PSYCH1000: CHAPTER 13: BEHAVIOUR IN A SOCIAL
CONTEXT
Attraction
• Propinquity: physical proximity
• Closer = more likely 2 people will come into contact, increases likelihood liking ppl
• Ease of interaction is important
• Mere Exposure: repeated exposure enhances attraction
• Same photos can increase in attractiveness the more you are exposed to it
• May explain the propinquity effect
• BUT the initial must be neutral or mildly positive (otherwise can result in decreased liking)
• We prefer familiar stimuli (ex. Normal vs mirror-image photos, media exposure gets votes)
• Emotional State: emotions at a particular time can influence attraction
• Music can influence attraction (classical conditioning —> pair person w/ music you like)
• We are very influenced by initial impressions
• Physical Attractiveness & Attraction
• Major factor for both males & females
• We find morphs of lots of people more attractive
• Symmetry, features less extreme, skin tone evened out
• Features people look for
• Heterosexual men prefer “baby-faced women”
• Heterosexual women prefer mature, “dominant” faces
• Gays & lesbians = inconsistent data
• Waist to hip ratio —> 0.6-0.7
• Men prefer thin, seductive, confident, high voice, healthy hair, less makeup, dark strands
• Women prefer thin & muscular (lower consensus), humour, older, altruism, facial hair?
• Women prefer Hi/Mod attractiveness (even if good personality, unattractive not it)
• Attractive people = more dates, more social interactions, more social “success”
• Also respond to self (gaze at self in mirrored wall)
• Lying & Online Dating
• Misrepresentation: use old photos, claim to be thinner
• Men tend to lie about jobs, height, weight, physique
• Women tend to lie about weight, age, physique, height
• Halo Effect: attractive people seen as having other positive attributes
• Not just physical appearance (ex. names that sound more attractive)
• Influence of Context on Attractiveness
• Anchoring: how many attractive ppl in the room (sets standard)
• As closing time gets nearer, we find people in bars more attractive (alcohol is a factor)
• But study was reproduced in a Starbucks
Who Do You Date?
• People are more likely to respond to ads about “not looking for commitment” ads
• The Matching Hypothesis: we prefer the “best” but choose similar attractiveness to them
• Opposites don’t really tend to “attract” (don’t stay together for long)
• Same-sex friends also similar
• Mis-matched (in attractiveness) couples = friction (less attractive one feels insecure)
• Breaking up is hard —> heart rate increases for hours (very upsetting)
Social Thinking & Perception
• Consistency, distinctiveness & consensus info influence personal vs situational attributions
• Fundamental attribution error: attributing others’ behaviour to personal and underestimating
situational role
, • Self-serving bias: tendency to attribute own successes to personal & failures to situational
• Impressions can change over time, but first impression generally caries extra weight
• Stereotypes & schemas create mental sets that powerfully shape impressions
• Self-fulfilling prophecies: initially false expectations shape our actions toward others
• Impacts others’ responses in a way that confirms our initially false belief
• Theory of cognitive dissonance: people strive for consistency in their cognitions
• Cognitive dissonance: uncomfortable experience of 2 contradicting cognitions
• We then become motivated to reduce this dissonance (ex. $20 vs $1 experiment)
• Counter-attitudinal behaviour: inconsistent with our attitude (only produces dissonance if
we perceive our actions as free and not coerced)
Social Influence in Groups
• What is a group?
• 2 or more ppl
• interaction, communication, “we” feeling (social identity), common goal
• Social norm: shared rule/expectation about how group members should think, feel, behave
• Ex. laws, niceties —> socially transmitted
• Social role: set of norms defining particular position in social system
• Performance in presence of others
• Social facilitation: mere presence of others facilitates performance
• Social inhibition: presence of others decreases performance
• Drive theory: presence of others —> arousal —> tend to perform dominant response
• Correct DR (well-learned or simple task) = improved/facilitated performance
• Incorrect DR (novel or complex task) = impaired/inhibited performance
• Evaluation apprehension (anticipation of positive or negative outcomes)
• Blindfolded audience gives weaker effects (not being evaluated)
• Mere exposure (even mannequins give effects AND effects shown in other animals)
• More accurate theory than evaluation apprehension
• Group decision making is usually worse than individual
• Quality influenced by:
• Acceptance of common goals
• High status leader (talks too much)
• Group size (most effective 3/5)
• Cohesiveness (good participation BUT… groupthink)
• Groupthink: suspension of critical thinking to maintain cohesion + come to an agreement
• Common with opinionated directive leaders, in high-stress/insulated scenarios
• Illusion of invulnerability (we can’t go wrong)
• Self-censorship
• Illusion of unanimity (apparent consensus)
• Mind guarding (prevent group from hearing dissenting info by discounting/excluding)
• Deindividuation: temporary lowering of restraints when one is immersed in a group
• Anonymity to outsiders is key
• Social loafing: exerting less individual effort when working as a group vs alone
• Decreases when goal/group is valued highly, when individual performance is monitored
• Group polarization: similar-minded group makes a decision —> final decision more extreme
than average opinion of group members
• Subtle Influence
• Models (even if the influence is not direct or intentional)
• Response disinhibition: model performed desired but prohibited act
• Response facilitation: model performs “legal” behaviour and we copy
Conformity
• Conformity = change in attitude/behaviour/belief by real/imagined pressure from others
• Private acceptance: actual change in attitude
CONTEXT
Attraction
• Propinquity: physical proximity
• Closer = more likely 2 people will come into contact, increases likelihood liking ppl
• Ease of interaction is important
• Mere Exposure: repeated exposure enhances attraction
• Same photos can increase in attractiveness the more you are exposed to it
• May explain the propinquity effect
• BUT the initial must be neutral or mildly positive (otherwise can result in decreased liking)
• We prefer familiar stimuli (ex. Normal vs mirror-image photos, media exposure gets votes)
• Emotional State: emotions at a particular time can influence attraction
• Music can influence attraction (classical conditioning —> pair person w/ music you like)
• We are very influenced by initial impressions
• Physical Attractiveness & Attraction
• Major factor for both males & females
• We find morphs of lots of people more attractive
• Symmetry, features less extreme, skin tone evened out
• Features people look for
• Heterosexual men prefer “baby-faced women”
• Heterosexual women prefer mature, “dominant” faces
• Gays & lesbians = inconsistent data
• Waist to hip ratio —> 0.6-0.7
• Men prefer thin, seductive, confident, high voice, healthy hair, less makeup, dark strands
• Women prefer thin & muscular (lower consensus), humour, older, altruism, facial hair?
• Women prefer Hi/Mod attractiveness (even if good personality, unattractive not it)
• Attractive people = more dates, more social interactions, more social “success”
• Also respond to self (gaze at self in mirrored wall)
• Lying & Online Dating
• Misrepresentation: use old photos, claim to be thinner
• Men tend to lie about jobs, height, weight, physique
• Women tend to lie about weight, age, physique, height
• Halo Effect: attractive people seen as having other positive attributes
• Not just physical appearance (ex. names that sound more attractive)
• Influence of Context on Attractiveness
• Anchoring: how many attractive ppl in the room (sets standard)
• As closing time gets nearer, we find people in bars more attractive (alcohol is a factor)
• But study was reproduced in a Starbucks
Who Do You Date?
• People are more likely to respond to ads about “not looking for commitment” ads
• The Matching Hypothesis: we prefer the “best” but choose similar attractiveness to them
• Opposites don’t really tend to “attract” (don’t stay together for long)
• Same-sex friends also similar
• Mis-matched (in attractiveness) couples = friction (less attractive one feels insecure)
• Breaking up is hard —> heart rate increases for hours (very upsetting)
Social Thinking & Perception
• Consistency, distinctiveness & consensus info influence personal vs situational attributions
• Fundamental attribution error: attributing others’ behaviour to personal and underestimating
situational role
, • Self-serving bias: tendency to attribute own successes to personal & failures to situational
• Impressions can change over time, but first impression generally caries extra weight
• Stereotypes & schemas create mental sets that powerfully shape impressions
• Self-fulfilling prophecies: initially false expectations shape our actions toward others
• Impacts others’ responses in a way that confirms our initially false belief
• Theory of cognitive dissonance: people strive for consistency in their cognitions
• Cognitive dissonance: uncomfortable experience of 2 contradicting cognitions
• We then become motivated to reduce this dissonance (ex. $20 vs $1 experiment)
• Counter-attitudinal behaviour: inconsistent with our attitude (only produces dissonance if
we perceive our actions as free and not coerced)
Social Influence in Groups
• What is a group?
• 2 or more ppl
• interaction, communication, “we” feeling (social identity), common goal
• Social norm: shared rule/expectation about how group members should think, feel, behave
• Ex. laws, niceties —> socially transmitted
• Social role: set of norms defining particular position in social system
• Performance in presence of others
• Social facilitation: mere presence of others facilitates performance
• Social inhibition: presence of others decreases performance
• Drive theory: presence of others —> arousal —> tend to perform dominant response
• Correct DR (well-learned or simple task) = improved/facilitated performance
• Incorrect DR (novel or complex task) = impaired/inhibited performance
• Evaluation apprehension (anticipation of positive or negative outcomes)
• Blindfolded audience gives weaker effects (not being evaluated)
• Mere exposure (even mannequins give effects AND effects shown in other animals)
• More accurate theory than evaluation apprehension
• Group decision making is usually worse than individual
• Quality influenced by:
• Acceptance of common goals
• High status leader (talks too much)
• Group size (most effective 3/5)
• Cohesiveness (good participation BUT… groupthink)
• Groupthink: suspension of critical thinking to maintain cohesion + come to an agreement
• Common with opinionated directive leaders, in high-stress/insulated scenarios
• Illusion of invulnerability (we can’t go wrong)
• Self-censorship
• Illusion of unanimity (apparent consensus)
• Mind guarding (prevent group from hearing dissenting info by discounting/excluding)
• Deindividuation: temporary lowering of restraints when one is immersed in a group
• Anonymity to outsiders is key
• Social loafing: exerting less individual effort when working as a group vs alone
• Decreases when goal/group is valued highly, when individual performance is monitored
• Group polarization: similar-minded group makes a decision —> final decision more extreme
than average opinion of group members
• Subtle Influence
• Models (even if the influence is not direct or intentional)
• Response disinhibition: model performed desired but prohibited act
• Response facilitation: model performs “legal” behaviour and we copy
Conformity
• Conformity = change in attitude/behaviour/belief by real/imagined pressure from others
• Private acceptance: actual change in attitude
