PAPERBACK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
1
Bandler and Grinder (1975), founders of the
neurolinguistic programming tradition, have argued that
therapists who match their clients' preferred
representational system (visual, auditory or kinesthetic)
will "create an atmosphere of rapport and understanding"
and, by implication, increase their influence over these
clients. This is only one kind of matching that has been
advocated as a means of achieving influence. Arguments can
be made for the efficacy of matching attitudes, making eye
contact, role reversal (in which one feeds back to the other
her perspective in a quarrel), and the like. Furthermore,
there is a long tradition of research and practice on the
efficacy of reciprocity, that is, matching benefit for
benefit and harm for harm.
This paper presents an overview of theory and research
on all kinds of matching...its impact on behavior and its
origins. The paper contains two main sections. One deals
with substantive matching, that is, similarity in appearance
between one's behavior and characteristics and those of the
other party. The other deals with reciprocity.
- SUBSTANTIATE MATCHING AS A SOCIAL INFLUENCE STRATEGY
In this section, we consider the rode of substantive
matching in the social influence process. Included within
this rubric are similarity of attitudes, appearance, and
OCR for page 2
2
personality characteristics, as well as nonverbal and verbal
behaviors. The section will be divided into two
subsections, one on matching of personal characteristics and
the other on matching in communication. Part of the latter
discussion will consider the role of substantive matching as
a source of influence in psychotherapy.
In reviewing these literatures, we will discuss
research and theory that is mostly consistent with the
following assertions. First, matching produces positive
attitudes (by which we mean greater liking, rapport' or
trust). Second, positive attitudes increase influence.
Third, matching increases influence, a point that can be
derived from the first two assertions.
Matching of Personal Characteristics
Similarity and Attraction
A voluminous body of research has examined the link
between similarity on dimensions such as attractiveness,
attitudes, and personality characteristics and liking.
Attitude Similarity Perceived similarity of attitudes
appears to be a particularly important source of attraction.
For example, in a field study, Newcomb (1961) found that the
OCR for page 3
3
extent of attitude similarity predicted the degree to which
people were attracted to each other after several months of
association. Laboratory experiments involving the
manipulation of perceived attitudes also provide consistent
support for the hypothesis that people tend to like others
whose attitudes seem similar to theirs (see Berscheid and
Walster, 1969; 1978; Byrne, 1971; for reviews).
Some, and perhaps virtually all, people seem to be
aware that similarity of attitudes increases liking, and use
this principle to increase their attractiveness to another.
In a study by Zanna and Pack (1975), female subjects learned
that they would meet an attractive or an unattractive male,
who held either traditional or liberal attitudes toward
women. When the male was attractive, but not when he was
unattractive, the subjects presented themselves as more
liberal to the liberal male, and more traditional to the
traditional male. Thus, the subjects deliberately matched
(or gave the appearance of matching) the attitudes of the
attractive male, presumably to increase their attractiveness
to him.
There are limitations to the strategy of attitude
matching. There is no increase in liking when one perceives
that another person is expressing similarity of attitudes
with manipulative intent, for the purpose of ingratiation
(Jones, 1964; Jones and Pittman, 1982; Jones and Wortman,
1973~. When one has a need for uniqueness (Snyder and
Fronkin, 1980), a highly similar other will threaten this
OCR for page 4
4
need, and one will tend not to like the other. In addition,
when similarity to another person has unpleasant
implications, the other will be disliked. For example,
attitudinal similarity leads to decreased willingness to
interact with another if the other is believed to have a
history of emotional disturbance (Novak and Lerner, 1968;
see also Cooper and Jones, 1969; Taylor and Mettee, 1971;
and see Berscheid, 1985 for a review).
The effect of attitude similarity on attraction appears
to be most important at the beginning of a relationship
(Berscheid, 1985~. In dating couples, similarity of
attitudes appears to decline as a determinant of the
progress of the relationship (Hillel al., 1976; Levinger,
1972), whereas similarity of age, intelligence and physical
appearance holds its own (Hill et al., 1976~. The reason
for the declining significance of attitudes in these
relationships is not clear. Conceivably, similarity of
attitudes is an initial ''screening" criterion for
involvement in a relationship, and similarity along other
dimensions becomes more important once this criterion is
satisfied.
Similarity in Physical Attractiveness Couples in ~ong-term
relationships tend to be similar in physical attractiveness.
This is true of same-sex friends (cf. Cash and Deriega,
1978) as well as of dating couples (Berscheid et al., 1971;
Murstein, 1972; Silverman, 1971) and married couples
OCR for page 5
5
(Murstein and Christy, 1976~. In contrast to attitude
similarity, this effect does not seem to be due to the
impact of similarity on attraction. In general, when
judging strangers, people report more liking for more
physically attractive others, regardless of how similar they
are in attractiveness (see Adams and Crossman, 1978 ;
Berscheid and Walster, 1974 ; Huston and Levinger, 1978, for
reviews). However, it is inevitable that compromises must
be made since the choice of a romantic partner must be
mutual. Hence, in the long run, people tend to choose
others who are similar in attractiveness because those
individuals are more likely to choose them in return than
are more attractive individuals.
Similarity in Personality Popular intuition to the
contrary, there is no convincing empirical support for
either the hypothesis that similarity of personalities will
increase liking or the hypothesis that dissimilarity (i.e.,
complementarily) of personalities will increase liking
(e.g. t Ajzen' 1974; Hoffman and Mater/ 1966; Meyer and
Pepper, 1977; Murstein, 1976).
Theories of Similarity Effects on Attraction There are
several theoretical explanations for the effects of
similarity on liking. These tend to explain the effects of
similarity on some dimensions better than others. Byrne
(1971) has suggested a reinforcement interpretation, which
OCR for page 6
6
applies most clearly to attitude similarity. According to
Byrne (1971:338), attitude similarity is directly
reinforcing, because it satisfies the need to feel that one
is "logical, consistent, and accurate in interpreting the
stimulus world."' Heider's (1958) balance~theory also
accounts for the effects of similarity of attitudes on
liking. It suggests that if we share another person's
attitude toward some object, then the tendency toward a
balanced "P-O-X" (person-other-object) system will lead to a
tendency to feel positively about the other. Furthermore,
if we like another person, we will tend to assume that the
other shares our attitudes (cf. Granberg and King, 1980;
Levinger and Breedlove, 1966~.
Berscheid (1985) notes that attitude similarity may
have either positive or negative implications, although
positive implications are probably more common. For
example, attitude similarity may provide a person with
consensual validation for her opinions, imply that the other
will like her, permit greater prediction of the otherls
behavior, and suggest that the person will enjoy interacting
with the other in mutually enjoyable activities. Hence,
Berscheid (1985:457) concludes that, "it is not so much
similarity itself that is rewarding or dissimilarity alone
that is punishing; rather it is the implications, presumed
or anticipated, of those facts that are responsible for
similarity-attraction effects and for their limitations and
exceptions."
OCR for page 7
7
Matching of attributes that define or create social
categories, such as religion or ethnicity, may increase
liking by creating a sense of shared group membership.
According to Heider (1958) "unit relations" lead to
tt sentiment relations." That is, a sense of belonging
together leads to liking, and a sense of not belonging
together leads to disliking. For example, matching on
religious or ethnic group membership tends to produce a
perceived "unit relationship," which will tend to create
positive sentiments.
Research on "ingroup bias" effects has provided a
considerable amount of evidence that perceived unit
relations lead to greater liking for members of the unit (or
group) and possibly Tess liking for those who are not
members of the unit (cf. Brewer, 1979; Brewer and Kramer,
1985~. A striking finding of research on this "ingroup
bias" effect is that the group boundaries may be based on
trivial or even arbitrary criteria, and shill lead to
ingroup bias. For example, an individual who has been
(arbitrarily) characterized as an overestimator of dots will
tend to rate other overestimators more positively than one
who has been characterized as an underestimator (Tajfel,
1970~. Even when the group membership is randomly
determined through a lottery procedure, individuals tend to
rate ingroup members more favorably (Bil~ig, 1973; Bi1lig
and Tajfel, 1973; Crocker et al., in press; Cracker and
Schwartz, 1985; Locksley et al., 1980; Rabble and Horwitz,
OCR for page 8
8
1969). Thus, a sense of ingroup vs. outgroup, or "unit
relation," may be created by matching people on virtually
any attribute, however trivial.
In summary, many types of similarity, but especially
attitude similarity, lead to increased attraction under most
circumstances. The relationship between similarity and
attraction is probably multiply determined (Huston and
Levinger, 1976~.
Effects of Liking on Influence
We have just reviewed evidence that matching of
personal attributes, especially attitudes, leads to
increased attraction for the person doing the matching. We
now turn to the issue of whether this attraction increases
that person's influence. Several theories predict that
attractive others are more persuasive (McGuire, 1985~. For
example, Kelman's (1961) analysis of social influence
processes suggests two mechanisms. First, to the extent
that one party likes another, the other has the power to
punish the first by withdrawing from the relationship. This
power may induce compliance in the first party--that is, he
does what the other wants him to do (or what he thinks the
other wants him to do) because he sees this as a way to
elicit a desired response from the other. Second, to the
extent that a party likes another, that party may identify
OCR for page 9
9
with the other and accept influence because of this
identification. In other words, the individual may derive
some satisfying part of his self-concept through his
relationship with the other. This may lead him to accept
influence as a way of maintaining this desired relationship,
and consequently the desired self-concept. For example,
whereas I may comply with the law because it has the power
to punish me, I may accede to the influence of my mentor
because my relationship to her comprises an important, and
valued, part of my self-concept.
Heider's (1958) balance theory also suggests that liked
others will be more persuasive, because a system is balanced
if we share the attitudes of those we like.
Empirical evidence that liking increases influence has
been provided in several studies (Eagly and Chaiken, 1975;
Sampson and Insko, 1964; Schuler, 1982; Tannenbaum, 1956~.
Attractive communicators are particularly influential when
they advocate undesirable positions (Eagly and Chaiken,
1975~. Early and Chaiken have argued that this is because
attractive communicators are not expected to advocate
undesirable positions, giving them more credibility when
they do. Attractive communicators are also more influential
when the arguments in a message are weak (Brandstatter et
al., 1982~. In other words, the attractiveness of the
communicator matters more when the communicator's case is on
shaky ground or has a relatively low chance of persuading
the recipient.
OCR for page 10
lo
When does the attractiveness of a communicator matter
and what are its effects relative to the effects of the
quality of the arguments themselves? In their elaboration
likelihood model, Petty and Cacioppo (1981, 1986) have
proposed a theory of the circumstances under which source
characteristics may be more important than the quality of
the arguments themselves. They suggest that persuasion may
occur by one of two routes, which they call the central
route and the peripheral route. Persuasion by the central
route essentially means that recipients attend to the
quality of the arguments presented. If the arguments are
sound and convincing, then persuasion takes place. If they
are weak, the recipient will not be persuaded. Persuasion
by the peripheral route refers to the effects on persuasion
by variables other than the quality of the arguments
presented. For example, when message recipients are
affected by the characteristics of the source of the
message, then persuasion by the peripheral route is said to
have occurred.
According to Petty and Cacioppo (1981, 1986),
persuasion occurs via the central route when recipients are
involved in the the contents of the message, that is, when
the message has personal consequences for them. Persuasion
occurs by the peripheral route when they are uninvolved,
that is, when the message does not have personal
consequences for them. For example, in one study students
were presented arguments supporting a comprehensive exam
OCR for page 11
11
requirement at their university (Petty et al., 1981). For
subjects in the high involvement condition, this policy
would be put in place the following year, and therefore
would affect the subjects themselves. For subjects in the
low involvement condition, the policy would be instituted
several years after they graduated. For subjects in the
high involvement condition, the quality and number of
arguments presented determined their agreement with the
message, but source characteristics had no effect. For
subjects in the low involvement condition, the credibility
of the source of the message, but not the quality of the
arguments, determined agreement.
In a similar study (Petty et al., 1983), under
conditions of low involvement, the reputation of the source
of a message affected persuasion; but under conditions of
high involvement only argument quality affected persuasion.
In a study directly relevant to the issue of source
likeability, Chaiken (1980) found that a likeable source was
more persuasive than an unlikeab~e source when subjects were
low in involvement, but not when subjects were high in
involvement. Chaiken's theoretical account of these effects
differs in some ways from Petty and Cacioppo's elaboration
likelihood model, but is generally consistent with the
hypothesis that source characteristics influence persuasion
only when the recipients of a message are low in involvement
~ see Chaiken and Stangor, 1986, for a discussion of the
differences between the two models).
OCR for page 77
77
perception of the authenticity of his verbal message.
Paper presented at the meetings of the Eastern
Psychological Association, Boston, Mass.
Exline, R. V., Ellyson' S. L., & Long, B. (1975~. Visual
behavior as an aspect of power role relationships. In P.
Pliner, L. Krames, & T. Alloway (Eds.), Nonverbal
communication of aggression (pp. 21-52). New York:
Plenum.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Garcia, J., McGowan, B. K., and Green, K. F. (1972~. Sensory
quality and integration: Constraints on conditioning. In
A. H. Black and W. F. Prokasy (Eds.~. Classical
conditioning II: Current research and theory. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Gouldner, A. (1960~. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary
statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-179.
Goethals, G. R., & Nelson, R. E. (1973~. Similarity in the
influence process: The belief-value distinction. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 117-122.
Goldman, M. (1980~. Effect of eye contact and distance on
the verbal reinforcement of attitude. Journal of Social
Psychology, 111, 73-78.
Gouldner, A. (1960~. The norm of reciprocity: A
preliminary statement. American Sociological Review,
161-179.
Granberg, D., & King, M. (1980~. Cross-lagged panel
OCR for page 78
78
analysis of the relation between attraction and perceived
similarity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
16, 573-581.
Greenberg, M. S. (1980~. A theory of indebtedness. In K.
J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Wills (Eds.~. Social
exchange. New York: Plenum Press. ~
Greenberg, M. S., ~ Frisch, D. M. (1972~. Effect of
intentionality on willingness to reciprocate a favor.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 99-111.
Greenberg, M. S. & Westcott, D. (1983~. Indebtedness as a
mediator of reactions to aid. In J. D. Fisher, A. Nadler,
& B. M. BePaulo (Eds.~. New directions in helping: Vow 1
Reactions to aid. New York: Academic Press.
Grinder, J., & Bandler, R. (1976~. The structure of magic
l I . Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books .
Gruder, C. L. (1971) . Red ationship with opponent and
partner in mixed-motive bargaining. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 15, 403-416.
Gumm, W. B., Walker, M. K., & Day, H. D. (1982~.
Neurolinguistic programming: Method or myth? Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 29, 327-330.
Haiman, F. S. (1949~. An experimental study of the effects
of ethos in public speaking. Speech Monographs. 16, loo
-202.
Hammer, A. L. (1983~. Matching perceptual predicates:
Effect on perceived empathy in a counseling analogue.
Journal of Counseling Psycholgoy, 30, 172-179.
OCR for page 79
79
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal
relations. New York: Wiley.
Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976~. Breakups
before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of
Social Issue, 32, 147-168.
Hoffman, L. R., & Mater, N. R. F. (1966~. An experimental
reexamination of the similarity-attraction hypothesis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 145-152.
Hornstein, H. A. (1976~. Cruelty and kindness: A new look at
aggression and altruism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Hulse, S. H., Egeth, H., and Deese, J. (1980~. The
psychology of learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Huston, T. L., & Levinger, G. (1978~. Interpersonal
attraction and relationships. Annual Review of
Psychology, 129, 115-156.
Insko, C. A., Murashima, F., & Saiyadain, M. (1966~.
Communicator discrepancy, stimulus ambiguity, and
influence. Journal of Personality, _, 262-27-4.
Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972). Effect of feeling good
on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 2l, 384-388.
Johnson, D. W. (1967~. The use of role reversal in
intergroup competition. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 7, 135-141.
Johnson, D. W. (1971a). Role reversal: A summary and
review of the research. International Journal of Group
OCR for page 80
80
Tensions, 1, 318-344.
Johnson, D. W. (197lb). The effectiveness of role reversal
The actor or the listener. Psychological Reports, 28,
275-282.
Johnson, D. W. (1971c). The effects of warmth of
interaction, accuracy of understanding, and the proposal
of compromises on the listener's behavior. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 18, 207-218.
Jones, E. E. (1964~. Ingratiation: A social psychological
analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982~. Toward a general
theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.),
Psychological perspectives on the self. Hillsda~e, NJ:
Eribaum.
Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. B. (1973~. Ingratiation: An
attributional approach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning
Press.
Katz, E. (1957~. The two-step flow of communication: An
up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion-
Quarterly, 21, 61-78
Katz, E. (1963~. The diffusion of new ideas and practices.
In W. Schramm (Ed.), The science of human communication.
New York: Basic Books.
Razzing A. E. (1975~. Behavior modification in applied
settings. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Kelley, H. H., & Stahelski, A. J. (1970~. Social
interaction basis of cooperators' and competitors' beliefs
OCR for page 81
81
about others. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 16, 66-91.
Kelman, H. C. (1958~. Compliance, identification and
internalization: Three processes of attitude change.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in
social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 27-63.
Kendon, A. (1970~. Movement coordination in social
interaction: Some examples described. Acta Psychologica,
32, 100-125.
Kleinke, C. L. (1979). Effects of personal evaluations. In
G. J. Chelune and Associates, Self-disclosure: Origins,
patterns. and implications of openness in interpersonal
relations. (pp. 57-59) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kleinke, C. L. (1986). Gaze and eye contact: A research
review. Psycholocical Bulletin, 100, 78-100.
Komorita, S. S., and Esser, J. K. (1975). Frequency of
reciprocated concessions in bargaining. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 699-705.
Komorita, S. S., and Mechling, J. (1967~. Betrayal and
reconciliation in a two-person game. Journal of
Personality and Social PsYcholoqv, 6, 349-353.
Krebs, D. L., and Miller, D. T. (1985). Altruism and
aggression. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (3rd ea., vol. 2, pp. 1-71~.
New York: Random House.
Kuhlman, D. M., and Marshello, A. F. J. (1975). Individual
OCR for page 82
82
differences in game motivation as moderators of
preprogrammed strategy effects in prisoner's dilemma.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 922-931.
Lebow, R. N., and Stein, J. G. (in press). Beyond
deterrence. Journal of Social Issues.
Lindekold, S. (1986~. GRIT: Reducing distrust through
carefully introduced conciliation. In S. Worche] and W. G.
Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations.
Chicago: Nel son-Ha11.
Lindekold, S., and Bennett, R. (1973). Attributing trust and
conciliatory intent from coercive power capability.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 180-186.
Lindekold, S., Bennett, R., and Wayner, M. (1976~.
Retaliation level as a foundation for subsequent
conciliation. Behavioral Science, 21, 13-18.
Logan, F. A. (1960~. Incentive. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1974). The psychology of animal learning.
New York: Academic.
Marlowe, D., Gergen, K. J., and Doob, A. N. (1966~.
Opponents t personality, expectation of social interaction,
and interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 3, 206-213.
McClintock, C. G., Nuttin, J. M., and McNeel, S. P. (1970~.
Reward and score feedback as determinants of cooperative
and competitive game behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 4, 606-613.
OCR for page 83
83
McGillicuddy, N. B., Pruitt, D. G., and Syna, H. (1984).
Perceptions of firmness and strength in negotiation.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 402-409.
McNeel, S. P., and Reid, E. C. (1975~. Attitude similarity
social goals, and cooperation. Journal Of Conflict
Resolution, 19, 665-681.
Michener, H. A., Vaske, J. J., Schleifer, S. L., Plazewsk'
J. G., and Chapman, L. J. (1975~. Factors affecting
concession rate and threat usage in bilateral conflict.
Sociometry, 38, 62-80.
Nisbett, R., and Ross, L. (1980~. Human inference:
Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Osgood, C. E. (1962~. An alternative to war and surrender.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Osgood, C. E. (1966~. Perspective in foreign policy (2nd
em.. Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books.
Oskamp, S. (1971~. Effects of programmed strategies on
cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma and other mixed-
motive games. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 10, 221-226.
Oskamp, S., and Periman, D. (1966~. Effects of friendship
and disliking on cooperation in a mixed-motive game.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 10, 221-226.
Perin, C. T. (1943~. A quantitative investigation of the
delay-of-reinforcement gradient. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 32, 37-51.
Pi~isuk, M., Skoinick, P., and Overstreet, E. (1968~.
OCR for page 84
85
Psychology, 8, 160-165.
Tedeschi, J. T., Aranoff, D., Gahagan, J., and Hiester, D.
(1968~. The partial reinforcement effect and the
prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Social Psychology, 75, 209
215.
Tornatzky, L., and Geiwitz, P. J. (1968~. The effects of
threat and attraction in interpersonal bargaining.
Psychonomic Science, 13, 125-126.
Touval, S., and Zartman, I. W. (Eds.~. 1985. The man in the
middle: International mediation in theory and practice.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Wall, J. A., Jr. (1977~. Intergroup bargaining: Effects of
opposing constitutent~s stance, opposing representative Is
bargaining, and representatives' locus of control. Journal
of Conflict Resolution, 21, 459-474.
Wall, J. A., Jr. (1981). An investigation of reciprocity and
reinforcement theories of bargaining behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 367-
385.
Wilson, W. (1971). Reciprocation and other techniques for
inducing cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma game.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, Is, 167-196.
Wrightsman, L. S., Jr., O'Connor, J., and Baker, N. J.
(Eds.). (1972). Cooperation and competition: Readings in
mixed-motive -tames. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
OCR for page 85
84
Predicting cooperation from the two sexes in a conflict
situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
_, 35-43.
Pruitt, D. G. (1968). Reciprocity and credit building in a
laboratory dyed. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology/ 8/ 143-147
Pruitt, D. G. (1970~. Motivational processes in the
decomposed prisoner's dilemma game. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 14/ 227-238.
Pruitt' D. G. tl981). Negotiation behavior. New York:
Academic.
Pruitt, D. G., and Rubin, J. Z. (1986~. Social conflict:
Escalation stalemate, and settlement. New York: Random
House.
Rapoport, A., and Chammah, A. M. (1965~. Prisoner's dilemma:
A study in conflict and cooperation. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Rosenfeld (1967~.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Stapleton, R. E.' Nacci' P./ and Tedeschi/ J. T. (1973).
Interpersonal attraction and the reciprocation of
benefits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
28' 199-205.
Swingle' P. G. J and Gillis/ J. S. (1968). Effects of the
emotional relationship between protagonists in the
prisoner Is dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social
OCR for page 86
86
FOOTNOTES
1The letters in the matrix on the right stand for the
following words (Rapoport and Chammah, 1965): R = reward, S
= sticker Is payoff, T = temptation' P = penalty.
2More precisely, reciprocity is a sensible strategy for
party to adopt in the PD because of the following four
features of the game (party is viewed as the column player
and other as the row player in this analysis):
(a) P > S; hence other cannot be expected to be content
with a CD' outcome, which means that T' is only briefly
attainable if at all.
(b) R' > P' and R' > S'.
(c) T > R; hence R' is not attainable by simply choosing
C' .
(d) R > P; hence other will prefer CC' over DD'.
These features define a PD for other, since they imply
T > R > P > S. They define a broader set of games for party
(all games in which R' > PI and Rt > S') J including PD/
chicken, standard instrumental conditioning paradigms, and
several others.
3Earlier notions that punishment is largely ineffective at
suppressing responses have been shown to be erroneous (Hulse
et al., 1980~.
OCR for page 87
87
4This-model is related to the goal/expectation model
developed by Pruitt and Kimmel (1980). The latter model
holds that people cooperate when they develop (a) the goal
of achieving mutual cooperation and (b) trust that the other
party will reciprocate cooperation. The link is that the
goal of achieving mutual cooperation can be viewed as an
outcome of valuing the opponent's cooperation (condition 3)
and believing that the opponent cannot be exploited
(condition 2~. Trust is condition 1.
5It is interesting to note that both actor and target were
in the same hurting stalemate in these periods. Hence, it
can be argued that a hurting stalemate encourages resort to
unilateral initiatives as well as reciprocity to these
initiatives. This suggests that hostile relationships are
particularly likely to improve when both parties are
experiencing a hurting stalemate at the same time.
