| Abstract: | Fifty-six female subjects were asked to discuss, through passing notes, a personal injury case with a partner. Liking for the partner was manipulated by informing subjects either that their partner was very cold and penurious (low attractiveness), or was very warm and generous (high attractiveness). During the discussions, the partners' notes were replaced by notes that argued for either a very low or a very high amount of compensation. Though the general rule is that influence should mirror liking, attribution theory (Kelley, 1967) leads to the expectation that in this setting the persuasiveness of the liked versus the disliked partner should depend on the amount of compensation advocated, with low compensation arguments being more persuasive when believed to be given by the liked partner, but high compensation arguments more influential when believed to be given by the disliked partner. The results supported attribution theory. Implications for the way attractiveness has been conceptualized in the social psychology literature are discussed. |
