Study reveals why do we fall for particular people

Even the shortest ties can sometimes lead to the deepest bonds in life Like when you attend a party and run into someone wearing the Tshirt of your favourite band or who laughs at the same jokes as you or who picks up the oddball food you alone or so you thought enjoyMy favourite is when a conversation is started by a tiny common interest that develops into an enduring love We tend to prefer people who are similar to us this phenomenon is known as the similarityattraction effect New research from Boston University has now uncovered one of the causesCharles Chu an assistant professor of management and organisations at the BU Questrom School of Business studied the factors that influence how attracted or turned off we are by one another in a number of studies He discovered that selfessentialist thinking where people believe they have a deep inner core or essence that shapes who they are was a key determinantChu found that when someone believes an essence drives their interests likes and dislikes they presume the same is true for others as well If they locate someone with a single similar interest they anticipate that person will share their larger worldview The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology of the American Psychological Association published the findingsIf we had to come up with an image of our sense of self it would be this nugget an almost magical core inside that emanates out and causes what we can see and observe about people and ourselves says Chu who published the paper with Brian S Lowery of Stanford Graduate School of Business We argue that believing people have an underlying essence allows us to assume or infer that when we see someone who shares a single characteristic they must share my entire deeply rooted essence as wellBut Chus research suggests this rush to embrace an indefinable fundamental similarity with someone because of one or two shared interests may be based on flawed thinkingand that it could restrict who we find a connection withWorking alongside the pull of the similarityattraction effect is a countering push we dislike those who we dont think are like us often because of one small thingthey like that politician band book or TV show we loatheWe are all so complex says Chu But we only have full insight into our own thoughts and feelings and the minds of others are often a mystery to us What this work suggests is that we often fill in the blanks of others minds with our own sense of self and that can sometimes lead us into some unwarranted assumptionsTrying to Understand Other PeopleTo examine why were attracted to some people and not to others Chu set up four studies each designed to tease out different aspects of how we make friendsor foes In the first study participants were told about a fictional person Jamie who held either complementary or contradictory attitudes toward themAfter asking participants their views on one of five topicsabortion capital punishment gun ownership animal testing and physicianassisted suicideChu asked how they felt about Jamie who either agreed or disagreed with them on the target issue They were also quizzed about the roots of their identity to measure their affinity with selfessentialist reasoningChu found the more a participant believed their view of the world was shaped by an essential core the more they felt connected to Jamie who shared their views on one issue In a second study he looked at whether that effect persisted when the target topics were less substantive Rather than digging into whether people agreed with Jamie on something as divisive as abortion Chu asked participants to estimate the number of blue dots on a page then categorized themand the fictional Jamieas over or underestimatorsEven with this slim connection the findings held the more someone believed in an essential core the closer they felt to Jamie as a fellow over or underestimator I found that both with pretty meaningful dimensions of similarity as well as with arbitrary minimal similarities people who are higher in their belief that they have an essence are more likely to be attracted to these similar others as opposed to dissimilar others says Chu In two companion studies Chu began disrupting this process of attraction stripping out the influence of selfessentialist reasoningIn one experiment he labelled attributes such as liking a certain painting as either essential or nonessential in another he told participants that using their essence to judge someone else could lead to an inaccurate assessment of others It breaks this essentialist reasoning process it cuts off peoples ability to assume that what theyre seeing is reflective of a deeper similarity says ChuOne way I did that was to remind people that this dimension of similarity is actually not connected or related to your essence at all the other way was by telling people that using their essence as a way to understand other people is not very effectiveNegotiating Psychologyand Politicsat WorkChu says theres a key tension in his findings that shape their application in the real world On the one hand were all searching for our communityits fun to hang out with people who share our hobbies and interests love the same music and books as us and dont disagree with us on politicsThis type of thinking is a really useful heuristic psychological strategy says Chu It allows people to see more of themselves in new people and strangers But it also excludes people and sets up divisions and boundariessometimes on the flimsiest of groundsWhen you hear a single fact or opinion being expressed that you either agree or disagree with it really warrants taking an additional breath and just slowing down he says Not necessarily taking that single piece of information and extrapolating on it using this type of thinking to go to the very end that this person is fundamentally good and like me or fundamentally bad and not like meChu whose background mixes the study of organizational behaviour and psychology teaches classes on negotiation at Questrom and says his research has plenty of implications in the business world particularly when it comes to making dealsI define negotiations as conversations and agreements and disagreements about how power and resources should be distributed between people he says What inferences do we make about the other people were having these conversations with How do we experience and think about agreement versus disagreement How do we interpret when someone gets more and someone else gets less These are all really central questions to the process of negotiationBut in a time when the political division has invaded just about every sphere of our lives including workplaces the applications of Chus findings go way beyond corporate horsetrading Managing staff collaborating on projects and team bondingall are shaped by the judgments we make about each other Selfessentialist reasoning may even influence societys distribution of resources says Chu who we consider worthy of support who gets funds and who doesnt could be driven by this belief that peoples outcomes are caused by something deep inside of themThats why he advocates pushing pause before judging someone who at first blush doesnt seem like you There are ways for us to go through life and meet other people and form impressions of other people without constantly referencing ourselves he says If were constantly going around trying to figure out whos like me whos not like me thats not always the most productive way of trying to form impressions of other people People are a lot more complex than we give them credit forAlso ReadHealthy diet is now linked with greater physical fitness in middleaged adultsThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever