lecture 9 - "better you" affiliation and likeability Flashcards
Affiliation and Likeability
- Why do we seek others company?
- Whose company do we seek?
- How is liking affected by propinquity?
- How is liking affected by familiarity?
How is liking affected by similarity?
Relationships between close relationships of paired individuals
Whose company do we see out?
1) Propinquity – “proximity 2) Familiarity ) Similarity
Pictures of children – children more interested in each other + attachment
there are pop representations of making people like you
Affiliative Animals
people often are around other people and want to be around other people
Larson et al. (1982)
* Paged teenagers and adults at random points during the day for a week.
* After each page, participants wrote whether they were alone or with others.
* 70% spent in the presence of others for teens and adults - most of it
How much time do we spend with others and in what situations?
Ainsworth: Attachment Styles
- We are deeply affiliative creatures, such that the way we relate to others is a core personality feature.
- Attachment theory: how we learn to trust (attach to) caregivers shapes future relationships (e.g., romantic relationships) and life outcomes.
- “Strange situation” paradigm.
- Secure: upset by abandonment, reassured on return.
- Avoidant: ‘indifferent’ to presence, avoidant on return. - more likely to be bullied
- Anxious-ambivalent: resistant on return, “clingy” on return. - most likely to be bullies
attachment styles relate to how we act with other people - predicts relationships in later life
affiliative animals - ostracism and cyberball
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D.
(2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social
exclusion. Science, 302, 290-292
two players are throwing a ball between them then third player unknown to the other two joins in
all players involved then reject 3rd player - change in feelings - even if dont know other players
affliliative animals
Loneliness
A subjective discomfort
when social relations lack
some important feature
Someone in a large crowd
is not alone, but may still
feel lonely
isolated literally or psychologically
Aloneness
An objective state of being
apart from other people
We’re somewhat more likely
to feel lonely when alone,
but not necessarily so
Why does this bother us?
Alone DOES NOT = lonely
Lonely DOES NOT= alone
Some studies show more in urban settings – not actual relationships – subjective lack of relationship support
Affiliative Animals
Loneliness
- Emotional loneliness is experienced when we lack an attachment figure, and social loneliness is experienced when we lack a sense of social integration (Weiss, 1973).
- Loneliness is higher among younger people than among older people (Perlman, 1990).
- Older people: small groups of tighter friends, very social (and present temporal) focus.
emotions related to single other attachment
social is alienation form group or culture
older people have fewer but higher quality friendships – better at getting what we want out of relationships
- Older people: small groups of tighter friends, very social (and present temporal) focus.
Affiliation
Who are the people we choose to be with in different situations?
Avoid being alone – but with whom?
Affiliation
Schachter (1959)
- Context: “Dr. Gregor Zilstein” of medical school wishes to deliver electric shock to participants.
- Experimental Manipulation: Some participants expected to receive very painful shocks, whereas others were told that the shocks would be mild.
- Dependent Variable: Preference to be alone, with others, or no preference.
When we’re fearful or anxious, who do seek out?
Dr. Gregor Zilstein – effect of shock on memory
High fear: “These shocks will hurt. In research for this sort, if we are to learn anything at all that will help humanity, it is necessary that our shock be instance. They will be quite painful, but of course, they will not do any permanent damage.”
Low Fear “These shocks will be a mild tickling or tingling”
Fear manipulation check showed the expected fear differences
Remain alone or seek out others when told had to wait ten minutes to set up equipment – wait here alone or in other room with other participants
affiliation
%who preferred the company of others (behaviour)
low fear had lower percentage than high fear as express a lack of caring
Fear motivates being around others
fearful people may seek the company of others because of - social comparison - over/under react? as actually prefer to be with other people in same situation - going to be given a shock
But why?
Others could provide information on how we should react. Over or under reaction?
Others can distract us from thinking about or feelings and/or what we’re afraid of
Schacters follow-up – choice between waiting with other participants or those waiting to see their faculty advisor
Info or distraction?
Affiliation
Other Discoveries
Other Discoveries
* People most prefer to affiliate with others who
have been through the same situation (Kulik &
Mahler, 1989).
* The need to affiliate can be divided into different,
but related desires, on which people vary (Hill,
1987).
Emotional support Closeness, intimacy
Attention, recognition Social comparison, info
Kuli – people want to be around others waiting for cardiac surgery
Hill – individual differences in when/should we seek out – relative differences in: 1)emotional support, 2) closeness and intimacy 3) attention and recognition 4) social comparison = information
Questionnaire data
All facets correlations to overall need for afflation, but people are higher or lower in each component
Interaction between situation and individual differences? Future research
Functional Propinquity
Festinger, Schachter, & Back (1950)
- Which three people in Westgate West do you see socially most often?”
- 41% next-door
- 22% two doors down
- 10% end of hall
- NOT sheer physical closeness, e.g., one floor down = near-zero levels of socialising. Functional propinquity.
41% were next-door neighbours
22% two doors down
10% at end of hall
overall same floor = 73%
JUST physical distance? Not above or below – functional proximity
(Anticipated) Functional Propinquity
Berscheid et al. (1976)
- A Dating Game: Participants watched videotapes of people who were or were not prospective dates.
- Prospective dates were liked more than non-prospective dates.
- My own unpublished research (but using “coworker student” not “prospective date”) replicates this and maps how people “talk themselves into liking” the target.
also FUTURE functional proximity
1) you spend time with this person once per week for 5 weeks OR 2) not mentioned if they would see them again
How much did you like them?
People liked more if participants thought they would spend time with them.
Anticipation of being around others in future
Avoiding future tension? Will be around them, so may as well like them.
Propinquity
Proximity is linked
to similarity
Proximity increases
familiarity
Familiarity – remembered more about the people they thought they would see again – more familiar with them
People tend to be around similar others dues to situation e.g., students living in WW – similar age, “occupation” etc.
Similarity
Newcomb (1961)
* University of Michigan students were
randomly assigned either to a similar or
dissimilar roommate (in terms of
attitudes, & demographics).
* Similar roommates were more likely to
like each other and end up as friends.
similarity often seen as most important factor
field experiment
attitudes and values measure completed at beginning of year – then randomly assigned to similar or dissimilar roommate
similar liked each other more than dissimilar
similarity
Similarity is rewarding…
… because it maintains our
worldviews over time.
We expect success with others
who are similar to ourselves.
similarity:
rewarding = validating, “I’m right”
cognitive consistency = keeps things simple, no dissonance, no constant tension in resolving discrepancies
success = we’re more like to succeed with people we’ll get along with i.e., similarity
- though we also seek out dissimilarity
Similarity
Byrne (1971)
- Participants read the attitude questionnaire of a person with similar or dissimilar attitudes.
- Participants liked the respondents who reported similar attitudes more than they liked the respondents who reported dissimilar attitudes.
lab studies
reading about people with same attitudes are liked more than those with dissimilar attitudes
birds of a feather - opposites attract
Familiarity
Moreland & Beach (1992)
- Female confederates attended a class once, 5, 10, or 15 times.
- Students shown slides of the confederate women, rated them
- 15 > 10 > 5 > 1 exposures increased liking.
- Idiom “familiarity breeds contempt”: not so much
- Interactions not always required; here it was mere presence
classroom like lecture hall
women posing as other students – not interacting with anyone - equally attractive etc.
at end of year – class shown slides of women – who do you like best? Linear trend – appeared most often, like the most
“mere exposure effect” – e.g., Japanese characters liked more if you’ve seen them more in a lab setting - they feel safer, are easier to process
even stronger when you DON’T remember seeing the characters (can’t correct)
Affiliative Animals
Loneliness
A subjective discomfort
when social relations lack
some important feature
Someone in a large crowd
is not alone, but may still
feel lonely
Aloneness
An objective state of being
apart from other people
We’re somewhat more likely
to feel lonely when alone,
but not necessarily so
Aloneliness
A subjective discomfort
from wanting alone time!
aloneliness
Aloneliness comes from shyness, but also liking of alone time.
* Being “alonely” (analogous to lonely) doesn’t decrease positive
but it does increase negative emotion.
graph in notes
Summary
- We are affiliative animals, and loneliness can occur when we are deprived of affiliation.
- Fear elicits a need to affiliate with others in the same situation.
- Interpersonal attraction is increased by propinquity, familiarity, and similarity.
Less discussed but important – we sometimes have a craving for alone time!
