R02 - O'Connor 1996 - Affiliation Motivation in Everyday Experience. a Theoretical Comparison

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1996, Vol. 70, No. 3,513-522

Copyright 1996 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0022-3514/96/S3.00

Affiliation Motivation in Everyday Experience:A Theoretical Comparison

Shawn C. O'Connor and Lome K. RosenbloodUniversity of Victoria

Two alternative conceptualizations of the process underlying affiliation motivation in everyday lifewere investigated: the social affiliation model (SAM)—a framework we propose—and privacy reg-ulation theory (PRT; I. Altman, 1975; I. Altman, A. Vinsel, & B.B. Brown, 1981). The affiliativeexperiences of 66 participants were obtained using the experience sampling method. Sequentialanalyses indicated that individuals in elected social circumstances, such as those who were alone andwanted to be alone, continued in these circumstances at greater-than-chance levels (p < .01). Theseresults suggest that individuals are motivated to re-establish an optimal range of contact, consistentwith SAM and the view that the process underlying affiliation motivation operates according to ahomeostatic principle. The contrasting predictions of PRT, as well as a rival explanation that theresults are due to the continuation of activities, were not supported.

The need for affiliation is generally believed to motivate individ-uals to seek out social contact at times and solitude at other times.According to Altman (1975), for instance, "there are times whenpeople want to be alone and out of contact with others and thereare times when others are sought out, to be heard and to hear, totalk and to listen" (p. 22). Although the need for humans to affil-iate has long been recognized (e.g., Maslow, 1954; Murray, 1938),and various conceptualizations of affiliation motivation have beensuggested (e.g., Atkinson, Heyns, & Veroff, 1954; Mehrabian &Ksionzky, 1974; Schachter, 1959; Shipley & VerofT, 1952), the un-derlying motivational process of this need is not well understood.

Whereas much of the contemporary work on affiliation mo-tivation centers on personality processes and individual differ-ences (e.g., Hill, 1991; Wong & Csikszentmihalyi, 1991), thepresent study focuses on two frameworks that adopt a more so-cial view of affiliation motivation. The first, social affiliationmodel (SAM), is proposed here and is based in part on the workof Gewirtz and Baer (1958a, 1958b) and Latane and Werner(1978). The second, privacy regulation theory (PRT; Altman,1975; Altman, Vinsel, & Brown, 1981), has received a consid-erable amount of attention in the crowding and environmentalpsychology literature (e.g., Altman, 1990; Gifford, 1987;

Shawn C. O'Connor and Lome K. Rosenblood, Department of Psy-chology, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

The research reported in this article was completed by Shawn C.O'Connor in partial fulfillment of a master's degree at the University ofVictoria. We would like to thank Irwin Altman for his help in clarifyingprivacy regulation theory and for his comments on an earlier version ofthis article. We also thank Bruce E. Wampold for profitable discussionsabout sequential analyses, Richard Connors for computer program-ming assistance, and Robert Gifford and Angela Troyer for commentsmade throughout the research.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toShawn C. O'Connor, Department of Psychology, University of Victoria,Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 3P5. Electronic mail may besent via the Internet to [email protected].

Greenberg & Baum, 1979) but has not been formally tested asa theory of affiliation motivation. The purpose of this study isto determine whether SAM or PRT better accounts for everydayaffiliative behaviors.

SAM

In contrast to PRT, we propose that the process underlyingeveryday affiliation operates according to a homeostatic princi-ple. This process, in many respects, is analogous to caloric in-take. In general, we suggest that individuals seek to maintainan optimal range of social contact. Consistent with homeostasis(e.g., Brent, 1978; Cannon, 1939; Cofer & Appley, 1964; Stag-ner, 1961, 1977), deviations from this optimal range are ex-pected to motivate individuals to seek out varying degrees ofsocial contact so that the optimal range can be re-established.For instance, if excess contact is experienced, people will seekout solitude so that this range can be re-established. Similarly,if individuals experience too much solitude, they will seek outothers. Analogous to this model, it has long been recognizedthat each individual has his or her own optimal level of caloricintake (Cannon, 1939; Tortora & Evans, 1986). When belowthis level, people are motivated to eat, whereas when above thislevel, their motivations to eat are abated.

The hypothesis that a social drive operates in humans, whichfunctions analogously to a homeostatic metabolic process, haspreviously been suggested in the literature. For instance, Ge-wirtz and Baer (1958a) demonstrated that children who hadbeen socially isolated, in comparison to children who were not,increased their response frequency to a task when social ap-proval was contingent on the correct response. Subsequent re-search (Gewirtz & Baer, 1958b) showed that the response ratesof children who had been socially satiated were least affected bysocial approval compared with children in both a nondeprivedand a deprived condition. From these studies, Gewirtz and Baerconcluded that a period of social deprivation appears to resultin a drive that is satisfied by social interaction, much the same

513

514 O'CONNOR AND ROSENBLOOD

way as the increase in the appetitive drive following deprivationof food is eliminated when food is eaten.

Similarly, Latane and Werner (1978) suggested that affilia-tion in rats was analogous to a homeostatic metabolic process.They demonstrated that rats deprived of social contact weremore likely to affiliate with other rats than were rats that hadbeen socially satiated. The authors proposed that rats had a"sociostat" that determined their optimal range of affiliation. Iffor some reason—such as deprivation, anxiety, or exploration—rats deviated from this range, these deviations would be coun-teracted by behaviors that would result in a return to their opti-mal range. The SAM proposed here is an elaboration of theseearlier formulations.

In keeping with our analogy, we suggest that social affiliation,much like caloric intake, is relatively stable over time. Never-theless, numerous factors, such as increasing age, depression, ormarriage, may affect and possibly change one's optimal range ofaffiliation just as these events may change one's optimal levelof caloric intake. Moreover, the various people with whom weinteract, like the different foods we eat, may provide us withdifferent amounts of "social calories" or "social interactionunits," which correspond to the quality of an interaction. Ouroptimal range of affiliation, therefore, may be affected more bywith whom we affiliate rather than how long we affiliate, consis-tent with the view of Larson, Zuzanek, and Mannell (1985).

It also is evident that there are individual differences in affil-iation motivation. Some people prefer more social contact thanothers(e.g., Wong&Csikszentmihalyi, 1991), just as some peo-ple consume more calories than others. Such individual differ-ences, however, do not refute the explanatory value of homeo-stasis to account for affiliation motivation or caloric intake butmay simply indicate different optimal ranges. For instance, incomparison to people with lower affiliative needs, people withhigher affiliative needs may have lower thresholds for seekingcontact (Hill, 1991) and thus higher optimal ranges.

In the stream of our daily affiliative behavior, social normsand the pursuit of secondary motives frequently interfere withour ability to re-establish an optimal range of affiliation. Stagner(1961) suggested that the components of a hierarchy of needs,like that proposed by Maslow (1954), compete with each other,each one taking precedent at times. For instance, although wemay wish to be alone, a chance meeting with an old friend maymotivate us otherwise. At any particular time, the need to dosuch things as work, attend social functions, or avoid stressfulsituations may conflict with our affiliative need to re-establishan optimal range of contact. Analogously, we frequently eatwhen we are not hungry, whereas at other times we delay eatingwhen hungry because other motives or social norms interfere.We posit that, like caloric intake, social affiliation operates ac-cording to a homeostatic process despite occasional circum-stances that interfere with our ability to pursue underlyingaffiliative needs.

PRT

In contrast to SAM, PRT suggests that the process underlyingaffiliation motivation operates according to a dialectic princi-ple. PRT posits that individuals use an interpersonal boundary-control process to achieve a desired state of privacy by regulat-

ing with whom they come into contact (Altman, 1975; Altaianet al., 1981). This process primarily involves the opposition be-tween openness toward others (i.e., when one is with others andwants to be) and closedness toward others (i.e., when one isalone and wants to be alone). Each of these states represents a"momentary optimal level" (I. Altman, personal communica-tion, September 4, 1992), and each forms one of the two polesof this dialectic. Together these poles function as part of a uni-fied system with neither pole completely dominating. In Alt-man's view, over time, people's affiliative experiences are char-acterized by an oscillation between these two poles. Hence, in-dividuals who experience a momentary optimal level aresubsequently motivated, on average, toward the opposite pole(I. Altman, personal communication, September 4, 1992).

Theoretical Similarities and Differences

The mistaken notion that PRT stems from a homeostatic per-spective has frequently been advanced. As Altman et al. (1981)noted however:

A homeostatic assumption lurked within the initial privacy frame-work to the effect that relationships progressed toward some ideal-ized balance or stability of openness and closedness. This becamea troubling matter because we did not intuitively believe that rela-tionships operated in this way; nor . . . does dialectic philosophynecessarily assume such a perspective, (p. 116)

Thus, in PRT, optimal refers only to the momentary conditionthat occurs when a person's desired and actual states of privacyconcur, not to an optimal range of ongoing affiliation as postu-lated by SAM.

Part of this confusion may have resulted from the theoreticaloverlap between PRT and a homeostatic process such as SAM.That is, when individuals' desired and actual states of socialcontact differ (e.g., nondesired solitude or nondesired socialcontact), both views make identical predictions. Specifically,both theories predict that when social circumstances providemore contact than desired, excess social contact results, whichmotivates individuals to seek out solitude. In contrast, socialisolation occurs when social circumstances fail to provide thedesired amount of contact, which motivates individuals to seekout others. According to PRT, this motivation toward the oppo-site social circumstance occurs because of the dialectic of op-posing forces, whereas according to SAM, this occurs becauseindividuals are trying to re-establish their optimal range of so-cial affiliation.

Various research findings are consistent with these overlap-ping predictions. Peay and Peay (1983), for instance, demon-strated that individuals assigned to a crowded environmentwithdrew and engaged in less affiliative behavior than partici-pants assigned to a less crowded condition. Similarly, researchwith nonhuman animals has shown that, subsequent to condi-tions of social satiation or social deprivation, animals are morelikely to choose to be alone or with other cospecies, respectively(e.g., Deets & Harlow, 1971; Latane & Werner, 1978; Lister &Hilakivi, 1988; Meaney & Stewart, 1979; Pinckney & Ander-son, 1967). Baum and Greenberg (1975) found that even theanticipation of crowding led individuals to withdraw from so-cial contact, and when these expectations of crowding were dis-

AFFILIATION MOTIVATION 515

confirmed, participants readjusted their social behavior to re-flect the changed social circumstance (Greenberg & Baum,1979). More recently, it has been demonstrated that people'sprior experience with high- or low-social-density environments,their expectations of such environments, and their subsequentexperience with these environments affected their experience ofcrowding (Webb & Worchel, 1993). Similarly, Zeedyk-Ryanand Smith (1983) showed that participants assigned to a high-social-density condition subsequently indicated that they dis-liked interacting with others, had fewer social contacts, andstrived to be alone more than participants assigned to a low-social-density condition.

These studies support both PRT and SAM because these theo-ries make identical theoretical predictions when individuals' de-sired states of social contact differ from their actual social circum-stances. In contrast, when desired and actual states of social con-tact concur (i.e., elected solitude or elected social contact), PRTand SAM make conflicting theoretical predictions. According toPRT, when individuals are in these situations and hence are at amomentary optimal level, they are motivated, in the near future,to seek out the opposite social circumstance. According to SAM,on the other hand, when individuals are in elected social circum-stances, and have thus deviated from their optimal range, they aremotivated to remain in that circumstance to re-establish their op-timal range of affiliation.

To date, the relative merits of PRT and SAM have not beenexamined. The purpose of this study was to provide a critical testof whether PRT or SAM better predicts affiliation motivation ineveryday experience when these theories make contrasting predic-tions. More specifically, the following were hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1

PRT predicts that individuals in elected solitude will be mo-tivated in the near future toward social contact at greater-than-chance levels. That is, because individuals have achieved whatthey desire, they are considered to be at a momentary optimallevel; from a dialectic perspective, therefore, individuals will besubsequently motivated toward the opposite social circum-stance. Also, because individuals are motivated toward others,there will be a less-than-chance occurrence that they will bealone in the near future.

In contrast, SAM predicts that individuals in elected solitudewill be alone in the near future at greater-than-chance levels.In this instance, individuals are hypothesized to be above theiroptimal range of social affiliation, as indicated by their needfor solitude. Although already alone, to re-establish this range,participants will continue to be alone. Moreover, because theyare motivated to be alone, there will be a less-than-chance oc-currence that they will be with others later.

Hypothesis 2

PRT predicts that individuals in elected social contact will beat a momentary optimal level and thus will be motivated in thenear future toward solitude at greater-than-chance levels. More-over, because individuals are not motivated to seek out socialcontact, there will be a less-than-chance occurrence that theywill remain with others.

SAM, on the other hand, predicts that individuals in electedsocial contact will be in social contact in the near future atgreater-than-chance levels. We argue that, although individualsare with others, their need to be in contact indicates that theystill have not re-established their optimal range. The need formore social contact, therefore, will motivate individuals to con-tinue to be with other people. Moreover, because individuals arehypothesized to need social contact, there will be a less-than-chance occurrence of them being alone at a future time.

Additional PRT Hypotheses

There are at least two potential explanations for a lack of sup-port for PRT with respect to Hypotheses 1 and 2. These expla-nations lead to the following additional hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: Desired situations. One could argue that in-dividuals in elected social circumstances are constrained to re-main in the same affiliative situation and thus are not able tomake the hypothesized transition to the opposite social circum-stance. However, their desire to be in the opposite circumstanceis not constrained. From the perspective of PRT, therefore, in-dividuals who do not make the hypothesized transition fromelected solitude to being in social contact should, if still alone,(a) want to be in social contact at greater-than-chance levels,and (b) want to be alone or feel neutral with respect to beingalone at less-than-chance levels.

Also, individuals who do not make the hypothesized transi-tion from being in elected social contact to being alone should,if still in social contact, (a) want to be alone at greater-than-chance levels, and (b) want to be in social contact or feel neutralwith respect to being with others at less-than-chance levels.

Hypothesis 4: Multilag analysis. A second possible expla-nation for a lack of support for PRT is that individuals' momen-tary optimal levels extend for a time period longer than the onesthat have been examined. Thus, when individuals' social cir-cumstances are recorded in the near future, they may still be ata momentary optimal level and may not have made the hypoth-esized transition to the opposite social circumstance.

To address this issue, we examined participants' affiliative be-havior on one occasion and then again on a number of subse-quent occasions. These subsequent occasions were farther apartin time than the ones we examined in Hypotheses 1 and 2 (e.g.,approximately 1 hr vs. 2, 3, or 4 hr). This provided an addi-tional test of PRT on whether there is a transition from a mo-mentary optimal level to the opposite social circumstance. If,on the other hand, SAM is initially supported, and a similarpattern of results is obtained over these subsequent occasions,then this model will be generalizable over a longer period.

Additional SAM Hypotheses

To this point the hypotheses mentioned address the ques-tion of which theory, SAM or PRT, better predicts everydayaffiliative behavior. In our view, the best way to accomplishthis goal is to test the conflicting predictions of these theorieswhen desired and actual states of social contact concur. As aresult of this design, however, one could argue that we havenot tested SAM as critically as we have PRT. Specifically, be-cause PRT predicts that individuals in elected social circum-


stances will be motivated in the near future toward the oppo-site state, but SAM predicts that they will continue in thesame social circumstances, it may be easier to confirm SAM.It could be argued, therefore, that individuals who continuein elected social circumstances may do so not as a result ofbeing motivated to re-establish an optimal range of socialaffiliation, as suggested by SAM. Rather, it may be that manyactivities, such as work commitments, social engagements, orcommuting, necessitate a continuation of social circum-stances. To rule out this continuation-of-activities explana-tion, we examined additional hypotheses.

Hypothesis 5: Continuation of activities. If our findingsare simply the result of a continuation of activities, one wouldexpect that individuals would continue in the same social cir-cumstance irrespective of whether that circumstance waselected or nondesired. Thus, from the perspective of the con-tinuation-of-activities explanation, one could hypothesizethat individuals in elected solitude and individuals in nonde-sired solitude will be alone in the near future at similargreater-than-chance levels. Moreover, individuals in electedsocial contact and individuals in nondesired social contactwill be with others in the near future at comparable greater-than-chance levels.

Method

Participants

Seventy students in a third-year social psychology course at the Uni-versity of Victoria (Victoria, British Columbia, Canada) participatedin this study to fulfill part of a course requirement. We excluded 4 indi-viduals from the study because their data were incomplete. The remain-ing 66 participants (19 men, 46 women, and 1 who did not respond tothe sex query) had a mean age of 22.8 years (SD = 3.9). Sixty-onepercent of the participants were currently in a dating or spousal rela-tionship, whereas 39% were not. Forty-seven percent of the participantslived with friends or acquaintances, 26% lived with family, 20% livedwith a significant other such as a spouse, fiance(e), girlfriend, or boy-friend, and 8% lived alone. Forty-nine percent of the sample resided ina house, whereas 47% lived in an apartment, and 5% lived in universityhousing.

Acquisition of Data

Consistent with PRT and SAM, we argue that in everyday life theneed for affiliation, in part, motivates individuals to seek out varyingdegrees of social contact. Thus, to examine affiliation motivation in nat-urally occurring situations we obtained measures of affiliative behaviorusing the experience sampling method (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson,1987; Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1983). Specifically, in response toelectronic signals from a beeper, participants recorded on an experiencesampling form their actual state of social contact (e.g., alone or withpeople) and their current desire to be alone or not. Participants re-corded these responses, which together comprised their "affiliativestate," throughout their waking hours over a period of 3-4 days. Theseaffiliative states formed a temporal sequence of participants' dailyaffiliative behavior.

Beeper. Electronic devices were designed to beep intermittently sothat participants would not anticipate the signal. It was necessary to usean average interval between beeps that was neither too short—whichmay have sampled the same affiliative behavior—nor too long, whichmay have missed the hypothesized underlying processes. In our view, a

mean interval of approximately 1 hr seemed appropriate for people inour sample of university students to move in and out of social contactand to change their wishes about whether they wanted to affiliate. Thus,in a pilot study, a device that beeped on an average of every 70.2 minwas used, and in the present study we used additional devices with amean interval of 52.7 min to obtain more experience sampling forms.

Fourteen people were assigned devices that emitted pseudorandomsignals based on the following sequence of timers: 91,52,78,65,91,52,78, 52, 78, and 65 min (M = 70.2 min, SD = 14.5 min). Additionally,52 people were assigned devices based on the same sequence of timersbut with each period decreased by 25% (M = 52.7 min, SD = 10.9min). For all beepers, each sequence was continuously repeated.

To ensure homogeneity of time intervals, the multilag analysis in-cluded the data from only those participants who used a beeper with amean interval of 52.7 min. The remaining analyses included data fromall 66 participants.

Experience sampling form. The experience sampling forms weremodeled, in part, after questionnaires used by Larson and Csikszentmi-halyi (1983); Constantian (1981); and Wheeler, Reis, and Nezlek(1983). Throughout the period that participants were beeped, they re-ported their actual and desired states of social contact on the experiencesampling form. The actual states were measured by the response to thequestion "Who were you with when beeped?" Individuals could re-spond in one of three ways: completely alone (i.e., no one present andin communication with no one), alone but with other people present(i.e., no direct social contact), or with people (i.e., social contact). Be-cause the state "alone but with other people present" comprises ele-ments of solitude and social contact, we did not use it to test our hypoth-eses. Individuals' desired states of social contact were determined by thequestion "Would you like to be [completely] alone right now?" Partici-pants responded to this question on a 7-point scale. To make the datamore manageable, however, we recoded these responses into three cate-gories: yes for 1,2, or 3; neutral (i.e., no preference) for 4; and no for 5,6, or 7.

Procedure

Individuals participated in the study from either a Monday afternoonto Thursday morning or from a Thursday afternoon to Monday morn-ing. Participants received thorough instructions, both written and oral,on the use of the beeper and on the completion of experience samplingforms and the background questionnaire. To familiarize participantswith the experience sampling form, they were asked to complete onebased on a hypothetical experience. Participants were encouraged toask any questions about the beeper, experience sampling form, or ques-tionnaire, and were told that if they did not wish to continue in the studythen or at any time in the future they could withdraw without penalty.

Sequential analysis. We used a transition-frequency matrix to sum-marize the temporal nature of participants' responses. Given that par-ticipants, at any given time, could be in one of three actual social cir-cumstances and one of three desired states, a 9 X 9 transition matrixresulted. Specifically, when the affiliative state at any one occasion—say,State j—followed the affiliative state of the previous occasion—say, Statei—a transition occurred from State i to State j . This transition was re-corded in the corresponding Row i and Column j of the transition-fre-quency matrix and represented an observed transition. For example, anindividual beeped at any one occasion may have been alone and wantedto be alone (State i); however, when next beeped he or she may havebeen alone but wanted to be in social contact (State j). Thus, this tran-sition would be indicated in the cell intersected by Row i and Column j(e.g., see Table 1, Cellli3). This process was repeated until all partici-pants' responses were classified into this aggregated transition-fre-quency matrix. A Lag 1 analysis comprised a sequential examination ofany given affiliative state and the immediately following affiliative state.


Table 1Aggregated Observed Transition-Frequency Matrix of Ongoing Affiliative Behavior

Previous state: actual-desired

1. Alone-alone2. Alone-neutral3. Alone-contact4. Alone but contact-alone5. Alone but contact-neutral6. Alone but contact-contact7. Contact-alone8. Contact-neutral9. Contact-contact

Total

1

4692157324

305712

175

2

2323

812363

13

3

827

10073

1312

149

Subsequent state

4

3645

626

1020

327

5

92421102

11

6

232

20113

2741

51

7

5207

1118

697

73

8

15503224

1019

9

144167540

6456020

653

Total

85380

27616928

13923259

1,0712,907

A Lag 2 or Lag 3 analysis comprised a sequential examination of re-sponses two or three intervals apart, respectively.

We analyzed the sequences of responses obtained from the entiresample following techniques developed by Wampold and Margolin(1982; see also Wampold, 1984, 1989, 1992). These techniques makeuse of the observed transition frequencies, variances of these frequen-cies, expected frequencies (i.e., chance levels), and base-rate informa-tion. These parameters are used in calculations to determine whetherthe hypothesized patterns occur in the data.

Wampold (1989) stated that "the simplest evaluation of state indepen-dence is the determination of whether one state, say state j , follows anotherstate, say state i, more or less often than would be expected by chance"(p. 173). Specifically, to determine whether the hypothesized patterns arestatistically significant (an evaluation of state independence), z scores foreach cell of the transition-frequency matrix are calculated and comparedwith the normal curve. Next, effect sizes, as measured by transformedkappa (&'), are examined with respect to direction and magnitude to de-termine if the hypothesized patterns are supported. Wampold and Kim(1989) described transformed kappas as ranging

from -1.00 to 1.00. A transformed kappa of 1.00 indicates thatthe subsequent behavior followed the antecedent behavior to themaximum extent possible, a transformed kappa of — 1.00 indicatesthat the subsequent behavior followed the antecedent behavior tothe minimum extent possible, and a transformed kappa of zeroindicates that the subsequent behavior followed the antecedent be-havior no more or less than would be expected by chance, (p. 359)

Our justification for aggregating each participant's sequence of affil-iative states in the manner previously mentioned was, in part, that webelieved that our hypotheses could be best tested at the level of the tran-sition. That is, any particular transition either supported or refuted thehypothesized process. Additionally, we noted that the transitions fromany particular person's sequence would be substantially less than thenumber of transitions needed to fill all 81 cells of the transition-fre-quency matrix. We felt, therefore, that the aggregated matrix would bemore reliable with respect to such things as base-rate information andcalculations based on such information.

To support the view that our results were not an artifact of combiningparticipants' sequences of responses into an aggregated transition-fre-quency matrix, we also analyzed Hypotheses 1 and 2 using averagedwithin-person transformed kappas. To accomplish this, a transition fre-quency matrix was produced for each participant despite the possibilitythat some cells of this matrix might contain a low number of transitions.For each participant, we calculated a transformed kappa for each hy-pothesized transition. We then used participants' kappas to calculate

the sample's mean kappa for each hypothesis. One-sample / tests wereused to determine whether these averaged within-person kappas sig-nificantly differed from chance (i.e., k' = 0) .

As previously intimated, we expected that any given participant's tran-sition-frequency matrix would contain low observed and expected transi-tions and thus potentially inaccurate base-rate information because of eachparticipant's relatively short sequence of responses. Therefore, we used oneof two criteria to calculate the within-person transformed kappas. The firstcriterion excluded participants from the particular analysis if their ob-served transition-frequencies were 0 for the specific hypothesized transi-tion. The exclusion of cases was considered necessary because a value of 0,in any particular person's data, indicated that the hypothesized transitioncould not occur. The second criterion excluded those participants who didnot have an expected frequency of at least 4.5 for the hypothesized transi-tion. Although this value was determined somewhat arbitrarily, previousliterature has suggested that chi-square analyses of contingency tablesshould have expected frequencies of at least 5, to which our criterionrounds (e.g., Siegel & Castellan, 1988).

On the basis of the first criterion, we anticipated that only a few par-ticipants would be excluded from the analysis. In contrast, we expectedthe second criterion to exclude a substantial number of cases. We tookthe position that these criteria would balance the potential problem ofexcluding too many participants, which might mean the loss of infor-mation, with the problem of including participants who infrequentlymade the hypothesized transitions, which might result in erroneous cal-culations of their transformed kappas because of potentially inaccuratebase-rate information.

As a final note on our use of sequential analyses, the multiple testson the transitions from any particular row of the transition-frequencymatrix are statistically related. For instance, the hypothesized greater-than-chance transition from elected solitude to being alone and the hy-pothesized less-than-chance transition from elected solitude to socialcontact are not independent of each other. However, support for one ofthese hypotheses does not dictate that the other one also will be sup-ported, in part because individuals in elected solitude are not con-strained to make transitions to either of these states but may also maketransitions to "alone but with other people present."

Results

Descriptive Statistics

On average, each participant completed approximately 49experience sampling forms (SD = 11). The two questions re-garding actual and desired states of social contact were re-


Table 2Transitions From Elected Social Circumstances toHypothesized Subsequent States

Lag 1 transition fromactual-desired to actual SAM PRT Observed Expected k'

Alone-alone to alone > < 574 355.9 .44*Alone-alone to contact < > 211 395.3 -.47*Contact-contact to alone < > 237 446.9 -.47*Contact-contact to contact > < 745 496.3 .43*

Note. The symbols "<" and ">" refer to the hypothesized chance oc-currence of the observed transition and are supported if the correspond-ing transformed kappa is significantly negative and significantly posi-tive, respectively. SAM = social affiliation model, PRT = privacy regu-lation theory.*p<. 01, one-tailed.

sponded to on 92% of the forms; the remaining 8% were ex-cluded from the analyses.

In general, participants indicated that they were completelyalone approximately 42% of the time and in social contact ap-proximately 47% of the time. Their remaining time was spent"alone but with other people present." Additionally, partici-pants indicated a desire to be alone 43% of the time, to be insocial contact 51 % of the time, and had no particular preference6% of the time.

In regard to the affiliative behaviors examined in Hypotheses1 and 2, participants were in elected solitude and elected socialcontact approximately 29% and 37% of the time, respectively.The nondesired solitude and nondesired social contact states in-vestigated in Hypothesis 5 occurred approximately 9% and 8%of the time, respectively. Thus, 83% of these individuals' every-day affiliative experiences were accounted for by the affiliativestates specifically examined in this study. Participants' remain-ing time was spent feeling neutral about being alone or in socialcontact (5% of the time), or being alone but with other peoplepresent (12% of the time). Overall, it appears that these indi-viduals were generally successful in regulating their actual socialcircumstances to match their desires.

The 14 participants who were assigned beepers with a meaninterval of 70.2 min responded, on average, every 73.3 min (SD= 26.9). The 52 participants who were assigned beepers with a

mean interval of 52.7 min responded, on average, every 54.0min (SD = 27.2). The difference between the signal intervaland the response interval reflects the fact that not all beeps wereresponded to by participants. For the entire sample, the meaninterval between responses was 57.2 min (SD = 28.1).

Hypothesis 1

Consistent with SAM, participants in elected solitude on anyone occasion had, when next signaled, (a) a greater-than-chance occurrence of being alone (k' = .44, p < .01; as shownin Row 1 of Table 2) and (b) a less-than-chance occurrence ofbeing with others (k' = —.47, p < .01; as shown in Row 2). Incontrast, PRT was not supported. That is, individuals in electedsolitude did not have, when next signaled, a less-than-chanceoccurrence of being alone, or a greater-than-chance occurrenceof being with others.

Hypothesis 2

Consistent with SAM, participants in elected social contacthad, when next signaled, (a) a less-than-chance occurrence ofbeing alone (k' = -.47, p < .01; as shown in Row 3 of Table2) and (b) a greater-than-chance occurrence of being in socialcontact (k' = .43, p < .01; as shown in Row 4). PRT, on theother hand, was not supported. Participants in elected socialcontact did not make a transition at greater-than-chance levelsto the alone state, nor were they less likely to remain in socialcontact.

Hypothesis 3: Desired Situations

Contrary to the predictions of PRT, individuals who were inelected solitude on any given occasion and remained alone whennext signaled (a) did not want to be in social contact at greater-than-chance levels (as shown in Row 3 of Table 3) and (b) did notwant to be alone or felt neutral with respect to being alone at less-than-chance levels (as shown in Rows 1 and 2, respectively). Sim-ilarly, participants who were in elected social contact and re-mained in social contact from one signal to the next (a) did notwant to be alone at greater-than-chance levels (as shown in Row 4)and (b) did not want to be in social contact or felt neutral with

Table 3Transitions to Specific Desired States as Hypothesized by Privacy Regulation Theory (PRT)

Lag 1 transition fromactual-desired to actual-desired PRT Observed Expected k'

Alone-alone to alone-alone <Alone-alone to alone-neutral <Alone-alone to alone-contact >Contact-contact to contact-alone >Contact-contact to contact-neutral <Contact-contact to contact-contact <

Note. The symbols "<" and ">" refer to the hypothesized chance occurrence of the observed transitionand are supported if the corresponding transformed kappa is significantly negative and significantly positive,respectively.

46923827319653

251.524.180.48422.1390.2

.36, ns-.04, ns.01, ns

-.n,ns-.14, ns.39, ns


Table 4Transformed Kappas for Privacy Regulation Theory (PRT)Multilag Analysis

Transition fromactual-desired to actual

Alone-alone to aloneAlone-alone to contactContact-contact to aloneContact-contact to contact

PRT

V

A

A

V

Lag 2

.28, ns-.30, ns-.30, ns

.27, ns

k'

Lag 3

.18, ns-.18, ns- .21, ns

.19, nj

Lag 4

.17, ns-.\6,ns—.\6,ns

M,ns

Note. The symbols "<" and ">" refer to the hypothesized chance oc-currence of the observed transition and are supported if the correspond-ing transformed kappa is significantly negative and significantly posi-tive, respectively.

respect to being with others at less-than-chance levels (as shown inRows 6 and 5, respectively).

Hypothesis 4: Multilag Analysis

As shown in Table 4, the transformed kappas obtained fromthe multilag analysis corresponded to those described in the Hy-pothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 sections. Counter to the predictionsof PRT, therefore, the analysis of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th lags in-dicated that when longer periods were considered, participantsstill did not make a transition from a momentary optimal levelto the opposite social circumstance.

Hypothesis 5: Continuation of Activities

Contrary to the continuation-of-activities hypothesis, indi-viduals in elected solitude and individuals in nondesired soli-tude were not alone in the near future at similar greater-than-chance levels. Rather, the difference between these two transi-tions (.44 and .31, respectively) was statistically significantbased on Wampold's multi-cell nonparallel-case test (z = 2.53,p < .01; Wampold, 1984, 1992). Moreover, individuals inelected social contact and individuals in nondesired social con-tact were not with others in the near future at comparablegreater-than-chance levels as indicated by the significant differ-

ence between these two transitions (.43 and .21, respectively; z= 3.90,p<.01).

Individual Differences

As shown in Table 5, the within-person transformed kappasfollow the same pattern as those kappas calculated from the ag-gregated data despite the low number of participants in some ofthe within-person analyses, the latter of which is indicated bythe reported degrees of freedom. These findings, therefore, sup-port the view that the results of Hypotheses 1 and 2 are not anartifact of combining participants' sequences of responses intoan aggregated transition-frequency matrix.

To explore individual differences further, we compared thepatterns of affiliation motivation of women and men. Genderdifferences were obtained in the frequency that participantswere alone or in social contact, x2(l> N= 2,538) = 21.17, p<.01. Women were with others more often than men were (56%vs. 46%), whereas men were alone more often than women were(54% vs. 44%). In contrast, there were no gender differences inregard to the continuation of elected states. That is, both menand women in elected solitude were more likely, in the near fu-ture, to be alone (for men, k' = .43, p < .01; for women, k! =.44, p < .01) and less likely to be with others (k' = -.45 and k'= -.47, p < .01, respectively). Similarly, both men and womenin elected contact were less likely, in the near future, to be alone(k' = -.45 and k' = -.46,/? < .01, respectively) and more likelyto be in contact (k' = .39 and k' = .44, p < .01, respectively).Thus, although men and women differed in preference for socialcontact, consistent with SAM, they did not differ in the underly-ing process used to achieve this contact.

Discussion

The present study suggests that everyday affiliation motiva-tion operates according to a homeostatic principle, as specifiedby SAM, rather than according to a dialectic process, as delin-eated by PRT. On the basis of the Lag 1 analysis, individuals inelected social circumstances appear to continue in such circum-stances at greater-than-chance levels, consistent with the viewthat they are trying to re-establish and maintain an optimal

Table 5A Comparison of Transformed Kappas: Aggregated Data VersusAveraged-Within Person Kappas

Lag 1 transition fromactual-desired to actual

Alone-alone to aloneAlone-alone to contactContact-contact to aloneContact-contact to contact

Aggregated data"

.44*-.47*-.47*

.43*

Averaged within-person kappas

Observed > 0b

.40* ((63)= 11.62-.33* 458) = -8.65-.31**(62) = -7.61

.33*463)= 12.23

Expected a 4.5C

.36*433) = 7.71-.35*((36)= -8.96-.35* 436) = -11.28

.34*440)= 10.17

* The analysis of the aggregated data includes the data from all 66 participants.b Observed transition criteria greater than 0 for inclusion of individual participants' kappas in the analyses.c Expected transition criteria equal to or greater than 4.5 for inclusion of individual participants' kappas inthe analyses.*p < .01, one-tailed.


range of social affiliation. The analyses of within-person kappasand gender indicate that these results are not simply due to in-dividual differences and thus provide evidence for the robust-ness of the aggregated-matrix analysis.

Although SAM made no particular predictions regarding themultilag analysis, the transformed kappas at Lags 2, 3, and 4correspond to the transformed kappas reported from the Lag 1analysis. This suggests that individuals are motivated to main-tain specific affiliative states in a manner consistent with a ho-meostatic process over a period of at least 4 hr. The multilaganalysis, moreover, suggests that the dependencies in the dataare not simply a result of an inappropriately short interval be-tween participants' responses, which could have led to the sam-pling of the same behavior. Individuals would have likely beenable to change their affiliative behavior over a 4-hr interval ifthey so desired.

This is supported by the comparison of elected and nonde-sired social circumstances. That is, counter to the continuation-of-activities explanation (Hypothesis 5), participants made sig-nificantly fewer transitions to the same social circumstancewhen they had previously been in nondesired states than whenthey had been in elected states (as measured by k'). This sug-gests that individuals are not merely continuing in social cir-cumstances because of such things as constraints or ongoingactivities. Rather, participants appear to continue in elected so-cial circumstances because of a drive to do so, as suggested bySAM. In general, our view would be that the continuation ofelected social circumstances is due to a homeostatic process un-derlying affiliation motivation and, to a lesser extent, the con-tinuation of activities. Regarding this latter point, it may be thatindividuals who are frequently in elected social circumstancesselect such activities in the first place because of the need tomaintain a particular optimal range of affiliation.

Buss's (1987) work appears to support such a notion. He sug-gested that individuals choose particular environments nonran-domly and that these decisions result in individuals selectingparticular environments and avoiding others. These nonran-dom selections, he argues, are based on individual dispositions,propensities, and proclivities and are an integral part of what isthought of as personality. It may be that individuals who arehigh or low in the need for affiliation continue in elected statesin an attempt to select social environments that are consistentwith their personalities and that these selections are the result ofa need to re-establish an optimal range of affiliation.

Another matter that should be considered in regard to electedsocial circumstances is that participants may have been tryingto establish cognitive consistency between their affiliative be-haviors when recording their actual and desired states of socialcontact on the experience sampling form. Although this mayhave had the effect of increasing the frequency with which par-ticipants were in elected social circumstances, it does not ac-count for people's transitions from one affiliative state to an-other, which is the focus of this article.

Although the present results support the contention that in-dividuals continue in elected social circumstances, we do notmean to imply that individuals in such circumstances will re-main in these states indefinitely. Theoretically, individuals aremotivated to continue in an elected social circumstance onlyuntil they have re-established their optimal range. At this point,

if individuals remain in that social circumstance, they will even-tually acquire an excessive amount of it, and this will causethem to deviate from their optimal range. Once this occurs, in-dividuals will then be in a nondesired social circumstance andwill be motivated toward the opposite social circumstance (e.g.,Peay & Peay, 1983; Zeedyk-Ryan & Smith, 1983). More pre-cisely, they will be motivated to re-establish their optimal rangeby making a transition to the opposite social circumstance (e.g.,from being alone to being with others).

The obtained data support the contention made by both SAMand PRT that individuals are open to social contact at times andclosed to social contact at other times. This does not discriminatebetween the two theories, however, and therefore cannot be usedto assess their relative merits. Other than this finding, our data donot support PRT. Specifically, when individuals' desired and actualstates of social contact correspond, they are not necessarily moti-vated toward the opposite social circumstance. The argument thatindividuals may be constrained to remain in the same social cir-cumstance from one beep to the next, and thus are unable to makethe transition to the opposite social circumstance (Hypothesis 3),also is refuted. Although participants' desired states of social con-tact were free to change, apparently they did not wish to make atransition to this opposite state. The results of the 2nd, 3rd, and4th lags are also inconsistent with PRT. Thus, the multilag analysisdoes not support the view that an individual's momentary optimallevel may extend past the interval examined in the Lag 1 analysis.In sum, PRT was not supported over a 3- to 4-day period whensequential periods of up to approximately 4 hr were investigated.

The inability of PRT to predict transitions from elected socialcircumstances is particularly problematic when it is consideredthat, according to our data, these momentary optimal levels ac-count for 66% of people's affiliative experiences. Moreover, onthe basis of our data, a momentary optimal level, if present,would have to extend for at least 4 hr. Because of the symmetryof time required to move between these optimal levels, we wouldnot expect individuals to make a transition from one to theother for quite some time. Although it is possible that PRT mayaccurately characterize affiliation motivation over a longer pe-riod than investigated in this study, many constructs that aretypically associated with everyday affiliative behavior, such ascrowding, loneliness, lack of personal space, and lack of privacy,pertain to minutes and hours rather than days. We suggest,therefore, that a momentary optimal level that extends over alonger period would not be relevant to everyday affiliationmotivation.

Although a number of prominent psychologists have pub-lished research pertaining to the need for affiliation (e.g., Alt-man, 1975; Harlow, 1959; Latane & Werner, 1978; Schachter,1959), there has been little follow-up to this research in the re-cent social psychological literature. On the basis of the presentresults, however, there are a number of avenues for future re-search. For instance, because the emphasis of our study was ononly those predictions of SAM that conflicted with PRT, onedirection for future research is to test additional theoretical pre-dictions of SAM. A more in-depth analysis of elected and non-desired social circumstances would theoretically strengthenSAM, as would a better understanding of the relationship be-tween the quality and duration of an interaction and how theserelate to one's optimal range. Future research on how these as-


pects of an interaction relate to one's optimal range may be par-ticularly pragmatic, as several everyday psychological experi-ences, such as crowding and loneliness, can be conceptualizedwithin the framework of SAM as excessive deviations fromone's optimal range of affiliation. A comprehensive understand-ing of this range and the factors that influence it may potentiallyenable one to counter these and other negative experiences. Thismay be especially relevant for people who are particularly proneto experiencing crowding or loneliness, such as adolescents andolder adults (e.g., Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1980; Larson etal., 1985), people confined to hospitals and prisons (e.g., Cox,Paulus, & McCain, 1984; Holland et al., 1977; Wener & Keys,1988), and individuals living in high-social-density housing(e.g., Evans & Lepore, 1993; Evans, Palsane, Lepore, & Martin,1989;Liddell&Kruger, 1989;Reichner, 1979).

SAM may also be applicable to various areas of psychologicalresearch, such as the personality approach to affiliation motiva-tion, environmental design, social support, and depression. Thepersonality approach, for instance, is similar to SAM in manyrespects. According to this framework, individuals with a highneed for affiliation, in comparison to those with a low need foraffiliation, maintain lower thresholds for entering into socialcontact and desire to stay in contact longer than others(Atkinson et al., 1954; Hill, 1991; Wong & Csikszentmihalyi,1991). From the perspective of SAM, individuals with a highneed for affiliation would simply have higher optimal rangesthan those with lower affiliative needs. Consistent with SAM,however, individuals both high and low in the need for affiliationwould be expected to seek out contact and seek out solitudeaccording to a homeostatic process. In support of this generalnotion, our data demonstrate that although women were morelikely than men to be in social contact, both women and mencontinued in elected social circumstances to a similar extent ina manner predicted by SAM. It may be that a process such asthat specified by SAM can link social psychological views ofaffiliation with views from personality psychology. Buss (1987)advocated for such an integration and suggested that one keymechanism by which social processes and individual differ-ences may be linked is by selection—the nonrandom decisionsthat individuals make about selecting particular environmentsand avoiding others. In this respect, selection is consistent withthe motivational component suggested by the homeostatic viewof SAM.

In sum, in the present study we focus on two testable modelsof affiliation motivation and used a novel methodology to testthem in everyday life. The support for one of these, SAM, sug-gests that the process underlying affiliation motivation operatesaccording to a homeostatic principle. According to our data,individuals in elected social circumstances are more likely to bein those circumstances in the near future, which suggests thatthey are trying to re-establish an optimal range of social affili-ation. Rival explanations that suggest these results can be ex-plained by the continuation of activities or by the manner inwhich the data were aggregated were not supported.

References

Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, per-sonal space, territory, and crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Altman, 1.(1990). Toward a transactional perspective: A personal jour-ney. In I. Altman & K. Christensen (Eds.), Human behavior and en-vironment: Vol. 11. Environment and behavior studies: Emergence ofintellectual traditions (pp. 225-255). New York: Plenum.

Altman, I., Vinsel, A., & Brown, B. B. (1981). Dialectic conceptions insocial psychology: An application to social penetration and privacyregulation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 14, pp. 107-160). New York: Academic Press.

Atkinson, J. W., Heyns, R. W., & Veroff, J. (1954). The effect of exper-imental arousal of the affiliation motive on thematic apperception.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 405-410.

Baum, A., & Greenberg, C. I. (1975). Waiting for a crowd: The behav-ioral and perceptual effects of anticipated crowding. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 32, 671-679.

Brent, S. B. (1978). Motivation, steady-state, and structural develop-ment. Motivation and Emotion, 2, 299-332.

Buss, D. M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1214-1221.

Cannon, W. B. (1939). The wisdom of the body (rev. ed.). New York:W. W. Norton.

Cofer, C. N., & Appley, M. H. (1964). Motivation: Theory and research.New York: Wiley.

Constantian, C. A. (1981). Solitude: Attitudes, beliefs, and behavior inregard to spending time alone (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Uni-versity, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 4968B.

Cox, V. C, Paulus, P. B., & McCain, G. (1984). Prison crowding re-search: The relevance for prison housing standards and a general ap-proach regarding crowding phenomena. American Psychologist, 39,1148-1160.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability ofthe experience-sampling method. Journal of Nervous and MentalDisease, 175,526-536.

Deets, A. C, & Harlow, H. F. (1971, December). Early experience andthe maturation of the agonistic emotions. Paper presented at the meet-ing of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences,Providence, RI.

Evans, G. W, & Lepore, S. J. (1993). Household crowding and socialsupport: A quasiexperimental analysis. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 65, 308-316.

Evans, G. W, Palsane, M. N., Lepore, S. J., & Martin, J. (1989). Resi-dential density and psychological health: The mediating effects of so-cial support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 994-999.

Gewirtz, J. L., & Baer, D. M. (1958a). The effect of brief social depri-vation on behaviors for a social reinforcer. Journal of Abnormal So-cial Psychology, 56, 49-56.

Gewirtz, J. L., & Baer, D. M. (1958b). Deprivation and satiation ofsocial reinforcers as drive conditions. Journal of Abnormal SocialPsychology, 57, 165-172.

Gifford, R. (1987). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice.Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

Greenberg, C. I., & Baum, A. (1979). Compensatory response to antic-ipated densities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 1-12.

Harlow, H. F. (1959). Love in infant monkeys. Scientific American,200,68-74.

Hill, C. A. (1991). Seeking emotional support: The influence of affil-iative need and partner warmth. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 60, 112-121.

Holland, J. H., Plumb, M., Yates, J., Harris, S., Tuttolomondo, A.,Holmes, J., & Holland, J. F. (1977). Psychological response of pa-tients with acute leukemia to germ-free environments. Cancer, 40,871-879.

Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1980). The significance of solitude


in adolescents' development. Journal of Current Adolescent Medi-cine, 8, 33-40.

Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1983). The experience samplingmethod. In H. T. Reis (Ed.), Naturalistic approaches to studying so-cial interaction: Vol. 15. New directions for methodology of social andbehavioral science (pp. 41-56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Larson, R., Zuzanek, J., & Mannell, R. (1985). Being alone versus be-ing with people: Disengagement in the daily experience of olderadults. Journal of Gerontology, 40, 375-381.

Latane, B., & Werner, C. (1978). Regulation of social contact in labo-ratory rats: Time, not distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 36, 1128-1137.

Liddell, C, & Kruger, P. (1989). Activity and social behavior in acrowded South African township nursery: A follow-up study on theeffects of crowding at home. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 209-226.

Lister, R. G., & Hilakivi, L. A. (1988). The effects of novelty, isolation,light and ethanol on the social behavior of mice. Psychopharmacol-ogy, 96, 181-187.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.Meaney, M. J., & Stewart, J. (1979). Environmental factors influencing

the amliative behavior of male and female rats (Rattus norvegicus).Animal Learning and Behavior, 7, 397-405.

Mehrabian, A., & Ksionzky, S. (1974). A theory of affiliation. Lexing-ton, MA: Lexington Books.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Peay, M. Y, & Peay, E. R. (1983). The effects of density, group size, andcrowding on behaviour in an unstructured situation. British Journalof Social Psychology, 22, 13-18.

Pinckney, G. A., & Anderson, L. E. (1967). Rearing conditions andsociability in Levistes reticulatus. Psychonomic Science, 9, 591-592.

Reichner, R. F. (1979). Differential responses to being ignored: Theeffects of architectural design and social density on interpersonal be-havior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 13-26.

Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation. Stanford, CA: Stan-ford University Press.

Shipley, T. E., & Veroff, J. (1952). A projective measure of need foraffiliation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 349-356.

Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J., Jr. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for thebehavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill.

Stagner, R. (1961). Homeostasis, need reduction, and motivation. Mer-rill-Palmer Quarterly, 7, 49-68.

Stagner, R. (1977). Homeostatis, discrepancy, dissonance: A theory ofmotives and motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 1, 103-138.

Tortora, G. J., & Evans, R. L. (1986). Principles of human physiology(2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Wampold, B. E. (1984). Tests of dominance in sequential categoricaldata. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 424-429.

Wampold, B. E. (1989). Kappa as a measure of pattern in sequentialdata. Quality and Quantity, 23, 171-187.

Wampold, B. E. (1992). The intensive examination of social interac-tions. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case researchdesign and analysis: New directions for psychology and education.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wampold, B. E., & Kim, K. (1989). Sequential analysis applied tocounseling process and outcome: A case study revisited. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 36, 357-364.

Wampold, B. E., & Margolin, G. (1982). Nonparametric strategies totest the independence of behavioral states in sequential data. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 92, 755-765.

Webb, W. M., & Worchel, S. (1993). Prior experience and expectationin the context of crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 65,512-521.

Wener, R. E., & Keys, C. (1988). The effects of changes in jail popula-tion densities on crowding, sick call, and spatial behavior. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 18, 852-866.

Wheeler, L., Reis, H., & Nezlek, J. (1983). Loneliness, social interac-tion, and sex roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,943-953.

Wong, M. M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Affiliation motivationand daily experience: Some issues on gender differences. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 60, 154-164.

Zeedyk-Ryan, J., & Smith, G. F. (1983). The effects of crowding onhostility, anxiety, and desire for social interaction. Journal of SocialPsychology, 120, 245-252.

Received April 18,1994Revision received October 2,1995

Accepted October 19, 1995 •

Documents

R02 - O'Connor 1996 - Affiliation Motivation in Everyday Experience. a Theoretical Comparison