Download Slides

Balance Theory (Fritz Heider)
Betty
(-)
+
+ (-)
Sue
Joan
+
(-)
Balance in Relationships
Balance Theory (cont.)
Betty
(+) -
+
Sue
(-)
Joan
+
(-)
Imbalance in Relationships
What about the “value” of this relationship?
Betty
+ -
+
Sue
Joan
+
Early Impression Formation
• Demonstrate socially desirable behavior
• Present oneself in a positive light
• Communicate positive views of others (including 3rd parties)
“Positive” people are generally perceived as
more likeable
~ Shared Negative Information and Liking ~
• Power of negative information
•
•
•
•
In photos, negative images have greater effect on likeability ratings
Quicker decision-making
Subliminal negative information processed more accurately and faster
Negative information more salient (uncommon) and informative about the
person’s “true” feelings (augments a dispositional attribution – Kelley)
(positive information more “normative” and affected by social desirability)
• Role of gossiping
• Implied trust in another
• Promotes downward social comparison
• Fosters in-group status and increased social identity (greater selfesteem)
Sharing negative information about another = (to the other person) you are not like them, you’re a
member of a different (“in”) group
~ Social Identity Theory ~
[In-Group Bias]
They tendency to link one’s self-concept and self esteem with the status and/or behavior of
groups
Also, people tend to reward members of in-groups (e.g., Minimal Group Paradigm) --Self-esteem
Basking in Reflected Glory --Favorite Football Team wins --- “We” --- More likely to wear team t-shirt
Favorite Football Team loses --- “They”
Study 1 (accounts of relationship with previous best friend and nonperson objects)
Study 2 (accounts of relationship with current three close friends and nonperson objects)
“While we were getting to know each other, my friend and I learned
that we both liked (disliked) _____
Participants believed that sharing positive attitudes promote interpersonal closeness
People remembered sharing a greater percent of negative attitudes about other people
early in their friendships
Participants recalled sharing a higher percent of positive attitudes about nonperson
objects/events (e.g., movies, beliefs) with their best friends
Negative information about others
Positive information about events, issues
Relationship
closeness
*** This may be especially true for those considered to be their closest friend
Study 3 (attempt to test for “causation”)
Valence manipulation:
“I looked over the other participant’s evaluations of Brad, and I just wanted to let you
know that you both identified the same thing that you liked/disliked about Brad.”
Commonness manipulation (uncommon example):
“Actually, it’s pretty uncommon for people to mention liking/disliking that particular thing
about Brad.” In fact, nobody else who has participated in this study has indicated that
attitude.”
Evaluation of partner:
To what degree do you think you and the other participant will click”
To what extent is the other person someone with whom you could establish a a friendship?
Regression: DV = Closeness; IVs = Attitude valence, Commonness of attitude, Strength of attitude
• Predictors = Negative attitude (marginal) and attitude strength. No effect of commonness
• Significant interaction between attitude valence and strength (see above). Negative valence of
shared attitudes affected closeness for those whose attitudes were weak
Gossip: Shared, mild, negative attitudes regarding others = closeness
Prejudice Quotes
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.”
--- Mark Twain
“Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the
facts” --- E. B. White
Prejudices are rarely overcome by argument; not being founded in reason they
cannot be destroyed by logic” --- Tryon Edwards
Allport
Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination
Key Factors
• Support of Authority (e.g., teachers, upper administration)
• Equal Status Contact
• Work on Common Goals
(e.g., Sherif ’s work and cooperative classroom environments)
Jigsaw Classroom
Student-1
Student-6
Student-2
Task
Student-5
Student-3
Student-4
Process: Each person is given information to present to the group that is valuable to find
a solution to a problem or learn material. It requires cooperation and interdependence.
“It is the element of required interdependence among students which makes this a unique learning
experience, and it is this interdependence that encourages the students to take an active part in their
learning.” Aronson et al. 1978)
School A (Cooperative classroom): 90 minutes/day,
5 days/week for four weeks
4 groups of 6 students
School B Jigsaw) classroom): 1 hour/day,
5 days/week for three weeks
4 groups of 4 students
Distributed as evenly as
possible by ethnicity, age,
and grades
Results
• Improved academic performance
• Self-esteem and liking of school not significant (ceiling effect?)
• More positive view of peers
• Lower social distance ratings (except for Aboriginal children)
• Decreased negative ethnic stereotypes
Why Does the Jigsaw Approach Work?
• Greater cooperation/interdependence in school
activities
• Greater ability to role-take (empathize with others)
• Different attributions for success & failure (i.e., more
external attributions for failures of others; avoidance of
fundamental attribution error)