Over the course of this year we have looked at many aspects of behavior. In all of this we have taken a scientific approach, trying to determine why people (and other species) behave as they do. Typically, this has involved manipulating some aspect of the environment, and determining whether that change makes a difference in the subject's behavior. In this final section of the course we are going to be dealing with one of the broadest areas of research in psychology: social psychology. Although it deals with a very wide range of phenomena, we can think of the social psychology as that area dealing with the effects on the individual of the presence and behavior of others. Social psychology deals with such aspects of behavior as how we evaluate others, the formation and changing of attitudes, the dynamics of group interactions, the factors that produce cooperation or competition, leadership, prejudice, decision-making processes, and many others. Since the field is so large, we are going to have to restrict our look at it to a sample of a few of the most important areas of research; important not only because of the amount of work currently going on in them, but important because of the role they have played in social psychology over the past decades. I want to begin by looking at how we evaluate others. In particular, we will start by trying to find out why we like some people but don't like others. What are the factors that determine interpersonal attraction?: Our liking or disliking of others. Quite a bit of research has been done in this area, and we will consider a few of the more important factors that appear to determine whether we like or dislike another person. Familiarity We'll start with a relatively simple factor: Familiarity. Ggenerally, we prefer things that are familiar to those that are strange or unfamiliar. This also seems to be true with respect to liking others: People we see often tend to be liked more than people we see infrequently. In a study by **Susan Saegert, Walter Swap and Robert Zajonc (1973), undergraduate women were asked to participate in a study on taste. During study, they moved between a series of cubicles, tasting and rating a variety of liquids. In doing this, they came in contact with four other subjects. One person they saw 10 times, another 5 times, a third twice, and the fourth just once. They were all strangers at the start of the experiment, and were instructed not to talk to one another or communicate with facial expressions. Later, they were asked to fill out a questionnaire which included rating their liking for each of the others in the group. On the average, the highest rating went to the subject seen 10 times, the next highest to the subject seen 5 times, and so on. This finding has actually been replicated with a number of things other than faces. It seems that in this area, and perhaps in others, it is not the case that familiarity breeds contempt! Physical Attractiveness One factor that affects interpersonal attraction, and which has received a fair bit of attention is physical attractiveness. The role of physical attractiveness is obvious in some circumstances (e.g. dating), but it has an effect in situations where it definitely should not matter, including some in which it Page 2 of 6 should be ignored. For example, in a study by **Elaine Walster, Eliot Aronson, et. al (1966), 376 male and 376 female students were given a series of personality and attitude tests, and were rated for physical attractiveness by independent judges. All students were then invited to a dance, and provided with partners whom, they were told, had been selected for compatibility by computer. In fact, they had been selected to be either compatible with the subject in terms of attitudes and beliefs, or were selected for physical attractiveness. Later, subjects were asked to indicate whether then would like to see their dates again, presumably a measure of interpersonal attraction. The authors then correlated the ratings given the partners with all of the variables they had recorded about the individual, to see which factors had the greatest effect on whether or not the partner was liked. They found that the only variable that had a significant effect on liking in this situation was physical attractiveness. Perhaps this is not surprising, given the nature of the meeting between the partners, but we know that physical attractiveness has effects of our treatment of others in situations when it should be totally irrelevant. For example, the physical attractiveness of children affects the way adults treat them. In one study by Karen Dion (1972), 200 women adults were given a written description of a 7-year-old child's (male or female) bad behavior, including hitting another child on the school playground. The women were asked to account for the child's behavior. Each description included a picture of the child. Some adults received a picture of an attractive child, while others received a picture of an unattractive child. Adults who got a picture of an attractive child tended to see the child's behavior as a temporary aberration by a child who was basically well behaved and likeable. Adults who got a picture of an unattractive child were more likely to attribute the problem to the fact that the child normally behaved badly and was unlikeable. Here, for example, is one description given by a woman who got a picture of an attractive child: "She appears to be a perfectly charming little girl, well-mannered, basically unselfish. It seems that she can adapt well among children her age and make a good impression....she plays well with everyone, but like anyone else a bad day can occur. Her cruelty...need not be taken seriously." And here is a description from a woman who saw an unattractive child: "I think the child would be quite bratty and a problem to teachers...she would probably try to pick a fight with other children her own age...she would be a brat at home...all in all, she would be a real problem." This is an important finding, since it suggests that teachers, and perhaps parents, may treat attractive and unattractive children differently, and perhaps in ways that may significantly affect the child's personal development, even though we assume that those who deal with children are free of such biases. And if that isn't distressing enough, let me mention one more study on the effects of physical attractiveness. Landy and Sigall (1974) asked 60 male college students to grade one of two essays supposedly written by a female student. Some of the essays had a picture of the supposed author Page 3 of 6 attached. Some of the graders got a picture of an attractive woman, and others got a picture of an unattractive woman. The results showed overwhelmingly that the same essay got a much better mark when the picture attached to it was of an attrractive woman than when the picture was of an unattractive woman. There is another area in which we assume that physical attractiveness has no relevance for our treatment of others; in courts of law. Even though attorneys often advise their clients on clothing, makeup, etc, in the hopes of presenting the best appearance, we assume that when someone is charged with a crime, or appears in a civil case as either plaintiff or defendant, the case will be judged on its merits alone. However, a number of studies indicate that jury decisions may be biased by the physical attractiveness of the parties in the case. In a number of mock jury studies, researchers found that judgements of guilt, sentence length, and judgement awards in civil cases are influenced by the physical attractiveness of the plaintiff and defendant. J uries are biased in favor of attractive defendants or plaintiffs, and against unattractive defendants or plaintiffs. Similarity and Complementarity Most of the studies we have talked about so far inolved people's reaction to others they didn't know, and didn't expect to meet again. In relationships that last longer than that, and in ongoing relationships, factors other than physical attractiveness become more important. Two such factors are similarity in attitudes and personality, and complementarity in attitudes and personality. A number of studies indicate that in many kinds of relationships, similarity in attitudes and beliefs greatly contribute to a liking for another. It also appears, perhaps surprisingly, that these similarities are more important than similarity in personality. Liking of Us It is no surprise that our liking for someone depends in part on whether they like us or not. But there are other factors to consider. We also know that our liking for someone who likes us is also affected by how much we need or value that liking. We may like someone who likes us even more if we need that positive evaluation. For example, in a study by Elaine Walster (1965), young women filled out a personality questionnaire. While each waited for the experimenter to evaluate her responses, an attractive male graduate student approached and engaged her in conversation, at the end of which he asked her for a date. When the grad student left, the experimenter returned and told some subjects that the test indicated negative things about their personality, and told others that the test was very positive. The purpose of this manipulation was to raise or lower the subject's self-esteem. The experimenter then asked the subject to rate her liking for a wide range of people, including the grad student she had met in the waiting room. Of course, this was the only information the experimenter really wanted. The results of this rating indicated that while all subjects rated the grad student positively, the women whose self-esteem had been lowered rated him significantly higher. In fact, the rating of the high-self esteem women was essentially neutral. (Note that all subjects were fully debriefed on the Page 4 of 6 real purpose of the experiment, and were told that the offer of a date was part of the study, which the grad student could not accept.) Some people like us as soon as they meet us, while others may never like us as long as they know us. Still others may change their minds one way or another over time. How does this affect whether we like them? In one study, subjects overheard four short conversations in which another person evaluated them. There were four conditions in this experiment. For one group, all the evaluations were positive. For a second, all the evaluations were negative. For a third group, the evaluations began positive, but became negative. In the final group, the evaluations started negative, and became more positive. Each subject then indicated how much he or she liked the person heard evaluating them in these conversations. The least liking was for the evaluator who had begun positive and become negative. The greatest liking was for the evaluator who had begin negative and become positive. The two other groups fell betweem in the expected order. So it seems that we value a positive rating more highly if it came from somebody who originally had a negative opinion of us. And we like that person more than someone whose opinion has always been positive. Initial Impressions We use a number of bits of information in determining our liking for someone. Some of this information is obviously more important than others. What may also be important is the order in which that information is received. In many circumstances, it seems that the information we get first tends to shape our impression of the individual more than information we get later. To take a very simple example, in a study by Luchins (1957), subjects read a passage about a boy named J im. The passage was actually composed of two sections, In one, the boy was described in ways which suggested he was friendly and outgoing. Here is part of that section of the passage: "Jim left the house to get some stationery. He walked out into the sun-filled street with two of his friends...Jim entered the stationery store, which was full of people. Jim talked with an acquaintance while he waited to catch the clerk's eye. On his way out, he stopped to chat with a school friend who was just going into the store. Leaving the store, he walked toward school. On his way he met the girl to whom he had been introduced the night before. They talked for a while, and then Jim left for school." In the second section, the boy was described as unfriendly and withdrawn. Here is part of that section: "After school Jim left the classroom alone. Leaving school he started his long walk home...Coming down the street toward him he saw the pretty girl whom he had met on the previous evening. Jim crossed the street and entered a candy store...Jim waited quietly until he caught the counterman's eye and then gave his order. Taking his drink, he sat down at a side table. When he had finished his drink, he went home." Page 5 of 6 Subjects read the whole passage and then describe what sort of a person J im was. Some subjects were given a passage in which the friendly section was first, and the unfriendly section second. Others read the sections in just the reverse order. Subjects tended to describe J im in ways most consistent with the first section they had read. When the friendly section was first, 78% described J im as friendly. Only 18% of subjects rated J im as friendly if they read the unfriendly section first. Remember that in both cases the information possessed by each subject was the same: all that differed was the order in which they had received it. (Note: 95% reading only the friendly description rated J im as friendly, while 3% rated him as friendly if they read only the unfriendly section.) It seems that we tend to give greater weight to the info we get first, or to use it to organize the information we get later. Either way, it seems that good first impressions can be important. We could easily go on for another couple of hours talking about the various factors that influence our liking of others, and the many complex ways in which those factors interact, depending on circumstances. Unfortunately, we haven't the time. I hope that in our brief examination of this area you have gained a better understanding of the kinds of factors that come into play in our (your!) evaluation of others, and of the complexity of that evaluation. Next time we will take a look at another aspect of interpersonal evaluation: How we decide on the motives or reasons for the behavior of others - and of our own. *References *Walster, E., Aronson, E. Abrahams, D. & Rottman, L. The importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 508-516. Brislin, R.W. & Lewis, S.A. Dating and physical attractiveness: Replication. Psychological Reports, 1968, 22, 976. Curran, J .P. & Lippold, S. The effects of physical attractiveness and attitude similarity on attraction in dating dyads. J ournal of Personality, 1975, 43, 528-539. Kleck, R. E. & Rubenstein, C. Physical attractiveness, perceived attitude similarity, and interpersonal attraction in an opposite-sex encounter. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 107- 114. *Dion, K. Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children's transgressions. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 207-213. *Landy, D. and Sigall, H. Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer's physical attractiveness. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 299-304. *Walster, E. The effect of self-esteem on romantic liking. J ournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 184-187. Page 6 of 6 *Luchins, A. Primacy-recency in impression formation. in C.I. Hovland et. al. (Eds.) The Order of Presentation in Persuasion. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1957. *Saegert, S., Swap, W. & Zajonc, R. Exposure, context and interpersonal attraction. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 25, 234-242.