Method
Participants
The participants were 142 undergraduate studentsFootnote 1 from a U.S. Midwestern University. (This sample was after eliminating one pair because they reported being acquainted.) Most of the students were from a psychology participant pool, although a smaller proportion were volunteers from a sociology class who elected to use this research opportunity as a way to earn extra credit (among other options). Pairs of participants were scheduled at the same time, based on their availability and that of the student experimenters. If both participants did not arrive during their scheduled time, the one who did arrive was assigned another research activity. Data collection occurred over three semesters in order to obtain what was determined to be an adequate sample size.
Due to the gender imbalance of the participant pool (and the larger university), a large majority (n = 109; 76.9%) were women. The mean age of the participants was 19.82 (SD = 2.88). A majority (68.3%) of the participants identified themselves as White; 9.9% were Black, 10.6% were Hispanic/Latino, and 4.2% were Asian (a few did not provide their race or indicated mixed race). Of the 71 dyads, 39 were female-female, 28 were male-female, one was male-male, and 3 had an unknown sex composition because one member had not responded to the gender question.
The Pre-Interaction Procedure
Participants who signed up for the study were scheduled in pairs (based on availability) for the experimental session. The participants in each pair arrived to different rooms in a university building and were greeted by their own experimenter, who provided directions to the study. Then, the experimenters arranged for some of the dyads, randomly determined, to greet each other over Skype (video). All participants then responded to a rating form that included several dichotomous items requesting self-descriptive information such as traits, preferences, and interests (this information was used for the manipulation of similarity). After responding to the form, the participants completed an online survey that included background questions (gender, age, race, etc.) and two questions that assessed their expectations for the upcoming interaction. Then, the participants received the rating sheet ostensibly completed by their interaction partner (located in another room) but, in fact, was filled in by the experimenter (for a similar method, see Sprecher, 2019). After viewing the bogus rating sheet (which was manipulated to be similar or dissimilar to their own answers), the participants completed a brief online survey that asked their expectations for the interaction (including a question on expectations for liking).
The Interaction Procedure
After the above preliminary steps, the pairs engaged in a 15-min getting-acquainted interaction. The dyad members were in two different rooms, and the interaction occurred over video-mediated communication (Skype). They engaged in a structured self-disclosure task, which consisted of a combination of items from Aron et al.'s (1997) Closeness-Generating Inventory and Sedikides, Campbell, Reeder, and Elliot's (1999) Relationship Closeness Induction Task. The questions in the self-disclosure task were presented in three sets (of 5 min each), with each set increasing in intimacy. The question list was presented to each member of the pair, and the dyad members were directed to take turns being the first to ask a question. More specifically, they were told that one of them would ask a question, the other would disclose, and then the other would ask the same question of the first. The experimenters entered the rooms to indicate when their participants should go on to the next set of questions. When the session ended, the experimenters had their participant complete a final online reaction.
The Self-Descriptive Rating Form and the Similarity/Dissimilarity Manipulation
The self-descriptive form included 17 items that asked the participants to describe themselves, followed with dichotomous responses. Some of the items began with "Which do you prefer?" (e.g., reality show vs. sitcom; coffee vs. tea; big party vs. romantic dinner for 2). Other items began, "Which best describes you?" (e.g., introvert vs. extrovert; sloppy vs. neat freak). After the participant completed the form, the experimenter picked it up and explained that they would return with the other participant's completed form. The two experimenters met in the hallway and fabricated a new form for each of the dyad members. Depending on the condition to which their participant was randomly assigned, the experimenters prepared each bogus version so that the pair had 3 of the 17 items similar or dissimilar. Which items were selected for the similar responses (in the dissimilarity condition) and for the dissimilar responses (in the similarity condition) were randomly determined.
Measures of Dependent Variables
Expectations Prior to Receiving Bogus Information (and Also Prior to the Interaction)
At the end of the initial online survey, two items asked the participants about their expectations for the upcoming interaction. One question asked how eager they were to interact with the other and the other question asked about expectations for enjoying the interaction. Each question was followed by a 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great deal) response scale.
Expectations after Receiving Bogus Information (but Prior to the Interaction)
Participants completed a second (brief) online survey after they received the bogus information about the other. The participants were asked a second time how eager they were to interact with the other and the degree to which they thought they would enjoy the interaction. They were also asked how much they expected that they would like the other ("How much do you think you will like the other person?"). Each question was followed by a 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great deal) response scale. Participants were also asked two questions about their perception of similarity with the other person: "How much do you think you have in common with the other person?" (1 = nothing or almost nothing, 7 = a great deal) and "How similar do you think you and the Other are likely to be?" (1 = not at all, 7 = a great deal). A composite was created based on the mean of the two similarity items, which had a Cronbach's alpha of .88.
Liking and Other Affiliative Outcomes after the Interaction
After the interaction, the participants completed an online survey that included several measures of reactions to the partner and to the interaction.
Liking
Liking was assessed with three items. One item was: "How much did you like the other?" (1 = not at all, 7 = a great deal). The other two items were adapted from Byrne's (1971) Interpersonal Judgment Scale. The first Byrne item asked about general feelings (1 = I feel that I would probably like this person very much; to 7 = I feel that I would probably dislike this person very much). The second Byrne item asked participants about their desire to work with the person again in an experiment (1 = I believe that I would very much dislike working with this person in an experiment, 7 = I believe that I would very much enjoy working with this person in an experiment). The composite score for liking was based on the mean of the three liking items, after the first Byrne item was recoded. Cronbach's alpha for a composite score was .78.
Perceptions of being liked
Participants were asked, "How much do you think the Other liked you?" (1 = Not at all; to 7 = A great deal).
Closeness
Closeness to the other was assessed with two items. First, a general question on closeness was asked: "How close do you feel toward the Other?" (1 = Not at all, 7 = A great deal). In addition, participants responded to the Inclusion of Other in the Self (IOS) Venn diagram (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). This is a simple, validated, and commonly used measure to assess closeness, and required the participants to select the pair of circles (which overlapped to almost no degree to overlapping almost completely) that best represented their interaction (for examples of use, see Aron et al., 1992; Fraley & Aron, 2004). Because the Cronbach's alpha for the 2-item closeness index was low (.55) the two items are analyzed separately.
Enjoyment of interaction
Enjoyment of interaction was assessed with three items: (1) "How much did you enjoy the interaction?" (2) "How much did you and the other laugh during the interaction?;" and (3) "How much fun was the interaction?" Each item was followed by a 7-point response scale with the anchors, 1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat; to 7 = a great deal. The composite score was represented by the mean of the three items, and Cronbach's alpha for the composite score was .80.
Perceived responsiveness of the other
Participants were presented with four items that assessed the degree to which they perceived their partner to be responsive in the situation. Three of the items were from Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, and Finkel's (2011) Responsiveness scale and were: "The Other seemed to really listen to me," "The Other seemed interested in what I am thinking and feeling," and "The Other was "on the same wavelength" with me." A fourth item was written by the author and has been used in prior social interaction studies (Sprecher & Treger, 2015), and was the item, "The other was responsive to my questions/answers." Each item was followed by a 7-point response scale, with options anchored in the following ways: 1 = Not at all true in this situation; 4 = Somewhat true in this situation; and 7 = Very true in this situation. The mean of the items represented the composite score of the four items, and Cronbach's alpha was .92.
Desire for further interaction
Desire for more interaction was assessed with two similarly worded questions (that appeared in different sections of the post-interaction survey): "How much do you wish you could have more interaction in the future?" and "How much would you like to spend time with the Other again in the future?" The response options ranged from 1 = not at all; to 7 = a great deal. The mean of the two items represented a total composite score and had a Cronbach's alpha of .86.
Perceived similarity
Perceived similarity was assessed with the same two items used in the pre-interaction survey. The mean of the items represented the total composite, and Cronbach's alpha was .91.
Results
Overview to the Analyses
First, intraclass correlations were calculated for the dyad members' scores on the expectation measures. The correlations were non-significant for all of the expectation measures, and ranged from −.13 to .05. Not surprising, however, the intraclass correlation was significant for the manipulation check of perceived similarity (.76, p = .001), as both members of the dyads had received the same bogus information (either similarity or dissimilarity). Because the intraclass correlations were nonsignificant for the measures of expectations, the analyses were conducted at the individual level. The dyadic non-independence in similarity was handled by controlling for the similarity manipulation in the analyses that examined the associations of participants' own expectations with their partner's reactions.
Pre-Interaction Expectations before Receipt of the Bogus Similarity/Dissimilarity Information
Participants scored in the moderate range on the two expectations questions that appeared at the end of the preliminary online survey that was administered before the bogus similarity information was shared. On average, participants were somewhat eager to interact with the stranger (M = 3.90, SD = 1.24) and also believed they would enjoy the interaction a moderate amount (M = 4.26, SD = 1.06).
To address RQ1, participants who had a skype greeting with their interaction partner (n = 56) were compared with the participants who did not have a skype greeting (n = 86), on the two expectation items. The second group consisted of both participants who were randomly assigned to the no-Skype greeting group (n = 74) and participants who were assigned to the Skype greeting but the technology did not work (n = 12). Participants who engaged in the Skype greeting reported being more eager to interact (M = 4.16, SD = 1.24) than participants who did not have the Skype greeting (M = 3.73, SD = 1.21; t [138] = 2.05, p = .04; d = .35). However, there was not a significant difference in expectations of enjoying the interaction as a function of having a Skype greeting (M = 4.44, SD = .92) versus not having one (M = 4.14, SD = 1.13), t[138] = 1.63, p = .106, d = .29).
Pre-Interaction Expectations after Receipt of the Bogus Similarity/Dissimilarity Information
As noted earlier, after the participants received the information ostensibly completed by their interaction partner (who was presented to be similar or dissimilar to them), they completed a second online survey. This online survey asked them once again how eager they were to interact with the other and how much they thought they would enjoy the interaction.