Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
140 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Social Influence
|
People around us influence thoughts, feelings and behaviors
|
|
|
Conformity
|
Change in thoughts, feelings, behavior to bring them in line with the social norm- real or imagined group.
|
|
|
Social Norm
|
Widely accepted ideas/rules about how people should behave or what they should believe.
|
|
|
Obedience
|
Change in behavior in response to direct orders; authority figure has means to enforce orders
|
|
|
Persuasion
|
Doing what someone tries to convince you to do.
|
|
|
Conformity vs. Obedience
|
Conform to group, not individual
Do what others do, not what they want Overt pressure not necessary Status less of an issue Conformity increases similarity Obedience decreases similarity |
|
|
Conformity: When and Why
|
-American culture stresses the importance of not conforming.
-American mythology has celebrated the rugged individualist in many ways -Conformity occurs in all cultures and it varies. |
|
|
Sherif: Autokinetic Effect
|
-Estimate movement of light
-Estimates converge on a group average -Effects are long-lasting and stable (still present 1 year later when tested alone) -Rely on others to interpret ambiguous stimulus |
|
|
Asch's LIne Study
|
- 8 Confederates, 1 real subject
- Real subject always goes last - 3rd trial-- confederates give wrong answer - 76% gave at least 1 incorrect response (so only 24% give all correct responses) - Only 1% give incorrect response in control |
|
|
Difference between Sherif & Asch studies
|
Sherif- answers are internalized- private acceptance
Asch- answers are not internalized- no private acceptance Difference is because of the ambiguity. |
|
|
Informational Social Influence
|
-The need to know what is right
ex. what to call you psychology professor, how to vote in an upcoming election, -The desire for master-- to be right -Assume others have useful knowledge (expertise) -Private acceptance |
|
|
Two reasons for conformity
|
Informational Social Influence and Normative Social Influence
|
|
|
Wilder: Relationships among other people is important
|
- 4 confederates state opinions about a somewhat ambiguous civil lawsuit
- Presented as 4 individuals, 2 groups of 2, or 1 group of 4 people - Which produces most conformity? - More independence= more conformity - When people are in groups, perceivers assume contamination - Independence= perceived consensus |
|
|
Normative Social Influence
|
-The need to be accepted
- Not a question of being correct or incorrect - we conform to be liked and accepted by others; gain approval - sometimes we conform, even when we know the behavior is risky or harmful -Through interactions with others, we receive emotional support, affection, and love; and we partake in enjoyable experiences -Other people are important to our sense of well-being; studies show that isolation from human contact is stressful and traumatic -Public Compliance but not private acceptance |
|
|
Compliance (conformity) versus Acceptance
|
Sherif= acceptance
Asch= compliance -Conformity decreases with written response -Over time compliance may become acceptance-- dissonance reduction |
|
|
Factors that influence normative conformity
|
1. Group Size
- More people= more conformity - Up to a point in Asch’s study - Asch: Rises quickly to 3 or 4, then levels -Milgram’s Building Study: - 1 person= 4% conformity - 15 people= 40% conformity 2. Social Support - If Asch added ally who failed to conform, subject conformed less, BUT… - Ally need not be competent - Can be practically blind - Ally need not give the correct answer - Just a nonconforming answer -Ally’s effects not due to value of information-- reduced normative pressure |
|
|
When Informational Influence Backfires:
Contagion |
The rapid transmission of emotions or behaviors through a crowd
|
|
|
When Informational Influence Backfires:
Mass Psychogenic Illness |
The occurrence, in a group of people, similar physical symptoms with no known physical cause.
Example: - In 1998, a teacher in Tennessee reported a gasoline smell in her classroom - The school was evacuated. Over 170 students, teachers, and staff reported symptoms like headaches, nausea, dizziness - But nothing was found to be wrong in the school - The rash of mysterious illness went away -Probably also some normative influence |
|
|
When Informational Influence Backfires:
Pluralistic Ignorance |
- We're not always good at inferring what others are thinking/feeling; have incomplete information and make wrong inferences
- May enhance stereotype threat; assume no one else needs help - May reduce helping behavior; assume help isn't needed because no one is helping |
|
|
When Informational Influence Backfires:
Interrogation and Confession |
-Try to create ambiguity
- Lengthy interviews in hot/cold rooms - Suspect is alone with no social support - Multiple officers "confirm" strength of evidence -Confuses the suspect - May forget details or stop trusting them |
|
|
Kassin Study
|
- Subjects typing in a study on reflex speed
-Warned not to hit ALT key - 1 minute in, the experimenter accuses subjects of hitting ALT key - Confederate says nothing or agrees -Experimenter demands handwritten confession - “I hit the ALT key and caused computer to crash and lose data” - 69% signed when confederate agreed! - 28% privately accepted-- from later discussion with another confederate - Both informational and normative influence - More likely to confess and accept when the initial task moved at a high rate: more ambiguous situation= informational influence |
|
|
The importance of Accuracy
|
- When there is a high need for accuracy:
- Increases informational conformity - If information is useful, use it more! - Decrease normative conformity - Doesn’t eliminate it |
|
|
The fate of the non-conformer
|
Schachter (1951) Group Discussion Task
-Confederate: ----Mode- agrees with group ----Slider- disagrees at first then agrees ----Deviate-- disagrees the whole time -Attention ----Mode- little attention ----Slider- lots of attention until he conformed ----Deviate- more and more attention, until it became clear he wouldn't budge- then he is ignored |
|
|
Homans Study
|
Results: Workers who worked too fast were punished.
|
|
|
Resisting Information Social Influence
|
It is possible to resist illegitimate or inaccurate informational social influence
Ask yourself critical questions: - Do other people know more about what is going on than I do? - Is an expert handy who should know more? - Do the actions of other people or experts seem sensible? - If I behave the way they do, will it go against my common sense or against my internal moral compass, my sense of right and wrong? |
|
|
Resisting inappropriate Normative Social Influence
|
-Be aware that it is operating
-Take action - Try and find an ally -Conforming most of the time earns and occasional deviation without consequences - Idiosyncrasy credits- you can build credit over time by conforming- pick your fights! |
|
|
Minority Influence: Moscovici
|
-King; Gandhi
-unambiguous blue slides - 6 person groups; 2 confederates - Control Condition: all say blue - Other condition: 2 confederates says green - 33% of majority report seeing green ----- Minority influence, even when minority is wrong ------ Axch, minority ally was usually accurate - Watching others resist conformity works ------- even in a different experiment |
|
|
Factors In Minority Influence
|
-Consistent minorities work
-Consensus minorities work -Larger minorities are more persuasive -----if consensus is low, minority can be effective -Nature of minority group ------"Double minority" can be less persuasive - have minority opinion and differ in another obvious way - May be discounted if perceived self-interest --------Idiosyncrasy credits-- if built up, these allow you to be a non-conformer and even influence a majority |
|
|
Why Minorities are Persuasive.
|
- Majority questions its beliefs
-Influences attributions of majority members - Low consensus - Most people disagree with minority - High consistency - Minority is consistent in its beliefs - Low distinctiveness - Beliefs are consistent across situations - Conclusion: Minority has deep convictions -Affects private acceptance, not just public compliance |
|
|
Other Social Norms and Compliance: Norm of Honoring Agreements
|
-Low Ball technique
-Secure initial agreement - Then reveal hidden costs - Cialdini’s extra-credit experiment -Also, dissonance if don’t keep agreement -Cognitive bolstering - Start to think of benefits of ownership - Start to think of product as yours - “puppy dog” effect- take it home, try it out - New thoughts/ feelings increase desire to keep agreement - informational component |
|
|
Give-Then-Take
|
Give something, then ask for a ‘favor’ in return
|
|
|
Other Social Norms and Compliance: Norm of Reciprocity
|
- Obligated to return favors
|
|
|
Door In the Face Technique (Cialdini)
|
- Make a very large request (gimme $200)
- Then make concession (Ok, $20) - Target also feels he has to make a concession - Want to get door slammed in face so than can retreat and make concession -Cialdini’s study: Spending time with delinquent kids |
|
|
Foot in the Door Technique
|
Get people to perform small act consistent with intended goal
- Opens the way for further influence - Freedman & Fraser (1996) - Small request followed by big request - When perform small request, 3 times as likely to then agree to big request - Sherman--American Cancer Society study - Sign a petition? Spend an hour working the phones? - Increased volunteer work 1000% - Self- Perception/dissonance processes - Initial request must be meaningful - Must be large enough to make self-inference - Can’t be so big that people refuse-- boomerang - Must seem voluntary - As in self-perception and dissonance theory |
|
|
Informational social influence leads to _______ .
|
Private acceptance
|
|
|
Normative social influence leads to _______.
|
Public Acceptance
|
|
|
Sherif's study of the autokinetic effect and people's estimates of distance the light moved best exemplifies ___________.
|
Informational Social Influence
|
|
|
I offer to give you a ride home if you'll just do me a small favor. Once we're driving, I tell you that the favor is that I need some help moving my furniture into my new apartment. I have tried to influence you with _____.
|
The Low-Ball Technique
|
|
|
A young child on a carnival ride feels a bit distressed as the ride begins. He looks to his mother and sees she is smiling widely and waving at him. He relaxes and enjoys the ride. The child has been influenced by _______.
|
Informational Social Influence
|
|
|
Conforming to others ______ similarity to them; obeying others _______ similarity to them.
|
Increases; decreases
|
|
|
I ask you to spend the whole weekend helping me paint my apartment. When you refuse, I ask if you can at least help for a few hours on Saturday afternoon. I have tried to influence you with _____.
|
The Door in the Face technique.
|
|
|
The first time you visit the college cafeteria you carefully watch others to see where to get the trays of food, utensils, make payment, etc. This is an example of __________.
|
Informational Social influence.
|
|
|
Milgram Video
|
What they thought was the baseline that would show no effect of obedience, ended up showing that it doesn't take much for people to obey.
|
|
|
More Milgram: Decreasing Obedience
|
Presence of other non-obeyers
-3 teachers--two are confederates -One refuses at some point -Only 10% go all the way vs. 62% allowed other subject to feel like they could stop too → break hold of normative influence Undermine authority -If “experimenter” is another regular person, reduces obedience--down to 20% -If multiple “experimenters” disagree--no one goes on |
|
|
Why Obey?
|
Normative Social influence
- Strong Social norm to obey authority - Reduce by undermining authority Informational Social Influence - Situation is confusing-- is the person really OK? Can't explain everything: - Opposing norms say don't hurt others - Situation becomes unambiguous at some point |
|
|
Why Obey? Switching Norms is Hard.
|
- Subjects are low-balled- Foot in the door
- Seems reasonable at first - Increase in small increments--more low-ball - Once we agree to shock level, we justify it - Once justified, where and how to draw the line- dissonance reduction- at what point do you say this is the limit? → justification of the last shock leads to the next - Problem with conformity, too |
|
|
Why Obey: Switching Norms is Hard
Dissonance must be reduced |
- Can’t undo past behavior or decide I’m bad
- Justify the shocks - Many complain about how poor the learner is |
|
|
Why Obey: Switching Norms is Hard
Blame the Victim |
- Easier to undo victim’s behavior- well you shouldn’t have put yourself in that position
- Belief in a Just World - you get what you deserve |
|
|
Why Obey: Switching Norms is Hard
Fast Pace |
little time to reflect on norms
- What if subjects were given 15 min. break? → would have given the subjects time to think and reevaluate what they are really doing→ less compliance/obedience |
|
|
Ethics in Research
|
Do costs outweigh benefits?-first question we have to ask;
|
|
|
Informed Consent
|
participants should be fully informed about what you are going to do- no victims
|
|
|
No penalty for withdrawal
|
as soon as the participant says I don’t like this- they are done
|
|
|
Full Debriefing
|
a researcher explains the purpose of the study, explains the use of deception (if any was used), encourages the participant to ask questions about the study, and allows the researcher to address any harm to the participant that may have resulted from their participation in the study.
|
|
|
Group Processes:
Mere Presence of others |
Mere presence of others can affect behavior
|
|
|
Social Facilitation versus Inhibition: Triplett (1898)
|
)- how does the presence of others affect people
Reel lines more quickly with others present- Social Facilitation Vs. Ringelmann (1913)- Social Inhibition People pull less hard on a rope when many are pulling People clap less loudly when others are clapping |
|
|
Social Facilitation versus Inhibition: Zajonc (1965)
|
Presence of others increases arousal- you have to be aware of what others may or may not do
Arousal enhances dominant response Accessible, simple, highly practiced → Increases the likelihood of the most likely behaviors in a situation |
|
|
Zajonc Study
|
Pronounce words between 1 and 16 times
Creates “dominant” response Words pronounced most frequently Words flashed very quickly: 1/100 second Subjects guess word If others are present, more likely to guess “dominant” words- words that were made salient/dominant at the time |
|
|
Dual Influence of Arousal
|
If task is easy:
Performance improves Dominant response likely correct If task is hard: Performance suffers Dominant response likely incorrect the effect of the presence of others depends on whether it is likely to produce a correct response or an incorrect response. |
|
|
Zajonc: Basic Principle of animal behavior
|
Cockroaches placed in runway
Bright light shown Run to other end of runway to escape light Cockroach “spectators” or not Perform faster with spectators *But only if maze is simple- if maze is complicated, presence of others→ inhibited Presence of others is inherently arousing |
|
|
Why is the presence of others arousing?
|
Must be alert to possibility that they will act
Vigilance Presence of others is distracting Decrease attention to task at hand Facilitates dominant response Facilitates dominant response Like heuristic models in stereotyping and persuasion Any distraction would have the same effect Can explain animal studies |
|
|
Cottrell: Evaluation Apprehension
|
The presence of others isn't enough- it is the possibility of evaluation
- Not mere presence, but possibility of evaluation |
|
|
Worringham & Messick (1983)
|
Runners run more quickly if woman is watching them
Other studies show no facilitation with blindfolded observers- can’t observe performance→ no social facilitation |
|
|
Social Loafing
|
The presence of others relaxes us- people exert less effort when they are working with others
What about Ringelmann--rope pulling Clapping, cheering Output of individual is diminished when working in a group Even on easy tasks Why no social facilitation? Relaxed; less arousal Motivation loss No accountability = no evaluation apprehension → diminished effort/response |
|
|
Arousal versus Relaxation
|
If arousal enhances performance of simple tasks, relaxation should inhibit
Opposite for complicated tasks |
|
|
Williams Study
|
Simple vs. Complicated mazes
Other subject works on another computer Individual evaluation or not- create evaluation apprehension or not Averaged times or separated Easy tasks? Perform worse when not individually evaluated Social loafing Hard tasks? Perform better when not individually evaluated |
|
|
Does presence of others improve or hinder performance?
|
2 factors:
1. Possibility of individual evaluation 2. Simplicity of Task |
|
|
Evaluation
|
Produces arousal
Social facilitation processes: Enhances performance on simple tasks Diminishes performance on complicated task |
|
|
If Not Evaluated...
|
Relaxation
Social loafing effects: Diminishes performance on simple tasks Enhances performance on complicated tasks |
|
|
What to do if you’re a manager?
|
Simple task?
Make sure of individual responsibility Splits on relay teams- increased accountability Complex tasks? Reduce individual evaluations- decrease worry/anxiety Complex programming/decisions |
|
|
Deindividuation: Other consequences of lack of accountability
|
Feeling of anonymity
Reduced sense of self as an individual (wearing masks/costumes or in a crowd→ deindividuation) Less reliance on personal beliefs More reliance on group norms--whatever they are at the moment. |
|
|
Mob behavior
|
Groups may encourage people to behave irrationally and violently- become part of the collective→ go along with mob behavior rather than behavior based on own personal values.
|
|
|
Causes of deindividuation
|
Being in a crowd
Mullen--larger crowds = more vicious lynchings Physical anonymity Cultures that change their appearance before battle more violent Military uniforms- don’t want our military to think of own values we want them to act as a group. Zimbardo: Students in identical hoods and overalls (deindividuation) give stronger shocks Internet interactions can create whatever persona you want, deindividuation If you deindividuate people they act more violent |
|
|
Why Deindividuation?
|
Reduced accountability
Less likely to get caught No consequences for actions Reduced self-awareness Others are not focusing on us as individuals We are even disguised to ourselves Reduces accessibility of internal standards Rely more on group norms |
|
|
Deindividuation does not always produce negative behavior
|
-depends on current local norm
Just more reliance on current group norms |
|
|
Johnson & Downing (1979)
|
Ss wear KKK-like hoods or nurses uniforms
Uniform covers face or not: Anonymity Set shock level for person who fails at task Klan costume: Deindividuated = more shock Nurse: Deindividuated = less shock the anonymity in the nurse’s uniform led them to be less violent because the social norm for nurses is to do no harm. |
|
|
Enhanced self-awareness produces opposites effects-
|
if you want to increase accountability→ make people aware of themselves
Mirrors, cameras, etc. Greater reliance on personal norms Low prejudice subjects stereotype less when in front of a mirror High prejudice subjects stereotype more whatever the personal belief is (positive or negative), it will affect the person’s behavior when they are made salient (aware) to themselves |
|
|
Roles and Deindividuation
|
Sometimes we lose ourselves in social roles
Loss of personal norms Power of situation Take on norms associated with roles Take on norms associated with roles May act in ways that are counter to what we would normally do Can be positive or negative Depending on the context, police officers/soldiers may act heroically or aggressively |
|
|
Zimbardo (1972): Stanford Prison Study
|
½ randomly assigned to be guards
Uniforms, clubs, whistles, rules to enforce ½ randomly assigned to be prisoners Locked in cells, humiliated, given numbers, haircuts *Note that all are deindividuated in many ways Planned to run for 2 weeks, ended after 6 days Guards became violent and abusive Some prisoners rebelled, others became passive Many became depressed |
|
|
Power of roles
|
No doubt roles are very powerful
Prison Abuse at Abu Ghraib But Zimbardo defined the norms of the roles Told guards to act as though the they were stereotypically hostile and vicious prison guards Encouraged consistent behaviors Zimbardo played role of prison warden- not a neutral observer→ on the guard’s side, their boss *Compromised objective observer role |
|
|
Presence of others & decision making
|
How does decision making differ alone and in groups?
Are more heads better than one? Sometimes yes, sometimes no Generally, groups will do better only if the most talented member can convince the others that s/he is right |
|
|
Groupthink
|
Care more about maintaining cohesion than making a good decision→ bad
|
|
|
Factors of Groupthink
|
Isolation from dissent
Dis-invite those with opposing views- isolation of dissent Don’t allow dissenters speak Pressure on dissenters to conform Self-censorship to fit in Particularly likely with strong leader who makes her/his opinion clear Illusion of unanimity Kennedy: Bay of Pigs- Kennedy wanted to invade Cuba- was a disaster, |
|
|
Effects of Groupthink
|
Poor information search- don’t look as hard at the reasons why it is a bad idea
Failure to develop contingency plans- no plan B Incomplete survey of alternatives Failure to consider risks of favored option |
|
|
Combating groupthink
|
Remain impartial- group leaders should not let group know their own opinion for as long as possible
Leaders, in particular Maybe even remove from discussion Seek outside opinions Neutral parties Neutral parties Seek & encourage dissent: team of adversaries Create subgroups Divide group into subgroups first to encourage diverse opinions Seek anonymous opinions Kennedy: Cuban missile crisis- Kennedy had learned from the Bay of Pigs and practiced the above methods to minimize groupthink |
|
|
Group Polarization
|
Decisions made by groups are more extreme than those made privately by individual group members
-Informational Influence -Group members may produce additional arguments in favor of the general opinion that others hadn’t considered -Normative influence -Want to be liked by other group members, so we over-conform to the perceived group norm |
|
|
Coordinating Social Behavior: Cooperation and Competition
|
Social dilemmas- most difficult types of problems people face
Individual group members pursuing their own benefits bring harm to the group as a whole People must abstain from pursuing self-interest |
|
|
Resource Dilemmas
|
Resource dilemmas
*Commons dilemmas- how much of a shared resource should each individual use? They had to figure out how to share the resource without depleting the resource. Grazing cows, Fishing, Water use *Public goods dilemmas How much to provide (contribute) for a common good Taxes, Public Television, Blood banks, Health Care Social loafing is a public goods dilemma--effort |
|
|
Caporael (1989)
|
Caporael (1989)
Groups of 7 subjects Each gets $5 If 4 return $5, everyone gets $10 *So, donors end up with $10, others get $15 (“free-loader”) If 3 others don’t donate, you lose your $5 “sucker” Approximately 1/3 typically cooperate At least for a little while! People fail to take advantage of opportunity |
|
|
Contributing Factors of Resource Dilemmas
|
Deindividuation in anonymous situation
Behavior not monitored If assume others don’t donate, follow norm False Consensus Self-fulfilling hypothesis If no one cooperates, everyone stops cooperating Stop fishing; Public television/radio Don’t want to be a sucker |
|
|
Commons versus Public Goods Dilemmas
|
Commons
How much to use or not use? How much gain am I willing to forego?- real question Public goods How much to pay or not pay How much cost am I willing to accept?- real question These are harder because people are more sensitive to losses than gains |
|
|
Solutions to Commons versus Public Goods Dilemmas
|
Communication within groups
Only works in small groups Make behaviors public- decrease confusion about what the social norm is Reduce deindividuation Increase evaluation apprehension Identify the freeloaders Show effectiveness of behavior- increases the idea that everyone should contribute Change perceptions of norm Give control to an outside authority Ensure compliance Levy taxes Police forces, regulatory agencies (EPA), etc. Make it more costly not to cooperate Drawback--must pay to uphold bureaucracy |
|
|
Your fraternity is competing in a strength contest against another fraternity. Each
house will select ten members whose strength will be measured by the force they exert when pulling a rope. Under what conditions will the 20 men exert the most force? |
When each person’s strength is measured
individually |
|
|
According to research on social facilitation,
which of the following are true: |
People will do better on difficult tasks when
alone. |
|
|
The findings that the presence of others can improve our performance on easy
tasks and impair our performance on difficult tasks has been attributed to: |
Arousal
|
|
|
Which of the following are mistakes groups make when they are in a
pattern of groupthink? |
A. Fails to consider full range of alternatives.
B. Does not develop contingency plans. C. Does not adequately consider risks. |
|
|
You are a social psychologist conducting a study on social facilitation. One of your
participants has just completed the easy task of placing 50 tacks into a cup in 38 seconds. He did this in a room by himself. How long should you expect it to take him when he does the same task in front of an audience? |
A. 30 seconds
|
|
|
You are the head of your dorm’s social committee. Dorm events in past years
have been notoriously poorly attended, and you want to be sure you make good decisions when planning the events for this year. When you organize the committee, what behaviors are most likely to lead to good decisions? |
Seeking opinions of other dorm residents not on the
committee. |
|
|
An individual is deciding whether or not to participate in a trial testing a new drug. He knows that his participation comes with some risk, but he is leaning toward participating in the study. He decides to spend his time in the waiting room discussing the options with others who also are leaning toward serving as participants in the same drug testing study. Following this discussion, are the individuals more or less likely to participate in the study than before the discussion?
|
More likely to participate in the drug study.
|
|
|
Similarity and Attraction
|
Birds of a Feather vs. Opposites Attract?
-There is no strong evidence for the complementarity view (i.e. that opposites attract). -Rather, similarity is a powerful predictor of attraction |
|
|
Newcomb (1961)
|
Birds of a feather
-Randomly assigned to dorm rooms -Similarity = liking Link between similarity and attraction is quite robust: -Opinions and personality -Interpersonal style; frustrating if style/skills are different; even mimicry matters -Interests and experiences we like people who are like us; it is frustrating to be arounds someone who is different; even similarity that we do not notice→ liking |
|
|
Why does similarity matter?
|
We expect that people who are similar to us will also like us
-Increases the probability of initiating contact -Validation of our own views/actions/experiences- self-validation; feel good about ourselves -Disagreement is aversive |
|
|
Reciprocal Liking
|
-One of the most potent determinants of our liking someone is if we believe that that person likes us
-Self-fulfilling prophecies when we think someone likes us Moderated by self-esteem •Self-verification (Swann) |
|
|
Dutton & Aron (1974): Excitation-Transfer Theory
|
Situational determinants of attraction
If we are aroused physiologically for any reason→ attraction Misattribute arousal for attraction |
|
|
Secrecy and Attraction
|
When something is concealed it gives it special value
|
|
|
Wegner's Footsie Study
|
-96 Male-Female couples; played card game against another couple
-Can use non-verbal contact to help partner out -Key conditions -Contact, secret, can’t be seen -Contact, non-secret -No contact -Result: Most attraction in secret contact condition - Because contact must be hidden & open feelings suppressed, increases per-occupation with the partner; Like thought suppression -”secret” subjects reported greater preoccupation with partner |
|
|
The Power of Attractiveness
|
-What is beautiful is good
“Halo Effect”- produces a halo of positive attributes -Trait ratings -Social competence, popular, happy, assertive -Personal adjustment, intellectual competence -Integrity, concern for others -Moral judgments -Mock jury decisions -Evaluations of political candidates -Student evaluations |
|
|
Perks of Physical Attractiveness
|
-Unattractiveness results in a 5-10% drop in income compared to being average;
-Attractiveness yields a 3-8% increase in income. -Results based on ratings of high-school yearbook photos, and are evident as much as 35 years later. -Controls included IQ, class rank, educational attainment, marital status, etc. |
|
|
Physical Attractiveness: is the stereotype true?
|
- Highly attractive people may, in fact, develop good social interaction skills, and do report having more satisfying interactions with others
- This involves a self-fulfilling prophecy: The beautiful, from a young age, receive a great deal of social attention that in turn helps them develop good social skills. - Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid telephone study - Can cause anyone to act like an attractive person - Difficult to measure |
|
|
The power of attractiveness
Elaine (Walster) Hatfield, 1966 |
-“Mother of all blind dates”:
-752 students paired up, at random! Results: physical attractiveness is a strong predictor of whether or not the people wanted to make further contact -Subsequent replication with gay couples by Sergios and Cody (1985) |
|
|
Gender Differences
|
- Men regard physical attractiveness as more important than do women
Self report vs. actual behavior - On self-report, men often, although not always, say that it is more important - Or, women say that it is less important But behaviorally, differences are smaller |
|
|
Issues that often get confused
|
Really, two questions
- Are there observable differences between men and women? - If so, why? - Evolutionary/sociobiological hypothesis - Socialization hypothesis - The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive- it could be both |
|
|
Quote from Trivers (1985)
|
The sex that invests more in offspring should be more choosy about
potential mates than the sex that invests less in offspring.” An ancestral woman who had sex with 100 men in the course of a year would still have produced a maximum of one child. An ancestral man who had sex with 100 women during the same time would have most likely produced substantially more than one child….In sum, for the high-investing sex (typically, females), the costs of indiscriminate sex are high whereas for the low investing sex (typically, males), these costs are low |
|
|
Parental investment hypothesis (Trivers, 1985)
|
- Females: Greater biological investment
- Females have more to lose by unwise mating; hence “choosier” - Pregnancy is hard - Taking care of infants is hard—nursing, etc. - Period of reduced fertility - Males look for beauty to a greater extent… -Fertility cues - But both men & women value beauty! - Implications (according to Trivers) - Mating strategies (all species) - For humans: relationship preferences, basis for attraction, dating styles, etc. |
|
|
Non-human species
|
Cross species patterns of sexual behavior
- Females more selective - Males are almost always more promiscuous, aggressive in courtship - Larger, more colorful, more intricate song - Pattern is reversed among “oddball” species in which males have greater investment - E.g., Pipefish, Phalaropes, Panamanian poison-arrow frog, certain species of waterbugs, and the mormon cricket |
|
|
Gender Differences: Found in most cultures
|
Different preferences for…
Number of sexual partners Short vs. long term sexual relationships Age of partner Physical appearance Importance of financial stability Remember: Everyone values honesty, trustworthiness, good personality, good looks, and financial stability |
|
|
Studies of Want Ads
|
Women Seeking Men:
BEAUTIFUL AND HONEST SWF, 34 seeks financially secure SW gentleman, 5’10’’+ kind, peaceful, handsome, giving, interested in starting a family Must love nature and travel family. Must love nature and travel. Men Seeking Women: HANDSOME ATTORNEY SWM, 43, 6’, 170lbs., fit, successful, easygoing, interesting law practice. ISO bright, attractive, good-humored SF, 28-42, for LTR Data: Men want more sexual partners than women. Men are more likely to consent to sexual intercourse. Women want older men; men want younger women. As commitment increases women want men to increase in intelligence. Men want to sleep with unintelligent women. Attractive people are a highly valued commodity When a man is with an attractive woman→ the man is evaluated more positively. Does not happen with women. |
|
|
Change across menstrual cycle
|
When ovulating, women:
Tend more to own appearance Feel more attractive, powerful in relationships Become more interested in physical attractiveness *Markers of genetic fitness, at least in ancestral times More likely to cheat *If you can get the robust genes and then go back to the safe, trustworthy guy, all the better *But only among women who considered their partner unattractive Men: More mate-guarding; jealous More attentive to needs All this happens, even when neither party is monitoring the menstrual cycle *Not when on the pill |
|
|
Sociocultural Factors
|
Women generally have less power
They are physically smaller Often, they have less access to resources (jobs, money) They face discrimination Rational to seek powerful men—however “power” is defined In cultures where there is more equity, women value earning potential less But had no effect on men’s values Social learning: This is what we’re taught to value Begs the question: Where did these values come from? |
|
|
Gay versus Straight
|
Gay men and straight men have very similar attitudes about sex
Lesbians and straight women have very similar attitudes about sex It’s not the sex of the person to whom you are attracted that matters There’s seems to be something biological about being a man or a woman that is true, regardless of sexual orientation |
|
|
Why wouldn't men just try to have as many partners as possible?
|
In reality, it is not always in the best interest of the male to literally mate indiscriminately
-Such actions could serve as a neon sign to females—stay away from this guy. -Likely to elicit extreme aggression by male competitors What strategy should the male follow then? -Be monogamous, or…. - Give the impression of being monogamous, but practice deceit However, latter strategy could encourage females to be especially good at detecting when the male is lying Which could encourage better lying techniques by males, etc… In theory, as this dynamic is repeated over million of years, it has implications for the success of certain genetic traits |
|
|
Longer term relationships
|
How do we feel about our relationships?
Contrast with the research considered thus far: attraction & reproduction |
|
|
Three general models for long term relationships
|
I. Social exchange theory
II. Equity theory III. Rusbult’s investment model |
|
|
Social Exchange Theory: An Economic Approach for relationships
|
relationhsips are like economic exchanges
“Buying the best relationship we can get for our emotional dollar…” Get as much as you can for as little investment as possible Key factors in determining how satisfied one is in a relationship: Comparison of Benefits & Costs Extrinsic & intrinsic Status, interesting friends, etc. Global outcome (how it feels) Comparison levels: Comparison level for this relationship to past ones Comparison level for alternatives What you think you deserve |
|
|
Evaluation of Social Exchange Theory in Relationships
|
Received a great deal of support, overall
But not without criticism -What about fairness? People sensitive to how their cost/benefit ratio compares to that experienced by the other person-- something not considered by social exchange theory |
|
|
Equity Theory (Relationships)
|
(response to social exchange theory)
Equity: A condition in which the outcomes people receive from a relationship are proportional to what they contribute to it. *Note: Equitable outcomes needn’t always be equal outcomes. Equity principle of attraction: What you and your partner get out of a relationship should be proportional to what you each put into it. If two people receive equal outcomes, they should contribute equally; otherwise one or the other will feel it is unfair. If both feel their outcomes correspond to the assets and efforts each contributes, then both perceive equity. |
|
|
Restoring Equity (relationships)
|
-Assumption: over-benefited participants in a relationship feel psychological stress and the need to restore equity.
-Advantaged person: psychological restoration (over- value own inputs or under-value partner’s inputs to justify relationship) actual restoration (provide more input to relationship), actual restoration (provide more input to change relationship). -Disadvantaged person: psychological restoration (believe that disadvantaged position is deserved; downgrade own inputs or exaggerate those of the advantaged person); actual restoration (demand more outcomes from advantaged person, reduce own inputs). -Exit the relationship. |
|
|
Gender Differences in Responses to Inequity
|
-Men are most likely to feel angry and resentful when they perceive they are being under-benefited in a relationship, but report guilt when they are over-benefitted.
-Women, on the other hand, are also angered by perceived inequity, but are more likely to express anger when they feel over-benefitted and to be depressed or sad when under-benefitted -Unequal involvement between partners in a relationship is a strong predictor of breakup. |
|
|
Rusbult's Investment Model
|
The previous two models don’t adequately explain why people often stay in relationships even when things are not going well (either short term, or long term)
“Unhappy marriages”; Battered woman syndrome Investment is key- investment acts as a buffer→ can put up with not getting what we deserve |
|
|
Long Term Relationship Formula
|
Satisfaction + Investment - Alternatives
Stay if satisfaction and investment are high and alternatives are low. Leave if satisfaction and Investment are low and alternatives are high. |
|
|
In Good Relationships
|
Positive Illusions
-Overly positive beliefs about partner’s attributes -When our partners idealize us, we are more committed Attributional biases *Standard self-serving biases applied to partner Accuracy is not so good! |
|
|
Gender Misunderstandings
|
“I hate the scar from my operation!”
Person A “I know. It’s like your body has been violated.” Person B “You can have plastic surgery to cover up the scar.” Male? Female? Women: Understanding, acceptance Share similar emotions Men think she is denying the uniqueness of his feelings Failing to help solve the problem Men: Problem solving Women think he is uncaring |
|
|
In Bad Relationships.....
Gottman: 4 Horsemen of the apocalypse |
Criticism: Deliver it in lighthearted way
Defensiveness Stone-walling: Particularly when men do it—bad! Contempt: Particularly when women have it—bad! |
|
|
In Bad Relationships......
Ratio of positive to negative interactions |
5 to 1, very healthy ratio = happy marriage (for every fight there are 5 good interactions)
1 to 1, “cascade to divorce |
|
|
Predicting Divorce
|
- Based on 2 to 3 minute video clips of couples discussing difficult problem, Gottman can predict divorce with 93% accuracy!
- But do these behaviors cause bad relationships or are these behaviors symptomatic of bad relationships? - Not clear. |
|
|
It's worth the effort: Relationships and Health
|
Cancer survival
- Social support = live longer Married men aged 45-64: - ½ the death rate as single men! - Controlling for income, smoking, drinking, obesity Results: Coronary artery bypass grant (CABG) surgery patients still alive 15 years after surgery as a function of self-reported marital status. Not such a great benefit for women Women have other sources of intimacy Social groups can buffer both men & women In worst case, pets can help! Good for blood pressure; cardiovascular health |
|
|
Expression supported by research on attraction
|
Birds of a feather flock together
|
|
|
Reason that similarity appears to be an important factor in attraction
|
A. We think similar others will like us.
B. Similar others validate our own beliefs. C. We make negative inferences about those who disagree with us. |
|
|
When evaluating a relationship, which of the following is NOT a concern according to social
exchange theory? |
Equity and Fairness between partners
|
|
|
What is important to consider when determining whether someone is likely to leave a relationship:
|
A. How satisfied they are in the relationship.
B. What they think of the alternatives to the current relationship. C. How much they have invested in the relationship. |
|
|
According to social exchange theory, who will be the happiest in their relationship?
|
C. Jack who feels that both he and his partner Jenn contribute equally to the relationship.
|
