NEWS: A path-breaking new study on how we seek similarity in relationships, co-authored by researchers at Wellesley College and the University of Kansas, upends the idea that “opposites attract,” instead suggesting we’re drawn to people who are like-minded. The study could lead to a fundamental change in understanding relationship formation—and it sounds a warning for the idea that couples can change each other over time.
The investigation’s findings are presented in “Similarity in Relationships as Niche Construction: Choice, Stability, and Influence Within Dyads in a Free Choice Environment,” in the current issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the field’s most respected journal. Assistant Professor of Psychology Angela Bahns (Wellesley College) and Professor of Psychology Chris Crandall (University of Kansas) are the paper’s lead authors.
In what might be considered a paradigm shift, the study’s most surprising discovery is that people in relationships change each other over time. Instead, Bahns and Crandall’s evidence places new emphasis on the earliest moments of a relationship—revealing that future friends or partners are already similar at the outset of their social connection, a major new finding, say the authors.
“Picture two strangers striking up a conversation on a plane, or a couple on a blind date,” says Bahns. “From the very first moments of awkward banter, how similar the two people are is immediately and powerfully playing a role in future interactions. Will they connect? Or walk away? Those early recognitions of similarity are really consequential in that decision.”
Whether or not a relationship develops could depend on the level of similarity the two individuals share from the beginning of their meeting. “You try to create a social world where you’re comfortable, where you succeed, where you have people you can trust and with whom you can cooperate to meet your goals,” Crandall said. “To create this, similarity is very useful, and people are attracted to it most of the time.”
Bahns adds, “Though the idea that partners influence each other is central in relationships research, we have identified a large domain in which friends show very little change— personality, attitudes and values, and a selection of socially-relevant behaviors.” She explains, “To be clear, we do not mean to suggest that social influence doesn’t happen in relationships; however, there’s little room for influence to occur when partners are similar at the outset of relationships.”
The data also suggests our drive to select like-minded others may be far stronger than previously assumed. “We’re arguing that selecting similar others as relationship partners is extremely common—so common and so widespread on so many dimensions that it could be described as a psychological default,” explains Bahns.
Bahns and Crandall stress the research shows people are not seeking shared similarity on one or two particular topics. “People are more similar than chance on almost everything we measure, and they are especially similar on the things that matter most to them personally,” Bahns said.
The study has major implications for how we grasp the foundations of relationships and approach relationships when the partners are different. Its findings were derived from real-world relationships. Data came from a field-research method dubbed “free-range dyad harvesting,” in which pairs of people interacting in public (romantic couples, friends, acquaintances) were asked questions about attitudes, values, prejudices, personality traits or behaviors that are important to them. The data were compared to see how similar or different the pairs were, and to test whether pairs who had known each other longer and whose relationships were closer and more intimate were more similar than newly formed pairs. They were not. Additionally, the researchers surveyed pairs who had just met (in a college classroom setting), and then surveyed the same pairs later. This allowed the benefit of longitudinal data, painting a picture of the same pairs over time.
- https://PayPal.Me/lukeisback
"Luke Ford reports all of the 'juicy' quotes, and has been doing it for years." (Marc B. Shapiro)
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff) LATEST POSTS:
- What Percentage of Philip N. Cohen’s Blog Passes the Front Page Test?
- Paul Bloom’s Small Potatoes Archive
- The Two Accusations
- I Believe Everybody, Including Iran, Acts Rationally in Pursuit of their own Interests
- The Set, the Voice & the Anthropology of Philip N. Cohen
- WP: ‘Trump’s Harvard loss conceals a strategic victory’
- WSJ: ‘Even Claude Is in the Dark About Dario Amodei’s Wife—and Her Influence at Anthropic’
- ‘Is (Human) Writing Doomed? | Robert Wright & Paul Bloom’
- Sarah Knew
- Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities
- When Did Amy Wax Stop Conceding?
- Woke at Work
- The Career of Media Strategist David G. Hall
- Alice Lassman: ‘A.I. Will Affect Your Social Life. Yes, Yours.’
- Questions for Simon Baron-Cohen, for Cambridge, and for the People Who Were Right
- Questions for Amy Wax, and for Penn
- “Here’s how I exposed Jason Arday and Cambridge” | David Starkey Talks to Nathan Cofnas
- The Jason Arday Story (8-9-26)
- FT: ‘The US bares its financial weak spot’
- Gain of Function Research
BEST POSTS:
- * The Enlightenment Wasn’t Enlightened (6-23-26)
* Mr. Burge Draws The Line (6-23-26)
* 'Improving on Democracy' (6-17-26)
* People Leak To People Who Are Fun (6-11-26)
* Why Does Australia Produce So Many Great Journalists? (6-11-26)
* Steve Wynn and the Press: Power, Litigation, and the Contest Over Las Vegas (6-3-26)
* Sheldon Adelson and the Journalists (6-3-26)
* The Vigilant Animal: Thinkers Who Reject the Myth of Human Gullibility (6-2-26)
* The Cost of Refusing the Misunderstanding Myth (6-2-26)
* Show Me How It Travels (6-2-26)
* The Norm Explainers (6-2-26)
* Centering Marginalized Voices (6-1-26)
* What would it look like if the Washington Post put its reader first? (6-1-26)
* What would it look like if the Financial Times put its reader first? (6-1-26)
* What It Would Mean for the Los Angeles Times to Put the Reader First? (6-1-26)
* What It Would Mean for The New York Times to Put the Reader First? (6-1-26)
* Why Wembanyama Lives on the Perimeter (5-31-26)
* The Emotional Palettes Of San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco & Sacramento (5-27-26)
* The Administrative Capital: Sacramento Legal Culture (5-27-26)
* San Diego - The Quiet Republic (5-27-26)
* The Quiet Bar: San Diego Legal Culture (5-27-26)
* SF v LA Legal Culture (5-27-26)
* Why Talent Travels Poorly Between San Francisco and Los Angeles (5-27-26)
* San Francisco and Los Angeles as Rival Models of Urban Access (5-27-26)
* Social Cliques in New York, 2026 (5-25-26)
* Social Cliques in San Francisco, 2026 (5-25-26)
* The Rival Courts of Washington (5-25-26)
* The City of Private Rooms (5-25-26)
