Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:54:36.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Creating Closeness and Interdependence

Results of Laboratory-Based Studies Involving Getting-Acquainted Dyads

from Part IV - Interdependence, Timing, and Expectations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2020

By
Susan Sprecher
Edited by
Laura V. Machia ,
Christopher R. Agnew  and
Ximena B. Arriaga
Laura V. Machia
Affiliation:
Syracuse University, New York
Christopher R. Agnew
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Ximena B. Arriaga
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Get access

Summary

Closeness and interdependence are considered to be essential components of any intimate relationship of significant duration.These core processes, however, can also be manifested in one-time interactions between strangers, with positive consequences including an increase in positive mood and belongingness. Many years ago, Art Aron and his colleagues developed a closeness-generating exercise (sometimes referred to as the Fast Friends procedure) that was designed to generate “a temporary feeling of closeness, not an actual ongoing relationship” within pairs of strangers. Other closeness- and interdependence-inducing tasks have also been developed including additional ones based on structured, self-disclosure and some based on doing activities such as playing a game or engaging in humorous activities.In this chapter, I describe the different tasks that have been developed to create a feeling of closeness or interdependence in initial structured interactions, the types of research questions that have been addressed with this method, and sample findings across multiple lines of research. Although there are limits in the degree to which findings from research based on temporary feelings of closeness in a laboratory setting can generalize to initial interactions and developed relationships in the “real world,” creating closeness and interdependence in a laboratory setting allows researchers to test the influence of various theoretically-important variables, including individual characteristics (shyness), the context of the interaction (medium of communication), and mediators (perception of being liked by the other).

Keywords

ClosenessinterdependenceFast Friends procedureinitial interactionscloseness-inducing tasks
Type
Chapter
Information
Interdependence, Interaction, and Close Relationships , pp. 343 - 367
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agnew, C. R., Loving, T. J., Le, B., & Goodfriend, W. (2004). Thinking close: Measuring relational closeness as perceived self-other inclusion. In Mashek, D. J. & Aron, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy (pp. 103–115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.Google Scholar
Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.Google Scholar
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The relationship closeness inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792.Google Scholar
Boothby, E. J., Smith, L. K., Clark, M. S., & Bargh, J. A. (2016). Psychological distance moderates the amplification of shared experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1431–1444.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, N. L. & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., & Greene, K. (2008). Self-disclosure and starting a close relationship. In Sprecher, S., Wenzel, A., & Harvey, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Relationship Initiation (pp. 153–174). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Dubois, D., Bonezzi, A., & De Angelis, M. D. (2016). Sharing with friends versus strangers: How interpersonal closeness influences word-of-mouth valence. Journal of Marketing Research, 53, 712–727.Google Scholar
Eastwick, P. W. & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Speed-dating: A powerful and flexible paradigm for studying romantic relationship initiation. In Sprecher, S., Wenzel, A., & Harvey, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Relationship Initiation (pp. 217–234). New York: Guildford.Google Scholar
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment. In Sperling, M. & Berman, W. (Eds.), Attachment in Adults: Clinical and Developmental Perspectives (pp. 128–152). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Fraley, B. & Aron, A. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous experience on closeness in initial encounters. Personal Relationships, 11, 61–78.Google Scholar
Gorman, G. & Jordan, C. H. (2015). “I know you’re kidding”: Relationship closeness enhances positive perceptions of teasing. Personal Relationships, 22, 173–187.Google Scholar
Hill, C. T. & Stull, D. E. (1982). Disclosure reciprocity: Conceptual and measurement issues. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 238–244.Google Scholar
Humphreys, L. (2005). Cellphones in public: Social interactions in a wireless era. New Media & Society, 7, 810–833.Google Scholar
Ickes, W. (2009). Strangers in a Strange Lab: How Personality Shapes Our Initial Encounters with Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ickes, W., Bissonnette, V., Garcia, S., & Stinson, L. L. (1990). Implementing and using the dyadic interaction paradigm. In Hendrick, C. & Clark, M. S. (Eds.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 11. Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 16–44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Jourard, S. M. (1971). The Transparent Self (rev. ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Kashdan, T. B. & Wenzel, A. (2005). A transactional approach to social anxiety and the genesis of interpersonal closeness: Self, partner, and social context. Behavior Therapy, 36, 335–346.Google Scholar
Kelley, H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J., Huston, T., Levinger, G., … Peterson, D. R. (1983). Analyzing close relationships. In Kelley, H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J., Huston, T., Levinger, G., … Peterson, D. R. (Eds.), Close Relationships (pp. 20–67). New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Ketay, S. & Beck, L. A. (2017). Attachment predicts cortisol response and closeness in dyadic social interaction. Psychoneurendcrinology, 80, 114–121.Google Scholar
Lewandowski, G. W. & Aron, A. P. (2004). Distinguishing arousal from novelty and challenge in initial romantic attraction between strangers. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 32, 361–372.Google Scholar
Lundy, B. L. & Drouin, M. (2016). From social anxiety to interpersonal connectedness: Relationship building within face-to-face, phone and instant messaging mediums. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 271–277.Google Scholar
MacInnis, C. C. & Hodson, G. (2015). The development of online cross-group relationships among university students: Benefits of earlier (vs. later) disclosure of stigmatized group membership. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 788–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallen, M. J., Day, S. X., & Green, M. A. (2003). Online versus face-to-face conversations: An examination of relational and discourse variables. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 40, 155–163.Google Scholar
Mattick, R. P. & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 455–470.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Pervin, L. A. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (3rd ed., pp. 159–181). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Mendoza-Denton, R. & Page-Gould, E. (2008). Can cross-group friendships influence minority students’ well-being at historically white universities? Psychological Science, 19, 933–939.Google Scholar
Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. (2013). The role of attachment security in adolescent and adult close relationships. In Simpson, J. A. & Campbell, L. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships (pp. 66–89). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. (2018). Attachment theory as a framework for studying relationship dynamics and functioning. In Vangelisti, A. L. & Perlman, D. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 175–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Misra, S., Cheng, L., Genevie, J., & Yuan, M. (2014). The iPhone effect: The quality of in-person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environment and Behavior, 48, 275–298.Google Scholar
Myers, I. B. & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.Google Scholar
Nikolova, H., Lamberton, C., & Coleman, N. V. (2017). Stranger danger: When and why consumer dyads behave less ethically than individuals. Journal of Consumer Research, 45, 90–108.Google Scholar
Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 97–105.Google Scholar
Oztop, P., Katsikopoulos, K., & Gummerum, M. (2018). Creativity through connectedness: The role of closeness and perspective taking n group creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 30, 266–275.Google Scholar
Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1080–1094.Google Scholar
Philipp-Muller, A. & MacDonald, G. (2017). Avoidant individuals may have muted responses to social warmth after all: An attempted replication of MacDonald and Borsook (2010). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 272–280.Google Scholar
Pietromonaco, P. R. & Beck, L. A. (2015). Attachment processes in adult romantic relationships. In Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Simpson, J. A., & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds.), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 3: Interpersonal Relations (pp. 33–64). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Przybylski, A. K. & Weinstein, N. (2013). Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 237–246.Google Scholar
Rainie, L. & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The New Operating System. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ramirez, A. & Burgoon, J. K. (2004). The effect of interactivity on initial interactions: The influence of information valence and modality and information richness on computer-mediated interaction. Communication Monographs, 71, 422–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, D. G., Gomillion, S., Pintea, A. I., & Hamlin, I. (2018). On being forgotten: Memory and forgetting serve as signals of interpersonal importance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 259–276.Google Scholar
Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reis, H. T., O’Keefe, S. D., & Lane, R. D. (2017). Fun is more fun when others are involved. Journal of Positive Psychology, 12, 547–557.Google Scholar
Robinson, H., Ravikulan, A., Nater, U. M., Skoluda, N., Jarrett, P., & Broadbent, E. (2017). The role of social closeness during tape stripping to facilitate skin barrier recovery: Preliminary findings. Health Psychology, 36, 619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., Coolsen, M. K., & Kirchner, J. L. (2004). Interdependence, closeness, and relationships. In Mashek, D. J. & Aron, A. P. (Eds.), Handbook of Closeness and Intimacy (pp. 137–161). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). The self-serving bias in relational context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 378–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). The relationship closeness induction task. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 23, 1–4.Google Scholar
Slatcher, R. B. (2010). When Harry and Sally met Dick and Jane: Creating closeness between couples. Personal Relationships, 17, 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommer, K. L. & Bernieri, F. (2015). Minimizing the pain and probability of rejection: Evidence for relational distancing and proximity seeking within face-to-face interactions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 131–139.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S. (2014a). Effects of actual (manipulated) and perceived similarity on liking in get-acquainted interactions: The role of communication. Communication Monographs, 81, 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprecher, S. (2014b). Initial interactions online-text, online-audio, online-video, or face-to-face: Effects of modality on liking, closeness, and other interpersonal outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 190–197.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S. & Hampton, A. J. (2017). Liking and other reactions after a get-acquainted interaction: A comparison of continuous face-to-face interaction versus interaction that progresses from text messages to face-to-face. Communication Quarterly, 65, 333–353.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S., Hampton, A. J., Heinzel, H. J., & Felmlee, D. (2016). Can I connect with both you and my social network? Access to network-salient communication technology and get-acquainted interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 423–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprecher, S. & Treger, S. (2015). The benefits of turn-taking reciprocal self-disclosure in get-acquainted interactions. Personal Relationships, 22, 460–475.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Wondra, J. D. (2012). Effects of self-disclosure role on liking, closeness, and other impressions in get-acquainted interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 497–514.Google Scholar
Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Wondra, J. D., Hilaire, N., & Wallpe, K. (2013). Taking turns: Reciprocal self-disclosure promotes liking in initial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 860–866.Google Scholar
Sunnafrank, M. (1983). Attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction in communication processes: In pursuit of an ephemeral influence. Communications Monographs, 50, 273–284.Google Scholar
Tidwell, N. D., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed‐dating paradigm. Personal Relationships, 20, 199–215.Google Scholar
Treger, S., Sprecher, S., & Erber, R. (2013). Laughing and liking: Exploring the interpersonal effects of humor use in initial social interactions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 532–543.Google Scholar
Tu, Y., Shaw, A., & Fishbach, A. (2015). The friendly taking effect: How interpersonal closeness leads to seemingly selfish yet jointly maximizing choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 669–687.Google Scholar
Turkle, S. (2012). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
Vacharkulksemsuk, T. & Fredrickson, B. L. (2012). Strangers in sync: Achieving embodied rapport through shared movements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 399–402.Google Scholar
Vittengl, J. R. & Holt, C. S. (2000). Getting acquainted: The relationship of self-disclosure and social attraction to positive affect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welker, K. M., Slatcher, R. B., Baker, L., & Aron, A. (2014). Creating positive out-group attitudes through intergroup couple friendships and implications for compassionate love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 706–725.Google Scholar
Worthy, M., Gary, A. L., & Kahn, G. M. (1969). Self-disclosure as an exchange process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, B. L. & Sinclair, H. C. (2012). Pulling the strings: Effects of friend and parent opinions on dating choices. Personal Relationships, 19, 743–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73.Google Scholar
Yang, C. C., Brown, B. B., & Braun, M. T. (2014). From Facebook to cell calls: Layers of electronic intimacy in college students’ interpersonal relationships. New Media & Society, 16, 5–23.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×