Uniqueness pp 31-55 | Cite as

Theory of Uniqueness

  • C. R. Snyder
  • Howard L. Fromkin
Part of the Perspectives in Social Psychology book series (PSPS)


Theoretical formulations in psychology are frequently evaluated in terms of how plausible they appear to the reader, their contribution to the derivation of testable hypotheses, and the number of established data that they can encompass satisfactorily. Related to the first issue, the reader will be the judge of how plausible the theory appears after reading the subsequent chapters. With regard to the second issue, it is probably accurate to say that the present theory does generate hypotheses that are testable through empirical procedures. Furthermore, the theory also attempts to explain and integrate a wide variety of research findings from different response domains. Equally importantly, however, the theory seeks to provide some insights into important social phenomena. At this point it is appropriate to introduce the theory of uniqueness.


Research Participant Emotional Reaction Uniqueness Theory Attitude Item Negative Emotional Reaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Argyle, M. Bodily communication. New York: International Universities Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. Brock, T. C. Implications of commodity theory for value change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York: Academic, 1968, pp. 243–275.Google Scholar
  3. Byrne, D., Barry, J., & Nelson, D. Relation of the revised Repression-Sensitization Scale to measures of self-description. Psychological Reports, 1963, 13, 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Byrne, D., Baskett, G. D., & Hodges, L. Behavioral indicators of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1971, 1, 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. Similarity and awareness of similarity of personality characteristics as determinants of attraction. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1969, 3, 179–186.Google Scholar
  6. Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman, 1967.Google Scholar
  7. Duval, S. Conformity on a visual task as a function of personal novelty on attitudinal dimensions and being reminded of the object status of the self. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1972.Google Scholar
  8. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. Nonverbal behavior in psychotherapy research. In J. M. Shlien (Ed.), Research in psychotherapy, vol. 3. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1968, pp. 179–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans, G. W., & Howard, R. B. Personal space. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 334–344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freedman, J. L. Increasing creativity by free-association training. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 69, 89–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fromkin, H. L. Affective and valuational consequences of self-perceived uniqueness deprivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1968.Google Scholar
  12. Fromkin, H. L. Effects of experimentally aroused feelings of indistinctiveness upon valuation of scarce and novel experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 521–529.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fromkin, H. L. Feelings of interpersonal undistinctiveness: An unpleasant affective state. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1972, 6, 178–182.Google Scholar
  14. Fromkin, H. L., Brandt, J. M., Dipboye, R. L., & Pyle, M. Number of similar strangers and feelings of undistinctiveness as boundary conditions for the similarity attraction relationship: A bridge between different sand-boxes. Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, Paper No. 478, Purdue University, 1974.Google Scholar
  15. Ganster, D., McCuddy, M., & Fromkin, H. L. Similarity and undistinctiveness as determinants of favorable and unfavorable changes in self esteem. Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, 1977.Google Scholar
  16. Guilford, J. P. Creativity. American Psychologist, 1950, 5, 444–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Isaac, S., & Michael, M. B. Handbook in research and evaluation. San Diego, Calif.: Edits Publishers, 1971.Google Scholar
  18. MacLeod, R. B. The place of phenomenological analysis in social psychology. In J. H. Rohrer & M. Sherif (Eds.), Social psychology at the crossroads. New York: Harper, 1951, pp. 215–241.Google Scholar
  19. Maltzman, I. On the training of originality. Psychological Review, 1960, 67, 229–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mehrabian, A. Nonverbal communication. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1972.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, D. R. The study of social relationships: Situation, identity, and social interaction. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science, vol. 5. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963, pp. 639–737.Google Scholar
  22. Nowlis, V., & Green, R. F. Factor analytic studies of the mood adjective checklist. Technical Report No. i, Office of Naval Research: Contract—668 (12), 1965.Google Scholar
  23. Sherwood, J. J. Self actualization and self identity theory. Personality: An International Journal, 1970, 1, 41–63.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, C. S. Self-definition change as a function of interpersonal similarity: A test of a psychological spacing model. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Kansas, 1975.Google Scholar
  25. Snyder, C. R. The comparison process and “classroom” performance. In I. K. Goldberg (Ed.), Audio seminars in education. Fort Lee, N.J.: Sigma Information, 1975.(a)Google Scholar
  26. Snyder, C. R. The comparison process and student “personality.” In I. K. Goldberg (Ed.), Audio seminars in education. Fort Lee, N.J.: Sigma Information, 1975. (b)Google Scholar
  27. Snyder, C. R. The development of the comparison process. In I. K. Goldberg (Ed.), Audio seminars in education. Fort Lee, N.J.: Sigma Information, 1975. (c)Google Scholar
  28. Snyder, C. R., & Batson, C. D. The balanced interpersonal perception of differences and similarities: A model of psychological distance. Paper presented at the Western Psychological Association, San Francisco, 1974.Google Scholar
  29. Snyder, C. R., & Endelman, J. R. Effects of degree of interpersonal similarity on physical distance and self-reported attraction: A comparison of uniqueness and reinforcement theory predictions. Journal of Personality, 1979, 47 (3), 492–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.Google Scholar
  31. Weir, H. B. Deprivation of the need for uniqueness and some variables moderating its effects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1971.Google Scholar
  32. Wylie, R. C. The self concept: A critical survey of pertinent research literature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. R. Snyder
    • 1
  • Howard L. Fromkin
    • 2
  1. 1.The University of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.York UniversityDownsviewCanada

Personalised recommendations