluations we make of others. The impact of the willingness assessment

on attraction can be observed not only in the basic reciprocity of liking effect, but in a broad

spectrum of other attraction phenomena identified frequently in the literature, including the

similarity effect, pratfall effect, and the matching hypothesis. Taken in total, the conclusions

from the present research offer insights regarding the processes individuals use to evaluate and

determine their level of attraction to another, particularly as it relates to the expression of

attraction.


References

Amabile, T. M. (1983). Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 146–156.

Apperly, I. A., Samson, D., Chiavarino, C., & Humphreys, G. W. (2004). Frontal and temporo-

parietal lobe contributions to theory of mind: Neuropsychological evidence from a false-

belief task with reduced language and executive demands. Journal of Cognitive

Neuroscience, 16, 1773-1784.

Aronson, E., & Worchel, P. (1966). Similarity versus liking as determinants of interpersonal

attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 5, 157–158.

Aronson, E., Willerman, B., & Floyd, J. (1966). The effect of a pratfall on increasing

interpersonal attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 4, 227-228.

Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 41, 259–290.

Ayers, L., Nacci, P., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1973). Attraction and reactions to noncontingent

promises. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1, 75–77.

Bartz, J. A., & Hollander, E. (2006). The neuroscience of affiliation: Forging links between basic

and clinical research on neuropeptides and social behavior. Hormones and Behavior, 50,

518–528.

Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993). Unrequited love: On heartbreak,

anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 64, 377-394.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bond, M., Byrne, D., & Diamond, M. J. (1968). Effect of occupational prestige and attitude

similarity on attraction as a function of assumed similarity of attitude. Psychological


Reports, 23, 1167-1172.

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, England: Academic Press.

Brehm, J. W., & Cole, A. H. (1966). Effect of a favor which reduces freedom. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 420–426.

Brosnan, S. F., Schiff, H. C., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2005). Tolerance for inequity may increase

with social closeness in chimpanzees. Proceedings from the Royal Society London B:

Biological Science, 272, 253-258.

Buchan, N. R., Croson, R. T., & Dawes, R. M. (2002). Swift neighbors and persistent strangers:

A cross-cultural investigation of trust and reciprocity in social exchange. American

Journal of Sociology, 108, 168–206.

Burleson, J. A. (1983). Reciprocity of interpersonal attraction within acquainted versus

unacquainted small groups. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(12-B), 4194.

Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Choe, J., Buunk, B. F., & Dijkstra, P. (2000). Distress about

mating rivals. Personal Relationships, 7, 235-243.

Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Call, J., Hare, B., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2004). "Unwilling" versus "unable":

Chimpanzees' understanding of human intentional action. Developmental Science, 7, 488-

498.

Carli, L. L., Ganley, R., & Pierce-Otay, A. (1991). Similarity and satisfaction in roommate

relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 419-426.

Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love.

Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 779–818.

Cash, T. F. (1981). Physical attractiveness: An annotated bibliography of theory and research in

the behavioral sciences. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 11, 83.


Canessa, N., Gorini, A., Cappa, S. F., Piatelli-Palmarini, M., Danna, M., Fazio, F., et al. (2005).

The effect of social content on deductive reasoning: An fMRI study. Human Brain

Mapping, 26, 30-43.

Castelli, F., Happe, F., Frith, U., Frith, C. D. (2000). Movement and mind: a functional imaging

study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns.

NeuroImage, 12, 314-325.

Clark, M. L., & Drewry, D. L. (1985). Similarity and reciprocity in the friendships of elementary

school children. Child Study Journal, 15, 251–264.

Cohen, T., Montoya, R. M., & Insko, C. A. (2006). Group morality and intergroup relations:

Cross-cultural and experimental evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

31, 1559-1572.

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.

Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. H. Barkow, L.

Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the

generation of culture (pp. 163–228). New York: Oxford University Press.

Dale, J. (1995). Problems with pair-wise comparisons: Does certainty of paternity covary with

paternal care? Animal Behaviour, 49, 519-521.

Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype: The gene as the unit of selection. San Francisco:

Freeman.

de Waal, F. B. M. (1997). The chimpanzee's service economy: food for grooming. Evolution and

Human Behavior, 18, 375-386.

Dion, K. K., Berscheid. E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of


Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.

Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller

relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, 35–51.

Ellis, B. J. (1998). The partner-specific investment inventory: An evolutionary approach to

individual differences in investment. Journal of Personality, 66, 383-442.

Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137-140.

Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A

meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 226-235.

Fiddick, L., Spampinato, M. V., & Grafman, J. (2005). Social contracts and precautions activate

different neurological systems: An fMRI investigation of deontic reasoning. NeuroImage,

28, 778-786.

Fisher, J. D., & Nadler, A. (1976). Effect of donor resources on recipient self-esteem and self-

help. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 139-150.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype

content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from the perceived status and

competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.

Frank, R. (2001). Cooperation through emotional commitment. In R. M. Hesse (Ed.), Evolution

and the capacity for commitment (pp. 57-76), New York: Russell Sage.

Fromkin, H. L. (1972). Feelings of interpersonal undistinctiveness: An unpleasant affective state.

Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6, 178–185.

Gordon, R. A. (1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta-analytic

investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 54-70.

Grafen, A. (1990). Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144, 517–

546.


Hamilton, D., & Fallot, R. (1974). Information salience as a weighting factor in impression

formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 444–448.

Hardin, R, (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Heinrichs, M., Baumgartner, T., Kirschbaum, C., & Ehlert, U. (2003). Social support and

oxytocin interact to suppress cortisol and subjective responses to psychosocial stress.

Biological Psychiatry, 54, 1389–1398.

Helmreich, R., Aronson, E., & LeFan, J. (1970). To err is humanizing sometimes: Effects of self-

esteem, competence, and a pratfall on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 16, 259–264.

Herbst, K. C., Gaertner, L., & Insko, C. A. (2003). My head says yes but my heart says no:

Cognitive and affective attraction as a function of similarity to ideal self. Journal of


Huston, T. L. (1973). Ambiguity of acceptance, social desirability, and dating choice. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 32-42.

Insko, C., Schopler, J., & Sedikides, C. (1998). Personal control, entitativity, and evolution.

Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 109-120). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Jamieson, D., Lydon, J., & Zanna, M. (1987). Attitude and activity preference similarity:

Differential bases of interpersonal attraction for low and high self-monitors. Journal of


Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation: A social psychological analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-

Crofts.

Jones, E. E., Jones, R. G., & Gergen, K. J. (1963). Some conditions affecting the evaluation of a

conformist. Journal of Personality, 31, 270-288.


Jones, E. E., Stires, L. K., Shaver, G. K., & Harris, V. A. (1968). Evaluation of an ingratiator by

target persons and bystanders. Journal of Personality, 36, 349–385.

Kavanagh, P. S., Robins, S. C., Ellis, B. J. (2010). The mating sociometer: A regulatory

mechanism for mating aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99,

120-132.

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence.

New York: Wiley.

Kiesler, S. B., & Baral, R. L. (1970). The secret for a romantic partner: The effects of self-

esteem and physical attractiveness on romantic behavior. In K. J. Gergen & D. Marlove

(Eds.), Personality and social behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Kirsch, P., Esslinger, C., Chen, Q., Mier, D., Lis, S., Siddhanti, S., Gruppe, H., Mattay, V.S.,

Gallhofer, B., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2005). Oxytocin modulates neural circuitry for

social cognition and fear in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 11489–11493.

Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P.J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005): Oxytocin increases

trust in humans. Nature, 435, 673–676.

Koyama, N. F., Caws, C. & Aureli, F. (2006). Interchange of grooming and agonistic support in

chimpanzees. International Journal of Primatology, 27, 1293-1309.

Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatism: The function of social

exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 187–208.

Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P. S. (1944). Level of aspiration. In Hunt, J. (Ed.),

Personality and the behavior disorders. (pp. 333-378). Oxford, England: Ronald Press.

Loomis, J. L. (1959). Communication, the development of trust, and cooperative behavior.

Human Relations, 12, 305-315.

Martindale, C., Ross, M., Hines, D., & Abrams, L. I. (1978). Independence of interaction and


interpersonal attraction in a psychiatric hospital population. Journal of Abnormal


McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception.

Psychological Review, 90, 215-238.

McGrew, W.C., & Feistner, A. T. (1992). Two nonhuman primate models for the evolution of

human food sharing: Chimpanzees and callitrichids. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J.

Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture

(pp. 229-243). New York: Oxford University Press.

McWhirter, R. M., & Jecker, J. D. (1967). Attitude similarity and inferred attraction.

Psychonomic Science, 7, 225-226.

Melis, A. P., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Chimpanzees recruit the best collaborators.

Science, 311, 1297–300.

Mitani, J. C. (2006). Reciprocal exchange in chimpanzees and other primates. In P. M. Kappeler

& C. P. van Schaik (Eds.), Cooperation in Primates and Humans: Mechanisms and

Evolution (pp. 107-119). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Montoya, R. M. (2008). I'm hot, so I'd say you're not: The influence of objective physical

attractiveness on mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1315-

1331.

Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. (2004). On the importance of cognitive evaluation as a

determinant of interpersonal attraction in the similarity effect. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 86, 696-712.

Montoya, R. M., & Insko, C. A. (2008). Toward a more complete understanding of the

reciprocity of liking effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 477–498.

Montoya, R. M., Horton, R., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction?


A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 25, 889-922.

Morse, S. J., & Gergen, K. J. (1970). Social comparison, self-consistency, and the presentation of

self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 148-159.

Nadler, A., Fisher, J. D., & Ben Itzhak, S. (1983). With a little help from my friend: Effect of

single or multiple act aid as a function of donor and task characteristics. Journal of


Nadler, A., Fisher, J. D., & Streufert, S. (1974). The donor's dilemma: Recipient's reactions to

aid from friend or foe. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 272-285.

Narumoto, J., Okada, T., Sadato, N., Fukui, K., & Yonekura, Y. (2001). Attention to emotion

modulates fMRI activity in human right superior temporal sulcus. Cognitive Brain

Research, 12, 225–231.

Nemeth, C. (1970). Effects of free versus constrained behavior on attraction between people.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 302-311.

Nicholson, C. Y., Compeau, L. D., & Sethi, R. (2001). The role of interpersonal liking in

building trust in long-term channel relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 29, 3-15.

Oosterhof, N. N., & Todorov, A. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 11087–11092.

Parr, L. A. (2003). The discrimination of faces and their emotional content by chimpanzees (Pan

troglodytes). Annual New York Academy of Science, 1000, 56–78.

Pawlowski, B., & Dunbar, R. I. (1999). Impact of market value on human mate choice decisions.

Proceedings of The Royal Society in London, Series B, 266(1416), 281–285.

Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive–negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction


between affective and informational negativity effects. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone

(Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 33 – 60). New York: Wiley.

Pruitt, D. G. (1968). Reciprocity and credit building in a laboratory dyad. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 8, 143-147.

Reeder, G. D., Pryor, J. B., & Wojciszke, B. (1992). Trait-behavior relationships in social

information processing. In G. R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction and

social cognition (pp. 37–57). London: Sage.

Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a favor and liking on compliance. Journal of Experimental Social


Regan, P. C. (1998). What if you can't get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal

mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1294–1303.

Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of


Rempel, J. K., Ross, M., & Holmes, J. G. (2001). Trust and communicated attributions in close

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 57–64

Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C, & Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the

structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9,

283-294.

Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility. American Psychologist,

35, 1-7.

Saxe, R., & Kanwisher, N. (2003). People thinking about people: The role of the tempo-parietal

junction in "theory of mind". NeuroImage, 19, 1835-1842.

Schopler, J., & Thompson, V. D. (1968). Role of attribution processes in mediating amount of


reciprocity for a favor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 243-250.

Sedikides, C. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-

evaluation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 317–338.

Sigall, H., & Landy, D. (1973). Radiating beauty: Effects of having a physically attractive

partner on person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 218–

224.

Silk, J. B. (1992). The patterning of intervention among male bonnet macaques: reciprocity,

revenge, and loyalty. Current Anthropology, 33, 318-324.

Singh, R., Ho, L. J., Tan, H. L., & Bell, P. A. (2007). Attitudes, personal evaluations, cognitive

evaluation, and interpersonal attraction: On the direct, indirect, and reverse-causal effects.

British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 19–42.

Singh, R., Simons, J. J. P., Young, D. P. C. Y., Sim, B. S. X., Chai, X. T., Singh, S., et al.

(2009). Trust and respect as mediators of the effects of other- and self-profitable trait on

interpersonal attraction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1021–1038.

Singh, R., Yeo, S. E., Lin, P. K. F., & Tan, L. (2007). Multiple mediators of the attitude

similarity-attraction relationship: Dominance of inferred attraction and subtlety of affect.

Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 61–74.

Sloman, S., & Sloman, L. (1988). Mate selection in the service of human evolution. Journal of

Social Biological Structures, 11, 457-468.

Sprecher, S. (1998). Insiders' perspectives on reasons for attraction to a close other. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 61, 287–300.

Spuhler, J. N. (1968). Assortative mating with respect to physical characteristics. Eugenics

Quarterly, 15, 128-140.

Stapel, D. A., & Tesser, A. (2001). Self-activation increases social comparison. Journal of



Tan, D. T., & Singh, R. (1995). Attitudes and attraction: A developmental study of the similarity

attraction and dissimilarity repulsion hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 21, 975-986.

Tesser, A., Gatewood, R., & Driver, M. (1967). Some determinants of gratitude. Journal of


Todd, P. M., & Miller, G. F. (1999). From pride and prejudice to persuasion: Satisficing in mate

search. In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd, & the ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple

heuristics that make us smart (pp. 287–308). New York: Oxford University Press.

Van Schaik, C. P., Van Noordwijk, M. A., Warsono, B., & Sutriono, E. (1983). Party size and

early detection of predators in Sumatran forest primates. Primates, 24, 211-221.

Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical

attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508-

516.

Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young

chimpanzees. Science, 311, 1301-1303.

White, G. M. (1980). Conceptual universals in interpersonal language. American Anthropologist,

82, 759–781.

Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group

mind: A quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect.

Psychological Bulletin, 129, 698–722.

Wilkinson, G. R. (1984). Reciprocal food sharing in vampire bats. Nature, 308, 181-184.

Wilson, W., & Henzlik, W. (1986). Reciprocity of liking following face-to-face encounters with

attractive and unattractive others. Psychological Reports, 59, 599–609.


Winston, J. S., Strange, B. A., O'Doherty, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2002). Automatic and intentional

brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nature Neuroscience, 5,

277–283.

Wojciszke, B. (1994). Multiple meanings of behaviour: Construing actions in terms of

competence or morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 222–232.

Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in

impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1245-1257.

Worchel, S., Andreoli, V. A., & Archer, R. (1976). When is a favor a threat to freedom: The

effects of attribution and importance of freedom on reciprocity. Journal of Personality,

44, 294-310.

Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal: The new science of evolutionary psychology. New York:

Pantheon Books.

Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection: A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology,

53, 205-214.

Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R. & Matzner, W. T., (2005). Oxytocin is associated with human

trustworthiness. Hormones and Behavior, 48, 522–527.

The Reciprocity of Liking Effect R. Matthew Montoya...

Documents

Transcript of The Reciprocity of Liking Effect R. Matthew Montoya...