Relationship research tends to walk a meandering path between the obvious, the obscure and the ridiculous…with only rare visits to what might be considered brilliant. The extension of attachment theory to adult romantic relationships in 1987 by Hazan and Shaver comes to mind as one of the most recent examples that I would call brilliant. An article that I read today Less is More: The Lure of Ambiguity, or Why Familiarity Breeds Contempt falls much closer to the “ridiculous” end of the path.

This article, appropriate to its title, tortuously develops the theme that on average, the more you get to know someone, the less you will like them. Through a series of five experiments, the authors set out to prove that (1.) people think that the more they know someone, the more they will like them; (2.) The more people actually know about someone the less they will like them; (3.) The more dissimilar a person is, the more getting to know more about them will make you like them…less; (4.) The earlier you learn about a dissimilarity between you and someone else, the more likely you will be to see future dissimilarities between you and them; and (5.) The more you know about someone, the more dissimilar you are likely to see them, and the less you will like them.

A normal degree of methodological challenges could be leveled at this work (e.g., In studies 2 and 3, trait values were delivered at random, confounding larger sets of knowledge with an axiomatic decrease in the likelihood of any consistent similarity. If this proves anything at all, it shows that the more random traits are used to define a fictional person, the less likely they are to be attractive to you). However, what is really stunning about the intent and the conclusions are the degree to which they ignore the obvious: Learning about someone is an interactive process. The selection of information to be sought and/or shared is not a random process, but rather is informed by the social context in which it occurs and the social goals of the actors involved. Similarly, although the authors make efforts to show that a negative cascade of dissimilarity attributions can be created through an experimental manipulation, they opt to ignore the fact that cascading similarity attributions are a fundamental part of the descriptions provided by people of “falling in love.” A cursory review of the emails we receive from couples here at eHarmony makes this point:

When we first met, our “casual” lunch date lasted 3 hours! Conversation was so easy because we had so much in common.

Patrick was the very first man I decided to communicate with from eHarmony. I was very wary, but excited. From our very first phone call, I knew we already had a special connection. Three days later, we met for our first date. He was so kind, and warm, and genuine. We both felt like we had known each other our entire lives.

Chris and I talked via email and phone for a few days and then decided to meet in person. And so a few days later, we had our first date. It was love at first sight! Our first date was so incredible–we had so much in common and the conversation never died.

On the whole, the authors of “Familiarity Breeds Contempt” appear to be entirely too eager to confirm the host of quotable-quotes with which they litter their manuscript. These range from Benjamin Franklin’s “Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days” to the rather less notable “Everything looks perfect from far away”…a quoted lyric of the indie rock-band The Postal Service. Unfortunately, in pursuing their theme that on average people just don’t like each other that much, they bury the one truly interesting finding presented in the article: The mediation of the relationship between knowledge and liking by similarity (Study 3). Sadly, the theme of “WHEN does familiarity breed contempt?” that this study result seemed to presage was not pursued in the subsequent studies. Work towards understanding this relationship, and exploring what types of similarity or differences have particular power in predicting when relationships (both romantic and not) blossom, and when they become strained or fade over time, would be of particular value to the field of relationship research. As it stands, this article is more valuable for the discussion it generates than for the insights it tries to offer.

Further Reading:

M. Norton, J. Frost & D. Ariely (2007). Less Is More: The Lure of Ambiguity, or Why Familiarity Breeds Contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 97-105

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.