Download to read offline
More Related Content
Similar to Chapter 11 Attraction & ExclusionToday’s Outline.docx
More from bartholomeocoombs
Chapter 11 Attraction & ExclusionToday’s Outline.docx
- 1. Chapter 11 Attraction &Exclusion Today’s Outline Attraction Belongingness Similarity Physical attractiveness Reciprocity Rejection Causes of rejection Effects of rejection Loneliness Attraction & Exclusion As social animals, humans are, at their core, truly concerned with attraction and exclusion Indeed the point of social psychology may be to understand why some are accepted and loved, while others are rejected Take a moment to consider times in your life where you might have been afraid of romantic rejection or perhaps were seeking social acceptance with a new group of peers Attraction & Exclusion
- 2. The need tobelong is defined as the desire to form and maintain close, lasting relationships with some other individuals Needing to belong is considered a fundamental drive or basic need of the human psyche Warren Jones, “In two decades of studying loneliness, I have met many people who said they had no friends. I have never met any one who didn’t want to have any friends.” Need to belong From an evolutionary psychology perspective: Attraction and acceptance are necessary for reproduction Additionally, humans likely developed a herd mentality to increase our odds of survival Consider all the ways we know our behavior changes in groups Monkeys can recognize that any two monkeys may have an alliance, be forming one, or might be likely to fight One theory is that the human brain developed more to keep track of a highly complex social world Two components to belongingness 1. Regular, positive social interactions Regular is key here, many of us have formed friendships but moved on to new situations in our life and lost regular contact with old friends Positive is also key, hanging out with that person you always argue with doesn’t fill that social need 2. Stable relationship/friendship in which people share mutual concern for each other Typically research has shown people want about 1-5 close friends People are less concerned with casual friends/acquaintances
- 3. How bad foryou is not belonging? Belonging is called a need, not a want, perhaps for these reasons Death rates from various diseases increase among people with no social connections (Lynch, 1979) People who are alone have more mental and physical problems (Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996) Loneliness reduces the ability of the immune system to heal the body (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2005) Attraction – Similarity, complementarity, & opposites Which old saying turns out to be true, “Birds of a feather flock together” or “Opposites attract” The research has pointed to birds of a feather being the clear winner In any relationship ranging from acquaintance to lover, opposites are unlikely to stay connected in the long run Typically, but not always, our friends are similar in age, race, education level, political leaning, economic status, etc. Note this is kind of a bad thing too, as it can lead us to assume everyone shares the opinions of your social group How often do you see people unfriend others on Facebook over political disagreements? Attraction – Similarity, complementarity, & opposites Similarity We tend to like friends who do the same activities that we do Some researchers have even suggested that when a romantic couple gets into a relationship, if their levels of physical attractiveness aren’t quite similar, they will be more likely to break up Have couples who are in different physical leagues stuck out to
- 4. you as unusual? Attraction– Similarity, complementarity, & opposites Indeed, matching hypothesis has been supported, couples are more likely to break up if there’s a difference in physical attractiveness (even serious couples) Attractiveness & Attraction Speaking of physical attractiveness, most of us would say ‘we know it when we see it,’ but how do researchers define and measure it? For starters, which of these 3 faces is the most attractive? Attractiveness & Attraction I chose the middle one. According to research findings, most people would choose either the middle or the right photo The left photo is the original Attractiveness & Attraction Facial symmetry Symmetrical faces are almost always rated as more attractive The more symmetrical, the better The implication is that facial symmetry implies genetic fitness. Asymmetry is a sign of genetic imperfections
- 5. To demonstrate thatgenetics are the explanation behind this, researchers (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999) took the t-shirts that men slept in and asked women to smell and rate their scent Some of the men had clear genetic asymmetry, length of pinky fingers or ear lobes Women preferred the smell of men with genetic symmetry They especially preferred the symmetric men’s scent when at the point in their period when reproduction was ideal Attractiveness & Attraction Facial symmetry continued More research has used computer software to merge/combine faces For example, people rate the attractiveness of two faces, and then the faces are combined, and they rate the composite of the previous two faces People mostly like composite faces better In fact, the more faces that one combines, the more people liked it E.g. a 16-face facial composite is preferred over a 4-face composite Symmetrical, or ‘averaged,’ faces are preferred Consider how saying someone looks inbred is the opposite Lack of genetic diversity causes issues and is unappealing Attractiveness & Attraction Alright, we’ve covered faces, what about bodies?
- 6. Attractiveness & Attraction Studiesby Singh (1993) measured male ratings of silhouettes of woman’s bodies He manipulated the size of the waist (belly fat) and the size of the hips He find found that a low waist to hip ration, like .7, was preferred. This matches the standard hourglass shape people talk about A small effect was found for women preferring men with a .9 waist to hip ratio Subsequent research found the male shoulder to waist ratio was much more important, e.g. a V-shape Attractiveness & Attraction Alright, but how does physical attractiveness stack up to other aspects of attractiveness (having things in common, warmth, career success, etc.) It can be summed up by one of my favorite quotes from your textbook authors: “The fancy theories about matchmaking and similarity and reciprocity couldn’t shine through the overwhelming preference for the best-looking partners” Attractiveness & Attraction Attractiveness predicts date satisfaction more than any other dimension Relates back to the Halo Effect, which can also be called ‘what is beautiful is good effect’ People (presumably) have other good traits if they’re attractive Attractiveness & Attraction Hortacsu and Ariely (2006) found that women stated a
- 7. preference for tallermen But that preference could be offset if the man made enough money E.g. for a 5 foot 8 inch guy, he could get as many dates as a taller guy if he made roughly 150k more E.g. a 5 foot 2 guy could keep up with taller guys if he made 277k more than them However, other research has shown that while women state a preference for taller guys, they don’t find them more attractive once having met them (Sheppard & Strathman, 1989) Similarly, short men don’t report having less dates than tall men Attractiveness & Attraction Beyond considering romantic or sexual partners, being good looking confers other benefits. Good looking people are more likely to: Do better in job interviews Receive more help from strangers during emergencies Be more popular among their peers This even applies to young children Teachers like attractive kids better as well Finally, even 3-month-old babies show a preference for staring longer at attractive faces Attractiveness & Attraction According to principles of behaviorism: We like people and romantic partners when they praise or compliment us (feels good, so we have positive associations with them) We also like people who do us favors. This can take the form of help, gifts, cooking food, etc.
- 8. The exception inboth of those cases is when the favors or compliments are seen as manipulative Attractiveness & Attraction As we discussed in the social influence chapter, reciprocity has compelling effects As such, when someone likes us, we are inclined to like them by default One exception is when we don’t like someone back and don’t want to spend time with them Can cause us to feel guilty and/or turn them away Attractiveness & Attraction Nonverbal reciprocity Lakin & Chartrand (2005) found that participants liked confederates better who mimicked their behavior (giggling, putting one’s hand on one’s face, etc.) than those confederates who didn’t mimic Try it out in your life! Just don’t make it too obvious ;p Attractiveness & Attraction A few final points about attraction The ‘mere exposure effect’ (Ch. 7) applies to liking people too Also called the propinquity effect, we like people that we encounter regularly Makes us feel like our environment is stable and predictable But like the mere exposure effect, if our initial response is dislike, disliking gets worse Social allergy effect: a partner’s annoying habits get more annoying over time
- 9. Rejection Rejection is abroad term, referring to being turned down for a date, being dumped, being fired, being kicked off of a team, not invited to an event with your usual friends, etc. Ostracism is another word for it, being excluded, rejected, or ignored by others Why does rejection occur? What causes rejection Reasons differ by context Among children, other kids are rejected if they’re: 1. Aggressive physically or verbally 2. Withdrawn Often just by him/herself 3. Different/deviant Just unlike peers in some way What causes rejection Among adults Typically deviance Just being too different from people around you Shame on some level, because that stifles uniqueness Bad apple Making others of your group look bad What causes rejection Romantic Rejection
- 10. When turning peopledown, people often cite external reasons (too busy, not looking for a relationship, etc.) But the reason is almost always internal (not attracted to person, don’t like them, etc.) Those external answers are polite, but can lead to confusion Rejected people can become a stalkers There has also been a trend lately of men rejected by women to become violent and go on a shooting spree as a result Psychological effects of rejection The effects of rejection are uniformly bad Pain Illness Depression Suicidal thoughts Life seeming pointless Risky sexual behavior People can develop rejection sensitivity Reluctance to open up to new people for fear of being hurt Psychological effects of rejection Similar to shocking physical pain, sometimes the psychological response to an important rejection is numbness The mental distress, anxiety, and sadness come later Rejection makes people temporarily stupid, in terms of cognitive performance Rejection also suppresses people’s ability to self-regulate or control their behavior More likely to binge eat sweets
- 11. Behavioral effects ofrejection Less generous, cooperative, and helpful More impulsive and destructive Higher levels of aggression Before shootings in the U.S. became so frequent, the narrative was that school shooters were often rejected outcasts There may be some truth to that narrative, but it’s not always the case and it certainly doesn’t excuse shooting people Loneliness When we discuss lonely people, we mean chronically lonely, not temporarily because someone moved to a new city Comparing lonely to non-lonely people defies a lot of the stereotypes about lonely people There are no appreciable differences in attractiveness, intelligence, or general social skills between lonely and non- lonely people But, lonely people do seem to do a bad job of detecting the emotional states of people they interact with This may lead to friction in social relationships Lonely people interact with others as often as non-lonely (quantity), but the interaction quality is poorer Loneliness Recommendations: Someone who is often lonely should get a pet! They help a lot Improve at monitoring emotional states Continuing to attempt to form meaningful bonds with people Live closer to family image2.jpeg
- 12. image3.jpeg image4.jpeg image5.jpeg image6.jpeg image7.jpeg image8.jpeg image9.jpeg image10.jpeg image11.jpeg image1.jpeg CS547 Wireless Networkingand Security Final Exam Question 1 (10 pts): What are millimeter waves? Why is it restricted to short distance communications? Describe the application of millimeter waves in airport security scanning (Research). Question 2 (15 pts): Describe the iOS keychain. Describe how hackers can possibly steal the iOS keychain and crack Apple account passwords (Research). Question 3 (10 pts): Describe Near Field Communication (NFC) wireless technology (Research). Question 4 (10 pts): A new wireless web transmission protocol has been developed using a numeric value (16-bit size)
- 13. to represent eachword. Discuss the pros and cons of such scheme in terms of usability, efficiency, and bandwidth utilization (Research). Question 5 (15 pts): Cellular communications work on multiple and sometimes incompatible technologies: GSM, CDMA and 4G LTE. Briefly describe their main differences. Describe why the Verizon cellular network does not or cannot provide the simultaneous talk-and-browse feature similar to that provided by the AT&T cellular network (Research). Question 6 (15 pts): The earlier wireless encryption, WEP, had been cracked several years ago, Now, the newer encryption technology, WPA2 have been cracked. For each of these, provide a detailed description on how the password cracking is accomplished (Research). Question 7 (15 pts): Describe at least four (4) security services provided by Bluetooth. Select two (2) from these services and, for each, briefly describe a realistic way of defeating its purpose (Research). Question 8 (10 pts): Compare and contrast the built-in security features found in the following cellular technologies: GSM, GPRS, and UMTS. Chapter 14
- 14. Groups Today’s Outline Groups Deindividuation Social facilitation Socialloafing The accuracy of group decisions & thinking Wisdom of crowds Groupthink Risky/Stingy Shifts Leaders and leadership Toxic and dangerous leaders Leadership styles and power What groups are and do We divide ourselves into many different groups Sometimes even just two people, a dyad, can count as group Ideally, people want to have enough in common with a group to feel close to them, but also stand apart in some ways, called optimal distinctiveness Groups, roles, & selves Being in groups is double-edged sword They help us to feel like we belong Even when the group is complete nonsense (e.g. you were seated at table 1 with other people due to a coin flip), called the
- 15. minimal group effectfrom Ch. 13 on prejudice When our group does well we tend to ‘bask in the reflective glory’ and feel like we have done well also E.g. when your favorite team wins an important game Groups, roles, & selves continued But groups can also have major downsides We tend to assume there’s less variability within groups than between groups, but it’s the opposite Deindividuation is a huge problem with groups! A loss of self-awareness and individual accountability when in groups (E.g. mob violence) - Said another way, being anonymous. Often results in aggression, we’ll come back to this in Ch. 10 Group action – Social Facilitation If you play or played sports, did you like it when your parents or friends came to watch your games? Personally I disliked it, felt like it made me play worse, I told them not to come lol But research shows observers can indeed affect us Recall back in chapter 1, Triplett’s original social psychology study that found bikers biked faster against people than against the clock Social facilitation Since Triplett’s studies, much
- 16. more research hasbeen conducted! One finding showed that if you replaced other bikers with just observers, people still biked harder than with no observers Thus people called that evaluation apprehension Concern about how others perceive you and your performance, we want it to be favorable This can lead to more effort and better performance But, the presence of others can make people perform worse too and ‘choke’ under pressure Social facilitation How do we resolve that discrepancy then? Do people watching make us perform better or worse? Zajonc (1965) proposed his social facilitation theory Based on animal behavior, how the presence of animals of the same species increases an animals arousal and its most common response/behavior Zajonc’s Social Facilitation Theory Presence of other people leads to arousal Arousal leads to an increase in the dominant response Aka most common/typical response If that response is correct, you perform better (social facilitation) If it’s incorrect, you perform worse, (social inhibition)
- 17. **Put more simply,if you’re great at something and people watch you, you’ll do better. If you suck, you’ll do even worse Social facilitation continued Understood another way, if a task is new to you, observers will be harmful Also if a task is complex, observers will be more likely to be harmful, but if it’s simple, observers will likely be helpful You may recall our discussion of narcissists from before Narcissists generally perform better when being observed because they’re ‘glory hounds’ They relish the chance to prove themselves superior This can elicit resentment from teammates, who know they’re in it for individual instead of team glory Evaluation apprehension Evaluation apprehension can crop in other places too Binge eating and purging can be a problem among younger women Strangely though it went from an unheard of problem to relatively common… One study found that sorority members who binge ate were more popular or highly regarded than ones who didn’t binge eat We observe similar others and are tempted to engage in similar behavior, which spreads the problem Social Loafing
- 18. As we touchedon earlier, farmers noticed that increasing farmhands didn’t result in more output Social loafing: people reduce effort when working in a group compared to working alone Research on this asked participants to make as much noise as they can (as measured in decibels) 6 people didn’t really make any more noise than 3 people Social loafing continued Generally, people aren’t aware they’re socially loafing If asked, participants will say they’re working their hardest A similar, but distinct pattern, is ‘the free rider problem’ Where people deliberately don’t contribute Free rider references the subway system in Europe where people were supposed to pay but didn’t Have you ever done a group project with a free rider? Are you glad we don’t have any group projects? ;) Social loafing continued Explanations – why does social loafing occur Research has shown that if people are not anonymous and their individual contribution to the effort is known, social loafing is greatly reduced This gets back to the idea of deindividuation being bad Accountability is good Once group members suspect or find out someone else is loafing, they don’t want to be a sucker and do all the work, so then they loaf too! Called the bad apple effect Social Loafing continued
- 19. How do peoplereact to social loafers? Psychologists have studied this using game paradigms Surprisingly, if a player finds out another player is socially loafing, that person will undermine their own chances of winning the game to punish the loafer These findings surprised economists who assume people will act in their own best interest The idea of altruistic punishment arose from this, that ultimately it’s in society’s best interest to punish social loafers Tragedy of the commons Regarding deindividuation and social loafing, have you noticed how public rooms or public areas usually get messy and/or damaged? The ‘commons dilemma’ explains this A tendency for jointly owned spaces, things, or resources, to be squandered Explains, in part, why communism doesn’t work Selfish impulses, like “should I just litter here or walk way over there to the trash can” often win out How groups think Are two heads really better than one? Brainstorming E.g. your boss calls a meeting and asks everyone to brainstorm some ideas about how to resolve a problem People rate brainstorming as effective and rate it as enjoyable; boosts morale But the output is actually worse than that of individuals If done right though, it can have the desired effect Participants must brainstorm individually and independently, then come together, and pool all of the ideas
- 20. ‘The wisdom ofcrowds’ Sir Francis Galton started many lines of research later continued by psychologists In general he thought people were pretty dumb and groups of people even dumber He attended a county fair and asked everyone to guess (write on a sheet of paper) the weight of a cow Well, specifically how much the cow would weigh after it had been slaughtered and chopped into piles of meat The answer was 1,198 pounds He tallied results from 800 tickets The average estimate was 1,197 pounds. Incredibly close! ‘The wisdom of crowds’ continued Sir Galton was forced to admit, the crowd did indeed have astounding wisdom Similar results have been replicated in many settings E.g. the final betting line in sports is always more accurate than any one expert E.g. and the stock market predicts winning stocks better than any individual stock broker Note that the conditions for all these studies meet the criteria of ‘independence’ This prevents conformity and allows for a diversity of opinions Groupthink Irving Janis came applied the term groupthink to social psychology It explains the tendency of group members to think alike
- 21. Specifically, the groupclings to some mistaken belief, which ends up resulting in bad decisions There are many potential applications of groupthink in the real world E.g. juries, business meetings, political committees, etc. The root of groupthink is people’s desire to get along with one another Groupthink continued Several factors contribute to making groupthink more likely to occur: Group members are similar to each other A strong leader that people don’t want to contradict The group is isolated from the opinions of others The group has high self-esteem/feels elite/morally superior There’s a pressure to conform The decision/s appear to be unanimous Some group members may be censoring themselves if they privately disagree Illusion of invulnerability (“There won’t be consequences!”) The group underestimates opponents Foolish Committees Stasser and Titus (1985) were able to demonstrate that committees mostly spend time discussing what they agree on, for the sake of getting along, instead of points of contention Their methodology The committee consisted of 7 members They were deciding whether to hire Anderson or Baker Each group member received a card with information for him/her Each member received a card with the same 4 reason to hire Baker, and 1 reason to hire Anderson
- 22. But each cardhad a different reason for why to hire Anderson, so 7 in total But the groups never caught on that there was a total of 3 more reason to hire Anderson than Baker because everyone was too busy agreeing with each other Those findings bode poorly for committees, as the whole point is to pool the individual knowledge each member has The Risky Shift The tendency for groups to take greater risks than any individual member of the group would have taken The group discussions lead the group to a more extreme point of view over time But there was also a ‘stingy shift’ that occurred in studies, toward more conservative decisions How do we reconcile these two findings? It turns out that which ever direction a committee was initially leaning, will result in a shift in that direction This is called group polarization It is extremely similar to the coherence shifts we covered last class (where people had an initial leaning and then their opinions of the case polarized) but this time it’s on a group level Leaders and Leadership A good CEO or leader often adds 14% of the company’s value or 25 million in revenue Compared to average CEOs In a case study of 11 successful CEOs, some common traits emerged Modest & humble Fierce resolve Decisive Competent
- 23. Integrity Vision Leaders and Leadership Goodleaders succeed at two realms of leaderships 1. Task oriented: sets goals, plans, coordinates, etc. 2. Relationship oriented: takes care of members, resolves conflicts, boosts morale Unfortunately, narcissists often become leaders (or toxic leaders) In a study that arranged participants into groups of 4, people who scored highly on the trait of narcissism often emerged as leaders Leaders and Leadership Narcissists like to seek attention, have the confidence to speak up, and are assertive Good leaders have just the right amount of assertiveness though, and not too much Too much can stifle group morale Patterns that make for toxic leaders: 1. The leader lacks ability to do the job, may have been promoted without the requisite knowledge 2. Builds a shoddy team due to bad hiring choices 3. Has poor interpersonal skills & is arrogant E.g. “Do it because I said so!” Dangerous national leaders Mayer (1993) reviewed data from past national leaders and found the while most have sound cognitive abilities, their emotional lives are potentially the most important
- 24. He identified 3main criteria that constitute a dangerous leader, with classic examples being Napoleon and Hitler 1. Indifference toward people’s suffering 2. Disregard for criticism 3. Grandiose sense of national entitlement Leaders and Leadership Can you think of any leaders of a nation who meet those 3 criteria? A British nobleman named Lord Acton once said, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” Some researchers have attempted to test that assertion! Leaders and leadership Research by Kipnis (1976): He made participants managers and gave them either low-power (just worked with the staff, no real difference) or high-power (power to fire, promote, withhold money, etc.) The staff and their actions were the same/controlled He found that the managers used completely different strategies Low-power managers praised workers, gave advice, etc. High-power managers made threats, ‘threw their weight around’, etc. Leaders and leadership styles In general, authoritarian leaders (‘do as I say’) are less successful than autoritative leaders (‘come with me’) Same goes for authoritarian vs authoritative parenting styles Explaining to a kid why he must do something is more effective than saying “Because I told you to.”
- 25. Authoritarian leaders arethe type to throw their power around instead of inspiring their workers The effects of power In some situations power can lead to good, in others it can lead to bad But one thing it almost always leads to is more action being taken Opposite of that, people in positions of less power have a wait and see mentality In one study (Galinsky et al, 2003) participants were assigned to be either manager or a worker Following that activity, they played some blackjack Managers were more likely to hit (ask for another card), whereas workers were more likely to hold (keep what they had) image2.jpeg image3.jpeg image4.jpeg image5.jpeg image6.jpeg image7.jpeg image8.jpeg image9.jpeg image10.png image11.jpeg image12.jpeg image13.jpeg image14.jpeg image15.jpeg image1.jpeg