Optimal Heterophily and Communication Effectiveness: Some Empirical Findings

A fundamental principle of human communication is that source-receiver similarity promotes communication effectiveness. But do perceived source-receiver dissimilarities have instrumental value in enhancing the effectiveness of communication? This study demonstrates the application of a method for gauging the relationship between heterophily or source-receiver dissimilarity and communication effectiveness and for identifying relevant dimensions of homophily/heterophily in achieving effective communication. One hundred ninety-two Ss viewed three slides of widely-differing college males, to whom three pre-scaled neutral statements were randomly attributed. Measures were obtained of Ss ratings of themselves and these “sources” along twenty-one personal attributes, as well as their agreement (or disagreement) with the attributed statements. Perceived source-receiver distances varied across the three sources, as did the agreement measure of communication effectiveness. The moderately-distant source achieved the highest agreement, lending support to Everett M. Rogers'notion that optimal heterophily produces communication effectiveness. The pattern and directions of the perceived dimensions of interpersonal differences gave further understanding of the relative communication effectiveness of communication sources.

[1]  T. Brock,et al.  COMMUNICATOR-RECIPIENT SIMILARITY AND DECISION CHANGE. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  June A. Broxton.  A test of interpersonal attraction predictions derived from balance theory. , 1963 .

[3]  H. Guetzkow,et al.  A social psychology of group processes for decision-making , 1964 .

[4]  V. Mcgee,et al.  Fortran Programming for the Behavioral Sciences , 1967 .

[5]  G. Homans.  The human group , 1952 .

[6]  M. Rokeach,et al.  Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. A Theory of Organization and Change , 1968 .

[7]  E. Rogers,et al.  HOMOPHILY-HETEROPHILY: RELATIONAL CONCEPTS FOR COMMUNICATION RESEARCH , 1970 .

[8]  D. Campbell,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENT Al DESIGNS FOR RESEARCH , 2012 .

[9]  Michael R. Anderberg,et al.  Cluster Analysis for Applications , 1973 .

[10]  Anthony J. Smith,et al.  Similarity of values and its relation to acceptance and the projection of similarity. , 1957 .

[11]  P. J. Runkel.  Cognitive Similarity in Facilitating Communication , 1956 .

[12]  P. Blau.  Patterns of Choice in Interpersonal Relations , 1962 .

[13]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  The people's choice. , 1945 .

[14]  H. Simons,et al.  Similarity, credibility, and attitude change: A review and a theory. , 1970 .

[15]  D. Byrne.  Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. , 1961, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[16]  C. Osgood,et al.  The Measurement of Meaning , 1958 .

[17]  Harry C. Triandis,et al.  Some Determinants of Interpersonal Communication , 1960 .

[18]  The Selection of Friends , 1965 .

[19]  A. Lott,et al.  Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: a review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[20]  E. Berscheid,et al.  Opinion change and communicator-communicatee similarity and dissimilarity. , 1966 .

[21]  Theodore M. Newcomb,et al.  The prediction of interpersonal attraction , 1956 .

[22]  J. Coleman.  Relational Analysis: The Study of Social Organizations with Survey Methods , 1958 .

[23]  H. Triandis.  Cognitive Similarity and Communication in a Dyad , 1960 .