1. Effect of Anticipated Interactions on Connectedness,
Likeability, Similarity, & Willingness to Meet
Would receiving certain feedback from a
stranger on a personal story change your
perceptions of closeness, likeability,
similarity, and willingness to meet the
stranger? The foundation for this feeling of
closeness was dependent on the participant’s
level of self–disclosure and whether their
writing sample was given positive or negative
feedback. It was expected that strangers
who received (H1) positive feedback
translated to higher perceptions of
connectedness, likeability, similarity, and
willingness to meet; (H2) those who received
the intimate condition have a slight increase
in connectedness, likeability, similarity, and
willingness to meet.
 Higher disclosure with superficial topics
compared to intimate topics (McAllister &
Bregman, 1985)
 Neither Association (disclosure based on
liking) nor Correspondence, (liking based on
disclosure) were found to be significant.
Intimacy of topic was also nonsignificant.
(Miller, 1990)
 Disclosure was measured by either: (1) The
Social Penetration Theory which embraces
the breadth (range) and depth (intimacy) of
communication. (2) The Social Attraction–
Trust Theory which stated that receivers of
disclosure assumed the giver trusted and
liked them more, and therefore reciprocity
was more valuable (Sprecher & Treger, 2015)
Cassandra L. Chapa: cchapa@satx.rr.com
Dr. Lauren E. Brewer: BrewerLE@sfasu.edu
SFASU Psychology Dept.: http://www.sfasu.edu/sfapsych/
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(4), 596–612.
Magno, C., Cuason, S., & Figueroa, C. (2009). The
development of the self-disclosure scale.
Psychological Reports, 18(5), 225-240.
McAllister, H. A., Bregman, N. J. (1985). Reciprocity
effects with intimate and non-intimate disclosure: The
importance of establishing baseline. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 125(6), 775-776.
Miller, L. (1990). Intimacy and liking: Mutual influence
and the role of unique relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 50-60.
Sprecher, S., & Treger, T. (2015). The benefits of turn-
taking reciprocal self-disclosure in get-acquainted
interactions. Journal of the International Association
of Relationship Research, 22(3), 460-475.
The results confirmed (H1) the type of
feedback had a significant impact on levels
of connectedness, likeability, similarity,
and willingness to meet. However, (H2)
was rejected. Unfortunately, there was no
significant difference between the levels
of intimacy.
Due to the majority of participants being
psychology majors, they may have been
skeptical by assuming there was not an
actual participant used during the study.
In return, they may have not been as
honest or as detailed as ideally hoped.
Future research should attempt to
incorporate an entitlement scale, separate
conditions by gender, allow for in–person
interactions, and include whether
participants had a second encounter.
Abstract
References
Discussion
Contact Information
Background
Chapa, C. L. & Brewer, L.E. (2016, April). Effect of First Impressions on Connectedness, Similarity, & Willingness to Meet. Poster presented at the East Texas Psi Chi Conference, Longview, TX.
Receiving positive feedback suggests:
Greater connection to their partner, t(79)= –3.91, p < .001
More likeability toward their partner, t(79)= –7.188, p < .001
Increased similarity to partner, t(79)= –5.96, p < .001
Partner’s increased willingness to meet, t(79)= –6.583, p < .001
Results
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Connectedness Likeability Similarity Willingness to Meet
HigherNumbersEqualMore
oftheVariable
Positive
Negative
Ninety-six undergraduates participated in an online study. Fifteen participants were excluded
from data analysis for one of five reasons. Thus, our study consisted of 81 participants, (Mage =
19.49; 73.6% Females; 50.9% Caucasian). Participants were randomly assigned to disclose a
personal story (Intimate: First Kiss vs. Mundane: Favorite Vacation) to their ostensible virtual
partner. After writing their stories, participants were given positive or negative feedback from
the ostensible virtual partner and asked to read and give feedback on their ostensible virtual
partner’s story, which has been written on a different topic. Afterwards, participants completed
surveys measuring patterns of disclosure (Magno, Causon, & Figueroa, 2009) and perceptions of closeness
by using the scale below (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992). Once all assessments were completed,
participants submitted demographic information and were debriefed.
Methods
Figure 2. Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale