Social Psych 3
Things that make us feel good:
ourselves and others
Lecture 18
4/14/04
So much to tell…
• Ironic monitor
• Attraction
• Stereotypes
Re-visiting Persuasion
• Testing the sound quality of stereo
headphones…
Vs.
• Listen to a speech advocating tuition
increase
OR
• Listen to a speech advocating tuition
decrease
Influenced by Ourselves
700
600
500
400
Head nodders
300
200
100
0
Speech advocated tuition Speech advocated tuition
increase
decrease
Influenced by Ourselves
700
600
500
400
Head nodders
Head shakers
300
200
100
0
Speech advocated tuition Speech advocated tuition
increase
decrease
Implications ???
Movie Clip: Sex & The City
• Passion w/out intimacy
• Unrealistic optimism
Compared to other UT students…
Self-Deception?
• 98% high school seniors perceive selves
above average in leadership
• 0% rated selves below average on ability to
get along with others
– 25% rated selves as top 1%
• 90% of adult sample rated selves as above
average drivers
• 94% of college profs rated selves as better
than average at their job
Distortion
OR
Biased sampling
Self-Service
• Overly positive self-evaluations
• Exaggerated perceptions of personal control
• Unrealistic optimism
• Downward social comparisons
Self-Service I
• Overly positive self-evaluations
– Above-Average: 60% believe happier than most
• What about punctuality?
•
– Overestimate
contributions to teamwork
•Housework vs. dishes?
– K.A.T.E. N.
Room for
Construal
I know you’d like to
think your *** don’t
stink…
Roses really smell like
poo-poo
Which is most important?
Rank these traits
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intelligence
Sense of humor
Kindness
Creativity
Sensitivity
Industriousness
Is it important for
people to be kind,
funny, etc. ?
How well do they represent you?
Rank again
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intelligence
Sense of humor
Kindness
Creativity
Sensitivity
Industriousness
Is creativity your
strong suit?
Then = 1
How well do they represent you?
•
•
•
•
•
•
IMPORTANCE
Intelligence
Industriousness
Sense of humor
Creativity
Sensitivity
Kindness
REPRESENTATIVENESS
1. Intelligence
2. Industriousness
3. Sense of humor
4. Creativity
5. Sensitivity
6. Kindness
Manipulating relative importance… boosting our self-esteem
“I have what’s most important”
Self-serving Biases in Sports
Pages: Lau & Russell (1980):
• Personal credit for
successes
– External forces for
failures
– Players, coaches,
commentators: Our
team’s ability vs. their
good luck
80
70
60
50
After victory
After Defeat
40
30
20
10
0
• Also on SAT’s
Internal
External
Self-Service II:
• Exaggerated perceptions of personal control
– Perceive control in chance situations
– Tossing dice, lucky t-shirts
– Powerball, 1995: pick your own, let computer pick?
• “I figure I have a better chance of winning”
Self-Service III
Unrealistic optimism
– Future oriented; hopeful; confident of
improvement
– More likely than peers to graduate higher in class,
better job, happier marriage, like their 1st job, have
gifted child
•
Fired, divorce, car accident, heart attack, depression
(Weinstein, 1980)
Self Service IV
• Social comparisons
– Festinger, 1954: fundamental drive to
evaluate opinions and abilities AND, do so by
comparing ourselves to others
– WHEN?
• Ambiguity
– WHY?
• Accuracy and Enhancement
Comparing to Feel Good
• Downward social Comparisons
– w/others who are less successful, happy, or fortunate
• Uplifts our mood and improves outlook for future
• Life could be worse…
• Older woman w/ breast cancer
“The people I really feel bad for are these young gals.
To lose a breast when you’re so young must be awful”
• Young girl
“If I hadn’t been married, this thing would have been
really gotten to me”
Do we turn to others to determine
something as personal and subjective
as our own emotions?
• P’s given injection
– Epinephrine-informed
– Epinephrine-uninformed
– Placebo
• Waited with confederate who “took same
injection”
– angry or happy
• Are they influenced by social cues?
Paradoxical Enhancement
Self-Handicapping
• PPL worry they won’t live up to
expectations; deliberately set up for failure
to lower expectations
– Drinking, drugs, not practicing
– Stress, physical symptoms
– “Sandbagging” for all to hear
• Saving face AND extra credit
Berglas & Jones (1978)
• Experiment on “effects of drugs on intellectual
performance”
– All P’s told did well; BUT 1 group had insolvable
problems
• Given choice of: Actavil (improvement drug) or
Pandocrin (impairment drug) before next test
• P’s from insolvable group more likely to choose
Pandocrin.
– convenient excuse for failure on the second test…
DISCUSSION
• Are positive illusions a sign of well-being or
symptoms of a larger problem?
Highly adaptive?
• Happier
• More caring
• More productive
• PPL who are depressed or have low SE
have more realistic views of themselves
than those who are better adjusted
PRO
• Depressed PPL:
– Self appraisals match
those of neutral
observers
– Make fewer self-serving
attributions
– Less likely to
exaggerate control over
uncontrollable events
– More balanced
predictions about their
future
vs.
CON
• Positive illusions lead
to chronic selfdefeating behavior
– Escaping from selfawareness
– Self-handicapping to
underachievement
– Deny health related
problems until too late
– Rely on illusion of
control for protection
Determinants of Attraction and
Friendships
Determinants of Attraction
Here and Now
• Situation (propinquity, repeated exposure)
• Individual attributes (attractiveness, similarity)
• Behavior (conveying liking, clumsiness)
Predicting the Success of Dating
Shows
Getting acquainted in real-life settings (Sprecher & Duck, 1994)
• Random pairing of Ms & Fs on “get-acquainted date”
• Questionnaires
– Physical attractiveness**
– Similarity*
– Quality of conversation
• Friendship vs. (romantic) dating attraction
– M- similarity then attractiveness
– F- Quality of communication then similarity
How Does It Feel to See a Perfect 10?
What is Good is Beautiful?
• Attractive people are judged to be smart,
happy, well-adjusted, socially skilled,
confident, and assertive -- AND vain.
• Stereotype?
– Good-looking people do have more friends,
better social skills, and a more active sex life.
– But beauty is not related to objective measures
of intelligence, personality, adjustment, or selfesteem
Winning friends by being critical,
and clumsy
• “You look nice” from doting husband vs.
bystander at a party: same compliment
becomes new and exciting
• Very attractive superstar does something
embarrassing
– Their pratfall boosts rating even higher
Gain/Loss
• P talks with “partner”
• P eavesdrops on conversation btw. partner &
experimenter (evaluating P)
• 7 times hears appraisal by confederate
–
–
–
–
All positive
3 neg, 1 neutral, 3 pos
3 pos, 1 neutral, 3 neg
All negative
• How do you (P) really like this person?
Winning friends by being critical
+++++++
6.42
- - - 0+++
7.67
+++0 - - .87
- - - - - - 2.52
- Working to gain approval?
- Deficit Idea?
- Discernment/ credibility?
Winning friends by being clumsy:
College Bowl Quiz team try-outs
• Superstar gets 92%
right on difficult test
• Interview shows high
credentials (yearbook editor,
president, captain)
• Average person gets
30% right
• Interview shows avg.
credentials (ran for office,
proofreader of yearbook, tried out for
team)
• Interview ends (no pratfall)
OR
• Loud crash with coffee spill (pratfall)
Clumsiness Humanizes
No Pratfall
• Superstar
• Average
20.8
17.8
Pratfall
30.2
-2.5
What is Love?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Caring
Happiness
Friendship
Warmth
Trust
FA (68)
Commitment
Caring
Euphoria
Sexual passion
Heartrate increases
1.Passion
2.Intimacy
3.Commitment
Sternberg’s Triangular Theory
• Passion
– Physiological arousal, longing to be with
someone
– Euphoria, butterflies in stomach
• Intimacy
– Close bond, sharing, support, exclusivity
– Feeling free to talk about anything
• Commitment
– Willingness to define as love, long-term
decision
– Devotion, putting other first
Intimacy
Liking
Companionate Love
Romantic Love
Consummate Love
Commitment
Passion
Infatuated Love
Fatuous Love
Empty Love
Hatfield & Rapson, 1987
Goals of Romantic
Relationships
Obtaining Sexual Satisfaction?
– "Did you think about sex even for a moment
during the last 5 min?"
•
•
< 26: 1 in 2 men, 4 in 10 women
26-55: 1 in 4 men, 1 in 7 women
– “I’ve seen you around, I find you very
attractive, would you go to bed with me
•
•
Man: 100% women = no
Women: 76% men = yes, rest apologetic
“I’ve been noticing you around campus.
I find you to be very attractive” (Clark &
Hatfield, 1989)
100
80
60
Males
Females
40
20
0
Go Out
Go to my Apt.
Go to Bed
Styles of Loving
• Eros
– Erotic, passionate, intimate
• Ludus
– Playful, multiple short-term, no jealousy, shallow
• Storge
– Slowly developing emotionally & sexually, LT
expectations
• Mania
– Obsessive, jealous, intense, insecure
• Pragma
– Based on vital stats (ludus + Storge)
• Agape
– Altruistic love: duty, gentle caring, guided by ideals