Transcript Lecture 10: Social Interaction

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
unintentionally
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
expectancies?
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 selfinterests even where mutual cooperation best
strategy
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
Why?
Five psychological states that contribute to
tendency to perform easy tasks better &
difficult tasks worse when other present
Arousal & increased drive – enhances
dominant response
2. Evaluation apprehension (Cottrell 1968)
Rely on spontaneous habitual responses
1.
3. Distraction conflict
Narrow attention – overloads cognitive system –
arousal - rely on spontaneous habitual
responses
4. Self-presentation
Show off if confident, get flustered if lose
confidence
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
individuals
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:


Immediacy - the physical or psychological closeness of each
social force to target:


the greater the power difference between sources and target, the
more influence they have on the target - leads to a greater likelihood
to conform.
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,
tipping…)
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
Expectations

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
preferentially

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.
2.
3.
4.
Interpersonal dispositions
Beliefs regarding others’ behaviours
Relationship specific features
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)
Reading

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 selffulfilling 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, 555562.
 Darley, J. M. & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander
intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of
responsibility. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.