Arthur Aron - The 36 Questions That Lead to Love

pattern is consistent with Erikson's idea that low ego-identity individuals fear cross-sex intimacy in which they might lose their identity and thus get close only if they feel they can protect themselves from too much intimacy. For the same-sex pairings in the 45-min classroom version, the opposite interaction was found—consistent with Erikson's idea that same-sex friendships for those who have not developed ego identity serve as identity supports, but for those who have developed an identity, they serve as sources of undesired conformity that threatens one's individuated identity. (Another result of interest from these initial studies was that there were no significant or near-significant sex differences or sex interactions in closeness, either within cross-sex pairings or comparing women- women versus men-men pairings.)

⦁ The study described in the Discussion section, below, also found little difference between all-women and all-men pairs in postinterac- tion closeness. These results contrast with correlational studies in natural interaction settings that typically find greater closeness for individuals with women interaction partners (e.g., Aron et al., 1992; Wheeler, Reis, & Nezlek, 1983). One interpretation of this difference from previous results is that although people generally do not spontaneously choose to have intimate interactions with men, people are capable of doing so if the situation calls for it (as was the case in these experiments).

⦁ To have reasonable cell sizes and to minimize analytical complexity, we created only homogenous pairings for secure and avoidant types. However, because there were so few preoccupied subjects, we matched them with either a secure or an avoidant/fearful partner. (We felt justified in combining these two kinds of preoccupied pairings into a single category for analysis because we found no significant or near- significant differences or interactions on contrasts comparing these two kinds of preoccupied pairings.) Before combining data from the two studies, we checked for any main or interaction effects with study; none were significant or near significant.

⦁ Because attachment style is not a manipulated variable, the possibility that it is a symptom of some other dispositional variable (such as attractiveness or neuroticism) cannot be ruled out. What is ruled out in this experiment is the causal direction from relationship closeness or partner's attachment style to own attachment style.

⦁ Thorne (1987) found that after the conversations, extraverts and introverts were perceived differently on various relevant traits (e.g., talkative) but did not differ on various irrelevant traits (e.g., mature). Our Study 3 also tested whether our procedure would produce similar results. To facilitate the comparison, our postinteraction questionnaires included the same set of adjective rating scales as employed by Thorne. Our results for all-women pairs were significant and entirely consistent with Thome's findings (she used only all-women pairings). This pattern also held up in our study for cross-sex, all-extraverted, and all-introverted pairings. However, among cross-sex, introvert-extravert pairings, there was the same pattern but with a surprising higher (more positive and more extroverted) overall level of ratings for all subjects.

⦁ It is difficult to compare directly the SCI scores in our study with other samples, because in previous studies the SCI was not normally distributed.

⦁ Similar follow-up measures were collected in one of the classroom versions of the initial studies in which we developed these procedures (Aron, Aron, Melinat, & Vallone, 1991). In that study, of the 53 pairs represented by those who completed the follow-up measures, 70% had at least one subsequent conversation, 49% had done something together, and 62% had subsequently sat together in class.

⦁ Although this procedure was intended for research applications, in our discussions and presentations of preliminary results we always hear considerable enthusiasm about its potential to create real, lasting relationships or at least brief but meaningful connections. For example, it may be useful to help create interpersonal contacts at orientations for entering college students, at week-long seminars or workshops for all types of groups, or among socially isolated individuals in a community or institution. Finally, it may have important potential for clinical populations affected by avoidant attachment styles.

⦁ On the other hand, one must be cautious about the impact of creating relationships that might not naturally arise. We had no problems with this in our studies. However, we were always careful during debriefing to emphasize that this is an unusual way to form relationships and that subjects should not feel any obligation to their partners or any expectation that an actual friendship will develop. Also, whenever we have run cross-sex pairs, we have always used a pretest questionnaire in which there were some open-ended questions (e.g., "What is the most important thing in life for you?"). We then used any very, very "weird" responses to identify subjects whom we would be reluctant to make anyone's cross-sex relationship partner. Such individuals were always paired with a same-sex other, and their data were not used in the analyses.

REFERENCES

Acitelli, L. K. (1988). When spouses talk to each other about their relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5,185-199.

Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love as the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Melinat, E., 8c Vallone, R. (1991, May). Experimentally induced closeness, ego identity, and the opportunity to say no. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Network on Personal Relationships, Normal, IL.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., 8c 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.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-253.

Aron, A, Dutton, D. G., Aron, E. N., 8c Iverson, A. (1989). Experiences of falling in love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 243-257.

Asendorpf, J. B. (1989). Shyness as a final common pathway for two different kinds of inhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 481-492.

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.

Berg, J. H., 8c Clark, M. S. (1986). Differences in social exchange between intimate and other relationships: Gradually evolving or quickly apparent? In V.J. Derlega & B. A. Winstead (Eds.), Friendship and social interaction (pp. 101-128). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., 8c Omoto, A. M. (1989). The Relationship Closeness Inventory: Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relation ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 792-807.

Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.

Christensen, A. (1988). Dysfunctional interaction patterns in couples. In P. Nollar 8c M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital

--">