Participation Expectations
For each discussion activity, you are responsible for posting at least one substantive initial response to the discussion questions posed, as well, as a reply to at least two other postings made by your classmates.
Your initial substantive posting should be a thoughtful reflection on at least one aspect of the discussion theme or question posed and can either initiate a line of discussion or be in response to someone else’s posting (i.e., adding your own perspective or additional research to it). Keep in mind that quality is better than quantity and “me too” and “I agree” type postings add little to the conversation. Your postings should demonstrate that you have read and thought about the course material. You are encouraged to reference your course textbook in your postings as well as other relevant outside literature.
Some points to keep in mind:
- Be clear and to the point in your postings.
- Edit your work. Your posts should be coherent and use proper grammar and spelling.
- Keep postings to 300-350 words. Quality is better than quantity.
- Contribute your own thoughts about the material you have read.
- Support your thoughts by referencing the textbook or other outside literature.
- Raise additional questions or points of discussion to stimulate further discussion
- If you have questions, show that you have already tried to find a solution.
- Respect the viewpoints of your peers. Ask for clarification if you don’t understand a point. Assume good intentions.
- Use the proper terminology introduced in the course readings.
- When using literature in your postings, make sure to provide references in proper APA Style.
- Show respect and sensitivity to peers’ gender, cultural and linguistic background, political, and religious beliefs.
You are strongly encouraged to take the time to review the following documents on writing quality discussion posting and on taking roles in discussions.
PREPARING TO WRITE
1. Read assigned material—critically—and take notes as you read: Who wrote this material (a respected expert? an activist with a specific aim or belief?) Do they have any possible biases? Are studies reliable and valid? (What kind of research was performed?) When was this material written? Are the definitions/conditions/opinions described still accur vant? ate/rele Is an opinion expressed? How might someone disagree? How does this material relate to other concepts and theories you are studying? (Remember, instructors choose readings with a plan in mind—try to imagine why they have assigned this reading) Does the article complement other things you have learned? Is it in opposition? 2. Read and understand the discussion question or topic provided by your instructor • What are you asked to do? (Formulate an opinion? Respond to a question? Explain a concept or theory?) • How are you asked to do this? What kind of information are you expected to include (e.g., supporting quotations or references, examples, etc.) Do you need to bring in outside research? 3. Sort out the finer details • Is there a word maximum? Minimum? (Most posts will be 1‐2 paragraphs maximum). • How many times are you expected to post? (Find out if you are required to post a certain number of times per question, per week, etc.) • How much of your grade is this component worth?Each post? Budget your time accordingly
A.re you expected to respond to other students’ posts? What proportion of original posts versus responses are you asked to provide?
INITIAL POSTS – An initial post is a response to the original question presented by the course instructor, or the opening post on a particular topic (i.e., not responding to other students’ posts). Consider each post a “mini‐thesis,” in which you state a position and provide support for it. If you are responding to a question, be sure to 1. Take a position: Provide a clear answer to the question (incorporate some of the wording of the question in your answer if possible). 2. Offer a reasoned argument: Provide an explanation for your point of view, and use evidence from your text, notes, or outside research (where appropriate) to support your point. 3. Stay focused: End with a summary comment to explain the connection between your evidence and the question (how your evidence proves your point). Your post might also introduce a question or idea that others can follow up on. But make sure you have answered the question first!
Discusssion Marking rubric.
A+ Discussion Post A+
Initial Post
/2.5 points
deliver information that is full of thought, insight, and analysis • make insightful connections to course content • make insightful connections to real-life situations • contain rich and fully developed new ideas, connections, or applications • contain no spelling errors and typos
Question of discussion is –
June 17 – June 20
Use this discussion area to complete the Reflection Activity in Unit 12.
For the final week of the course, you are asked to reflect on your learning process and what you found useful and not so useful. Please share your thoughts and your learning experience with your group on the discussion board.
Refer to the Outline for the specific dates for this discussion and when your initial response should be posted by. Discussion participation expectations can be found in the Assessments section of the course website.
During the week, be sure to spend some time reviewing and responding to the posts of your discussion group members.
- write in 310 words. follow proper guidlibes as given in begning. Use AP7 STYLE OWL PURDE. Provide refrence.
Write in on own words.
Some points to keep in mind:
Be clear and to the point in your postings.
Edit your work. Your posts should be coherent and use proper grammar and spelling.
Keep postings to 300-350 words. Quality is better than quantity.
Contribute your own thoughts about the material you have read.
Support your thoughts by referencing the textbook or other outside literature.
Raise additional questions or points of discussion to stimulate further discussion.
If you have questions, show that you have already tried to find a solution.
Respect the viewpoints of your peers. Ask for clarification if you don’t understand a point. Assume good intentions.
Use the proper terminology introduced in the course readings.
When using literature in your postings, make sure to provide references in proper APA Style.
Show respect and sensitivity to peers’ gender, cultural and linguistic background, political, and religious beliefs.
These are the readings which i find useful are as follows
Readings
reading1
Attraction and Intimacy
Beginning in the late 1950s and continuing for about the next two decades, social psychologists who researched interpersonal were interested mainly in identifying the antecedents of interpersonal attraction. Indeed, social psychologists identified a great many factors associated with one person liking another. Since these early approaches, the study of social interaction and personal relationships has flourished. Researchers have focused much of their effort on defining and distinguishing between different types of relationships and measuring different relationship qualities. Researchers have distinguished, for example, intimate from non-intimate relationships and close relationships from casual friendships. Measures were devised for categorizing and comparing relationships in terms of their relative amount of intimacy, or passionate and companionate love.
More recently there has been a shift toward the dynamics of relationships that focus on how relationships are initiated, develop over time, and flourish or dissolve. Current research on social interaction and personal relationships focus less on relationships as objects, and more on the process of relating, and how relationships are maintained through everyday interaction and conversation. Thus, for example, relationships are examined not only in terms of the amount of intimacy they contain, but in terms of how intimacy is communicated in developing long-term relationships, and how the expression of intimacy within a relationship influences the future course of that relationship. Theoretical Models of Relationship Development How do relationships develop beyond the initial attraction stage? One theory of relationship development is based on the principle of reinforcement. Simply put, we like and seek out contact with others when we receive some reward in their presence, and we dislike others when we receive some punishment in their presence (Byrne & Murnen, 1988; Lott & Lott, 1974). For positive reinforcement to occur, we must come to associate positive affect with the presence of another person. If someone continuously smiles and waves to you, as he or she passes by and if you find this pleasing you will associate this feeling of pleasure with the other person. There are more indirect ways in which we may come to associate the presence of another person with positive affect. Imagine that you frequent a charming little café most afternoons. Walking into the café, you smell the wonderful baked goods. You anticipate drinking the best cup of coffee in the city. The sensual experience of the café is a sure fire way to improve your mood. If, every time you walk into the café the same person working behind the counter greets you, you may become attracted to this person and wish to pursue a relationship with him or her. That is, you may associate your improved mood with the presence of this person and not the atmosphere of the café.
A second view is based on the assumption that social norms govern our expectations for different kinds of relationships. According to the social norms theory of relationships we have different expectations for what we should do for others, and what others should do for us, in different types of relationships. Adherence to social norms promotes or maintains attraction and the smooth functioning of relationships. Violation of those norms causes attraction to decrease and relationships to deteriorate (Clark & Pataki, 1995). Clark and Mills (Clark & Mills, 1979; Clark & Pataki, 1995; Mills & Clark 1994) have researched extensively the norms that govern two types of relationships: communal and exchange relationships. According to Clark and Mills, for each type of relationship there are distinct rules that govern the intentional giving and acceptance of benefits. Communal relationships are characterized by feelings of responsibility for another’s well being. Included in this category are family relationships, romantic relationships, and friendships. Within communal relationships, benefits are given without expectation of repayment. If a friend does a favour for you, you do not feel obligated to immediately repay that friend with another favour. Similarly, if a parent buys a child new clothes the child is not expected to reciprocate with some other gift for the parent. Thus, following communal norms gives partners a mutual sense of security. Exchange relationships do not provide this sense of security. In exchange relationships there is typically little or no feeling of responsibility for another. Benefits given by one person to another are debts that the other must someday repay. Business relationships, or relationships with acquaintances, are often governed by exchange relationship norms.
In laboratory studies of communal and exchange relationships, relationship type is manipulated by having research participants interact with an attractive and friendly person who, in the communal condition, has expressed an interest in getting to know new people. In the exchange condition, research participants are told that this other person has established ties in the community, is married, and has no expressed interest in meeting new people. To demonstrate the power of social norms in communal and exchange relationships, Clark and Mills (1979) examined whether repaying someone for help would enhance attraction in exchange relationships but cause attraction to decrease in communal relationships. Male participants were asked to work beside an attractive female student (actually a confederate of the experimenters) on a word task that involved forming words with letter tiles. Points were awarded according to performance. In each trial, the participant was always allowed to finish first, and was awarded extra points. The participant was then asked if he wanted to transfer his extra letter tiles to the female student to help her finish (all participants agreed to do so). The female student responded by either thanking the participant, or repaying him by transferring some of her own points to the participant. Later, when participants were asked to indicate how much they liked the female student, a clear pattern emerged.
The need for affiliation
Human beings have a basic need to affiliate with others. Humans seek to connect or associate with one another for many different reasons. It is likely that our most distant ancestors sought to affiliate with one another because of their most basic needs for protection against harm, and for the pooling and sharing of resources and labour. In our times, the need for affiliation is more often related to the need to stave off loneliness, to gain social support, and add meaning to our lives. The need to affiliate is not equivalent in all people. Some people prefer to live like hermits and appear to have little or no need to affiliate with others. In contrast, some people continuously seek the company of others and find it unbearable to be alone. For some, the need for affiliation extends to other species. How many of us, when frustrated with the people in our lives, seek comfort and solace in the company of a cherished pet?
Our personal need to affiliate varies over time and from situation to situation. For example, we are most likely to affiliate with others in threatening or aversive circumstances. In a famous study by Schachter (1959), participants were informed that they were to receive painful electric shocks. Other participants were told that they would receive mild shocks that were not at all painful. All participants were told they had to wait 10 minutes before the experiment began. They were given the option of waiting alone or waiting in the company of other participants who were to receive the same level of shock. Whereas 63% of participants who expected to receive painful shocks chose to wait in the company of others, only 33% of participants who expected to receive mild shocks made the same choice. When faced with a greater threat, participants preferred to wait in the company of other participants who shared a similar fate.
Why is it that people want to affiliate with others in threatening situations? One explanation, based on social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), states that in ambiguous situations (i.e., in the absence of a standard for conduct), we seek out similar others in order to determine how we should act. Taylor and her colleagues (Taylor, Buunk & Aspinwall, 1990; Taylor & Lobel, 1989) examined social comparisons among cancer patients. They found that people in threatening situations look to others, not only for a standard for their conduct, but also for the purpose of self-enhancement. There are times when we make downward social comparisons; we compare ourselves to others who are faring worse than us that we may shore up our own sense that we are handling the situation relatively well. “I may be nervous, but at least I’m not falling apart like him.” Surprisingly, in threatening situations we may also make upward social comparisons; we compare ourselves to those who appear to be handling the situation better than us. These comparisons allow us to recognize that, because others are handling the situation well, there is opportunity for us to improve how we are handling it. Such comparisons may lead us to conclude: “If she can stay that calm, maybe I can too.”
Another explanation is derived from the concept of social support. Cassel (1974) and Cobb (1976) separately conducted influential reviews of the empirical literature on those variables that minimize the harmful effects of stress on individuals. From their reviews of human and animal research they concluded that individuals were better able to withstand the effects of stress when in the presence of others. For humans, it appears that strong and satisfying personal attachments to others was a particularly important factor for promoting physical health and emotional well-being. According to Cassel and Cobb, one of the most important functions of socially supportive relationships is the communication of feedback regarding how the individual is coping with a particular situation (Gottlieb, 1983). People choose to be with others when they find themselves in threatening circumstances. They choose to be with others partly because they can interact with them and through these interactions they derive social support. It is notable that in aversive circumstances that occur outside of the laboratory, we search for people with whom we have already developed an intimate, satisfying personal relationship. Although people waiting for painful and invasive dental surgery would prefer to wait in a room with strangers, they would probably prefer to wait with close friends or family members.
Reading:2
1. Automatic feedback on quizzes.
It guide me in improving my work and understanding areas needing more focus.
2. Access to a variety of learning materials, including videos,and extra content on courselink board, catered to different learning styles and helped reinforce the content.
Reading -3
Factors Influencing Interpersonal Attraction
We meet many people over the course of our lives, yet few of these encounters lead to close relationships. Why do people sometimes form a close bond and say things like “It was love at first sight;” “We just clicked together;” or “I felt a tingle run through my body”?
PROXIMITY (PROPINQUITY)
We are more likely to become attracted to people who live relatively close to us. This finding has been replicated in a variety of settings, both with friendships and marital partners. Bossard (1932) examined marriage licenses issued in a large American city and found that, of 5000 applicants, over 1/3 lived within 5 blocks of each other, and as the distance between the residences of the engaged couples increased, the percentage of marriages steadily decreased. Other studies have shown that those who live near each other in dormitories or apartments are more likely to become friends than are those who live farther apart. Ebbesen, Kjos and Konecni (1976) found that the closer two people lived to each other in an apartment building, the more likely it was that they would become best friends as opposed to only good friends.
Clearly if one lives near someone, or attends the same classes, there are more opportunities to interact with this person. Increased interaction, though, is not the only reason for the effect of propinquity on interpersonal attraction. Research suggests that the greater familiarity that comes from repeated exposure to another person leads to a corresponding positive change in our evaluations of that person. Simply put, we hold more favourable impressions of people with whom we are more familiar than we do of people with whom we are less familiar. Zajonc’s (1968) work with a variety of stimuli provides strong support for the repeated exposure hypothesis. In one study, for example, it was found that the more often people were exposed to novel Chinese language characters the more positive were the attitudes that they expressed towards those characters after the exposure.
Other research demonstrates similar effects with pictures of human faces (Moreland & Zajonc, 1982). Mita, Dermer and Knight (1977) showed participants photographic portraits of themselves printed properly or with the image reversed (i.e., a mirror image). The participants’ friends were also shown the same two photographs. The researchers found that participants preferred the photographs printed in the reverse image, while their friends preferred the true image. Familiarity seems to be the best explanation for these findings. Because we see ourselves mostly in the mirror, and our faces are not perfectly symmetrical, the image of ourselves with which we are most familiar is a reverse one of that seen by others. Our friends, on the other hand, are most familiar with the true image, and that is the one they prefer.
Of course, repeated exposure to others does not necessarily lead to increased attraction. Sometimes familiarity may breed dislike or contempt. Increased exposure may decrease attraction by making unpleasant characteristics more noticeable. Indeed, Ebbesen et al. found that decreased distance increased disliking of others.
Similarity
“Birds of a feather flock together” is a common folk-saying about friendship. Social psychological research, for the most part, lends support to the common belief that similarity and attraction are positively related. According to Rubin (1973), married and dating couples exhibit considerable similarity in age, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic status, intelligence, physical attractiveness, and attitudes. The tendency for people who are similar to marry one another is called homogamy. Newcomb (1961) studied the effect of attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction. By taking measures of attitude similarity before students arrived and met each other at a dormitory, and then repeating these measures along with measures of liking during the course of a semester, Newcomb showed that friendships at the end of the semester could be predicted by similarity of attitudes held by students at the start of the semester.
Laboratory research also found effects of attitude similarity on attraction. In a series of studies, all using a similar research paradigm, Donn Byrne and his colleagues (e.g., Byrne & Nelson, 1965) investigated this relationship. In these studies university students were brought into a laboratory, asked their attitudes, and, given a list of attitudes that were supposedly those of another person with whom they were going to interact. Actually, the experimenter programmed the attitudes they saw so that some were similar to those of the participant, while others were contrary to those of the participant. Based on the list of attitudes, participants were asked how much they liked the person they were to meet. The results of this series of studies were consistent. The amount that people like others appears to be a positive linear function of the proportion of similar attitudes they hold.
There are at least two ways in which the principles of propinquity and similarity may be complementary. First, people who share similar religious, ethnic, or socioeconomic backgrounds, and who are likely to share similar attitudes and values, are more likely to live in the same neighbourhoods, attend the same schools, and belong to the same religious, social groups and institutions. Therefore, people with similar attitudes may be more likely to interact than people who have dissimilar values. Second, propinquity creates more opportunity for social contact. The increased social contact allows for more opportunity to gain information about another person and discover shared attitudes that, in turn, form the basis for pursuing a more intimate relationship.
Physical Attractiveness
Physical attractiveness is one of the most powerful influences on interpersonal attraction. Walster et al. (1966) paid students $1.00 each to attend a dance. Participants were told that a computer would be used to pair them with dates matched to their particular characteristics. This premise allowed Walster et al. to collect data on the attitudes, personality, values, and physical attractiveness of each participant. Participants were, in fact, randomly paired up. Halfway through the dance, the participants rated how much they liked their dates. Regardless of their own level of attractiveness, participants preferred physically attractive dates. Moreover, self-esteem, intellectual ability, and personality traits were not predictive of liking.
Although physical attraction does not predict the long-term success of relationships, it appears to be an important influence on our initial encounters with others. Specifically, it appears that we tend to associate physical attractiveness with positive personality traits. A study by Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972) supports the notion that, at least with regard to first impressions, we tend to judge a book by its cover. In their study, Dion et al. presented university-aged students with photographs of three people of a similar age to the students. The people pictured in the photographs had previously been rated by other students as average, above average, or below average in physical attractiveness. The participants rated these photographs on 27 personality traits and also judged the likelihood that the persons portrayed in the photographs would experience future happiness. Physically attractive people were rated as possessing significantly more socially desirable qualities, such as intelligence, warmth and poise, than either the average or unattractive stimulus persons. More attractive people were also judged to have better prospects for future success. These results held regardless of the combination of the sex of the participant rating the photographs and the sex of the person in the photograph.
Dion et al.’s findings have been replicated in diverse samples and settings. Even nursery school children seem to associate physical attractiveness with positive personality traits. Dion (1973) found that children as young as four years of age were likely to say that it was the attractive children they liked most, and that unattractive children “scared” them. Landy and Sigall (1974) conducted a study that is likely to be of great interest to students. Male judges rated essays that were purposefully constructed to be either poor (i.e., disorganized and ungrammatical) or good (i.e., well organized and clear). In two conditions, pictures of the purported authors were attached. In one condition, the photos featured attractive females. Unattractive females were in the other condition. In another condition, no pictures were attached. The judges gave the unattractive women less credit for the well-written essay and they were more punitive for the poorly written essay. In contrast, attractive women appeared to get more credit than they deserved when their work was poor.
Clearly, physical attractiveness is a potent influence on various social judgments. Everyone would, presumably, prefer a physically attractive partner. But this is not possible. The preference for a physically attractive partner appears to be tempered when we seek partners for long-term relationships. Regarding selection of a spouse, for example, some support seems to exist for the matching hypothesis (Berscheid et al., 1971). People tend to choose partners who are similar to them in physical attractiveness. Price and Vandenberg (1979) found that married couples, regardless of age or length of marriage, were similar in level of attractiveness. In part, matching may be explained by a desire to minimize the possibility of rejection by a much more attractive person. At the same time, we are not “settling” for someone who is much less attractive (Bernstein et al., 1983).
Reading: 4
Especially this reading:
Theoretical Models of Relationship Development
How do relationships develop beyond the initial attraction stage? One theory of relationship development is based on the principle of reinforcement. Simply put, we like and seek out contact with others when we receive some reward in their presence, and we dislike others when we receive some punishment in their presence (Byrne & Murnen, 1988; Lott & Lott, 1974). For positive reinforcement to occur, we must come to associate positive affect with the presence of another person. If someone continuously smiles and waves to you, as he or she passes by and if you find this pleasing you will associate this feeling of pleasure with the other person. There are more indirect ways in which we may come to associate the presence of another person with positive affect. Imagine that you frequent a charming little café most afternoons. Walking into the café, you smell the wonderful baked goods. You anticipate drinking the best cup of coffee in the city. The sensual experience of the café is a sure fire way to improve your mood. If, every time you walk into the café the same person working behind the counter greets you, you may become attracted to this person and wish to pursue a relationship with him or her. That is, you may associate your improved mood with the presence of this person and not the atmosphere of the café. A second view is based on the assumption that social norms govern our expectations for different kinds of relationships. According to the social norms theory of relationships we have different expectations for what we should do for others, and what others should do for us, in different types of relationships. Adherence to social norms promotes or maintains attraction and the smooth functioning of relationships. Violation of those norms causes attraction to decrease and relationships to deteriorate (Clark & Pataki, 1995). Clark and Mills (Clark & Mills, 1979; Clark & Pataki, 1995; Mills & Clark 1994) have researched extensively the norms that govern two types of relationships: communal and exchange relationships. According to Clark and Mills, for each type of relationship there are distinct rules that govern the intentional giving and acceptance of benefits. Communal relationships are characterized by feelings of responsibility for another’s well being. Included in this category are family relationships, romantic relationships, and friendships. Within communal relationships, benefits are given without expectation of repayment. If a friend does a favour for you, you do not feel obligated to immediately repay that friend with another favour. Similarly, if a parent buys a child new clothes the child is not expected to reciprocate with some other gift for the parent. Thus, following communal norms gives partners a mutual sense of security. Exchange relationships do not provide this sense of security. In exchange relationships there is typically little or no feeling of responsibility for another. Benefits given by one person to another are debts that the other must someday repay. Business relationships, or relationships with acquaintances, are often governed by exchange relationship norms. In laboratory studies of communal and exchange relationships, relationship type is manipulated by having research participants interact with an attractive and friendly person who, in the communal condition, has expressed an interest in getting to know new people. In the exchange condition, research participants are told that this other person has established ties in the community, is married, and has no expressed interest in meeting new people. To demonstrate the power of social norms in communal and exchange relationships, Clark and Mills (1979) examined whether repaying someone for help would enhance attraction in exchange relationships but cause attraction to decrease in communal relationships. Male participants were asked to work beside an attractive female student (actually a confederate of the experimenters) on a word task that involved forming words with letter tiles. Points were awarded according to performance. In each trial, the participant was always allowed to finish first, and was awarded extra points. The participant was then asked if he wanted to transfer his extra letter tiles to the female student to help her finish (all participants agreed to do so). The female student responded by either thanking the participant, or repaying him by transferring some of her own points to the participant. Later, when participants were asked to indicate how much they liked the female student, a clear pattern emerged.
Especially this reading also Reading 5:
In one study conducted in France, 300 women on Facebook were sent a friend request along with a message that contained references to shared similarities of hobbies, birthdate, and interests (Martin, Jacob, & Guéguen, 2013). Three of the following messages were randomly selected to be sent: no mention of the common similarities (i.e., hobbies, birthdate, and interests), one mention of the similarities, and two similarities were mentioned. The results indicated that compliance of the friend request was common when there were two mentions of similarities (Martin et al., 2013). This gives insight into how we select our network on social media: based on similarities.
The power of similar sources in leading to persuasion is one explanation for the nearly $200 million in annual revenue earned by a company you have probably never heard of—Vector Marketing, which sells Cutco kitchen knives. The strategy this company uses is to recruit people (mostly university students) to attend an orientation session in which they learn how to make face‐to‐face sales calls to sell knives. Sellers are encouraged to sell the knives first to family members and friends (supposedly as a way of gaining experience in pitching the product). Then, at the end of these sales presentations, the sellers are told to ask for referrals to other people who might want to buy these knives—and what could be more persuasive than receiving a call about a product that your friend suggested you would want to hear about?
The Tupperware Brands Corporation and their home party was a pioneer in using this technique in the 1950s. Tupperware kitchen and home products are sold at homes, schools, and other community locations where the host invites family, friends, colleagues, and neighbours. The Tupperware representative is also present at these parties and everyone is aware that the host receives a percentage of the sale. The success of this method stems mainly from the act of buying from a friend rather than an unknown salesperson.
CREDIBILITY.
Sources who appear credible, meaning competent and trustworthy, are more persuasive than those who lack credibility (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994; Priester & Petty, 2003; Smith, De Houwer, & Nosek, 2012; Verplanken, 1991). This is why doctors are often quoted in advertisements for health‐related products. For children between the ages of 7 and 10, best friends are particularly influential. Barbara Morrongiello and Tess Dawber (2004) from the University of Guelph had children choose between risky or non‐risky alternatives in a variety of play situations. Having made their choice, their best friend was able to persuade them to make the other choice approximately half the time. Peers in general (not just best friends) are also influential with this age group of elementary school‐aged children (Morrongiello & Lasenby‐Lessard, 2007).
We’re also more convinced by sources that we believe are trustworthy, meaning those who don’t have an ulterior motive for convincing us. Thus, if someone tries to convince you to join a health club and you’re aware that the person will receive a month’s free membership if you join, you’re more likely to question his or her credibility as a proponent of the club. Our concern about people’s ulterior motives helps explain why we see expert witnesses who are paid for their testimony as less believable than those who volunteer (Edens et al., 2012).
People who argue unexpected positions—those that seem to go against their own self‐interests—are often especially persuasive because they’re seen as highly credible (Wood & Eagly, 1981). Messages that favour a view that goes against participants’ expectations are seen as more factually based than those that subscribe to the expected side and therefore lead to greater attitude change. In a series of studies conducted in the United States, Taly Reich and Zakary Tormala (2013) examined how contradictions within arguments influenced persuasion.
They found that an individual would most likely be persuaded by a contradiction only when the source was perceived to be from a single, highly credible source.
The credibility of a speaker is particularly influential when people have recently been exposed to another persuasive message (Tormala & Clarkson, 2007). Specifically, when people have just received a persuasive message from a source with low credibility, they’re more persuaded by a message from a moderately credible source than if they had first received a message from a source with high credibility. This study indicates that our evaluation of source credibility is influenced not only by the source’s credentials but also by the credentials of other sources we have recently seen.
Repeated exposure to a persuasive message can also lead individuals to attribute the message to a more credible source that is falsely perceived to exist. In one American study, Danielle Polage (2012) tested how false stories that felt familiar would influence participants into thinking the stories actually were something they read in the news or heard people talking about it. Participants were given five true stories to read (e.g., how drinking tea puts you at a decreased risk of dying if you already had a heart attack), and half of those participants were also given five false stories (e.g., California passing a law that prevents people in debt from opening new credit cards). They were also asked to rate the credibility of each publication. Participants were asked to come back in five weeks where they answered questions about the stories presented initially. The results indicated that those who had read the false stories rated them as more truthful and real rather than something that was fabricated. Additionally, the same participants said that they read and heard of the stories from an outside source, other than the lab. The findings suggest that when one is familiar with a piece of information, one is more likely to think of it as credible or even real.
Even non‐credible sources can become more persuasive over time, a phenomenon known as the sleeper effect (Pratkanis, Greenwald, Leippe, & Baumgardner, 1988). This occurs because over time, people may remember the message, but not remember the speaker. For example, you might read something in Glamour and initially discount it because of its source, but a few months later you might recall the information, but forget that you read it in Glamour and therefore believe it. In one German study about the power of the sleeper effect, participants read an online news article (with anonymous comments in the comments section) and were asked about the article’s persuasiveness (Heinbach, Ziegele, & Quiring, 2018). Participants were 181 undergraduate students. The study examined whether the credibility of the website (credible or non‐credible source) and positivity of the comments (positive or negative comments) influenced participants’ opinions. They found that, similar to traditional discounting cues (source credibility), participants felt that articles with negative comments seemed less persuasive. In terms of the sleeper effect, they found that participants’ opinion of the articles that came with positive comments decreased over time, but not in the negative nor control conditions (Heinbach et al., 2018). The study, however, did not find the sleeper effect in terms of credibility of the source.
sleeper effect – the phenomenon by which a message that initially is not particularly persuasive becomes more persuasive over time because people forget its source
- SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORYDuring our discussion above, you may have noticed that effects such as deindividuation are intragroup processes. However, an important aspect of crowd behaviour—one that was overlooked by Le Bon, Allport, Zimbardo, and others—is its intergroup dimension (Reicher, 1984; Reicher & Potter, 1985). Stephen Reicher, a British psychologist, argued that in many crowd situations, there are at least two groups. This simple point was virtually ignored in all previous theories of crowd behaviour. For example, in the G20 summit demonstration in Hamburg, Germany, there were demonstrators and a large number of police officers, and these two groups were interacting. In other words, each group was acting in response to the behaviour (or even the expected behaviour) of the other group. This occurs even when people are protesting in the absence of another group, such as the police, a rival group of sports fans, or a rival group of political supporters. They’re usually protesting against another group, perhaps a ruling elite. Reicher’s insight has finally moved research into crowd behaviour beyond the “mad or bad” discussions that are over a century old now; he asserted that crowd behaviour is often intergroup behaviour, in terms of which the behaviour can make more sense—it is not simply mad or bad.The other important insight about crowds, which follows from the idea of crowd behaviour as intergroup behaviour, is that people in a crowd do not lose their identity in some way but instead assume a new social identity as a member of a particular group. According to Reicher (1984), people in a crowd, although they may lose some personal identity, adopt (if only temporarily) a stronger sense of social identity. Therefore, in crowds there is a change of identity rather than loss of identity. Reicher’s argument is based on the social identity theory of Tajfel (1982), which we will explain next.This alternative view of crowd behaviour helps explain the behaviour of demonstrators and police in Hamburg, Germany, during the 2017 G20 summit. The police adopted the identity and role of protecting the local and foreign government delegates. This shared identity created norms of conduct in that specific situation. The police acted by dispersing, intimidating, and arresting many demonstrators (who they perceived as a threat to the group they were entrusted with protecting, i.e., the state and non‐demonstrating majority). On the other hand, demonstrators shared a different social identity. They came together for a specific purpose (i.e., protesting against the G20 summit) and reacted to what they perceived as police aggression by targeting police property and vandalizing local shops and businesses (perceiving that the police, as representatives and guardians of the capitalist status quo, had violated their right to peaceful protest). Therefore, although both groups (police and demonstrators) were exposed to the same environment, their group membership (and their expectations of, and the behaviour of, the other group) determined the behaviour they engaged in.In sum, when people are in a group, and that group membership is salient, it’s their group goal and group identity that regulate their behaviour. Additionally, when examining collective behaviour, it’s important to realize that “the crowd” doesn’t exist in isolation; rather it can represent one group and there is often another group involved as well—even if that group isn’t physically present (e.g., in 2019 in London hundreds gathered to protest the king of Brunei’s law that has homosexuals sentenced to death). Therefore, as Brown (2000) notes, to understand what goes on inside a crowd, it’s important to examine crowds from an intergroup perspective. This is not to say that other perspectives are wrong or irrelevant, but to ignore the intergroup aspect of crowd behaviour is to ignore one of its important elements. Social identity theory, as we will now see, helps explain this aspect of crowd behaviour and other social behaviour (see Environmental Connections).According to social identity theory, each person strives to enhance his or her self‐esteem, which is composed of both personal identity and social identity (Tajfel, 1982). Because our group memberships influence our thoughts, feelings, and behaviour, we’re motivated to affiliate with successful groups as a way of increasing our own feelings of self‐worth (Smith & Tyler, 1997; Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford, 1986). In line with this, Van De Rijt, Akin, Willer, and Feinberg (2016) conducted a study in Alabama, the United States, that employing fake political petitions demonstrated that people, subconsciously, like to affiliate themselves with a popular political party, or a successful group. In turn, people can feel good about themselves by calling attention to their connection to successful people or groups (e.g., Indian Canadians who see the success of comedian Russell Peters, or those affected by cancer who watched Jack Layton became the leader of the official opposition while fighting the disease). In sum, people favour their in‐groups over their out‐groups in order to enhance their self‐esteem. Figure 9.2 presents the theory.social identity theory – a theory that posits that each person strives to enhance his or her self‐esteem, which is composed of two parts: a personal identity and a social identitySocial identity theory also posits that threats to one’s self‐esteem increase the need for in‐group favouritism (Tajfel, 1982). Therefore, people whose group is threatened and those who feel bad about themselves develop more in‐group identification and are more likely to derogate out‐group members (Forgas & Fiedler, 1996; Marques, Abrams, Paez, & Martinez‐Taboada, 1998). This view is sustained by Martiny and Rubin (2016), who showed that people sometimes join groups to increase their self‐esteem and, at times, their social status. Therefore, people are motivated to see their group in a positive light and favour their group. In‐group favouritism and out‐group derogation are particularly likely to occur under specific conditions—if status of the group is being threatened, if the status of the individual within a group is being threatened, and if the group is small.Each participant came into the lab to take part in a study on performance and was given an extremely boring task to complete—to move each of 48 spools of thread a quarter turn in one direction, then another quarter turn, then another quarter turn, and then back again to their starting position, for an entire hour. Then, after the participant was finally told that the experiment was finished, the experimenter asked for a favour. He explained that this experiment was not really on “measures of performance,” as the participant had been told, but was actually on the influence of expectations about a task on how people see the task. The participant was further told that, being in the control condition, he or she was not given any prior expectation about what to expect, but the next participant, who was due to arrive any minute, was in the “positive expectation” condition. Moreover, the experimenter told that the research assistant who was supposed to give the next student the positive expectations was running late, and it would be appreciated if the participant would be willing to stay and just tell the next participant that the experiment was really fun and exciting. Some of the participants were offered $20 (a considerable sum in the 1950s) to lie to the next participants, whereas others were offered only $1 to lie. All participants agreed to lie, and after doing so, they were asked by the experimenter what they thought of the experiment (on a 1 to 25 scale, with 1 indicating very unenjoyable).What do you think happened? Contrary to reward theory, those who were given $20 admitted that they found the task boring, as did those who were given no money. But what about those who were given $1 to lie? As shown in Figure 5.4, they actually claimed they sort of liked the task!This experiment demonstrates that receiving insufficient justification for engaging in an attitude‐discrepant behaviour can lead to attitude change. In other words, if you engage in a behaviour that is counter‐attitudinal, you must make some kind of a justification. If the external justification is high (“Well, I did get $20”), you will attribute your behaviour to external factors and not change your attitude (“Boy, that task really was boring, but worth it for $20”), but if the external justification is low ($1), you must explain your behaviour using internal factors (“Well, I must have at least liked the task a little”).Although the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study demonstrated the negative effects of insufficient justification—that people convince themselves they like something they didn’t really enjoy—this principle can also be used to promote positive behaviours. For example, researchers at Trinity University in the United States examined how cognitive dissonance techniques could be employed to prevent eating disordered behaviours (Black Becker et al., 2010). Participants were 102 female students who had eating disorders. All participants attended two sessions related to the thin‐ideal body and received homework brainstorming the costs of pursuing the thin‐ideal. It was found that when women engaged in this activity, their eating disordered behaviours decreased (Black Becker et al., 2010). In this way, the participants felt less justification for continuing to engage in ongoing eating‐disordered behaviours after engaging in activities to prevent these unhealthy behaviours. Similarly, and as described in the following Health Connections box, cognitive dissonance can be used to promote change in unhealthy behaviours in those with clinical diagnoses.GRIT STRATEGYThe strategy known as GRIT (which stands for graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension‐reduction) refers to a particular approach to resolving conflict that involves unilateral and persistent efforts in order to establish trust and cooperation between opposing parties (Linskold & Han, 1988; Osgood, 1962). In this case, one party announces its intention to reduce conflict and invites the other party to reciprocate. Then the first party carries out its tension‐reducing activities as planned, even if there is no immediate response. This increases the party’s credibility and may put pressure on the other party to respond accordingly. Once the other party acts, the first party quickly reciprocates. If the other party retaliates, the first party then quickly retaliates at the same level.GRIT (graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension‐reduction) – a strategy for resolving conflict that involves unilateral and persistent efforts to establishing trust and cooperation between opposing partiesGRIT STRATEGYThe strategy known as GRIT (which stands for graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension‐reduction) refers to a particular approach to resolving conflict that involves unilateral and persistent efforts in order to establish trust and cooperation between opposing parties (Linskold & Han, 1988; Osgood, 1962). In this case, one party announces its intention to reduce conflict and invites the other party to reciprocate. Then the first party carries out its tension‐reducing activities as planned, even if there is no immediate response. This increases the party’s credibility and may put pressure on the other party to respond accordingly. Once the other party acts, the first party quickly reciprocates. If the other party retaliates, the first party then quickly retaliates at the same level.GRIT (graduated and reciprocated initiatives in tension‐reduction) – a strategy for resolving conflict that involves unilateral and persistent efforts to establishing trust and cooperation between opposing partiesFIGURE 9.5 FORMING A NEW GROUP WITH CROSS‐CATEGORICAL MEMBERSHIPParticipants who use the GRIT strategy are more likely to reach optimal agreements and feel differently about their interaction partner than those who use competitive strategies.One dramatic and effective example of GRIT was the disarmament of FARC, a Marxist group in Colombia who has engaged in armed struggle with the Colombian government for decades. FARC handed in thousands of weapons. When President Juan Manuel Santos came into power, he began secret talks with FARC commanders, which led to negotiations and a peace accord (Voa News, 2017). Since the peace accord, there has been a reduction in homicide and kidnapping rates across Colombia (Biettel, 2018).
In turn, people in collectivistic cultures should put less blame on obese people for their weight, and thereby show lower levels of prejudice and discrimination than people in individualistic cultures, who would be expected to place greater emphasis on the role of personal responsibility in determining weight. For example, a study that was conducted in China examined the attitudes of 297 nurse practitioners toward overweight patients. The researchers found that participants generally had neutral to slightly positive attitudes toward overweight patients, and they believed that being overweight was beyond the individual’s control. In comparison, in a cross‐cultural study that examined prejudicial attitudes against overweight individuals in the United States, Canada, Iceland, and Australia, it was found that participants from all countries attributed being overweight as related to having poor willpower and self‐control (Puhl et al., 2015).
In a longitudinal study consisting of 3,362 U.S. children from the fifth to eighth grade, researchers found that an increase in body size was associated with teacher’s negative perceptions of students (Kenney, Gortmaker, Davidson, & Austin, 2015). For girls, there was a marked reduction in their competence of reading ability and for boys, there was a reduction in their math ability. The results of this study demonstrate how stigmatizing attitudes against overweight children may influence school climate and teacher’s treatment of children. This study provides insight as to how stigmatizing attitudes against overweight children might potentially influence school climate and teacher’s treatment of children.There are, however, cultures where carrying more weight is clearly valued. For example, it has been reported for VICE News that in rural Mauritania young girls, starting from the age of eight, are force fed because fat women are traditionally viewed as more desirable. This reflects the belief that fat women are symbols of wealth and beauty and can find good husbands.STEREOTYPES ABOUT WOMEN.Cross‐cultural psychologists have examined development and socialization of gender stereotypes in many nations. One study of 3,323 participants from 26 countries found that women are perceived to be higher in traits of warmth, positive emotions, and vulnerability. On the other hand, men are perceived to be assertive, impulsive, and excitement seeking (Löckenhoff et al., 2014). Gender stereotype learning begins by age 5, accelerates in early school years, and peaks during adolescence (Best, 2010; Blum, Mmari, & Moreau, 2017; Williams & Best, 1990). Socialization within a culture plays a critical role in gender stereotype development. In a given culture, parents’ expectations influence children’s sex‐role behaviours, and children’s gender stereotypes reflect those of their parents (Best, 2004, 2010; Blum et al., 2017). Nonetheless, there are cultural differences in gender stereotypes and knowledge of stereotypical masculine or feminine behaviours. Hofstede (2001) found that in countries where the dominant culture is feminine, gender roles are less clearly delineated than in predominantly masculine countries. It’s more acceptable, therefore, for a father to stay at home and be a “house husband” in Sweden or the Netherlands than in Japan or Italy.Researchers Peter Glick and Susan Fiske developed a theory of sexism that distinguishes between hostile sexism and benevolent sexism, which we saw earlier, and tested their theory in 19 different countries (Glick & Fiske, 2001; Glick et al., 2004; Glick & Fiske, 2011; Glick, Berdahl, & Alonso, 2018). In some ways, sexist beliefs are very similar across different cultures:Hostile and benevolent sexism are correlated in all cultures, with hostile sexism predicting negative traits (e.g., uncooperative, rude, indecisive) and benevolent sexism predicting positive traits (e.g., cooperative, courteous, decisive).Although women show more rejection of hostile sexism than do men across cultures, both men and women commonly endorse benevolent sexism.Both men and women see men in more negative ways across cultures, but also see men as having more power.These hostile and benevolent attitudes toward women reflect and support gender inequality by describing men as inherently dominant.In other ways, cross‐cultural comparisons reveal different beliefs about women. Specifically, mean scores on both types of sexism in a given culture are inversely related to gender equality (i.e., there is less equality where there is more sexism) in such measures as women’s empowerment (e.g., representation in high‐powered roles in a society) and development (e.g., longevity, education, standards of living; Glick et al., 2004). In highly sexist cultures, women are also more likely to endorse benevolent sexism, and even more than men do in such cultures.This finding suggests that women may accept benevolent sexism as the lesser of two evils when they’re in a culture with generally negative attitudes toward women, and may be motivated to endorse this type of sexism as a way of gaining protection from men. Unfortunately, benevolent sexism can legitimize hostile sexism by allowing men to hold condescending attitudes toward women and can thereby undermine women’s efforts to achieve true equality.This perception of women as needing protection, and as part of the property of their families, can have dangerous, and even deadly, consequences. The term “honour killing” refers to an act of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members who are seen as having brought dishonour upon the family. This dishonour can be caused by refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, dating or marrying a person outside of their family’s ethnic and/or religious community, seeking a divorce, or committing adultery. These killings are supported not only by men in the family, but also by other women, due to the perception in these cultures that the family is the property and asset of men. Cultures in which “honour” is highly valued are also more inclined to tolerate violence against women within a relationship. In a comparison of “high honour” (“Latinos” and “Southern Anglos” in the United States, and Chileans) and “low honour” (“Northern Anglos” in the United States and “Anglo‐Canadians”), a combined Canadian and American research team including Ruth Grandon from the University of Waterloo found that participants in their study from honour cultures were relatively more favourable toward a woman who stayed in an abusive relationship, and rated the husband and his abusive actions more positively when the conflict was jealousy related (perceived flirting), than did participants from subcultures without strong honour traditions (Vandello, Cohen, Grandon, & Franiuk, 2009).Honour killings can occur even in cases in which the woman has no responsibility for the “dishonouring” behaviour. For example, in some cultures a single woman who is raped will be unable to garner a bride price if she marries. Moreover, women who are raped can be seen as worthless burdens that bring dishonour to their family—and may even be killed for this act of “allowing” themselves to be raped.Next readingStroessner, Hamilton and Mackie (1992) examined the role of affect in promoting the illusory correlation effect. In this study participants’ affective states were manipulated by showing them a videotape that induced a positive, negative, or neutral affective states. The positive mood video showed the performance of a comedian and the negative mood video presented a discussion of a child abuse case that resulted in the death of a child. Participants in a neutral mood condition watched a videotape of a National Geographic program concerning the exploration of a dormant volcano.
Social Influence Approach to Stereotypes
Arguably, social cognition approaches have overlooked the social forces that are also involved in stereotype formation and use. Indeed, widespread prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup conflict must, at least in part, result from stereotypes that are shared within groups. Turner et al. (1987) and Leyens et al. (1994) point out that the process of stereotyping is quite complex. Although we may respond to another based on race or religion, invoking racially based or religiously based stereotypes, a person is more than simply a skin colour or a religious denomination. A person is also tall or short, young or old, holds a particular kind of occupation, etc. The motivation to stereotype on the basis of group memberships such as ethnicity or religion may be derived from processes related to our own group membership. In this sense, much of the recent research in stereotyping and intergroup conflict has returned to Tajfel and Turner’s focus on intragroup processes as a way of understanding intergroup outcomes.Interestingly, it appears that stereotypes shared among group members derive not from the common experiences of group members, but instead from shared group membership. Members of the same group tend to interpret outgroup information in the same way. For example, members of an ingroup may share a stereotype of outgroup members as being lazy not because they have had similar experiences of the behaviour of members of the outgroup but, instead, because of how membership within their own group leads them to perceive the conduct of others. Specifically, through the process of informational social influence, people actively seek agreement with ingroup members about beliefs about members of an outgroup (Haslam, 1997). Those with whom an individual shares group membership act as sources that consensually validate subjectively held beliefs. Where there is disagreement between an individual and other group members, individuals will be motivated to change their views to make them consistent with those of the group.
