Margaret Clark (1984) distinguishes between exchange and communal relationships. Specifically, exchange relationships are characterized by peoples attempts to maintain equality of their costs and compensation. Oftentimes, this is achieved by tit-for-tat repayment of benefits. Partners in communal relationships, on the other hand, aren’t concerned about whether they have received or given a benefit, instead they respond to each other’s needs as they come up.

I think this is an interesting variable to use to characterize relationships. Although it isn’t something I’d immediately see as relevant, it has a profound influence on people’s relationships. As an example, my boyfriend and my roommate have a relationship that is extremely exchange based, almost to the point of coldness. My boyfriend doesn’t even feel comfortable asking favors of my roommate anymore because he hates knowing that he’ll be “in debt” to her for a while. He used her spare phone when his wasn’t working, but was uncomfortable the whole time. I think that it’s very evident that exchange relationships can instill bitter and awkward feelings in people, but that could be my own experiences talking. :)

Clark, M. S. (1984). Record keeping in two types of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 549-557.

Entrapment!

People’s behavior in Vegas often demonstrates the concept of entrapment/sunk costs. For example, someone might start the night with 100$ they’ve budgeted to spend gambling. Lets say that over the course of the next few hours he or she ends up with 200$, and thinking their luck will continue he or she might decide to continue gambling. Unfortunately, their lucky streak ends, and they slowly begin to lose some of the 100$ they had won. Rather than stopping gambling, he or she feels like they need to make back the money they’ve just lost! The more money they lose, the more motivated they are to end the night with 200$. After a few more hours the gambler has 20$ left and decides to make one last bet, this is their last chance to leave the casino as a winner! Alas, they lose the 20$ and have fallen pray to entrapment. That is, when people make an investment, be it time, money, or resources, they don’t want it to be in vain. In fact, we will commit more time, money, or resources in order to ensure the success of our initial investments. Ultimately, this can lead to conflict spiral, the tendency that conflicts will escalate rather than diminish (Brett et al., 1998; Rubin et al., 1994).

Additional factors that contribute to conflict escalation include: group polarization (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969), conformity (Sherif, 1936), the use of threats (Deutsch & Krauss, 1960), and negative perceptions of the “outgroup” that result from social categorization (McAlister et al., 2006).

Brett, J. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Lytle, A. L. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 410-424.

Deutsch, M., & Krauss, R. M. (1960). The effect of threat upon interpersonal pargaining. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 181-189.

McAlister, A. L., Bandura, A., & Owen, S. V. (2006). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in support of military force: The impact of Sept. 11. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 141-165.

Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125-135.

Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.

DAC Video

Okay, I finally figured out that you can change the size of the video before you export it :)

As promised, here is the video to accompany my Self-Presentation blog!

Strategic Self-Presentation

As social beings, we are each concerned (on some level) with how others perceive us. In fact, Schlenker (2003) terms the processes that we use to influence how other people think about us self-presentation. It is important to note that we can be aware or unaware of our attempts at self-presentation, which can in turn be accurate or misleading. Furthermore, researchers have broken self-presentation down into two specific types: strategic self-presentation, and self-verification. Strategic self-presentation refers to our attempts at gaining influence, power, sympathy, and/or approval, through portraying ourselves a certain way (Arkin, 1981; Jones & Pittman, 1982). Five common strategies have been identified: ingratiation, self-promotion, intimidation, supplication, and exemplification. Each of these strategies are demonstrated in the video I’ve attached :) Specifically, the video portrays a number of scenarios that may or may not occur in high school. The actor using each strategy was instructed to exaggerate his or her attempts at strategic self-presentation in order to provide very specific and recognizable examples of each strategy.

The video begins with a scene between a student and her teacher. It quickly becomes evident that the student is engaging in ingratiation. Ingratiation is characterized by attempts to get someone else to like you, including conformity and flattery (Arkin, 1981; Jones & Pittman, 1982). The student in the video is clearly trying to flatter her teacher, however, she also conforms to her teacher’s expectations of her students. For example, the student arrives early to class and informs her teacher of the “word of the day,” exhibiting her desire to be a “model student.”

The second segment shows the interactions between a male and female high school student. Unfortunately for the female (:P), the male is self-promoting shamelessly. Self-promotion is driven by the want to be respected, get ahead, or be seen as competent (Arkin, 1981; Jones & Pittman, 1982). The male in the video explains that he went to a college party and hooked up with a sorority girl, brags about his ability to teach the female how to “party,” and proceeds to tell her how great he is at lacrosse. A word of advice: self-promotion can backfire, as evidenced by this video clip. ;) Thus, if you want to successfully influence someone’s beliefs about your competence, get someone else self-promote for you!

The third scene begins with a male student knocking books out of a female student’s hands. He continues to degrade and threaten her, attempting to incite fear in her. This example demonstrates the strategy of intimidation (Arkin, 1981; Jones & Pittman, 1982). That is, he wants to be perceived as powerful. Regrettably, this strategy is successful in a variety of different contexts (e.g. gangs, sports teams, and sibling relationships).

Although fairly common, people rarely choose to employ supplication before any of the other self-presentation strategies. Specifically, supplication is one’s attempt to get help, seeking to take advantage of other people’s resources (Arkin, 1981; Jones & Pittman, 1982). In the video a female student is encouraging her father to pity her by telling him a number of horrible experiences she had throughout the day. What she doesn’t know, is that by enabling others to make personal attributions about the bad things that happen to her she is solidifying people’s perceptions of her as a “nerd.” If she wanted to use the strategy of supplication more effectively, she should make sure people attribute her shortcomings to external circumstances.

In the final scene a female student is talking to the class president. The class president is talking about her recent achievements and her plans for the future. More specifically, she is trying to portray herself as a honest, hard-working student committed to creating better conditions for everyone attending the school. Thus, she is relying on exemplification, attempting to set a good example and be seen as full of integrity (Arkin, 1981; Jones & Pittman, 1982).

In conclusion, people use many different strategies to influence other’s perceptions of them. These attempts are a result of people's desire to strategically present themselves as they wish to be seen. Several over-the-top examples of these strategies can be seen in the video I’ve attached :)

Schlenker, B. R. (2003). Self-presentation. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 492-518). New York: Guilford.

Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentation styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 311-333). New York: Academic Press.

Jones, E. E. & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self. Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

**My video won't upload because it is over 100 MB? I don't really know how to make it smaller without re-editing the whole thing, so I'll try to figure something out and post again with the video...

Door in the face? Anytime!

Since I read Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive, I was already familiar with most of the compliance-inducing strategies Dr. G provided during lecture. However, the book failed to mention the “door in the face” technique (Cialdini et. al., 1975). According to Caildini and his colleagues, influencers need only ask a request that they have no intention of getting. Once you’ve been shot down, then you can make a concession, and ask for something a bit more reasonable. Works most of the time ;) Personally, I use this technique quite frequently. As an example, my father takes me clothes shopping whenever the seasons change, and upon entering the mall I plant my first persuasive seed. That is, as soon as my father parks the car I list the 10 stores “I CAN’T wait to visit!” After sadly agreeing that we probably won’t have enough time to visit all 10, I revise the number and inform him of the four that “I’d like to visit if we have time :).” Once we get into the mall I ramp it up a bit. I grab an excessive amount of clothes, disappear in the dressing room for 40 minutes, and return with about 10 outfits that I want. Of course, he refuses to buy all ten and I agree, instead I ask for the 4 outfits that I absolutely love.

Yay :) I win, since the reason we go shopping each season is to make sure I have everything “I need.” But, how exactly did this “victory” materialize (literally, in the form of clothes :P)? Well, for two reasons. First, my dad has an easier time agreeing to spend money on clothes he knows I don’t need when he can rationalize his behavior. Specifically, when he has been presented with two options (i.e. buy me 10 outfits and buy me 4 outfits) he is able to perceptually contrast the options (Cialdini et. al., 1975). But simply, buying 4 unnecessary outfits seems a lot more reasonable than buying 10 unnecessary outfits. Another reason the door in the face technique works is reciprocal concessions. When I make a concession and reduce my request (i.e. 10 outfits to 4 outfits), my dad feels pressured to reciprocate and make a concession by agreeing to the smaller request (Cialdini et. al., 1975). On a final note, I love this technique because it is sneaky and undetectable to those unaware of these strategies!

Cialdini, R. B., Vincent, J. E., Lewis, S. K., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D., & Darby, B. L. (1975). Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 206-215.

Manipulating someone’s behavior as a means of changing their attitudes seems counter-intuitive, but it works. Aronson and Mills (1959) demonstrated its success in an experiment in which they randomly assigned female participants to undergo a severe, a mild, or no “embarrassing test” prior to their admittance into a group discussion about sex. Upon completion of the test, the females were given a taste of what the group was like. They were allowed to listen in on a “meeting,” which was in fact a tape recording of a boring discussion on sex behavior in lower animals. Interestingly, they found that the females who experienced the most embarrassing initiation test were the females that indicated they liked the discussion the most. This experiment exemplifies effort justification, or the tendency that the more you pay for something the more you will come to like it.

When we were talking about this concept in class I immediately thought of the Saw movies. I’m sure everyone is familiar with the movies, but the general idea behind them is that anyone who has to fight for their life will treasure and value their life more. The video clip I attached shows the opening scene of the second movie (I think) and includes Jigsaw telling the group of people what they’re going to have to do if they want to live. The clip concludes with Amanda arguing that although they’re being tested, he wants them to survive. Although this is an extreme example I think it demonstrates the concept of effort justification perfectly. After fighting for your life you’ll know what it would feel like to know you’re dying, and value everything you do that much more.

Perhaps unknowingly my dad has recently begun drawing on the principles underlying effort justification (in ways completely unrelated to Jigsaw’s). Although I’ve always been able to ask him for a little extra cash, he now responds to my requests with “Sure, how much would you like to borrow?” It makes me think twice about how much I really want whatever I was planning on using the money for. Rather than acquiring whatever it was without much effort, I have to go further into debt to my father (Southwestern is expensive enough!). Then, when I make money waiting tables I don’t get to spend it, instead I have to give it back to my dad receiving nothing in return. That effort ensures that I sure do love whatever I go through all that to get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D90YBQ_lrRk

Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177-181.

Am I still a little kid at heart...Why can't I do what I'm told?

The topic of persuasion is discussed extensively in Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive (Goldstein et. al., 2010), the book I chose to read for my book project, so I found this chapter to be an interesting overview of what I’ve been learning over the past few weeks. However, one concept, psychological reactance, wasn’t specifically addressed in Goldstein and his colleagues’ book, and I found it that much more exciting. Perhaps more importantly, I was amused by this concept because it basically sums up who I am in two words...at least that’s what my roommate would say. Jack Brehm defined this theory as our desire for the freedom to think, feel, and act however we would like. Furthermore, he argues that when we get the vibe that our freedom is being threatened, we act to maintain and/or restore it (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). These ideas are very descriptive of my behavior because I absolutely hate and reject being told what to do, what to choose, or how to evaluate something. In fact, I probably unnecessarily engage in “negative attitude change” with startling frequency. Negative attitude change refers our movement in the opposite direction of that which we feel is being forced on us (Heller et. al., 1973). At times, I even contradict my own previously held opinions if I feel like they weren’t wholly grounded in my own decisions/thoughts. Anyone who is present while I’m getting ready to go out will understand exactly how these concepts influence my behavior. Although it is normal for girls to call their friends and ask advice about what to wear, it isn’t normal to completely ignore their advice. Oftentimes, I ask my roommate for advice about an outfit I’ve thrown together, and she provides extremely opinionated and specific feedback. For example, she’ll explain that the shoes I’m wearing don’t match because (insert reason here). If she’s really adamant about her opinion or says, “Don’t wear those two things together,” I have an overwhelming urge to wear those two things together, and I usually do. In these cases, even though I asked for her advice, I still feel restricted to choose what she advises and it drives me crazy enough that I usually reject her advice. I know it isn’t just me being stubborn because I never ask for her advice after I’ve already decided which course of action I’d prefer (e.g. I want to wear the black shoes, but I should see what she has to say). These days, when I ask her for her opinion about something, she begins by saying, “I know you’ll probably just do the opposite anyways, but...”

Going beyond psychological reactance, I want to talk about some individuals differences that affect the persuadability of one’s audience. It seems to me like there are a lot of factors that can create an extremely diverse audience. As an example, both one’s degree of self-monitoring (Snyder & DeBVono, 1985) and need for cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) influence his/her susceptibility to different types of messages (i.e. central, peripheral). Self-monitoring refers to the regulatory effects one’s concern with his/her public appearance has on their behavior, while need for cognition describes the amount individuals enjoy effortful cognitive activities. Although there are plenty of other variables, it is evident that these two fluctuate on an extremely wide continuum, creating audiences that must be impossible to persuade by exploiting one personality trait (e.g. high self monitors). Do messages take advantage of the research that shows that people high in need for cognition are more influenced by central messages, whereas those low in need for cognition are affected by peripheral messages? Personally, I don’t think it would be very effective to target any of these personality variables unless the messenger was sure that their audience was similar enough that the message wouldn’t persuade someone while un-persuading someone else...

References:

Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.

Goldstein, N. J., Martin, S. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2010). Yes! 50 Scientifically proven ways to be persuasive. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Heller, J. F., Pallak, M. S., & Picek, J. M. (1973). The interactive effects of intent and threat on boomerang attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 273-279.

Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. (1985). Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 586-597.

Phew! I'm not racist after all...Results from the IAT

The Implicit Associates Test, developed by Greenwald and Banaji, consists of one simple task in which participants are instructed to sort words and pictures into categories. Specifically, the gender-career IAT instructs participants to sort names (e.g. Emily, John) into either the female or male categories, career related words (e.g. management) into the career category, and family oriented words (e.g. relatives) into the family category. The categories are then combined (e.g. female/family and male/career) and all of the words (i.e. names, career related words, and family oriented words) are flashed on the screen. The objective is to sort the words/names into the appropriate combined categories as fast as you can. Once completed, an IAT measures one’s unconscious attitudes toward and beliefs about certain groups of people. For example, the race IAT measures the participants “automatic preference” towards either African Americans, or Europan Americans. The weight IAT measures participants’ preferences towards fat people in relation to thin people (i.e. little to no preference for fat or thin people, slight preference for fat people compared to thin people).

I’ve always felt like I am moderately emotionally intelligent, and that I can decipher my attitudes about most issues fairly well, so I thought taking a few IATs would be an interesting opportunity to test my accuracy. I took the race, gender-career, weapons, and weight IATs. For the most part my results were consistent with my preconceptions about my beliefs and attitudes towards whites, blacks, women, men, fat, and thin people. Specifically, I’ve never really believed that I’ve had a specific bias towards European Americans people as opposed to African Americans, and the results of the race IAT I completed indicated that I showed “little or no” preference for European Americans over African Americans. I think I obtained these results because that is how I actually do feel. I don’t, consciously or unconsciously, associate blacks with “negative” words just as I don’t associate them with hostility, unintelligence, violence, or poor economic status (things that have often been used when describing African Americans). Seemingly in contrast to my assertion that I do not associate African Americans with “negative” thoughts, feelings, or issues, the weapons IAT I completed concluded that I showed a slight association of Black Americans with weapons compared to White Americans. I indeed expected this result, and argue that although weapons are often associated with violence, fear, and hostility, I demonstrated a tendency to associate weapons with Blacks because this is what our culture teaches us. I’ve been bombarded with images of African Americans holding guns, whereas probably the only images I’ve seen of Whites holding any sort of weapon in when they’re hunting for sport. I think the weapons IAT revealed a “true” attitude that I hold, and I am going to blame the media! :) Potentially the beliefs revealed by the information of this IAT could be changed, however I truly think that more Black Americans have more guns than White Americans. This could be completely false, but this is the impression I’ve received through the culture I live in!

I have strong opinions about genetic differences between men and women. That is, there are several very prominent and important anatomical differences which lead me to accept and endorse some of the more “traditional” gender roles that have been assigned to men and women. Specifically, I think that women exist to bear children, and men should provide for their families. I am not saying that I think women do not deserve equal opportunities in the work setting, or that if a woman doesn’t have children she is a “bad” woman. I would never suggest that all women need to stay at home, have babies, and cook and clean for their partners, but I do think that women were created so that they would be able to nurture their children and men were created in a way that would enhance their ability to fend for their children and give their genes a chance to survive long enough to be passed on again. For these reasons, I predicted I would associate male names with career related words and female names with family oriented words. My prediction was correct, I demonstrated a slight association of male with career and female with family. Thus, I think this IAT reveals a true attitude that I hold, one that I don’t really have any intention to change. In contrast, my results on the weight IAT surprised me, I do however believe that the test provided me with information about an attitude that I do probably have and one that I will now be trying to change. Specifically, the test suggested a “moderate automatic preference” for thin people compared to fat people. I think this preference may be due to the fact that my sister is extremely weight schematic. She always has a comment about everyone’s body, what they’re eating, and/or their appearance. I think that these comments may have primed me to notice fat people more and associate them with more negative attributes. I’m a bit disappointed about my results on the weight IAT. I predict that I will be more conscious of my preference for thin people, and that I will use this increased consciousness to change this preference.

Overall, I don’t think that completing the IATs prompted me to think about stereotypes and prejudice any differently than how I always have. I think that stereotyping and prejudice have always been issues that I’ve had strong opinions about, so I think my conscious thoughts and unconscious thoughts about these things are pretty much in sync. I think IATs are really interesting because they give people a way to understand some of the issues that have been used lately to define “modern racism.” I think the fact that they have the potential to uncover unconscious preferences that could lead to implicit racism is fascinating, and I think it could reshape a lot of people’s conceptions of contemporary racism.

Keeping my concern with the results I received from the weight IAT I took in mind, I took a second weight IAT. Before I took it I thought about my sisters possible influence on my previous results, and the fact that statistically there are probably the same number of nice or “good” fat people and thin people. I thought about these things in an attempt to eliminated the preference I showed for thin people compared to fat people. These thoughts did change my results, which suggested “little or no” preference between fat and thin people. :) Due to the fact that my results were successfully changed after thinking about equality between fat and thin people I conclude that the IAT can be influenced by priming. That is, the material participants are exposed to immediately prior to taking the IAT may play a role in momentarily shaping or eliminating unconscious “preferences” for certain groups.

Hass, R. G., Katz, I., Rizzo, N., Bailey, J., & Moore, L. (1992). When racial ambivalence evokes negative affect, using a disguised measure of mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 786-797.

Implicit Association Test. (2010, March 4). Retrieved from Project Implicit website: https:// implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/takeatest.html

Am I a suck-up??

I find it amusing that the things people do every day to influence other’s perception of them can be grouped into specific self-presentation “strategies.” I’m not putting strategies in quotations because I don’t consider them strategies, but because I’ve never really considered them as things people consciously scheme to do in order to meet their goals. Maybe its just me, but I don’t usually spend time or effort consciously weighing the pros and cons of each strategy in every situation I come across. I mentioned my relationship with my siblings as an example of intimidation in class. Perhaps I’m falling prey to the spotlight effect and no one really remembers that example, but to recap when I was younger I tried to present myself as a powerful person (i.e. intimidation) because if I was successful I could manipulate them to get what I wanted (I swear I’m not a horrible sister!!). But, returning to my original point, I didn’t have a mental conversation with myself debating about which “side” of myself (i.e. which strategy to use) to present to my siblings each time I wanted something from them, it just happened.

I have to write about another strategy that I use quite often...I feel as if I’m confessing something horrifying because that’s how embarrassed I am about it! I am a head nodder...I don’t mean to be! I didn’t even notice that I did it until my boyfriend called me out on it last week. We have a class together and as we were walking in he said, “You nod all the time in class, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone nod as much as you do.” It didn’t really bother me when he said it because I thought of it as a positive thing, “I am paying super close attention, and I just understand everything my teacher is saying! Yay!” But after our lecture today, I feel really self-conscious about it. Granted, it really isn’t that big of a deal...but, I have always prided myself in being someone who does not “suck up” to anyone, regardless of the situation. I hate it when people are fake in order to get people to like them. So, needless to say when I heard that I myself am a person who relies on ingratiation literally on an everyday basis, I was mortified!

In conclusion, I’d like to share a very important life lesson with everyone! Well, there’s a pretty good chance everyone (but me) learned this lesson a long time ago, but I’d like to share it just in case. :) Okay, I played basketball my freshman and sophomore years here at SU, and my freshman year I met a senior we called “A.G.” (I guess I like quotations today). That year, our coach split us up into groups, and decided that each group was going to perform a song of our choice to the team. Of course, the song had to be motivational, entertaining, and the lyrics had to be changed so that they would pertain to basketball. I loved my group and found the song we created, a stellar rendition of Soulja Boy- Crank That... (Don’t judge me!!), thoroughly entertaining. Thus, I bragged and talked our song up to everyone. Evidently, this isn’t what you’re supposed to do. Luckily, A.G. informed my of my mistake before I’d done too much damage. That is, she introduced me to self-handicapping. I’m not claiming to never have engaged in self-handicapping prior to that day, but I did learn a new use for it. Specifically, I was taught that instead of talking yourself up, you should provide an “out” in case no one besides you thinks your song is cool. So, with the help of A.G., I engaged in self-reported self-handicapping. Instead of bragging about how great our song was, I explained that I thought it was really funny because I already have really funny memories involving that song, and that there were a ton of inside jokes that came into being while we created our song. I made excuses for our groups potential failure. However, now that I don’t need the excuse, since I’m not performing it for the class :), I can brag and say that our teammates did enjoy our song! Maybe the outcome would have been different had A.G. not come to my rescue and stopped me from celebrating my fame before I got my big break.

Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405-417.

Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2008). Social Psychology. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-presentation styles. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management theory and social psychological research (pp. 311-333). New York: Academic Press.

and, Dr. Giuliano’s lecture on Monday, February 15, 2010!

Oh the errors we make

Personally I’m super interested in clinical psychology, so I found the counterfactual thinking heuristic as something that could be taken advantage of in therapy. Specifically, the counterfactual thinking heuristic refers to people’s reflection on situations and events in order to generate alternative outcomes that could have happened but didn’t. Both positive and negative events have different psychological effects that are dependent on how people think about “what might have been.” Therapists and counselors could take advantage of this heuristic by urging patients to prepare for potentially bad situations (e.g. results of a wife’s CT scan for a brain tumor) by imagining the worst possible outcome. Ideally, if the patient can come to grips with a horrible hypothetical situation they will be more prepared to deal with it should it become a reality.

Another concept I realized I use almost daily in my personal life is Bem’s self-perception theory. The theory states that by observing your own behavior, you learn about yourself. Kassin, Fein, and Markus (2008) include a quote in their textbook in order to clarify the concept. E. M. Forster asked, “How can I tell what I think ‘til I see what I say,” which demonstrates the type of questions that the self-perception theory attempts to address. The theory would argue that you don’t know, oftentimes you can only make inferences about your behavior by watching the behavior itself. The book provides examples such as realizing the extent of your anger only after listening to how fiercely you were arguing. Personally, I provide evidence for this theory fairly regularly. I am extremely indecisive! So, when I make small decisions, like which restaurant I’d like to eat at for dinner, I narrow my choices down to two (e.g. Chipotle, and Chick-fil-a), and then say, “I’m going to Chipotle!” out loud. If I don’t feel satisfied when I say this I proceed to say, “I’m going to Chick-fil-a!” and see if that feels better. I’ve started to use this same procedure on my friends and they love it!

Lastly, I thought it was really funny that Dr. Giuliano talked about “road rage” or driving in traffic as an example of the actor-observer effect. My dad is a perfect example! The actor-observer effect is a type of fundamental attribution error and it occurs when people see others behavior as a reflection of their personality, but see their own action as dependent on the situation. My father thinks practically every driver on I-35 during rush hour is a “bad driver, and idiot” who “has no clue what they’re doing.” It has always really annoyed me, and I always defend the other drivers because he has no clue what is causing them to drive the way they do...Me listing the many possible reasons, other than their stupidity, for their sub-par driving skills never fails to annoy the shit out of my dad, so I’ve recently kept my mouth shut. I’d rather try to keep his blood-pressure low than defend random people who have no idea we’re talking about them.

Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2008). Social Psychology. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Thin Slice Away!

The concept of “thin slicing” is appealing to me because it is inevitable, and arguably unconscious. Regardless of what culture, time period, or community you live in, you form impressions of people. These split-second judgments have been termed thin slices, and while they are based on someone’s physical appearance, they oftentimes present themselves before the “judge” is aware they they are judging. Indeed, despite how strongly you protest you operate beyond they influence of stereotypes or how little value you place on people’s physical appearance, you are wrong. In fact, these very beliefs contribute to the formation of schemas that serve as a framework for your understanding of events, groups, and individuals’ roles.

As I was listening to the lecture on Monday, I realized how easy it is to purposefully influence other people’s first impressions (i.e. thin slices) of yourself! Quite regularly, I use clothes to achieve this purpose; and I would argue that virtually everyone does as well. As an example, I would assume that everyone in our class can remember the process of picking out their first day of school outfit (if not in high school, than in middle school). If this example doesn’t hold true for you, then what about the day of your first interview, maybe an interview for college admission or for your first “real” job. Did you wear your favorite outfit, or did you wear something that would lead the interviewer to make certain assumptions/judgements about you? Personally, I wore something that I thought (based on my experiences and existing schemas) would characterize me as put-together, conservative, intelligent. An example we mentioned in class is the fact that many people choose to wear glasses in some situations based on the popular belief that glasses serve as a cue that the wearer is smart or educated.

Unfortunately, I view myself as someone who may rely on (and place too much stock in) clothes as a means to manipulate others’ impressions of me. Specifically, I rely on the fact that people with form a “thin slice” of me based on my appearance (i.e. my clothes), and that this appraisal will group me in one of their existing schemas. Therefore, I choose which outfit to wear based on which schema I am trying to appeal to. I say "thin slice away!" In my defense, I don’t do this everyday (at least not consciously :)). I save this sort of deliberation for “special occasions.” ;)

The first example that comes to mind is my extreme refusal to wear any brand affiliated with an activity that I personally don’t engage in. I cannot buy or even borrow any clothes on which the words “Etnies” or “DC” are visible. I don’t buy or wear these brands because I don’t skateboard, bike, rollerskate or participate in, let alone know how to do any of these sports, and I don’t want anyone getting the impression I do! My decision of what to wear on planes is another example of my preoccupation with my clothes serving as a potential contributor to others’ impressions of me. I rarely pick my traveling clothes on the basis of comfort. Instead, I think about the first people I’m going to see when I arrive at my destination and what I want them to “thin slice” me as. Specifically, when I go to St. Louis to see my grandma and my 9 aunts and uncles, I choose my outfit accordingly regardless of whether or not I have to catch a 7 am flight and this involves waking up an hour earlier than necessary to shower and get ready.

In sum, these examples serve as evidence for my belief that thin slicing serves as a method of characterizing someone based on your existing schemas.

**I'm not including any citations because there has been some drama in securing the book and thus the ideas I am referencing in this post are taken solely from the lecture Monday. :)

Hi!

My name is Hana, and I'm really excited about social psych! I'm a psych major, spanish minor, and I'm interested in continuing my education in graduate school in the fall of 2011! I'm from Austin, and I'm the oldest of 4 kids in my family, so I'm excited to learn even more ways to manipulate my younger siblings :P This past summer I spent 6 weeks in Malaga, Spain (studying spanish) and I am hoping that I'll be able to return this summer! Yay!

I look forward to learning more about everyone and about social psychologyyy! :)

-Hana Morton