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.