Download Notes on Social Psychology and more Study notes Social Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!
CHAPTER-III PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR: External and Internal Influences on Behaviour Long-term Commitment to Prosocial Acts INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION Internal Sources of Attraction
1. The Need for Affiliation: The need for affiliation with others and to be accepted by them may be just as basic to our psychological well-being as hunger and thirst are to our physical well-being. From an evolutionary perspective, this makes perfect sense. Cooperating with other people almost certainly increased our ancestors' success in obtaining food and surviving danger. As a result, a strong desire to affiliate with others seems to be a basic characteristic of our species. (a) Individual differences in the need to affiliate: People differ greatly in the strength of their needs to affiliate. Basically, we tend to seek the amount of social contact that is optimal for us, preferring to be alone some of the time and in social situations some of the time. There are some people who claim to have little to no need for emotional attachments to others, and who, in fact, tend to avoid close relationship. However, research suggests that even these people need affiliation at least to some extent. They may have less need for emotional attachments than most people, but they show increased self-esteem and improved moods when they find out they are accepted by others. In short, all human beings have a need to feel connected to others. Some people may conceal this need under a mask of seeming indifference, but the need is still there. Differences between individuals exist in the level of need or the attachment style. (b) Situational Influences on the Need to Affiliate: While people differ with respect to their need to affiliate with others, external events can temporarily boost or reduce this need. When people are reminded of their own morality, for example, a common response is the desire to affiliate with others. Similarly, after highly disturbing events such as natural disasters, many people experience an increased desire to affiliate with others- primarily to obtain help and comfort and reduce negative feelings. Anxious and frightened people often want to interact with other anxious and frightened people because such affiliation provides the opportunity for social comparison. People want to be with others- even strangers- to communicate about what is going on, to compare their perceptions, and to make decisions about what to do. Arousing situations lead us to seek cognitive clarity and emotional clarity. 2. The Role of Affect: Do Our Moods Play a Role in Liking Others? Positive and negative affects (moods and emotions) are complex. A positive affect, regardless of its source, often leads to positive evaluations of other people. Likewise, a negative affect often leads to negative evaluations. These effects occur in two different ways:
(a) Direct effect:^ When another person says or does something that makes you feel good or bad, these feelings have a direct effect on how much you like that person. (b) Indirect effect:^ This is sometimes known as the associated effect. In this case, liking or disliking someone you meet is influenced by unrelated events or people in our life. The other person is simply present at the same time our emotional state is aroused by something or someone else. Even though the individual is not in any way responsible for what we are feeling, we nevertheless tend to evaluate him or her more positively when we are feeling good and more negatively when we are feeling bad. One reason the indirect effects caused by our emotions have such a big impact on liking and disliking is Classical Conditioning. When a neutral stimulus is paired with a positive stimulus, it is evaluated more positively than a neutral stimulus that has been paired with negative stimulus. External Sources of Attraction
1. Proximity (Unplanned Contacts) : In the past, proximity is needed before feelings of attraction can develop, but now social networks and other electronic media make it possible for people to interact and form initial feelings of liking or disliking without direct face-to-face contact. Ultimately, of course, physical nearness must occur for close relationships to develop beyond the virtual world. Proximity influences our level of attraction to something because of the repeated exposure effect. The more often we are exposed to a new stimulus, such as a new person, the more favourable our evaluation of it tends to become. This effect is subtle but it is both powerful and general. Moreover, this effect is present very early in life. Infants tend to smile more at a photograph of someone they have seen before but not at a photograph of someone they are seeing for the first time. In short, the more familiar we are with almost anything, the more we tend to like it because we’ve been exposed to it over and over. (a) The Effects of Social Media on Proximity and Repeated Exposure: We do not have to be exposed to another person directly to like them or develop relationships with them. This can happen through social media. In a sense, modern technology has altered the effects of proximity and frequency of exposure. 2. Physical Beauty:
attractive. One category is considered cute- childlike features, large eyes, with a small nose and chin. For Example, Selena Gomez. The other category of attractiveness is the mature look- prominent cheekbones, high eyebrows, large pupils, and a big smile. For example, Angelina Jolie. (a) Red Is Sexy and Attractive: In many ancient cultures, as well as many modern ones, the colour red has been associated with increased attractiveness, at least for women. Interestingly, outside our own species, many female primates display red on their genitals, chest or face during ovulation, when they are at their sexiest. These observations have led social psychologists to suggest that perhaps the colour red does have a special significance and can increase women’s attractiveness to men. In a sense, then, beauty is generated not only by the face or body, but may involve other, seemingly peripheral environmental cues. (b)Physique or Body Build: Although the stereotypes associated with different body builds are often misleading or just plain wrong, many people tend to associate a round body build with an easygoing disposition, relaxed personality, and a lack of personal discipline. A firm and muscular body on the other hand, is assumed to indicate good health with high energy and vigour. A thin and angular body is perceived as a sign of intelligence and perhaps an introspective personality. Another factor that influences physical attractiveness is the extent to which a person is overweight. A growing proportion of many countries’ populations are overweight, which is generally viewed negatively. Sources of Liking Based on Social Interaction
1. Similarity: Aristotle had suggested that similarity is often the basis for friendship. Research suggests that similarity leads to liking, or liking leads to similarity. In a study considered a true ‘classic’ of social psychology, Newcomb found that similar attitudes predicted subsequent liking between students. This indicated that the more similar people are, the more they tend to like each other. This was a strong evidence that similarity produced attraction rather than vice versa. Just as Aristotle and
others had suggested, research findings tend to confirm the similarity hypothesis- the more similar two people are to each other, the more they tend to like each other. Sometimes we also find people attractive even if they are very different from ourselves. In early research on this topic, the proposed attraction of opposites was often phrased in terms of complementaries- differences that, when combined, help to make the individual parts work well together (i.e., complement each other). Surprisingly, direct tests of these propositions failed to support complementarity as a determinant of attraction. With respect to attitudes, values, income level, and other minor preferences, similarity was found to result in attraction. So, overall, there is little evidence for the suggestion that opposites attract. Of course, there can be exceptions to this general rule, but attraction seems to derive much more strongly from similarity than complementarity. One such exception occurs in male-female interactions in which one person engages in dominant behaviour and the other responds in a submissive fashion.
2. Similarity-Dissimilarity Effect: The similarity-dissimilarity effect is seen when people respond positively to indications that another person is similar to them and negatively to indications that another person is dissimilar from themselves. The extent to which two individuals share the same ways of thinking or feeling is called attitude similarity. Attraction is determined by the proportion of similarity. The effect of attitude similarity on attraction is a strong one. It holds true regardless of the number of topics on which people express their views and regardless of how important or trivial the topics may be. The larger the proportion of similarity, the greater the attraction. We tend to choose partners who are similar to ourselves in physical attractiveness, even though we'd prefer more attractive ones (known as the matching hypothesis). Most research supports the matching hypothesis. Even seemingly trivial similarities, such as sharing the first letter of a name, can increase our attraction to other individuals- an effect known as implicit egotism.
being flattered, it is likely to appear accurate, even if it is not completely honest. Only if flattery is totally obvious does it sometimes fall. Research findings offer strong support for the powerful effects of reciprocal liking and disliking. Overall, it appears that the rule of reciprocity- acting towards others in the way they have acted towards us- operates with respect to attraction, too. In general, we tend to like those who express liking toward us, and dislike those who express dislike for us. CHAPTER- IV SOCIAL INFLUENCE GROUP: A group involves people who perceive themselves to be part of a coherent unit that they see as different from another group. Types of Groups:
1. Common-Bond Groups: This type of group often involves face-to-face interaction among members, and the individuals in the group are bonded to each other. Examples include the players on a sports team, friendship groups, a family or work teams. 2. Common-Identity Groups: In this type of group, the members are linked via the category as a whole rather than to each other, with face-to- face interaction often being absent. Our nationality, university and gender groups are ones which we might not know personally all, or even most, of the other group members. These are good examples of groups that we
might identify with strongly, but not because of the bonds we have with specific other individual members. Entitativity: Groups can differ dramatically in terms of their entitativity. Entitativity refers to the extent to which a group of people are perceived as a coherent whole. It can range from a mere collection of individuals who happen to be in the same place at the same time and who have little or no connection with one another, to where members of intimate groups, such as families share a name, history and identity. Groups high in entitativity have the following characteristics: (a) Members interact with one another often, although not necessarily in a face-to-face setting. (b)The group is important in some way to its members (c) Members share common goals (d)Members perceive themselves as similar to one another in important ways The Key Components of Groups
1. Status: Many groups have hierarchies, with members differing in status- their rank within the group. Sometimes it is an official position as in the case of the President, and sometimes it is not so explicit and instead is simply the old-timers in a group who are accorded higher status compared to newcomers. People are often extremely sensitive to their status within a group because it is linked to a wide range of desirable outcomes. Evolutionary psychologists attach considerable importance to status attainment within a group, noting that in many different species, including our own, high status confers important advantages on those who possess it. For people to acquire high status, sometimes physical attributes such as height may play a role. Factors relating to individual’s behaviour also play a critical role in status acquisition. People who are seen as prototypical are likely to be accorded status and be selected as leader of a group. Longevity and seniority in a group too can result in higher status. Once status within a group is obtained, people with high status actually behvae differently than those with lower status.
4. Cohesiveness: Cohesiveness refers to all the forces that cause members to remain in the group. Cohesive groups have a sense of solidarity: they see themselves as homogenous, support and cooperate with in-group members, aim to achieve group goals, have high morale, and perform better than non-cohesive groups. In fact, the presence of an out-group or other form of competitive threat increases cohesion in a variety of community groups. Out-group members may find it difficult to gain acceptance in cohesive groups- they may not fit the norm very well. The general threat that one’s group’s future might be in jeopardy can encourage all sorts of groups to advocate actions aimed at creating greater in-group cohesion. **Effects of Groups:
- Social Facilitation:** Social facilitation refers to the effects of the presence of others on performance. Some researchers argued that the mere presence of others could inhibit a less-practiced or new response. He noted that the presence of others increases physiological arousal and, as a result, any dominant response will be facilitated. This means that we can focus better on something we know or have practiced when we are aroused, but that same physiological arousal will create problems when we are dealing with something new or complex. This reasoning became known as the drive theory of social facilitation because it focuses on arousal or drive-based effects on performance. The presence of others will improve individual’s performance when they are highly skilled at the task in question, but will interfere with performance when they are not highly skilled. Other researchers thought that performance might sometimes be disrupted by the presence of an audience because of apprehension about having their performance evaluated. This is called the evaluation apprehension idea.
Some researchers have suggested that the presence of others can be distracting and, for this reason, it can produce cognitive overload. Because performers must divide their attention between the task and the audience, such increased cognitive load can result in a tendency to restrict one’s attention so as to focus only on essential cues or stimuli while ‘screening’ non-essential ones. Several findings offer support for this view, known as distraction conflict theory.
2. Social Loafing: It refers to the reductions in effort when individuals work collectively compared to when they work individually. When working together, some will contribute by taking on as much of the work load as they can, while some may simply pretend to be trying hard when, in fact, they are not. This pattern is quite common in situations where groups perform additive tasks. On such tasks, some people will work hard, while others goof off and do less than they would if working alone. Social psychologists refer to such effects as social loafing. Such effects occur with both cognitive tasks and those involving physical effort. Coordination in Groups: Cooperation and Conflict: Cooperation is helping that is mutual, where both sides benefit. It is common in groups working together to attain shared goals. By cooperating, people can attain goals they could never hope to reach by themselves. However, cooperation does not always develop in groups. Sometimes, group members may perceive their personal interests as incompatible, and instead of coordinating their efforts, may work against each other, often producing negative results for all. This is known as conflict and can be defined as a process in which individuals or groups perceive that others have taken, or will soon take, actions incompatible with their own interests. Decision Making by Groups:
