Favorites in Social Psych: Concepts and Psychologists

Favorite concepts

1.      One of my favorite concepts from social psych is Cognitive Dissonance Theory, which is the tendency for individuals to want and to maintain consistency between their attitudes and behaviors (Festinger, 1957).  When their attitudes and behaviors don’t match, individuals feel discomfort, or dissonance, and attempt to relieve it by changing their attitudes.  For instance, if you are trying to start an exercise routine and skip one day, you might try to justify it by thinking, “I need a rest day” or “I am too tired to work out!”  In fact, when we learned about cognitive dissonance theory on the first day of class, I liked it so much that I named my blog after it. J

2.      Another one of my favorite concepts is the mindlessness phenomenon, which is the tendency for individuals to comply with other’s requests just because they say “because” (Langer, 1978).  For example, Langer and colleagues performed an experiment where they asked individuals to cut in line at the copy machine.  They either asked without justification (e.g., “May I use the copy machine”) or asked with justification.  In addition, they split the justification condition into two categories: reasonable (e.g., “…because I’m in a rush”) or unreasonable (e.g., “…because I have to make copies”).  Regardless of the reason, people complied more so when a reason was given than not.  Surprisingly, people complied equally when there was justification!! In other words, 94% complied when asked “…because I’m in a rush” and 93% complied when asked “…because I have to make copies.” I think that mindlessness is just so fascinating because people comply with (in my opinion) a pretty stupid request just because they say “because”!

3.      Universal male is a concept of how sexes are presented in society.  It basically assumes that males are the “universal standard” to which females are compared and are somewhat “other” or “unnatural” (Tavris, 1992).  I really like this concept! I think it helps explain a situation I experienced in high school:  I was in the math club (nerdy, haha!) and I ended up winning a few math contests.  At our graduate recognition ceremony, the head of the math club (a white, male professor) remarked about how I “broke into the boy’s club,” insinuating that women were somewhat worse than men, in terms of mathematics aptitude.  Of course, (I think) he meant this as a compliment, meaning I achieved above and beyond (because women “aren’t as good as math”).  The universal male helped to explain a lot of my frustration as a woman in the sciences, who just happens to be good at math.

4.      The matching hypothesis is a tendency for individuals to be attracted to others who are similar to them in physical attractiveness (Feingold, 1988).  I think it’s interesting how individuals “end up” with someone of similar attractiveness, like the activity we did in class!  (I actually did one of my research methods projects on this topic so this may be effort justification talking. J)

5.      Psychological reactance is one of the coolest concepts.  It is the tendency for individuals to rebel or react against others when their freedom is threatened (Brehm & Brehm, 1981).  I think this is so interesting because I think it explains a lot of my arguments with my parents as a teenager.  Just being told not to do something made me want to do it more For instance, my dad always told me not to stay out past midnight and often I’d stay out until 12:30! (Sorry, mom and dad, it was psychological reactance!)

Favorite social psychologists

1.      I think Robert Cialdini is really cool! I really think his research on persuasive techniques is so fascinating! I also like how he did “undercover” research working in sales!

2.      Leon Festinger also tops my list of cool social psychologists, simply because he theorized cognitive dissonance theory.  I like how he tried to design the most boring possible task and people said it was interesting, just because of dissonance!  I also like social comparison theory because it is just so, so simple!

3.      Elliott Aronson did a lot of really cool studies.  I really like the Jigsaw Classroom study! In addition, I thought his studies on cognitive dissonance. The toy study on insufficient deterrence has a ton of implications for changing behavior! And the sex study on effort justification is just kind of funny.  I think it was cleverly designed (like Festinger’s peg-turning study) and it is funny that people would respond that a discussion of earthworm sex was interesting!

4.      I really liked Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers cave study.  I think it has so many implications for solving group conflict by making a superordinate goal! I also really like his study on the autokinetic effect and conformity!

5.      Since we learned about his experiments in principles, I thought that Stanley Milgram was really clever.  I think it is so interesting how people obeyed, even though they believed that they were harming another individual!  Learning more about it was especially interesting, in light of what I learned when I studied abroad in Germany and went to one of the concentration camps.  When there, I just couldn’t believe how someone could commit such horrendous acts, so I think all of the research on obedience is just really fascinating.

References

Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control (Vol. 26). New York: Academic Press.

Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 226-235.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Langer, E. J., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of" placebic" information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(6), 635-642.

Tavris, C. (1993). The mismeasure of woman. Feminism & Psychology, 3(2), 149-168.

Proximity, Similarity, and Balance in Friendships

I met one of my closest friends during my first week of high school.  She sat next to me on the first day of our World History class.  Over the first couples of classes, we made polite small talk.  Upon news of our first quiz, we talked more about what the other was studying and agreed to study together.  Eventually, we discussed more in-depth topics and found that we shared many things in common, including similar personalities, senses of humor, and tastes in music and TV shows.

            The beginning of our friendship can be explained by multiple social psych concepts.  First, we were drawn together by the proximity effect.  The proximity effect is the tendency for individuals to be attracted to those who are close to them (Festinger, 1950).  In other words, we were just lucky enough to be in the same city, at the same high school, and in the same World History class to meet and sit next to each other.

            Following the proximity effect was the need for affiliation, which is our psychological need, as humans, to interact with and maintain relationships with others (McAdams, 1989).  As young freshmen in a new high school, we were highly motivated to seek out friendships.  Furthermore, the stress of our first quiz pushed us to interact with each other more.  In fact, humans have a tendency to seek affiliation under times of stress, in order to cope more effectively (Schacter, 1959).  So, our first quiz was a blessing in disguise because it helped us to spend time together, outside of class, studying and talking. 

            Lastly, once we found that we had many things in common, we were influenced by the similarity effect, which is the tendency for people to be attracted to others who are similar to themselves (Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008).  Because we had many things in common, our friendship was balanced.  In other words, our friendship was swayed by Balance Theory, which is a phenomenon whereby we want our friends to like what we like and dislike what we dislike (Heider, 1958).  Thus, because we had many things in common, we had little to disagree about, maintaining a balance.  (n=362)

References

Festinger, L. (1950).  Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

McAdams, D. P. (1989). Intimacy: The need to be close.  New York: Doubleday.

Montoya, R. M., Horton,, R. S., & Kirchner, J.. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction?  A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity.  Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889-922

Schacter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of the sources of gregariousness.  Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 

Extra! Extra! Read all about Groupthink!

In high school, I was a senior editor for our school newspaper, The Ledger.  After a couple of dull issues, our advisor urged us to buckle down and start writing more topical, salient pieces to generate more interest from our readers.  So, we began a brainstorming session to construct a theme upon which we could build a “breaking-news” worthy edition. 

First, we began with current “hot” topics floating around the school.  Because I attended a Catholic high school, the diocese often sent speakers to discuss “important issues.”  This time, the issue in question was sex.  To no one’s surprise, the speakers took a largely conservative approach to the discussion.  What was unexpected, however, was the extremity and intensity with which they argued against certain practices, such as in-vitro fertilization (IVF), premarital sex, and any “unnatural” contraceptives (i.e., anything that is not natural family planning).  Using scare tactics, the speakers emphasized how an individual was “dirty” or “unclean” after having premarital sex.  The most extreme tactic was saying that individuals who were born via IVF were unloved by God and were “unnatural.”  Given the personal nature of these issues, many individuals were deeply offended by these speakers (Some burst into tears).

While brainstorming, we decided that these speakers would fit as a perfect theme.  We assigned articles and were well on our way to releasing “the new and improved Ledger!”  Finally the day came to distribute the newspapers to the school!  To our dismay, after we returned from distributing the papers, we found the dean of students furiously seizing every newspaper in sight.  Unfortunately (for us), he found our coverage of the speakers to be “out of line” with the school and, thus, the newspaper did not “represent” the school’s views (although it was student­-led!).  So, he issued a recall for all of the newspapers that we had just disseminated.  I and the other editors spent the rest of the morning in the president’s office discussing what we did “wrong.”

As demonstrated by my example, brainstorming can lead to disastrous consequences.  One reason that this can happen is due to the phenomenon known as groupthink (Janis, 1982).  Groupthink is the tendency for group members to seek agreement, which can lead to close-mindedness and poor decision making (Janis, 1982).  During our brainstorming session, we exhibited groupthink; for example, after deciding on our topic, we did not ask our advisor whether she thought it was a good idea.  Similarly, we failed to consider how the school would react, especially given that it would present them and the diocese poorly.  Furthermore, there are three factors that can lead to groupthink: high cohesiveness, group structure, and stress (Janis, 1982).  First, our advisor put pressure on us to think of something that our primary audience (the students) would find interesting.  Second, we were a tight-knit group.  Lastly, our editor-in-chief was very critical of bad ideas and we did not have a system for reviewing decisions.  Sadly, our groupthink led to stricter censorship on the once loosely regulated newspaper (the dean and the president had to read each edition before it went to print!).  (N=517)

References

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink (2^nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

The Myths of Happiness

            The Myths of Happiness is a self-help book written by Sonja Lyubomirsky, an “expert” in the science of happiness.  Lyubomirsky covers “myths” about happiness, such as things that are supposed to make us happy or are supposed to make us unhappy.  For example, some people believe that they will be happy when they meet “the one” or when they are rich and successful.  Positive psychology research supports that we overestimate the extent to which certain events (which Lyubomirsky terms “crisis points”) impact our happiness (Lyubomirsky, 2013).  In other words, this tendency to overestimate the duration and intensity of events is called affective forecasting (Gilbert et al., 1998).  This is due to our inabilities to take into account other events that are co-occurring with the major stressor and our “psychological immune system,” which helps us to cope with intense emotions (Gilbert et al., 1998; Lyubomirsky, 2013). 

            Furthermore, Lyubomirsky splits the “crisis points” into three categories: connections (e.g., marriage, divorce, children), work and money (e.g., jobs, being broke or rich), and looking back (e.g., regrets, old age).  Belief that these events will make us incredibly happy or unhappy can have negative effects.  For example, if you believe that marriage will make you forever happy but you do not feel happy in your marriage (due to the natural “ups and downs” of relationships), you may attribute normal relationship processes to your spouse as a bad partner.  Or, if you believe that without a partner, you will be forever unhappy, it will lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.  A self-fulfilling prophecy is when individuals act in such a way that their original expectations lead to behaviors that confirm them (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).  In other words, if you think that you should be unhappy, you will look for reasons or behave in ways that make you feel unhappy. 

            Thus, The Myths of Happiness helps the reader to target and dissect these myths to combat their negative effects on our happiness.  Lyubomirsky’s goals in writing this book are to provide scientifically-based tools to help individuals develop strategies to working through myths to lead a more happy and healthy life.  She provides helpful techniques to be prepared for any “crisis points” that come your way. 

                                                       Sonja Lyubomirsky  

The author of The Myths of Happiness is Dr. Sonja Lyubomirsky.  Lyubomirsky is a professor of Psychology at the University of California, Riverside, where she has been teaching for the past 20 years (Lyubomirsky, 2014).  She received a Ph.D. in Social Psychology from Stanford University in 1994 and an A.B. from Harvard University in Psychology in 1989 (Lyubomirsky, 2014).  She has received numerous honors, including a Science of Generosity grant, a John Templeton Foundation grant, a Templeton Positive Psychology Prize, and a grant from the National Institutes of Mental Health (Lyubomirsky, 2013).  Furthermore, she has published over 59 journal articles, 30 book chapters, and numerous other publications (Lyubomirsky, 2014).  Moreover, The Myths of Happiness has been translated into eleven languages thus far, with six contracts in the works and Lyubomirsky’s previous book, titled The How of Happiness, has been translated into 23 languages and has been cited over 600 times (Lyubomirsky, 2014).  In other words, Lyubomirsky is an expert on the science of happiness!  In addition, her books are very credible.  The Myths of Happiness has over 400 citations and The How of Happiness received praise from other important Positive Psychologists, including Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Dan Gilbert, and Martin Seligman (Lyubomirsky, 2013).

Applications of The Myths of Happiness

            The Myths of Happiness is very applicable for most people!  Lyubomirsky provides many tips and strategies combating myths of happiness and for coping with both major and minor stressors.  One of the most helpful sections (and most applicable to me, currently) was the section on connections.  Lyubomirsky describes how we experience hedonic adaptation, which is a normal process by which individuals grow accustomed to emotional changes (2013).  In romantic relationships, we first experience the passionate love phase, a stage marked by obsessive thoughts and ardent emotional experiences (also called the honeymoon phase); soon our relationships shift into the compassionate love phase, where we get to know our partner more (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1998).  To combat the decrease in passion, Lyubomirsky suggests that individuals try to continue to be grateful and appreciative of their partners, introduce variety and novelty into the relationship, surprise our partner, and to engage in self-expansive tasks (2013).  Self-expansive tasks are new experiences that are stimulating and help us to grow as individuals; engaging in these activities with our partners is correlated with more passion and more satisfaction (Aron, Norman, & Aron, 1998).

            I have used some of Lyubomirsky’s tips in my own relationship.  Although I am not yet married, I still found the information applicable to my long-term relationship (My boyfriend and I have been together for 5 years).  Because we have been together for so long, we have definitely experienced the lulls and petty grievances that Lyubomirsky describes.  After reading the book, I appreciated even more the social support that my boyfriend provides me.  The past month has proved very stressful and he has been there every step of the way, providing support and assistance when I needed it most.  Furthermore, I have noticed that he already engages in many of the behaviors that Lyubomirsky suggests.  For instance, he surprises me often, such as when he brings me Starbucks after I’ve stayed up all night studying.  He also makes the most of my good news (another tip that Lyubomirsky suggests). 

            I have also applied the chapter on being broke to my life.  Past work on wealth and happiness presents a controversial relationship (Diener & Seligman, 2004).  As a general rule, it seems that after the ability to meet basic needs, wealth does not have much more of an impact on happiness (Lyubomirsky, 2013).  Thus, material possessions do not impact our happiness as much as many people think.  So, Lyubomirsky (2013) suggests buying small pleasures rather than large ones, buying experiences instead of possessions, and spending money to buy time. 

            Lastly, I have applied the “looking back” chapter to my life as well.  Lyubomirsky (2013) describes the processes of recalling past events.  First, there is a rosy recollection effect, which is the tendency to remember positive aspects of events more vividly (Lyubomirsky, 2013).  This effect can lead to two processes.  We can either use the endowment effect, which is a process by which past positive events bring us joy (e.g., nostalgia) or the contrast effect, which is when we compare negative present events to positive past events, which can lead to the feeling that the “good old days” are behind us (Lyubomirsky, 2013).  Lyubomirsky (2013) suggests using the endowment effect or adapting the contrast effect by comparing past negative events with current positive events.  For example, I studied abroad two years ago and had the time of my life.  Thinking back on my time abroad makes me feel happy and blessed to have such a wonderful experience.  But, I also tend to compare my time abroad to my present life in Georgetown, which is decidedly less exciting.  Now, I am armed to combat the contrast effect and remember that I had bad times abroad as well.

Strengths and Shortcomings of The Myths of Happiness 

            Originally, I chose The Myths of Happiness because of two things: (1) interest and (2) I want to be happy! I think it was a good choice.  It was especially helpful in that it provided strategies on how to manage stressors (both positive and negative).  At the end of each chapter is a section titled, “The Prepared Mind,” which gives a fairly concise “take-away” for that chapter.  For example, in the chapter on marriage, one “myth” is that marriage will always make you happy, which can lead to distress when the passionate love stage (in other words, the honeymoon phase) subsides (Lyubomirsky, 2013).  Lyubomirsky provides several tactics to understand and combat the lull in passion, including (1) taking a step back, (2) acknowledging the natural process of complaints in a marriage, and (3) taking steps to strengthen and improve the relationship (2013).

            Furthermore, another useful aspect of the book is that it is written in such a way that you can just pick it up from time-to-time and read about whichever “crisis point” (e.g., relationship troubles, marriage, job promotion) you are experiencing.  In other words, you do not have to read the entire book for help on your stressor, just one chapter, which can be beneficial given that most major stressors take up a lot of a person’s time.  Similarly, it is useful for individuals who have less use for certain chapters.  For instance, I did not glean a lot of information relevant to my personal life out of the chapter about having kids (because I do not plan on having kids for a LONG time!).  Therefore, others who have or are thinking about having children will definitely find certain chapters more useful than I did (e.g., as a broke college student, another less relevant chapter was about being rich!).

            Overall, The Myths of Happiness was great! However, I wish that Lyubomirsky had provided a few more examples to make it a little more interesting (especially to target people who are less familiar with psychology).  Also, the book could get a little wordy at times, which could make it hard for a lay person to get through it. 

            I would recommend The Myths of Happiness to others.  I think that most people would find it useful and applicable, given that all people will experience one of the “crisis points” at one point in their life.  The best audience would probably be someone who is or is about to experience a major stressor (e.g., about to get married, coping with illness, about to change jobs).  I would also recommend it to other social psychology students.  So far, we have not learned that much about positive psychology, so the book would be a good read for anyone who is interested (although, we may cover more when we cover interpersonal relationship).   

Conclusion

            In sum, The Myths of Happiness is a very useful and thought-provoking book.  The main “take-away” is to take a step back and observe the situation from the outside.  Then, try to “look on the bright side” of things and find ways to inject variety and positive emotion into your life. (n=1735)

References

Aron, A., Norman, C. C., & Aron, E. N. (1998). The self-expansion model and motivation. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 22. 1-13.

Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Beyond money toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(1), 1-31.

Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. P. (1998). Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 617-638.

Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1998). The passionate love scale. Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures, 449-451.

Lyubomirsky, S. (2013).  The myths of happiness.  New York, NY:  The Penguin Press

Lyubomirsky, S. (2014).  Curriculum Vitae. Retrieved from: http://sonjalyubomirsky.com/files/2012/09/Lyubomirsky-CV-Nov-2014.pdf

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils' intellectual development. New York, NY US: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Sex (and the Peripheral Route) Sells!

The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) is a dual-process theory of attitude change (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).  The model describes two processes, or routes, that people take when presented with a persuasive message.  The first route, called the central route to persuasion, describes when individuals think about and scrutinize messages intended to change their attitudes, whereas the second route (i.e., the peripheral route to persuasion) describes when individuals use superficial cues to base their decision on an argument (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).   

            Whether people use the central or peripheral route and whether their attitude changes depends on three factors:  the source (i.e., the person giving the message), the message (i.e., what the source is saying), and the audience (i.e., to whom the message is directed; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).  In fact, past research shows that some techniques are more effective in advertising (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983).  When individuals are low in involvement (i.e., they cared less about the product), they recall a product more when a famous person (i.e., the source) endorses than when a citizen does (Petty et al., 1983). 

            Specifically, one factor that makes a source more persuasive is likeability, which can be split into two factors, one of which is physical attractiveness (Chaiken, 1979).  A recent ad campaign by Reebok includes Victoria Secret model Miranda Kerr (rated 27^th out of Men’s Health “100 Hottest Women”; Men’s Health, 2014). In the ads below, Kerr models Reebok’s new Skyscape shoes.  Reebok takes a step further (besides just using a “hot” famous person) using the physical attractive source technique by dressing Kerr in little to no clothing (e.g., a towel in the second photo). Clearly, Reebok hopes that its audience will use peripheral cues in making a decision to buy their shoes.

            In addition, the second factor in likeability is similarity (Chaiken, 1979).  Reebok attempts to make Kerr appear more similar, and thus more likeable.  In the top photo, the words state that the Reebok Skyscape is the “perfect all day shoe for Miranda Kerr – and you.”  By insinuating that even famous models need an “all day shoe,” Reebok is creating a similarity between the audience and Kerr, appearing to make her more likeable. 

Lastly, Reebok relies on positive emotion to increase use of the peripheral route.  Positive emotions can increase attitude change (Schwartz, Bless, & Bohner, 1991).  By including the cute puppy in the top photo and a massage table on the bottom, Reebok hopes to increase positive emotion, and thus, positive feelings about the shoes (e.g., that they are comfortable, relaxing). Similar to the physical attractiveness technique, Reebok wants the audience to rely on peripheral cues rather than the central route. (N=443)

           

References

Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(8), 1387-1397.

Men’s Health Magazine (2014, July 2).  The hottest women of 2014. Men’s Health Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/hottest-women-2014

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.  Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2488919

Schwarz, N., Bless, H., & Bohner, G. (1991). Mood and persuasion: Affective states influence the processing of persuasive communications. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 161-199.

Sexist? Who? Me?

            The Implicit Association Test (IAT) assesses individual’s unconscious and unintentional stereotypes (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998).  To do this, the IAT measures how quickly the individual pairs different constructs with their respective cultural stereotypes (e.g., females and family-related words; Project Implicit, 2011).  For example, to detect implicit racism, the test would first present faces of African-Americans and of European-Americans.  The individual must “sort” the faces into two categories: Black and White.  Next, the individual would sort Black faces and “good” words (e.g., joy, love wonderful) into one category and White faces and “bad” words (e.g., agony, terrible, horrible).  Then, the good and bad words would switch, so the individual would sort Black faces and bad words into one category and White faces and good words into the other.  The program would then compare how quickly the individual paired good words with either Black or White faces.  If the individual sorted good words paired with White faces more quickly than good words with Black faces, then that individual is said to have an implicit preference for White faces.  The associations can be labeled, “no association,” “slight association,” “moderate association,” or “strong association” (Project Implicit, 2011). Take the IAT here!  

            I took the two Gender IATs (i.e., Gender- Career and Gender- Science), which tested my association of both genders with either careers or family and either science or liberal arts.  I was surprised by my results.  For the Career IAT, I slightly associated men with career words and women with family words.  The results for the Science IAT were even more surprising: I strongly associated women with the sciences more and men with the liberal arts. 

I admit that I was a little disappointed in my results; I thought that I was not sexist!  I was less surprised by the results to the Gender & Careers IAT.  I think that I was socialized (from media, teachers, peers, etc.) to associate women with family words and men with career words.  For example, my parents gave me Barbie dolls, whereas they gave my brother toy cars.  Nevertheless, I thought that I no longer associated women with family words and men with careers words.  Yet, it appears that I am still affected by the culture in which we live, given that 76% of people who took this IAT made the same association (Project Implicit, 2011).

            I was more surprised by the Genders & Sciences IAT. I think my results were driven by two things.  First, I took the Genders & Careers IAT before the Sciences IAT.  After receiving results implying that I had some sexist stereotypes, I think I may have unconsciously tried to prove that I was not sexist, thereby giving much more weight to associating women in the sciences.  Second, I am currently pursuing a major in Biology (in addition to my major in Psychology).  One of the Biology classes that I am in this semester has one male student and previous Biology classes have had very few male students, in relation to female students.  Although the gender ratios can probably be attributed to the broader university gender ratio (60 women: 40 men), perhaps I now associate women more with Biology (or sciences in general) just as a matter of the number of women biologists with whom I interact daily, illustrating the contact hypothesis.  The contact hypothesis states that direct contact between two groups will reduce prejudice (Allport, 1954).  Because I do not interact with as many male biologists, I have more gender prejudice against associating men with science. 

  

            Completing the IAT made me realize that I am probably more influenced by media and our culture more than I would like. Obviously, I would prefer to have no associations between gender and careers or science because women and men should have equal opportunity to compete in the sciences (whether or not that is actually the case is a different story!). Nevertheless, I only slightly associated women with family words and men with career words; thus, there is hope that I may be able to eventually overcome this association!

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in 

     implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social 

     Psychology, 74(6), 1464-1480.

Project Implicit (2011). About the IAT. Retrieved from:     

     https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/iatdetails.html 

Extrovert for a Day

Most of the time, I am a fairly quiet person.  I prefer to think before I speak.  I prefer to spend time alone or with a few friends, rather than at a party.  I absolutely hate small talk.  I agree with Gandhi’s philosophy to “Speak only if it improves upon the silence.”  In other words, I am a stereotypical introvert!

So, for my “Be a different person for a day” social experience, I chose to be an extravert!  To do this, I was extra-friendly, extra-talkative, and extra-sociable (puns fully intended :)).  For example, when I went out for coffee with a friend, I asked the barista how her day was and made small talk with her while she was making my coffee. 

Throughout the day, I found being an extrovert extremely challenging.  For instance, I noticed that I often reverted back to my “normal” self.  I think that this happened because I am a fairly low self-monitor.  Specifically, I scored a six on Snyder’s Self-Monitoring Scale (1974).  Self-monitoring is a characteristic that describes people’s ability to change their behavior to suit their environment (Snyder, 1987).  A person who is a low self-monitor (like me) is less capable of acting differently under various circumstances and tends to remain stable across situations (Snyder, 1987).  So, it logically follows that I would be less able to act differently for a whole day. 

People reacted to my change in behavior differently.  My interactions with people who I did not know (e.g., the barista at Starbucks, the cashier at HEB) were fairly similar to previous interactions with comparable others.  In other words, I did not notice a change in how others interacted with me.  People were slightly friendlier but, for the most part, I did not observe many differences.  One difference that I did notice was that I held longer conversations with people who I did not know.  This was most likely due to the self-fulfilling prophecy, which is the tendency for an individual’s beliefs about another person to influence their actions in such a way that increases the likelihood of that person acting in line to confirm that individual’s expectations (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968).  For instance, because I was trying to act overtly friendly with the cashier at HEB, he was friendly back, which influenced me to continue talking with him.  In other words, the cashier thought I was a friendly person and then continued talking to me, which enabled me to continue to act friendly.   

My interactions with people that I did know were much different.  The people that I did know asked why I was being so talkative and some of my friends asked why I was “so happy.”  One friend even remarked that I was being “a little obnoxious today” and that I needed to “tone it down a notch.”  My friends demonstrated Kelley’s Covariation Theory (Kelley, 1967).  For instance, the friend who I had coffee with stated that I had had too much coffee because I was being overly talkative.  Kelley’s Covariation Theory states that we attribute people’s behavior based on three different sources of information:  consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency (Kelly, 1967).  My friend noticed that (a) caffeine sometimes makes other people more talkative (high consensus), (b) my chattiness was a distinct behavior (high distinctiveness), and (c) other times I have been more talkative after drinking espresso (high consistency) and therefore, she attributed my eextroversionto the coffee.  Other friends who had not seen me drink coffee attributed my behavior to something good happening.   

Before I left my apartment for the day, I had to “prepare” myself to be extroverted  For example, I thought that I would be drawing more attention to myself (because I would be talking to others more than I usually do).  So, I ended up taking longer to put on makeup, fix my hair, and pick out my outfit.  Of course, at the time I did not realize that I was subject to the spotlight effect.  The spotlight effect is the tendency for people to feel as though others are focused more on them than they really are (Gilovich, Medvec, & Savitsky, 2000).  In other words, because I thought that people would notice me more than usual, I spent more time making sure that I looked my best.   

Throughout the day, I felt more awkward than I usually do.  Because I could not contemplate as long about what I was going to say before I said it, I kept thinking that what I said was stupid or silly and that whoever I was talking to would think so as well.  Again, I was subject to the spotlight effect.  I was overestimating the extent to which the person judged what I said (Gilovich et al., 2000); in reality, they were probably just as concerned about sounding dumb as I was. 

Furthermore, about halfway through the day, I ran out of things to talk about!  Generally, I don’t talk that much and in order to maintain my talkativeness, I just started saying the first things that came to mind (no wonder I felt awkward!).  Funnily enough, my incessant chatter led to me explaining to a friend what a eunuch is (If you don’t know what that is, click here).  I could finally relate to Kelly Kapoor in the TV show, the Office:

At the end of the day, I felt exhausted!  I felt like I needed some time for myself and give myself some peace and quiet.  The whole next morning, I don’t think I said one word!  I was even grateful that my roommate had gone out of town so that I wouldn’t have to talk anymore.

Acting as an extrovert for a whole day made me realize that I am fairly schematic for quietness.  Schematic traits (as discussed previously) are characteristics that we view as more important to our self-concept (Markus, 1977).  In other words, being an introvert is a large part of who I am and changing that was extremely difficult for me to do.  First, I also was not very good at it (based on my friend’s judgment of me as “obnoxious,” rather than just gregarious).  Second, for me, introversion is a fairly stable trait, judging by my continuous reversion back to being less sociable.  Lastly, I affirmed my beliefs that I am much more comfortable listening and thinking before I speak. 

After some insight, I realized I only try to be extraverted when I am trying to engage in ingratiation and self-promotion, two forms of strategic self-presentation (Stevens & Kristof, 1995).  Ingratiation is used when individuals are trying to fit in (e.g., trying to make friends) and self-promotion is often used when individuals are trying to gain respect or esteem (e.g., at a job interview).  In other words, because it is more socially appealing to be extraverted, I only act sociable when it is warranted.  According to Jones’s Correspondent Inference Theory, people infer whether a behavior corresponds to an individual’s personality based on whether (a) the person chose the behavior (b) the behavior is expected and/or (c) the behavior has positive or negative consequences (Jones & Davis, 1965).  Because in certain situations sociability (a) is expected and (b) has better consequences, I can attribute the acts of extraversion that I do to the situation, rather than to myself.  (N=1216)

References

Gilovich, T., Medvec, V. H., & Savitsky, K. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 211-222.

Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. Advances in Experimental Psychology, 2, 219-266.

Kelley, H. H. (1967) Attribution in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192-238.

Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63-78.

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils' intellectual development. New York, NY US: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526-537.

Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/private realities: The psychology of self-monitoring.  New York: Freeman

Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(5), 587-606.