Document Sample
					       Social Interaction

A behavior is always to be taken
  transactionally, i.e., never as of the
  organism alone, any more than of the
  environment alone, but always as of the
  organic-environmental situation, with
  organisms and environmental objects
  taken as equally its aspect.

                 (Dewey & Bentley, 1949)
What is social behaviour?

    Behavior oriented towards other selves.

    Such behavior
       apprehends another as a perceiving, thinking, moral,
        intentional, and behaving person;
       considers the intentional or rational meaning of the other's
        field of expression;
       involves expectations about the other's acts and actions;
       and manifests an intention to invoke in another self certain
        experiences and intentions.

    What differentiates social from nonsocial behavior, then, is
     whether another self is taken into account in one's acts, actions,
     or practices.
Interaction & Interdependence

    a dynamic, changing sequence of social
     actions between individuals (or groups)
     who modify their actions and reactions
     according to the actions by their
     interaction partner(s)
        i.e., events in which people attach meaning
         to a situation, interpret what others are
         meaning, and respond accordingly.
How people influence each other

  How do people influence each other’s behaviour
     just by interacting?

  1.   Social facilitation: rely more on spontaneous
       habitual reactions when others present

  2.   Social loafing: expend less effort when
       working with others
Why do people        fulfill   each   other’s

3. Self-fulfilling prophecies: act in a way
  that causes others to fulfill even
  erroneous expectations
What determines whether people cooperate with
 each other?

4. Cooperation vs. competition: pursue self-
  interests even where mutual cooperation best

5. Social dilemmas: find it difficult to conserve
  dwindling resources instead of free-for-all
Social Facilitation
 Tendency to perform simple/well-learned tasks
   better when others present

 Zajonc 1965 drive theory – strengthening of
   dominant responses in presence of others

 1st expt. – Triplett 1898 children & fishing lines

 more energy if another present, can impair or
  facilitate performance

 Five psychological states that contribute to
     tendency to perform easy tasks better &
     difficult tasks worse when other present

 1. Arousal & increased drive – enhances
    dominant response
 2. Evaluation apprehension (Cottrell 1968)
 Rely on spontaneous habitual responses
3. Distraction conflict
Narrow attention – overloads cognitive system –
  arousal - rely on spontaneous habitual

4. Self-presentation
Show off if confident, get flustered if lose

5. Self-awareness (ideal vs. actual self)
Social Loafing

 (Ringelmann 1800’s)
  Drive reduction
  Freedom     from negative evaluation
   (personal identity & social identity )
  Dispensable contributions (free rider
   effect – importance of what we expect
   others to do)
  Importance of outcomes
Social Impact Theory (Latané 1981)
 “any of the great variety of changes in physiological states and
    subjective feelings, motives and emotions, cognitions and beliefs,
    values and behavior, that occur in an individual, human or animal,
    as a result of the real, implied, or imagined presence or actions of
    other individuals” (Latané, 1981, p. 343).

 Model of social forces (pressures from other people) acting on

                             i = f (sin)

 It predicts that conformity will increase with increasing strength,
    immediacy and the number of influence in a group
   Strength - the intensity of each social force - reflected by one’s
    social status, power and credibility:
         the greater the power difference between sources and target, the
          more influence they have on the target - leads to a greater likelihood
          to conform.

    Immediacy - the physical or psychological closeness of each
    social force to target:
          if the target perceives the physical and psychological distance of the
                    sources of influence to be close to him or her, the greater the
                   probability that he or she will conform to the social influences.

   Number - the quantity of social forces present:
         more sources trying to influence a target (e.g. ten friends) will
          produce a better result, compared to fewer sources of influences
          (e.g. one friend).
   Bystander effect Latane & Darley 1968 (Kitty Genovese case)

the greater the number/status of people present, the more they
   influence our behaviour

   Facilitation: ↑ with no. of sources operating on target
   Loafing: ↑ with no. of targets receiving influence
   Number & strength
        (conformity, imitation, crowding, arousal, stage fright, helping in emergencies,

   Normative social influence
   Informational social influence
Dynamic Social Impact Theory
 Latane’s revised model - the spread of social influence in populations.

    predicts the group-level consequences of individual influence processes
     in spatially distributed populations of people interacting with each other.

 Identified four tendencies in group:
  Consolidation: over time, the majority grows in size and the minority
    dwindles in size
  Clustering: people are more influenced by their closest neighbors, and
    so clusters of group members with similar opinions emerge in
    group.[dyads, triads …]
  Correlation: Over time the group members’ opinions on other issues,
    even one that are not discussed in the group, converge, so that their
    opinions on a variety of matters are correlated .
  Continuing diversity: Because of clustering, members of minorities are
    often shielded from the influence attempts of the majority, and their
    beliefs continue on within the group
    Behavioural confirmation:      people treated
     differently because of others’ expectations
     behave in line with expectations

    Confirming stereotypes: we want to acquire
     information about new person, search

    Knowledge more useful when it confirms
     rather than disconfirms our expectations
   Person who is target of perception
    behaves ambiguously or as treated
    (Snyder study)

   Important application: teacher
    expectations (Rosenthal study)
3 stages

 Perceiver’s initial expectations
 Differential treatment
 Target’s reactions
Why co-operate?

 4 key variables  co-operation

 1.   Interpersonal dispositions
 2.   Beliefs regarding others’ behaviours
 3.   Relationship specific features
 4.   Social norms
   Dyadic competition: Co-operate on group
    goals vs. satisfy individual needs

 Co-operative behaviour  with  group size
 Interactions between groups less cooperative
  than between individuals

   The Prisoner’s dilemma: Self-interest dictates
    competition but most beneficial long-term
    strategy is cooperation
The classic prisoner's dilemma

  Two suspects, you and another person, are arrested by the
    police. The police have insufficient evidence for a
    conviction, and having separated both of you, visit each
    of you and offer the same deal: if you confess and your
    accomplice remains silent, he gets the full 10-year
    sentence and you go free. If he confesses and you
    remain silent, you get the full 10-year sentence and he
    goes free. If you both stay silent, all they can do is give
    you both 6 months for a minor charge. If you both
    confess, you each get 6 years.
   Confessing is a dominant strategy for both
    players. No matter what the other player's choice
    is, you can always reduce your sentence by
    confessing. Unfortunately for the prisoners, this
    leads to a poor outcome where both confess and
    both get heavy jail sentences. This is the core of
    the dilemma.
Gender differences – men compete more
 than women (Knight & Dubro 1984)

Groups compete more than individuals

Social dilemmas – Immediate payoff for
 participant favours competition but
 cooperation better long term
   Potential for dictatorship (when
    resources decreasing rapidly, willing to
    sacrifice individual control, freedom)

   Benefits of knowledge

   Morality and trust (small groups feel
    more moral obligation)
    Cialdini, R.B. (2005) Basic social influence is
     underestimated. Psychological Inquiry,16(4), 158-161.

    Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L.F. (1968) Teacher
     expectations for the disadvantaged. Scientific
     American, 218(4).

    Snyder, M., Tanke, E.D. & Berscheid, E. (1977) Social
     perception and interpersonal behaviour: On the self-
     fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of
     Personality & Social Psychology.
 Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007).
  The Kitty Genovese murder and the social
  psychology of helping: The parable of the 38
  witnesses. American Psychologist, 62, 555-
 Darley, J. M. & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander
  intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of
  responsibility. Journal of Personality and
  Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.

Shared By: