Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1996, 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. Rosenblood
University of Victoria
Two alternative conceptualizations of the process underlying affiliation motivation in everyday life were investigated: the social affiliation model (SAM)a framework we proposeand privacy regulation theory (PRT; I. Altman, 1975; I. Altman, A. Vinsel, & B.B. Brown, 1981). The affiliative experiences of 66 participants were obtained using the experience sampling method. Sequential analyses indicated that individuals in elected social circumstances, such as those who were alone and wanted to be alone, continued in these circumstances at greater-than-chance levels (p < .01). These results suggest that individuals are motivated to re-establish an optimal range of contact, consistent with SAM and the view that the process underlying affiliation motivation operates according to a homeostatic principle. The contrasting predictions of PRT, as well as a rival explanation that the results are due to the continuation of activities, were not supported.

The need for affiliation is generally believed to motivate individuals to seek out social contact at times and solitude at other times. According to Altman (1975), for instance, "there are times when people want to be alone and out of contact with others and there are times when others are sought out, to be heard and to hear, to talk and to listen" (p. 22). Although the need for humans to affiliate has long been recognized (e.g., Maslow, 1954; Murray, 1938), and various conceptualizations of affiliation motivation have been suggested (e.g., Atkinson, Heyns, & Veroff, 1954; Mehrabian & Ksionzky, 1974; Schachter, 1959; Shipley & VerofT, 1952), the underlying motivational process of this need is not well understood. Whereas much of the contemporary work on affiliation motivation centers on personality processes and individual differences (e.g., Hill, 1991; Wong & Csikszentmihalyi, 1991), the present study focuses on two frameworks that adopt a more social view of affiliation motivation. The first, social affiliation model (SAM), is proposed here and is based in part on the work of 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 considerable amount of attention in the crowding and environmental psychology literature (e.g., Altman, 1990; Gifford, 1987;

Greenberg & Baum, 1979) but has not been formally tested as a theory of affiliation motivation. The purpose of this study is to determine whether SAM or PRT better accounts for everyday affiliative behaviors.

SAM
In contrast to PRT, we propose that the process underlying everyday affiliation operates according to a homeostatic principle. This process, in many respects, is analogous to caloric intake. In general, we suggest that individuals seek to maintain an optimal range of social contact. Consistent with homeostasis (e.g., Brent, 1978; Cannon, 1939; Cofer & Appley, 1964; Stagner, 1961, 1977), deviations from this optimal range are expected to motivate individuals to seek out varying degrees of social contact so that the optimal range can be re-established. For instance, if excess contact is experienced, people will seek out solitude so that this range can be re-established. Similarly, if individuals experience too much solitude, they will seek out others. Analogous to this model, it has long been recognized that each individual has his or her own optimal level of caloric intake (Cannon, 1939; Tortora & Evans, 1986). When below this level, people are motivated to eat, whereas when above this level, their motivations to eat are abated. The hypothesis that a social drive operates in humans, which functions analogously to a homeostatic metabolic process, has previously been suggested in the literature. For instance, Gewirtz and Baer (1958a) demonstrated that children who had been socially isolated, in comparison to children who were not, increased their response frequency to a task when social approval was contingent on the correct response. Subsequent research (Gewirtz & Baer, 1958b) showed that the response rates of children who had been socially satiated were least affected by social approval compared with children in both a nondeprived and a deprived condition. From these studies, Gewirtz and Baer concluded that a period of social deprivation appears to result in a drive that is satisfied by social interaction, much the same

Shawn C. O'Connor and Lome K. Rosenblood, Department of Psychology, 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 of Victoria. We would like to thank Irwin Altman for his help in clarifying privacy regulation theory and for his comments on an earlier version of this article. We also thank Bruce E. Wampold for profitable discussions about sequential analyses, Richard Connors for computer programming assistance, and Robert Gifford and Angela Troyer for comments made throughout the research. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shawn C. O'Connor, Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 3P5. Electronic mail may be sent via the Internet to shawn@uvic.ca. 513

514

O'CONNOR AND ROSENBLOOD

way as the increase in the appetitive drive following deprivation of food is eliminated when food is eaten. Similarly, Latane and Werner (1978) suggested that affiliation in rats was analogous to a homeostatic metabolic process. They demonstrated that rats deprived of social contact were more likely to affiliate with other rats than were rats that had been socially satiated. The authors proposed that rats had a "sociostat" that determined their optimal range of affiliation. If for some reasonsuch as deprivation, anxiety, or exploration rats deviated from this range, these deviations would be counteracted by behaviors that would result in a return to their optimal range. The SAM proposed here is an elaboration of these earlier formulations. In keeping with our analogy, we suggest that social affiliation, much like caloric intake, is relatively stable over time. Nevertheless, numerous factors, such as increasing age, depression, or marriage, may affect and possibly change one's optimal range of affiliation just as these events may change one's optimal level of caloric intake. Moreover, the various people with whom we interact, like the different foods we eat, may provide us with different amounts of "social calories" or "social interaction units," which correspond to the quality of an interaction. Our optimal range of affiliation, therefore, may be affected more by with whom we affiliate rather than how long we affiliate, consistent with the view of Larson, Zuzanek, and Mannell (1985). It also is evident that there are individual differences in affiliation motivation. Some people prefer more social contact than others(e.g., Wong&Csikszentmihalyi, 1991), just as some people consume more calories than others. Such individual differences, however, do not refute the explanatory value of homeostasis to account for affiliation motivation or caloric intake but may simply indicate different optimal ranges. For instance, in comparison to people with lower affiliative needs, people with higher affiliative needs may have lower thresholds for seeking contact (Hill, 1991) and thus higher optimal ranges. In the stream of our daily affiliative behavior, social norms and the pursuit of secondary motives frequently interfere with our 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 we may wish to be alone, a chance meeting with an old friend may motivate us otherwise. At any particular time, the need to do such things as work, attend social functions, or avoid stressful situations may conflict with our affiliative need to re-establish an optimal range of contact. Analogously, we frequently eat when we are not hungry, whereas at other times we delay eating when hungry because other motives or social norms interfere. We posit that, like caloric intake, social affiliation operates according to a homeostatic process despite occasional circumstances that interfere with our ability to pursue underlying affiliative needs. PRT In contrast to SAM, PRT suggests that the process underlying affiliation motivation operates according to a dialectic principle. PRT posits that individuals use an interpersonal boundarycontrol process to achieve a desired state of privacy by regulat-

ing with whom they come into contact (Altman, 1975; Altaian et al., 1981). This process primarily involves the opposition between openness toward others (i.e., when one is with others and wants to be) and closedness toward others (i.e., when one is alone and wants to be alone). Each of these states represents a "momentary optimal level" (I. Altman, personal communication, September 4, 1992), and each forms one of the two poles of this dialectic. Together these poles function as part of a unified system with neither pole completely dominating. In Altman's view, over time, people's affiliative experiences are characterized by an oscillation between these two poles. Hence, individuals who experience a momentary optimal level are subsequently 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 perspective has frequently been advanced. As Altman et al. (1981) noted however:
A homeostatic assumption lurked within the initial privacy framework to the effect that relationships progressed toward some idealized balance or stability of openness and closedness. This became a troubling matter because we did not intuitively believe that relationships operated in this way; nor . . . does dialectic philosophy necessarily assume such a perspective, (p. 116)

Thus, in PRT, optimal refers only to the momentary condition that occurs when a person's desired and actual states of privacy concur, not to an optimal range of ongoing affiliation as postulated by SAM. Part of this confusion may have resulted from the theoretical overlap between PRT and a homeostatic process such as SAM. That is, when individuals' desired and actual states of social contact differ (e.g., nondesired solitude or nondesired social contact), both views make identical predictions. Specifically, both theories predict that when social circumstances provide more contact than desired, excess social contact results, which motivates individuals to seek out solitude. In contrast, social isolation occurs when social circumstances fail to provide the desired amount of contact, which motivates individuals to seek out others. According to PRT, this motivation toward the opposite social circumstance occurs because of the dialectic of opposing forces, whereas according to SAM, this occurs because individuals are trying to re-establish their optimal range of social affiliation. Various research findings are consistent with these overlapping predictions. Peay and Peay (1983), for instance, demonstrated that individuals assigned to a crowded environment withdrew and engaged in less affiliative behavior than participants assigned to a less crowded condition. Similarly, research with nonhuman animals has shown that, subsequent to conditions of social satiation or social deprivation, animals are more likely 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 & Anderson, 1967). Baum and Greenberg (1975) found that even the anticipation of crowding led individuals to withdraw from social contact, and when these expectations of crowding were dis-

AFFILIATION MOTIVATION

515

confirmed, participants readjusted their social behavior to reflect the changed social circumstance (Greenberg & Baum, 1979). More recently, it has been demonstrated that people's prior experience with high- or low-social-density environments, their expectations of such environments, and their subsequent experience with these environments affected their experience of crowding (Webb & Worchel, 1993). Similarly, Zeedyk-Ryan and Smith (1983) showed that participants assigned to a highsocial-density condition subsequently indicated that they disliked interacting with others, had fewer social contacts, and strived to be alone more than participants assigned to a lowsocial-density condition. These studies support both PRT and SAM because these theories make identical theoretical predictions when individuals' desired states of social contact differ from their actual social circumstances. In contrast, when desired and actual states of social contact concur (i.e., elected solitude or elected social contact), PRT and SAM make conflicting theoretical predictions. According to PRT, when individuals are in these situations and hence are at a momentary 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 circumstances, and have thus deviatedfromtheir optimal range, they are motivated to remain in that circumstance to re-establish their optimal range of affiliation. To date, the relative merits of PRT and SAM have not been examined. The purpose of this study was to provide a critical test of whether PRT or SAM better predicts affiliation motivation in everyday experience when these theories make contrasting predictions. More specifically, the following were hypothesized:

SAM, on the other hand, predicts that individuals in elected social contact will be in social contact in the near future at greater-than-chance levels. We argue that, although individuals are with others, their need to be in contact indicates that they still have not re-established their optimal range. The need for more social contact, therefore, will motivate individuals to continue to be with other people. Moreover, because individuals are hypothesized to need social contact, there will be a less-thanchance occurrence of them being alone at a future time.

Additional PRT Hypotheses

There are at least two potential explanations for a lack of support for PRT with respect to Hypotheses 1 and 2. These explanations lead to the following additional hypotheses: Hypothesis 3: Desired situations. One could argue that individuals in elected social circumstances are constrained to remain in the same affiliative situation and thus are not able to make the hypothesized transition to the opposite social circumstance. However, their desire to be in the opposite circumstance is not constrained. From the perspective of PRT, therefore, individuals who do not make the hypothesized transition from elected 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 being alone at less-than-chance levels. Also, individuals who do not make the hypothesized transition from being in elected social contact to being alone should, if still in social contact, (a) want to be alone at greater-thanchance levels, and (b) want to be in social contact or feel neutral with respect to being with others at less-than-chance levels. Hypothesis 4: Multilag analysis. A second possible explanation for a lack of support for PRT is that individuals' momentary optimal levels extend for a time period longer than the ones that have been examined. Thus, when individuals' social circumstances are recorded in the near future, they may still be at a momentary optimal level and may not have made the hypothesized transition to the opposite social circumstance. To address this issue, we examined participants' affiliative behavior on one occasion and then again on a number of subsequent occasions. These subsequent occasions were farther apart in 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 additional test of PRT on whether there is a transition from a momentary optimal level to the opposite social circumstance. If, on the other hand, SAM is initially supported, and a similar pattern of results is obtained over these subsequent occasions, then this model will be generalizable over a longer period.

Hypothesis 1
PRT predicts that individuals in elected solitude will be motivated in the near future toward social contact at greater-thanchance levels. That is, because individuals have achieved what they desire, they are considered to be at a momentary optimal level; from a dialectic perspective, therefore, individuals will be subsequently motivated toward the opposite social circumstance. Also, because individuals are motivated toward others, there will be a less-than-chance occurrence that they will be alone in the near future. In contrast, SAM predicts that individuals in elected solitude will be alone in the near future at greater-than-chance levels. In this instance, individuals are hypothesized to be above their optimal range of social affiliation, as indicated by their need for solitude. Although already alone, to re-establish this range, participants will continue to be alone. Moreover, because they are motivated to be alone, there will be a less-than-chance occurrence that they will be with others later.

Additional SAM Hypotheses

To this point the hypotheses mentioned address the question of which theory, SAM or PRT, better predicts everyday affiliative behavior. In our view, the best way to accomplish this goal is to test the conflicting predictions of these theories when desired and actual states of social contact concur. As a result of this design, however, one could argue that we have not tested SAM as critically as we have PRT. Specifically, because PRT predicts that individuals in elected social circum-

Hypothesis 2
PRT predicts that individuals in elected social contact will be at a momentary optimal level and thus will be motivated in the near future toward solitude at greater-than-chance levels. Moreover, because individuals are not motivated to seek out social contact, there will be a less-than-chance occurrence that they will remain with others.

516

O'CONNOR AND ROSENBLOOD mean interval of approximately 1 hr seemed appropriate for people in our sample of university students to move in and out of social contact and 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 min was used, and in the present study we used additional devices with a mean interval of 52.7 min to obtain more experience sampling forms. Fourteen people were assigned devices that emitted pseudorandom signals 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 timers but with each period decreased by 25% (M = 52.7 min, SD = 10.9 min). For all beepers, each sequence was continuously repeated. To ensure homogeneity of time intervals, the multilag analysis included the data from only those participants who used a beeper with a mean interval of 52.7 min. The remaining analyses included data from all 66 participants. Experience sampling form. The experience sampling forms were modeled, in part, after questionnaires used by Larson and Csikszentmihalyi (1983); Constantian (1981); and Wheeler, Reis, and Nezlek (1983). Throughout the period that participants were beeped, they reported their actual and desired states of social contact on the experience sampling form. The actual states were measured by the response to the question "Who were you with when beeped?" Individuals could respond in one of three ways: completely alone (i.e., no one present and in communication with no one), alone but with other people present (i.e., no direct social contact), or with people (i.e., social contact). Because the state "alone but with other people present" comprises elements of solitude and social contact, we did not use it to test our hypotheses. Individuals' desired states of social contact were determined by the question "Would you like to be [completely] alone right now?" Participants responded to this question on a 7-point scale. To make the data more manageable, however, we recoded these responses into three categories: yes for 1,2, or 3; neutral (i.e., no preference) for 4; and no for 5, 6, or 7.

stances will be motivated in the near future toward the opposite state, but SAM predicts that they will continue in the same social circumstances, it may be easier to confirm SAM. It could be argued, therefore, that individuals who continue in elected social circumstances may do so not as a result of being motivated to re-establish an optimal range of social affiliation, as suggested by SAM. Rather, it may be that many activities, such as work commitments, social engagements, or commuting, necessitate a continuation of social circumstances. To rule out this continuation-of-activities explanation, we examined additional hypotheses. Hypothesis 5: Continuation of activities. If our findings are simply the result of a continuation of activities, one would expect that individuals would continue in the same social circumstance irrespective of whether that circumstance was elected or nondesired. Thus, from the perspective of the continuation-of-activities explanation, one could hypothesize that individuals in elected solitude and individuals in nondesired solitude will be alone in the near future at similar greater-than-chance levels. Moreover, individuals in elected social contact and individuals in nondesired social contact will be with others in the near future at comparable greaterthan-chance levels.

Method Participants
Seventy students in a third-year social psychology course at the University of Victoria (Victoria, British Columbia, Canada) participated in this study to fulfill part of a course requirement. We excluded 4 individuals from the study because their data were incomplete. The remaining 66 participants (19 men, 46 women, and 1 who did not respond to the sex query) had a mean age of 22.8 years (SD = 3.9). Sixty-one percent of the participants were currently in a dating or spousal relationship, whereas 39% were not. Forty-seven percent of the participants lived with friends or acquaintances, 26% lived with family, 20% lived with a significant other such as a spouse, fiance(e), girlfriend, or boyfriend, and 8% lived alone. Forty-nine percent of the sample resided in a house, whereas 47% lived in an apartment, and 5% lived in university housing. Acquisition of Data Consistent with PRT and SAM, we argue that in everyday life the need for affiliation, in part, motivates individuals to seek out varying degrees of social contact. Thus, to examine affiliation motivation in naturally occurring situations we obtained measures of affiliative behavior using the experience sampling method (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987; Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1983). Specifically, in response to electronic signals from a beeper, participants recorded on an experience sampling form their actual state of social contact (e.g., alone or with people) and their current desire to be alone or not. Participants recorded these responses, which together comprised their "affiliative state," throughout their waking hours over a period of 3-4 days. These affiliative states formed a temporal sequence of participants' daily affiliative behavior. Beeper. Electronic devices were designed to beep intermittently so that participants would not anticipate the signal. It was necessary to use an average interval between beeps that was neither too shortwhich may have sampled the same affiliative behaviornor too long, which may have missed the hypothesized underlying processes. In our view, a

Procedure Individuals participated in the study from either a Monday afternoon to Thursday morning or from a Thursday afternoon to Monday morning. Participants received thorough instructions, both written and oral, on the use of the beeper and on the completion of experience sampling forms and the background questionnaire. To familiarize participants with the experience sampling form, they were asked to complete one based on a hypothetical experience. Participants were encouraged to ask any questions about the beeper, experience sampling form, or questionnaire, and were told that if they did not wish to continue in the study then or at any time in the future they could withdraw without penalty. Sequential analysis. We used a transition-frequency matrix to summarize the temporal nature of participants' responses. Given that participants, at any given time, could be in one of three actual social circumstances and one of three desired states, a 9 X 9 transition matrix resulted. Specifically, when the affiliative state at any one occasionsay, State jfollowed the affiliative state of the previous occasionsay, State ia transition occurred from State i to State j . This transition was recorded in the corresponding Row i and Column j of the transition-frequency matrix and represented an observed transition. For example, an individual beeped at any one occasion may have been alone and wanted to be alone (State i); however, when next beeped he or she may have been alone but wanted to be in social contact (State j). Thus, this transition 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 participants' responses were classified into this aggregated transition-frequency matrix. A Lag 1 analysis comprised a sequential examination of any given affiliative state and the immediately following affiliative state.

AFFILIATION MOTIVATION

517

Table 1 Aggregated Observed Transition-Frequency Matrix ofOngoing Affiliative Behavior

Subsequent state Previous state: actual-desired 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Alone-alone Alone-neutral Alone-contact Alone but contact-alone Alone but contact-neutral Alone but contact-contact Contact-alone Contact-neutral Contact-contact Total 1 469 21 57

2
23 23 8 1 2 3

3
82 7 100 7 3 13 12 1 49

4 36 4 5 62 6 10 20 3 27

5
9 2 4 2 1 1 0 2 11

6
23 2 20 11 3 27 4 1 51

7 52 0 7 11 1 8 69 7 73

8
15 5 0 3 2 2 4 10 19

9 144 16 75 40 6 45

Total 853 80 276 169 28 139 232

32
4 30 57 12 175

6
3 13

60
20 653

59
1,071 2,907

A Lag 2 or Lag 3 analysis comprised a sequential examination of responses two or three intervals apart, respectively. We analyzed the sequences of responses obtained from the entire sample following techniques developed by Wampold and Margolin (1982; see also Wampold, 1984, 1989, 1992). These techniques make use of the observed transition frequencies, variances of these frequencies, expected frequencies (i.e., chance levels), and base-rate information. These parameters are used in calculations to determine whether the hypothesized patterns occur in the data. Wampold (1989) stated that "the simplest evaluation of state independence is the determination of whether one state, say state j, follows another state, say state i, more or less often than would be expected by chance" (p. 173). Specifically, to determine whether the hypothesized patterns are statistically significant (an evaluation of state independence), z scores for each cell of the transition-frequency matrix are calculated and compared with the normal curve. Next, effect sizes, as measured by transformed kappa (&'), are examined with respect to direction and magnitude to determine 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 that the subsequent behavior followed the antecedent behavior to the maximum extent possible, a transformed kappa of 1.00 indicates that the subsequent behavior followed the antecedent behavior to the minimum extent possible, and a transformed kappa of zero indicates that the subsequent behavior followed the antecedent behavior no more or less than would be expected by chance, (p. 359) Our justification for aggregating each participant's sequence of affiliative states in the manner previously mentioned was, in part, that we believed that our hypotheses could be best tested at the level of the transition. That is, any particular transition either supported or refuted the hypothesized process. Additionally, we noted that the transitions from any particular person's sequence would be substantially less than the number of transitions needed to fill all 81 cells of the transition-frequency matrix. We felt, therefore, that the aggregated matrix would be more reliable with respect to such things as base-rate information and calculations based on such information. To support the view that our results were not an artifact of combining participants' sequences of responses into an aggregated transition-frequency matrix, we also analyzed Hypotheses 1 and 2 using averaged within-person transformed kappas. To accomplish this, a transition frequency matrix was produced for each participant despite the possibility that some cells of this matrix might contain a low number of transitions. For each participant, we calculated a transformed kappa for each hypothesized transition. We then used participants' kappas to calculate

the sample's mean kappa for each hypothesis. One-sample / tests were used to determine whether these averaged within-person kappas significantly differed from chance (i.e., k' = 0). As previously intimated, we expected that any given participant's transition-frequency matrix would contain low observed and expected transitions and thus potentially inaccurate base-rate information because of each participant's relatively short sequence of responses. Therefore, we used one of two criteria to calculate the within-person transformed kappas. The first criterion excluded participants from the particular analysis if their observed transition-frequencies were 0 for the specific hypothesized transition. The exclusion of cases was considered necessary because a value of 0, in any particular person's data, indicated that the hypothesized transition could not occur. The second criterion excluded those participants who did not have an expectedfrequencyof at least 4.5 for the hypothesized transition. Although this value was determined somewhat arbitrarily, previous literature has suggested that chi-square analyses of contingency tables should have expected frequencies of at least 5, to which our criterion rounds (e.g., Siegel & Castellan, 1988). On the basis of the first criterion, we anticipated that only a few participants would be excluded from the analysis. In contrast, we expected the second criterion to exclude a substantial number of cases. We took the position that these criteria would balance the potential problem of excluding too many participants, which might mean the loss of information, with the problem of including participants who infrequently made the hypothesized transitions, which might result in erroneous calculations of their transformed kappas because of potentially inaccurate base-rate information. As a final note on our use of sequential analyses, the multiple tests on the transitions from any particular row of the transition-frequency matrix are statistically related. For instance, the hypothesized greaterthan-chance transition from elected solitude to being alone and the hypothesized less-than-chance transition from elected solitude to social contact are not independent of each other. However, support for one of these hypotheses does not dictate that the other one also will be supported, in part because individuals in elected solitude are not constrained to make transitions to either of these states but may also make transitions to "alone but with other people present."

Results Descriptive Statistics

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

518

O'CONNOR AND ROSENBLOOD

Table 2 Transitions From Elected Social Circumstances to Hypothesized Subsequent States

Lag 1 transition from actual-desired to actual Alone-alone to alone Alone-alone to contact Contact-contact to alone Contact-contact to contact SAM PRT Observed Expected > < < > < > > < 574 211 237 745 355.9 395.3 446.9 496.3 k' .44* -.47* -.47* .43*

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

Hypothesis 1
Consistent with SAM, participants in elected solitude on any one occasion had, when next signaled, (a) a greater-thanchance occurrence of being alone (k' = .44, p < .01; as shown in Row 1 of Table 2) and (b) a less-than-chance occurrence of being with others (k' = .47, p < .01; as shown in Row 2). In contrast, PRT was not supported. That is, individuals in elected solitude did not have, when next signaled, a less-than-chance occurrence of being alone, or a greater-than-chance occurrence of being with others.

Note. The symbols "<" and " > " refer to the hypothesized chance occurrence of the observed transition and are supported if the corresponding transformed kappa is significantly negative and significantly positive, respectively. SAM = social affiliation model, PRT = privacy regulation theory. *p<. 01, one-tailed.

sponded to on 92% of the forms; the remaining 8% were excluded from the analyses. In general, participants indicated that they were completely alone approximately 42% of the time and in social contact approximately 47% of the time. Their remaining time was spent "alone but with other people present." Additionally, participants indicated a desire to be alone 43% of the time, to be in social contact 51 % of the time, and had no particular preference 6% of the time. In regard to the affiliative behaviors examined in Hypotheses 1 and 2, participants were in elected solitude and elected social contact approximately 29% and 37% of the time, respectively. The nondesired solitude and nondesired social contact states investigated in Hypothesis 5 occurred approximately 9% and 8% of the time, respectively. Thus, 83% of these individuals' everyday affiliative experiences were accounted for by the affiliative states specifically examined in this study. Participants' remaining time was spent feeling neutral about being alone or in social contact (5% of the time), or being alone but with other people present (12% of the time). Overall, it appears that these individuals were generally successful in regulating their actual social circumstances to match their desires. The 14 participants who were assigned beepers with a mean interval of 70.2 min responded, on average, every 73.3 min (SD = 26.9). The 52 participants who were assigned beepers with a

Hypothesis 2
Consistent with SAM, participants in elected social contact had, when next signaled, (a) a less-than-chance occurrence of being alone (k' = -.47, p < .01; as shown in Row 3 of Table 2) and (b) a greater-than-chance occurrence of being in social contact (k' = .43, p < .01; as shown in Row 4). PRT, on the other hand, was not supported. Participants in elected social contact did not make a transition at greater-than-chance levels to the alone state, nor were they less likely to remain in social contact.

Hypothesis 3: Desired Situations

Contrary to the predictions of PRT, individuals who were in elected solitude on any given occasion and remained alone when next signaled (a) did not want to be in social contact at greaterthan-chance levels (as shown in Row 3 of Table 3) and (b) did not want to be alone or felt neutral with respect to being alone at lessthan-chance levels (as shown in Rows 1 and 2, respectively). Similarly, participants who were in elected social contact and remained in social contact from one signal to the next (a) did not want 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 3 Transitions to Specific Desired States as Hypothesized by Privacy Regulation Theory (PRT)
Lag 1 transition from actual-desired to actual-desired 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 PRT < < > > < < Observed 469 23 82 73 19 653 Expected 251.5 24.1 80.4 84 22.1 390.2 k' .36, ns -.04, ns .01, ns

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

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

AFFILIATION MOTIVATION Table 4 Transformed Kappas for Privacy Regulation Theory (PRT) Multilag Analysis k' Transition from actual-desired to actual Alone-alone to alone Alone-alone to contact Contact-contact to alone Contact-contact to contact PRT
V A A V

519

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

Lag 2 .28, ns -.30, ns -.30, ns .27, ns

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 occurrence of the observed transition and are supported if the corresponding transformed kappa is significantly negative and significantly positive, respectively.

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

Hypothesis 4: Multilag Analysis

As shown in Table 4, the transformed kappas obtained from the multilag analysis corresponded to those described in the Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 sections. Counter to the predictions of PRT, therefore, the analysis of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th lags indicated that when longer periods were considered, participants still did not make a transition from a momentary optimal level to the opposite social circumstance. Hypothesis 5: Continuation of Activities Contrary to the continuation-of-activities hypothesis, individuals in elected solitude and individuals in nondesired solitude were not alone in the near future at similar greater-thanchance levels. Rather, the difference between these two transitions (.44 and .31, respectively) was statistically significant based on Wampold's multi-cell nonparallel-case test (z = 2.53, p < .01; Wampold, 1984, 1992). Moreover, individuals in elected social contact and individuals in nondesired social contact were not with others in the near future at comparable greater-than-chance levels as indicated by the significant differ-

As shown in Table 5, the within-person transformed kappas follow the same pattern as those kappas calculated from the aggregated data despite the low number of participants in some of the within-person analyses, the latter of which is indicated by the reported degrees of freedom. Thesefindings,therefore, support the view that the results of Hypotheses 1 and 2 are not an artifact of combining participants' sequences of responses into an aggregated transition-frequency matrix. To explore individual differences further, we compared the patterns of affiliation motivation of women and men. Gender differences were obtained in the frequency that participants were 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 in regard to the continuation of elected states. That is, both men and women in elected solitude were more likely, in the near future, 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 women in elected contact were less likely, in the near future, to be alone (k' = -.45 and k' = -.46,/? < .01, respectively) and more likely to be in contact (k' = .39 and k' = .44, p < .01, respectively). Thus, although men and women differed in preference for social contact, consistent with SAM, they did not differ in the underlying process used to achieve this contact. Discussion The present study suggests that everyday affiliation motivation operates according to a homeostatic principle, as specified by SAM, rather than according to a dialectic process, as delineated by PRT. On the basis of the Lag 1 analysis, individuals in elected social circumstances appear to continue in such circumstances at greater-than-chance levels, consistent with the view that they are trying to re-establish and maintain an optimal

Table 5 A Comparison of Transformed Kappas: Aggregated Data Versus Averaged-Within Person Kappas
Averaged within-person kappas Lag 1 transition from actual-desired to actual Alone-alone to alone Alone-alone to contact Contact-contact to alone Contact-contact to contact Aggregated data" .44* -.47* -.47* .43* 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 in the analyses. *p < .01, one-tailed.

520

O'CONNOR AND ROSENBLOOD

range of social affiliation. The analyses of within-person kappas and gender indicate that these results are not simply due to individual differences and thus provide evidence for the robustness of the aggregated-matrix analysis. Although SAM made no particular predictions regarding the multilag analysis, the transformed kappas at Lags 2, 3, and 4 correspond to the transformed kappas reported from the Lag 1 analysis. This suggests that individuals are motivated to maintain specific affiliative states in a manner consistent with a homeostatic process over a period of at least 4 hr. The multilag analysis, moreover, suggests that the dependencies in the data are not simply a result of an inappropriately short interval between participants' responses, which could have led to the sampling of the same behavior. Individuals would have likely been able to change their affiliative behavior over a 4-hr interval if they so desired. This is supported by the comparison of elected and nondesired social circumstances. That is, counter to the continuationof-activities explanation (Hypothesis 5), participants made significantly fewer transitions to the same social circumstance when they had previously been in nondesired states than when they had been in elected states (as measured by k'). This suggests that individuals are not merely continuing in social circumstances because of such things as constraints or ongoing activities. Rather, participants appear to continue in elected social circumstances because of a drive to do so, as suggested by SAM. In general, our view would be that the continuation of elected social circumstances is due to a homeostatic process underlying affiliation motivation and, to a lesser extent, the continuation of activities. Regarding this latter point, it may be that individuals who are frequently in elected social circumstances select such activities in the first place because of the need to maintain a particular optimal range of affiliation. Buss's (1987) work appears to support such a notion. He suggested that individuals choose particular environments nonrandomly and that these decisions result in individuals selecting particular environments and avoiding others. These nonrandom selections, he argues, are based on individual dispositions, propensities, and proclivities and are an integral part of what is thought of as personality. It may be that individuals who are high or low in the need for affiliation continue in elected states in an attempt to select social environments that are consistent with their personalities and that these selections are the result of a need to re-establish an optimal range of affiliation. Another matter that should be considered in regard to elected social circumstances is that participants may have been trying to establish cognitive consistency between their affiliative behaviors when recording their actual and desired states of social contact on the experience sampling form. Although this may have had the effect of increasing the frequency with which participants were in elected social circumstances, it does not account for people's transitions from one affiliative state to another, which is the focus of this article. Although the present results support the contention that individuals continue in elected social circumstances, we do not mean to imply that individuals in such circumstances will remain in these states indefinitely. Theoretically, individuals are motivated to continue in an elected social circumstance only until they have re-established their optimal range. At this point,

if individuals remain in that social circumstance, they will eventually acquire an excessive amount of it, and this will cause them to deviate from their optimal range. Once this occurs, individuals will then be in a nondesired social circumstance and will be motivated toward the opposite social circumstance (e.g., Peay & Peay, 1983; Zeedyk-Ryan & Smith, 1983). More precisely, they will be motivated to re-establish their optimal range by 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 SAM and PRT that individuals are open to social contact at times and closed to social contact at other times. This does not discriminate between the two theories, however, and therefore cannot be used to assess their relative merits. Other than thisfinding,our data do not support PRT. Specifically, when individuals' desired and actual states of social contact correspond, they are not necessarily motivated toward the opposite social circumstance. The argument that individuals may be constrained to remain in the same social circumstance from one beep to the next, and thus are unable to make the transition to the opposite social circumstance (Hypothesis 3), also is refuted. Although participants' desired states of social contact were free to change, apparently they did not wish to make a transition to this opposite state. The results of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th lags are also inconsistent with PRT. Thus, the multilag analysis does not support the view that an individual's momentary optimal level may extend past the interval examined in the Lag 1 analysis. In sum, PRT was not supported over a 3- to 4-day period when sequential periods of up to approximately 4 hr were investigated. The inability of PRT to predict transitions from elected social circumstances is particularly problematic when it is considered that, according to our data, these momentary optimal levels account for 66% of people's affiliative experiences. Moreover, on the basis of our data, a momentary optimal level, if present, would have to extend for at least 4 hr. Because of the symmetry of time required to move between these optimal levels, we would not expect individuals to make a transition from one to the other for quite some time. Although it is possible that PRT may accurately characterize affiliation motivation over a longer period than investigated in this study, many constructs that are typically associated with everyday affiliative behavior, such as crowding, 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 a longer period would not be relevant to everyday affiliation motivation. Although a number of prominent psychologists have published research pertaining to the need for affiliation (e.g., Altman, 1975; Harlow, 1959; Latane & Werner, 1978; Schachter, 1959), there has been little follow-up to this research in the recent social psychological literature. On the basis of the present results, however, there are a number of avenues for future research. For instance, because the emphasis of our study was on only those predictions of SAM that conflicted with PRT, one direction for future research is to test additional theoretical predictions of SAM. A more in-depth analysis of elected and nondesired social circumstances would theoretically strengthen SAM, as would a better understanding of the relationship between the quality and duration of an interaction and how these relate to one's optimal range. Future research on how these as-

AFFILIATION MOTIVATION

521

pects of an interaction relate to one's optimal range may be particularly pragmatic, as several everyday psychological experiences, such as crowding and loneliness, can be conceptualized within the framework of SAM as excessive deviations from one's optimal range of affiliation. A comprehensive understanding of this range and the factors that influence it may potentially enable one to counter these and other negative experiences. This may be especially relevant for people who are particularly prone to experiencing crowding or loneliness, such as adolescents and older adults (e.g., Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1980; Larson et al., 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 psychological research, such as the personality approach to affiliation motivation, environmental design, social support, and depression. The personality approach, for instance, is similar to SAM in many respects. According to this framework, individuals with a high need for affiliation, in comparison to those with a low need for affiliation, maintain lower thresholds for entering into social contact 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 high need for affiliation would simply have higher optimal ranges than those with lower affiliative needs. Consistent with SAM, however, individuals both high and low in the need for affiliation would be expected to seek out contact and seek out solitude according to a homeostatic process. In support of this general notion, our data demonstrate that although women were more likely than men to be in social contact, both women and men continued in elected social circumstances to a similar extent in a manner predicted by SAM. It may be that a process such as that specified by SAM can link social psychological views of affiliation with views from personality psychology. Buss (1987) advocated for such an integration and suggested that one key mechanism by which social processes and individual differences may be linked is by selectionthe nonrandom decisions that individuals make about selecting particular environments and avoiding others. In this respect, selection is consistent with the motivational component suggested by the homeostatic view of SAM. In sum, in the present study we focus on two testable models of affiliation motivation and used a novel methodology to test them in everyday life. The support for one of these, SAM, suggests that the process underlying affiliation motivation operates according to a homeostatic principle. According to our data, individuals in elected social circumstances are more likely to be in those circumstances in the near future, which suggests that they are trying to re-establish an optimal range of social affiliation. Rival explanations that suggest these results can be explained by the continuation of activities or by the manner in which the data were aggregated were not supported.

Altman, 1.(1990). Toward a transactional perspective: A personal journey. In I. Altman & K. Christensen (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Vol. 11. Environment and behavior studies: Emergence of intellectual traditions (pp. 225-255). New York: Plenum. Altman, I., Vinsel, A., & Brown, B. B. (1981). Dialectic conceptions in social psychology: An application to social penetration and privacy regulation. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 107-160). New York: Academic Press. Atkinson, J. W., Heyns, R. W., & Veroff, J. (1954). The effect of experimental 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 behavioral and perceptual effects of anticipated crowding. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 32, 671-679. Brent, S. B. (1978). Motivation, steady-state, and structural development. Motivation and Emotion, 2, 299-332. Buss, D. M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal ofPersonality 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 in regard to spending time alone (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 4968B. Cox, V. C, Paulus, P. B., & McCain, G. (1984). Prison crowding research: The relevance for prison housing standards and a general approach regarding crowding phenomena. American Psychologist, 39, 1148-1160. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175,526-536. Deets, A. C, & Harlow, H. F. (1971, December). Early experience and the maturation ofthe agonistic emotions. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, Providence, RI. Evans, G. W, & Lepore, S. J. (1993). Household crowding and social support: A quasiexperimental analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 308-316. Evans, G. W, Palsane, M. N., Lepore, S. J., & Martin, J. (1989). Residential density and psychological health: The mediating effects of social support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 994999. Gewirtz, J. L., & Baer, D. M. (1958a). The effect of brief social deprivation on behaviors for a social reinforcer. Journal ofAbnormal Social Psychology, 56, 49-56. Gewirtz, J. L., & Baer, D. M. (1958b). Deprivation and satiation of social reinforcers as drive conditions. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 57, 165-172. Gifford, R. (1987). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon. Greenberg, C. I., & Baum, A. (1979). Compensatory response to anticipated 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 affiliative need and partner warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 112-121. Holland, J. H., Plumb, M., Yates, J., Harris, S., Tuttolomondo, A., Holmes, J., & Holland, J. F. (1977). Psychological response of paReferences tients with acute leukemia to germ-free environments. Cancer, 40, Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, per- 871-879. Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1980). The significance of solitude sonal space, territory, and crowding. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

522

O'CONNOR AND ROSENBLOOD

in adolescents' development. Journal of Current Adolescent Medi- Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J., Jr. (1988). Nonparametric statisticsfor the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill. cine, 8, 33-40. Stagner, R. (1961). Homeostasis, need reduction, and motivation. MerLarson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1983). The experience sampling rill-Palmer Quarterly, 7, 49-68. method. In H. T. Reis (Ed.), Naturalistic approaches to studying social interaction: Vol. 15. New directionsfor methodology ofsocial andStagner, R. (1977). Homeostatis, discrepancy, dissonance: A theory of motives and motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 1, 103-138. behavioral science (pp. 41-56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tortora, G. J., & Evans, R. L. (1986). Principles of human physiology Larson, R., Zuzanek, J., & Mannell, R. (1985). Being alone versus be(2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. ing with people: Disengagement in the daily experience of older Wampold, B. E. (1984). Tests of dominance in sequential categorical adults. Journal ofGerontology, 40, 375-381. data. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 424-429. Latane, B., & Werner, C. (1978). Regulation of social contact in laboWampold, B. E. (1989). Kappa as a measure of pattern in sequential ratory rats: Time, not distance. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psydata. Quality and Quantity, 23, 171-187. chology, 36, 1128-1137. Wampold, B. E. (1992). The intensive examination of social interacLiddell, C, & Kruger, P. (1989). Activity and social behavior in a tions. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research crowded South African township nursery: A follow-up study on the design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education. effects of crowding at home. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 209-226. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lister, R. G., & Hilakivi, L. A. (1988). The effects of novelty, isolation, Wampold, B. E., & Kim, K. (1989). Sequential analysis applied to light and ethanol on the social behavior of mice. Psychopharmacolcounseling process and outcome: A case study revisited. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 357-364. ogy, 96, 181-187. Wampold, B. E., & Margolin, G. (1982). Nonparametric strategies to Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper. test the independence of behavioral states in sequential data. PsychoMeaney, M. J., & Stewart, J. (1979). Environmental factors influencing logical Bulletin, 92, 755-765. the amliative behavior of male and female rats (Rattus norvegicus). Webb, W. M., & Worchel, S. (1993). Prior experience and expectation Animal Learning and Behavior, 7, 397-405. in the context of crowding. Journal ofPersonality and Social PsycholMehrabian, A., & Ksionzky, S. (1974). A theory of affiliation. Lexingogy, 65,512-521. ton, MA: Lexington Books. Wener, R. E., & Keys, C. (1988). The effects of changes in jail populaMurray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford tion densities on crowding, sick call, and spatial behavior. Journal of University Press. Applied Social Psychology, 18, 852-866. Peay, M. Y, & Peay, E. R. (1983). The effects of density, group size, and Wheeler, L., Reis, H., & Nezlek, J. (1983). Loneliness, social interaccrowding on behaviour in an unstructured situation. British Journal tion, and sex roles. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 45, ofSocial Psychology, 22, 13-18. 943-953. Wong, M. M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Affiliation motivation Pinckney, G. A., & Anderson, L. E. (1967). Rearing conditions and and daily experience: Some issues on gender differences. Journal of sociability in Levistes reticulatus. Psychonomic Science, 9, 591-592. Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 154-164. Reichner, R. F. (1979). Differential responses to being ignored: The Zeedyk-Ryan, J., & Smith, G. F. (1983). The effects of crowding on effects of architectural design and social density on interpersonal behostility, anxiety, and desire for social interaction. Journal of Social havior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 13-26. Psychology, 120, 245-252. Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology ofaffiliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Received April 18,1994 Revision received October 2,1995 Shipley, T. E., & Veroff, J. (1952). A projective measure of need for affiliation. Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 43, 349-356. Accepted October 19, 1995