Vikings

           I don’t usually watch TV shows when I’m at college (breaks from school are another story), but I’ll occasionally have time to go to Hulu and watch something that I think looks interesting. A month or so ago, I remembered that my dad had told me about a new show on the History Channel called “Vikings,” so I decided to check it out. The show itself is very violent and gory most of the time, and while some parts can be disturbing, others fulfill my weekly dose of a great battle scene. The show is about the Norsemen of Scandinavia and especially focuses on the life of Ragnar Lodbrok, historically known as a great Norseman who travelled to and led successful raids into Britain and Gaul (Walker, 2013).

            As I have been watching the show, I have been paying attention to the power dynamic between the chieftan of the province and Ragnar Lodbrok. While the show depicts the chieftain as corrupt and autocratic, it is possible that, historically, he was not as harsh as he is made out to be in the series. Either way, his representation in the show definitely adds drama and conflict. When the show just started, the main plot focused on Ragnar’s aspirations to sail West rather than East to find new kingdoms to raid for treasure. Ragnar presents his proposition to the chieftain, asking for permission to sail West, but the chieftan, as he has done in the past, shuts him down. While the show does not go into this, I would be interested in investigating the decision-making process that goes into planning these raids. Does the chieftain have a group of close friends and family who serve as advisors? Does he hold meetings to decide what bands of men in the community he will give ships and supplies to so that they can carry out these raids?

            While all of this is unclear, it is interesting to speculate about the kinds of group processes that would occur to decide upon such matters. According to an article by Lars Walker, Viking government was essentially democratic, and the History Channel got this aspect of the show wrong by portraying the chieftain as an autocratic ruler. Either way, from what social psychologists know about the role of experts and authority in group processes, the chieftain has a significant amount of influence over the decisions the group comes to. According to social influence principles, people tend to comply with and be influenced by experts and authorities. This could be problematic in group processes and lead to process loss when only the ideas and suggestions of the leader in the group are considered seriously. Thus, if Vikings used group processes to organize and orchestrate raids, many of the decisions may have been influenced by the chieftain of that specific tribe or providence.

            In the case of this show, then, the decision to only sail East may have been influenced by the chieftain’s authority. Even if someone on the advising committee felt strongly that sailing West could be highly successful and profitable, he may not have even voiced this opinion, or if he had, the chieftain could have shut this idea down completely. As it turns out, when Ragnar went against the wishes of the chieftain and sailed West, he ended up coming back with a plethora of treasure from a monastery, showing that the decisions that the chieftain and his group of advisors made were not the wisest.

            While it is important to investigate group processes and decision-making, it would also be interesting to look at when individuals decide to go against the mandates of the group. If the influence of authority is so strong, then how are some people, like Ragnar Lodbrok, willing to go against decisions made by the group? We often look at group conformity and how social influences shape our behavior, but what motivates certain people to break through these social constructions?

References: 

Walker, L. (2013, March 12). History channel gets vikings precisely wrong. Retrieved May 3, 

2013, from The American Spectator website: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/12/history-

channel-gets-vikings-p 

Haverfest and Threat of Loss

            During the past two weeks, which are the two weeks before Haverfest, a group of students station themselves in the DC lobby to sell Haverfest T-shirts, mugs, sunglasses, and hats. While some students buy all of these items, the hot ones are usually the T-shirts and the mugs. Every year, or at least for the two years I have been here so far, there are two T-shirts to choose from and it seems as though most people end up liking one of the shirts over the other. This means that one shirt goes fast while there are usually leftovers of the other one. I experienced this last year when I took too long to make a purchase and the T-shirt type that I wanted, and the type that apparently everyone else wanted, was sold out.

            This year, I was ready and jumped at the opportunity to buy the T-shirt that I and everyone else seemed to like the best. I did not want to experience another lost opportunity like I had the year before. At this point, I hadn’t realized that one of the factors that was motivating my behavior was the principle of scarcity. The moment I realized this was when, the next day, the students selling the merchandise called out that there were only a limited number of the green shirts left, and I felt pretty good about getting a shirt before they had all sold out. I realized that what motivated me to by the better shirt early on was the loss I had experienced last year. If I had any waited longer to buy the shirt this year, not only would the memory of my loss from last year drive me to buy it, but also the fact that the salespeople were yelling out that there were only a few T-shirts of that kind left.

            I was thus hit by a double whammy of threat of loss, from both my past experiences and the current situation. My motivation to buy the T-shirt primarily lies in the social influence principle of scarcity. According to this principle, individuals are motivated by loss or a threat of loss. In the case of the Haverfest T-shirts, when there are a limited number of shirts left, they will become more desired and the students will think that because the shirts are going quickly, they are better. And because one shirt always seems to go faster than another, this shirt is considered to be the more desirable one. While it may actually look better than the other shirt, I think that scarcity plays a significant role in why that particular T-shirt becomes sold out. For instance, if a student had no preference for either of the shirts, but learned that one of them had only a limited number left, this threat of loss and the perceived desirability of the shirt would drive him or her to choose it over the other one.

            This simple example of how scarcity influences my actions and those of other students on campus made me think of how scarcity plays a role in other aspects of life at Haverford. Every so often, an organization on campus called FAB (Fords Against Boredom) gets tickets to sports games and musicals or has a certain of number of spots on a bus to go ice skating, skiing, and laser tagging, all for free! While giving students an opportunity to get off campus and have fun is enough incentive to sign up for these activities, scarcity also plays a role. Since there are a limited number of these tickets or spots, students will perceive the activities as being more desirable. There is also a limited time frame where you can sign up for the activities—students will get up at 7am in hopes of getting their names on the list. Would these activities be less desirable if there were an unlimited number of spots? The principle of scarcity would suggest this.

            The effects of scarcity are also evident in the context of academics when considering unlimited and limited enrollment classes. I have found that I am usually drawn to the classes that have a limited enrollment, especially the ones that are capped at 15, because I think they seem more interesting. What I did not realize is that the idea of scarcity has influenced me to think this way. Without knowing anything about the class except for the short description on the registrar, I have made assumptions about the quality of the class just because it is limited enrollment. It is interesting to speculate about how many aspects of our life scarcity influences, and to what extent. We may make decisions and be motivated to carry out certain behaviors not by rational thinking, but because of this perceived threat of loss.

Image: Haverfest 2013 T-shirt design by Caroline Fleet. From: https://www.facebook.com/Haverfest2013

Frisbee on Founders

           Yesterday, I was on Founders Green with one of my apartmentmates, Callie, who had brought a Frisbee to toss after we had finished planning our PAF session for later that day. I’m definitely not the best at Frisbee and it takes me quite a while to warm up and actually give a throw that is remotely near the person I’m trying to throw the Frisbee to. It had been a while since the last time I played, but I was starting to get the hang of it again, and it helped that Callie would compliment me on every throw, even if the Frisbee landed closer to where I was standing than to where she was.

            Everything changed when one of Callie’s friends on the ultimate Frisbee team was walking by and started to play with us. I got a little nervous, since both Callie and this guy are experienced and skillful compared to me. I started to think about the social facilitation and inhibition principles that we had learned in Social Psychology last Thursday, which definitely did not help my nervousness. I assumed that since I was not very good at Frisbee, the presence of this newcomer would make me perform even more poorly. And by worrying about my performance, I was distracting myself from the task at hand. I could tell that I was focusing so much on making a good throw that the throw actually turned out horribly. I was definitely overthinking Frisbee.

            In my eyes, I thought I did a lot worse when Bill came to play with us. Callie told me that I “held me own”, but I wasn’t sure if she was just being nice. I was definitely more conscious of my bad throws when I was playing with Callie and Bill, probably because I was throwing to Bill most of the time, as opposed to just playing with Callie. I wanted to make a good impression on this person whom I had never met before, while I felt no pressure with Callie since I’ve lived with her for two years now and nothing I do should surprise her. In this way, I was paying more attention to my bad performances when playing with the both of them, which could have led to a skewed interpretation of how I was doing overall.

            To determine if how I perceived myself playing was an accurate representation of how I was actually playing, I would have to count the number of good and bad plays I made. I assumed that I would play poorly in the presence of Bill since I know that I’m not good at Frisbee. Frisbee is a non-dominant task for me, thus added social pressure should inhibit my performance, according to the Yerkes-Dodson Law. Knowing this, I anticipated a poorer performance on my part. This could have either led to a self-fulfilling prophecy in which I played more poorly because I expected to, or perhaps it only made me more conscious of my mess-ups when I was actually playing the same, or maybe even better because of practice. From my perspective, I thought I wasn’t doing to well, but Callie thought I had gotten better from when it was just the two of us passing. The only way to find out, then, would be to actually monitor my passes and determine if Bill facilitated or inhibited my performance. I’m sure Bill had no idea about the inner-turmoil he was causing me to experience.

            I told Callie about my social psychological musings afterwards, and she had something interesting to add to the conversion. She said that when she plays Frisbee with ultimate players who are on her same skill level, she feels no pressure and plays well. But when she has to make a pass to the highly skilled players, she feels the pressure to make a great pass and to impress them. Ultimately, though, this backfires and she notices that she always does worse. It is important to not just consider the presence of others when we performing tasks, but also who is present. From personal experience, I always feel more nervous during a presentation or interview as opposed to talking to friends or other people who do not intimidate me. Sometimes, this works in my favor and I perform better, but in other cases, it works against me.

            When looking at performance in a certain situation, one has to consider both the task at hand as well as the people involved.  While simply having an audience in and of itself does affect how we perform on a task that is dominant or non-dominant, our perception of the individuals involved in the situation can also have a great influence. Throwing a Frisbee has become natural for Callie, while it takes me much more effort and practice to get the hang of it. However, when she is put in a situation with people she perceives as experts, she doesn’t perform well even though the task is familiar to her. All of these factors contribute to or take away from social facilitation, depending on the context.

Blood, Sweat, Tears, and Attraction

             A few years ago, I read The Hunger Games trilogy by Suzanne Collins, and with all of the hype about the first movie and now the making of the second movie, I realized that the Hunger Games creates a perfect recipe for misattribution of arousal. In Panem, there is a Capitol and twelve districts. Essentially, the Capitol is the home of the authorities and wealthy individuals who rule over the twelve districts. Every year, the Hunger Games occur in which one girl and one boy from each district, called tributes, are selected from a lottery and must compete to their death. In the end, 23 individuals are killed and one is the victor. The Capitol creates a hostile arena in which these individuals must compete, all the while televising the Games in the Capitol and all of the districts. This is the Capitol’s way of punishing the districts for rebelling many years ago and to maintain their power.

            The Hunger Games thus produces an environment that is wildly fear inducing. Not only does a tribute have to watch out for all of the other tributes trying to kill him or her, but there are also countless death traps in the arena of which one has to be aware. At the start of  the Games, tributes try to either ally with others or go off on their own, hoping to be invisible from the other competitors. In an environment like this, it would not be surprising if the tributes were constantly physiologically aroused in response to the fear. And if they ally with other tributes, it would not be surprising if they start becoming attracted to these allies.

            The misattribution of arousal theory proposes that since the physiological response to fear and attraction are very similar (such as a faster heartbeat and heavier breathing), it is easy to confuse the source of the arousal. In the arena, not only are the tributes always on guard and ready for a flight-or-fight response, they also must be very active. Living off of the land, running from predators and disasters concocted by the Capital, and fighting and fleeing from other tributes requires extensive physical activity. This sort of activity also produces the same physiological response as attraction. Considering the constant state of fear and physical activity that the tributes are in, it would be understandable for two allying tributes to become attracted to one another and start developing feelings for one another. This would, obviously, complicate the fact that only one tribute can win the Hunger Games.

            In the case of Katniss and Peeta, the tributes from District 12, there is a progression of their relationship throughout the Games. Starting out as mere acquaintances when they were home in their district, they end up getting married in the epilogue of the third book. As a social psychology student, I have speculated as to how much of the initial foundation for their relationship—the attraction—was due to the fact that they were both in the Hunger Games. Would they have ended up falling in love if their names had never been chosen? While misattribution of arousal cannot account for the deeper feelings in any relationship, it can add to the initial attraction we feel for someone. Considering the fearful situation of the Hunger Games, it would not be far-fetched to speculate that the initial feelings of attraction between Katniss and Peeta could have developed or been enhanced by this phenomenon.

            Another aspect of Katniss and Peeta’s relationship may stem from the social influence principle of commitment and consistency. The wealthy folk of the Capitol develop favorites in the Games and are able to sponsor the tributes, sending them items that they desperately need in the arena so that they have a better chance of survival. In order to win the favor of the viewers in the Capitol, Katniss’ behavior towards Peeta gradually becomes more intimate and affectionate to perpetuate a “star-crossed lovers” theme, which the audience eats up. From a social psychological point of view, it is possible that by acting towards Peeta in this way to get sponsors, Katniss actually starts to feel have feelings for him. Since people tend to be consistent in their behavior and attitudes, whenever Katniss kisses Peeta, she may start to like him more, since, psychologically, the way we feel and the way we act should be consistent. It seems as though misattribution of arousal and the principle of commitment and consistency may play a role in the relationship of Katniss and Peeta. While it doesn’t delegitimize their relationship, it certainly calls into question the role and extent of these phenomena in developing their relationship.

Image:

Still from “The Hunger Games” movie

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/29900000/THG-stills-the-hunger-games-movie-29947869-500-350.png

Cupcakes and Central Processing

            I’ve been seeing a guy for a few months now, and about a month ago, it was his birthday. I, of course, stressed myself out trying to think of what to do for his birthday. I didn’t want to go overboard, since we hadn’t been seeing each other for too long, but I also wanted to do something nice. After much discussion with my friends, we decided that I should bake him a cupcake in addition to the gift I was already planning on getting him. The gift itself was easy, since I had something particular in mind and would just have to go to the store to get it. Buying cake mix, on the other hand, turned out to be a bigger ordeal. For the cupcakes, I had to first find a store with a good selection of mixes and then determine which one I would buy in order to make the best cupcake ever. Thus started my journey to find the perfect cake mix and frosting combination at SuperFresh.

            The grocery store is an optimal example of how information is processed and how we ultimately decide which items to choose. The different products have to somehow favorably push our attitude towards that product in a way that will stimulate the behavior to buy it. Normally when I go grocery shopping, peripheral processing dominates what I decide to buy. If I do not have a specific product in mind, I usually end up buying what catches my attention, or if I am choosing between two similar products, what packaging I seem to prefer. All of this is superficial processing in which I use heuristics to facilitate my decision-making. Otherwise, I would spend several minutes comparing different options for each item on my grocery list.

            I used a similar form of processing when I had to buy eggs to make the cupcakes. In this case, I ended up choosing the carton of eggs that was directly at my eye level, since it caught my attention above the other possibilities. But when I got to the cake mix aisle, my form of processing switched to central processing. While the type of eggs I bought should not have affected the cupcakes in any drastic way, I knew that the cake mix and frosting I would choose would make all the difference. In this case, I had high motivation to pick the best products and since my goal of the night was to make these cupcakes, I was in no way distracted. Thus, I wanted to focus my cognitive processing on choosing what I felt would result in the tastiest cupcake. If I were making cupcakes for myself or for a group of friends, I probably would have picked any box of cake mix that would have caught my eye. But in this case, I was highly invested in the situation and thoroughly scanned the different brands, flavors, and whether the cake would be moist or fluffy. I even read the backs of the boxes, which I rarely ever do, and scanned the ingredients. It was extremely difficult to make a decision based on the information provided. Since most of what was on the packaging was meant for peripheral processing, it was harder to choose a product based on central processing. For example, I was looking for the mix that would produce the best cupcakes, but I was given an assortment of colorful boxes with different names and different descriptions, all of which aimed to advertise in a superficial, making every product seem fantastic. What I really wanted and needed were customer reviews and ratings of the product, or even samples so that I could determine which mix to go for.

            In the end, I could only base my decision on the superficial information I was provided.  Even though my mind was ready and thirsting for some central processing, I probably ended up making my decision through peripheral processing since I was not able to access the information that I needed. Looking back at this scenario, I realize that I seem ridiculous and maybe a little crazy, and that I probably would have chosen the same cake mix and frosting if I had spent a few seconds making my decision. After all, it is probably a very good thing that I usually peripherally process when deciding what product to buy, since I was standing in that aisle for half an hour. If I did that with all of the items on my grocery list, I would have to spend the whole day in the grocery store.

            It is interesting to analyze how our attitudes and behaviors are shaped based on how invested we are in the situation. Even within a particular situation, our way of approaching different decisions can be completely different. Since the type of eggs I had to buy was not relevant to me, peripheral processing completely dominated the eggs that I ended up buying. In contrast, the type of cake mix and frosting was important to me, so I spent much more time comparing the products and trying to make the decision I thought was best based on the information, however superficial it was, that was available to me.

Pennies and Social Proof

            Every Easter, my grandpa unveils a jar full of money and asks all of the cousins to guess how much money is in the jar. Whoever gets closest, gets to keep the money. And this isn’t just your standard size jar, but can hold a gallon or more, so guessing how much money is in the jar can get pretty difficult. The first year he did this, it was all with pennies. Even though there thousands of pennies in the jar, it was relatively easy compared to the other years because we had to consider only one value and one size of coin. After this year, though, my grandpa made it more challenging by using an assortment of coins as well as dollar bills and the occasional five-dollar bill. In this case, those guessing had to account for the different sizes of coins and bills and also the value of these varying currencies. Regardless, guessing how much money was in the gallon jar, whether it was just pennies or an assortment of coins and bills, proved to be a challenge.

            I remember trying to come up with a logical way of determining how much money was in the jar, as all my siblings and cousins were trying to do. Some of the cousins were going around asking others what they were putting down as their answer. Most of us had absolutely no idea what to put down as our guess, so it made sense to ask around to see what other people were thinking. If your guess is extremely higher or lower than the others, then you are probably going change your answer. Since you have no idea if your guess is right, you look for confirmation from other people’s answers. If their answers are all similar and yours is drastically different, you would assume that their answers are right.

            Most of us, however, kept our guesses secret and would share what we put down after handing the slip of paper to our grandpa. There are a couple of cousins who always seem to overestimate the amount in the jar year after year. If I can remember correctly, my cousin Stevie put down that there were about 12,000 pennies in the gallon jar when I put about 5,000. Most of the guesses for that year ended up being from 3,000 to 5,000 pennies, so Stevie felt pretty nervous after he had turned in his guess. Since he realized that his guess was significantly higher than most everyone else’s, he assumed that his guess would be far off from the correct answer (which it was). As well, the cousins who had put down guesses that were much lower than what the majority of us were putting down felt pretty foolish after turning in their slip and finding out everyone else’s guesses. While they had been confident in their answers earlier, they then started to believe that an accurate guess would be in the ballpark of what the others had put down.

            All of this follows along with the social proof principle of social influence. People tend to look to others when they are not sure how to act in a certain situation. By looking at the behavior of others, they can garner an idea of how they themselves should behave as well. When we are unsure of how to act in a situation, we don’t just observe the behavior of others, but assume that this behavior is correct. So if one of the cousins had gone around asking what everyone else was putting for their guesses, he or she would most likely consider his or her own guess in this context and the guess, based on this phenomenon, would be close to the other guesses. Even if the cousin’s initial hunch was closer to the actual amount of pennies, if everyone whom he or she had talked to had a much higher number that wasn’t as accurate, the cousin would most likely change the guess to match theirs.

            The “monkey see, monkey do” situation works in this case because most of the cousins had no idea how much money was in the jar or how to go about guessing a correct answer. We were all unsure of ourselves and thus easily influenced by each other’s guesses. However, if one of us happened to be an expert on guessing the amount of money in a jar, we wouldn’t look to others to determine the amount we should be guessing. If everyone else seemed to be guessing an amount that was drastically different from our own, then the situation gets trickier. Depending on the confidence of the individual in his or her own expertise in guessing, he or she would either stick with the initial guess or change the guess to conform to what everyone else is guessing. While a situation like guessing the amount of money in a jar is not particularly earth shattering, it is interesting to speculate the effects of social influence in situations that are of greater importance.

The Culture of Reciprocity

             The phenomenon of reciprocity plays a large role in establishing social influence. While learning about this concept in class, I couldn’t help but realize how prevalent reciprocity is in societies across the world, especially in cases where reciprocity completely defines a community and the relationships between these people. After taking a writing seminar on the Nature of Money and an Intro to Anthropology course, I have become familiar with the kula, which is a ceremonial ring of exchange between islands located in New Guinea. At first glance, such a system of exchange might seem like a form of trading, but there is an apparent distinction that sets this system apart in the nature of the objects that are exchanged. Instead of giving an object to an individual that the individual needs in exchange for something that you need, these objects are not commodities and are not necessarily useful. They are gifts in the form of ceremonial bracelets and necklaces. The value is not placed on usefulness, but on ornateness, the history of the object, and on the symbolic power of the object.

            While the exchange of gifts between the islands establishes connections between communities that might otherwise be independent and distinct, they also created a political hierarchy. Individuals are able to gain social and political standing by either obtaining or giving especially valuable gifts, first within their communities and then with members from other islands. Forming and maintaining relationships between the islands can strengthen one’s political and social ties. Relationships within the islands are also dependent upon a continued gift exchange. The whole concept of gift exchange is somewhat misleading in that the ceremonial gift is not in fact a gift in and of itself, since the giver always expects the receiver to reciprocate, often with a gift of equal value or, preferably, of greater value. In this way, the whole system is based on reciprocity and creating binding social ties by the necessity to perpetuate the gift giving process. If an individual or family fails to reciprocate, this can completely destroy the relationship and cause conflict among the group. Similarly, if a tie is broken between islands in this manner, a very hostile situation can ensue. That is why the kula is so important in maintaining the unity between these islands as well as personal relationships within the islands (Malinowski, 1922).

            There is an apparent aspect of reciprocity in the social influences that we experience today in our own communities, and it is certainly interesting to observe other communities that are entirely based on this system.  Individuals feel obligated to reciprocate upon receiving something, a feeling that I am sure we have all experienced many times throughout our lives. The downfalls of reciprocity, which manifest themselves in our communities as well as those participating in the kula, are that they facilitate uninvited debts (and relationships) and often can result in unfair exchanges. Since an individual feels the need to reciprocate, he or she is, upon receiving a gift, obligated to give something in return.

            While there are situations in which unfair exchanges are apparent, like the example of a car salesperson offering a customer a Coke and in return, the customer buys a car, this phenomenon is not as evident in the case of the kula. It is favorable to give a gift that is more valuable than the one received, but the gift exchange is expected to continue as to maintain the relationship. Thus, the gifts become progressively more valuable as the exchanges continue and there should be no unfair advantage since each party takes turns giving the more valuable gift. There would be a problem, though, if the accepting party of a gift simply had no means of reciprocating in an equal or greater manner. This would reflect poorly on his or her social standing and ability to form strong relationships between other members of the community (Malinowski, 1922).

            It is interesting to see how reciprocity, which I sometimes fail to even notice in my day-to-day life, is so amplified in other societies. While reciprocity may exist where there is any human interaction, there seems to be a scale of how important and how pervasive it is depending on the culture. The kula is a prime example of how nearly all of the relationships, political hierarchies, social statuses, and other social phenomena are founded in this system of exchange and the need we all feel to reciprocate.

Reference:

Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagos of Melanesian New Guinea. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

We Accept the Love We Think We Deserve

            Over spring break, I read Perks of Being a Wallfower by Stephen Chbosky, a book about a freshman in high school named Charlie and how he develops both socially and psychologically throughout that year. Charlie is one of the most observational characters I have ever become familiar with. He absorbs the environment around him, understanding or making inferences about some of the situations he experiences or memories he recalls, while leaving other things open-ended. Charlie pays particular attention to his social environment and his relationship with others as well as relationships between other people. One of these relationships is between his sister and one of her boyfriends. Interestingly, these two characters, as well as the rest of his family besides his Aunt Helen, are never named in the book.

            This particular relationship started out one-sided, where the boyfriend would dote on Charlie’s sister, making her mixed tapes and following her around like a puppy. Charlie would observe fights between his sister and her boyfriend, which started when his sister kept nagging and teasing him about never standing up to his bullies. One particular time, her boyfriend got so angry that he hit her face. Charlie interpreted this as the boyfriend finally standing up to his bully—his sister. Ever since that incident, his sister’s behavior completely changed and she was inseparable from this boy, claiming that he was her life. Needless to say, she made Charlie promise not to tell their parents. Charlie, however, did tell his English teacher whom he had a good relationship with. His teacher said something that really struck me and which resonated with concepts we had learned in social psychology. Charlie’s English teacher told him, “We accept the love we think we deserve,” right before Charlie left and the teacher called and told his parents about the incident.

            This statement, so simple yet so profound, both exemplifies one of the themes throughout the book and also reflects the ideas of the self-enhancement and self-verification theory in social psychology. This theory explains how people try to balance these two phenomena, the first of which is the motivation to seek and interpret situations to maintain a positive view of the self and the second of which is the motivation to seek and interpret situations to maintain a consistent view of the self. The relationship between these two motivations creates an interesting dynamic when considering self-esteem and how individuals with high or low self-esteem will seek or interpret situations differently. The theory goes to suggest that an individual with high self-esteem will seek positive information because it both self-enhances and confirms the concept of the self. However, there is a conflict for individuals with low self-esteem. When such an individual encounters positive information, self-enhancement is met, but self-confirmation is not, since the individual does not have a positive view of the self. On the other hand, an individual with low self-esteem will accept negative information. Even though self-enhancement isn’t met, self-verification is. Unfortunately, self-verification seems to be more pervasive, continuing the cycle of low self-esteem.

            In Charlie’s sister’s case, she might stay with her abusive boyfriend because his actions validate her sense of self. She accepts the love that she believes she deserves. Another theory could involve attitude and behavior. According to S&M, the more we put into something, the more we seem to value it. This “something” could even include pain. It may be the case that people in abusive relationships might stay in the relationships because of the amount of pain that they experience. The harder things get, the more effort they put into the relationship and the more they value it. This phenomenon in particular could stem from both attitude and self-esteem. Perhaps individuals with lower self-esteem will be more likely to place a greater value on their abusive relationship while those with high self-esteem would leave the relationship.

            From what Charlie tells us, I can sense a change in his sister’s self-esteem throughout the book. Later on, Charlie’s sister becomes pregnant and her boyfriend breaks up with her as a result (they had been secretly dating). After getting an abortion and telling him that it was a fluke and she was never pregnant in the first place, she refuses to get back together with him, which he had wanted. While I can’t tell exactly what is going through the head of Charlie’s sister, she seems to have developed throughout the book. Charlie tells us that she had been reading self-esteem books, which may have worked considering that she must have realized that she did not deserve the “love” she had been accepting from her boyfriend, finally ending things.

Memorability of Unusual Information

            According to social psychologists, people are more inclined to remember and form impressions from unusual, interesting, or unexpected information as compared to information that is usual, ordinary, or expected. In order to learn our names, my Biology professor came into lab and instructed the students in the lab section to go around the room and say their names and an interesting fact about themselves. From this experience, I can attest to the discrepancy between what is expected or ordinary and what is interesting or surprising . In any situation where a group of people is supposed to give interesting facts about themselves, some will have facts that are more intriguing, funny, or unusual than others.
            In one particular case, a student said something that was actually relatively ordinary, but which no one else in the room would have expected, leading me to remember his fact well. His interesting fact was that he wears his retainer every night because he had had braces and did not want his teeth to shift. After reflecting upon what he said, I realized that this fact wasn't extraordinary in any way. While I am sure that there are many people who don’t wear their retainers every night, there are also many people who do (like me!). The reason why I remember this fact, even though it isn’t that unusual or interesting, is because it was unexpected and amusing for this person to use it as his interesting fact. Because I wasn’t anticipating a fact like that, I remembered it, and I’m sure my  professor and lab instructor did as well, since they laughed upon hearing it, as did the rest of the students in the class.
            Another one of the facts that I remember well was when one of my classmates told us that she is a licensed elephant handler in two different countries, a fact that I doubt other students at Haverford can claim. While I have had several classes with this person (including this social psychology class), I haven’t had much interaction with her outside of an academic setting. And while I have formed an impression of her, like every other person whom I’ve met, this new fact definitely added to this impression. While both of these facts are unusual in their own way, the one about the elephants definitely changes or furthers my impression of this person as compared to the fact about the retainer and want to know more about why and how she came to be an elephant handler. I feel as though learning more about this specific aspect of this person could give me much more information that I would be able to use in forming a more detailed impression of her. While I can get some information from knowing that the other student in my lab wears his retainer every night, I do not think it will add to my impression of him in an significant way (and knowing more information about why he chooses to wear his retainer every night does not seem as interesting as learning more about this elephant handling business!).

            For most of the people in the room, though, it would take some effort to remember exactly what their interesting facts were. Some facts I had already known, so my impression of these individuals was not changed in any way. For others, their new facts must not have been as unusual or interesting as others and thus did not make any lasting impact or alteration of my impression of them. This just goes to show that the more unusual or interesting we find a piece of information about someone to be, the more this sticks in our mind. We tend to expect the usual and normal things, thus we seem to notice them less or they fail to have as great of an effect on us.

            Another factor that may have influenced my processing of these different facts would be the reactions that they elicited in the room. Naturally, my professor and lab instructor, as well as the rest of the students, reacted to the more extraordinary facts that were thrown around to a greater degree. My biology professor, whom I think is pretty witty and even sassy at times, tended to make comments or inquire about the funnier or more intriguing facts. By extending the conversation about some of these facts over others, there was a biased processing of information. Even if some of the facts were not unusual or overly interesting in and of themselves, the reactions that people had or the conversation generated from these facts were what made an impression on me. All of this just goes to show that information, whether it is about a particular person or, really, about anything, makes a greater impression on us if it is unusual, unexpected, or interesting. Overall, we will be more likely to retain and recall information that catches our attention over things that are typically expected or which fail to strike us in a certain way.

Plenary, Voting, and Group Conformity

            At Plenary this past Sunday, a fellow Haverfordian went up to speak and proposed an amendment to the Honor Code that I thought had significant applications to social psychology. His proposition was that for all visual votes, members of the community who are voting must close their eyes. A visual vote, for example, is usually how voting at Plenary works. Members of the community will raise their hands either for or in opposition to an amendment or resolution. Thus, one individual in the room can see how everyone else is voting. The student who proposed the amendment was worried that this may cause pressure to conform to the group, so if a person looks around and sees his or her friends or the majority of the people in the room voting in favor of something, he or she would be more likely to also vote “yes” because of the pressure. Likewise, it could go the other way around if only a small number of people vote in favor of the amendment or resolution. Even if this individual would like to vote “yes”, he or she may vote in opposition because that is what the rest of the people in the GIAC seem to be doing.

            There were several people who stood up to debate this amendment, claiming that they believe that we are independent individuals who feel strongly and confidently enough in our own opinions that we should vote what we feel, or abstain from voting if we truly have no opinion. They think that as Haverfordians, we won’t vote a certain way just because everyone else seems to be doing it. While I would like to think that this is true at Haverford, in which we are discouraged to modify to the group if we do not feel comfortable with its decision and to take a stand on what we believe,  this amendment would be beneficial, considering the pressure to conform to a group. I'm sure that there are people who are confident enough in themselves to always act in a way that is synonymous with their beliefs, but there are just as many people who are swayed by the power of group conformity, even at Haverford. 

            The vote did not go in favor of the amendment, which I think was an overly idealistic decision. Not all of us at Haverford are super-beings and can rise above one of the major principles in social psychology, which is the power of the group. While we have not gone into this concept in much detail in lecture, there are countless studies that illustrate the power of group conformity. One of these experiments, the Asch conformity experiment (1951), which I learned about in either introductory psychology at Haverford or in high school, shows how strong group conformity can be in a seemingly straightforward situation. In this study, there was a group consisting of all confederates and one subject. These individuals had to go around the table and state which line in a group of three lines matched the indicated line shown on a projector. In one of the rounds, all of the confederates, out loud, reported the same, incorrect line. When it came to the subject’s turn to say which line, many of the subjects said the same line as the other individuals in the group had reported, even though he knew that it was the incorrect choice (Asch, 1956). If group conformity is such a strong factor in a situation as obvious as this, then wouldn’t there be implications in any other group setting in which a decision has to be made?

            I can think of several other examples here at Haverford in which group conformity has won over individual opinion. One example occurred in my pre-lab lecture for Biology in which we were learning about blood clot formation. My lab instructor asked the group if we thought that platelets were cells or cell fragments. She then asked us first, “Who thinks platelets are cells?” Nobody raised their hand, except one individual who put her hand up and then dropped it again upon realizing that no one else thought that platelets were made up of cells. All of the students at Haverford are human and many of us do fall under observed and tested social phenomena, including group conformity. While I think that closing our eyes while voting in matters as important as those that are brought up in Plenary could be a very good thing, I think that the idealism, confidence, and even pride of the members of our community have prevented us from realizing this. Needless to say, I voted for this amendment, even though the visual majority voted against it.

Reference:

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority [PDF]. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1-70. doi:10.1037/h0093718

Sports Teams and Intergroup Conflict

            It’s that time of year when Haverford’s men’s soccer team is out of season and the men’s lacrosse team is preparing for their spring season. It’s that time when the soccer team starts taking on the responsibility of throwing parties and the lacrosse team starts taking a break. All of this got me thinking about something I had heard my freshman year about these two teams. According to one individual, these teams aren’t too fond of each other because they both want to be known as the team who can throw the better party. I have no idea if this information is true, or why this rivalry would only exist between the soccer team and lacrosse team when there are other teams on campus that also throw parties, but it reminded me of what we’re learning in class about intergroup competition.

            If this alleged rivalry does exist, it wouldn’t be too far-fetched, even at a place like Haverford, considering the dynamics behind intergroup competition. These two groups are vying for the reputation of throwing great parties and hope to outperform the other team as to achieve the reputation and social gratification that would come along with it. While much of this has to do with social status and being known as the team who is able to throw a great party, there seems to be another dynamic involved which has to do with resources. The baseball team is another team on campus that typically throws parties. However, the baseball team has something that the soccer team and lacrosse team don’t have: their own place to hold these festivities. Since the majority of the people living in Drinker are members of the baseball team, this is their designated place to throw a party. The soccer team and lacrosse team, however, do not have their own party spaces and must share. Last year, a popular option for the soccer team and lacrosse team was the basement of HCA 19 ever since Gummere basement became off-limits. This year, Gummere basement is once again an option, but people are staying away from apartment 19 now that they have realized that the neighboring apartments in Ardmore don’t appreciate a party atmosphere and that the fire alarm tends to go off when things get a little too crowded down there. Thus, Gummere basement is looking like the only option.

            The fact that the soccer team and lacrosse team have to share this space because they lack a designated place of their own may make them feel as though they have to vie for this treasured, yet filthy, basement. They must make it a memorable party place in the name of the soccer team or in the name of the lacrosse team. This is when the competition to be known as the ultimate party-thrower comes into play, whereas the baseball team is more distinct and separate from this rivalry because they have a place to call their own.

            Just like in the Sherif (1961) study, the conflict between the "Rattlers" and "Eagles"  began once they came into contact with each other after being brought to the same campground. But just as they learned to work together and depend on each other to accomplish tasks that could only be completed with the support and interdependence of both groups, perhaps the soccer and lacrosse teams could do the same. If they were both presented with the challenge of throwing the best party that Haverford has ever experienced, they would have to pool their resources and work as one unit in order to achieve this goal. Of course, this rivalry may not even exist, and even if it does, it is not as manifest as the competition that was observed in the Sherif study. From what I have observed, while soccer players and lacrosse players tend to stick together like any other team on campus, there is no outright hostility. These guys don’t call each other names or push and shove in the DC, like the Rattlers and the Eagles did in the Robber’s Cave experiment. But while this alleged competition might be subtler, it does hint at the classic signs behind intergroup competition. To determine if this rivalry does exist, it would be interesting to perform a survey experiment to determine if the soccer team or lacrosse team holds any negative views of each other over other sports teams on campus, or if this information given to me last year was simply rumor.

Reference:

Sherif, M. (1961). Classics in the history of pscyhology (C. D. Green, Ed.). Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/index.htm

The Weight of First Impressions

            The Customs Program here at Haverford has really opened my eyes to how important first impressions are. Sometimes it feels as though I already know everyone on campus, or at least that I can recognize everyone, because the student population is so small. But when I applied to be a Peer Awareness Facilitator last year, I realized that I didn’t know or even recognize most of the members of the PAF Committee who would be reading over my application, interviewing me, and, hopefully, accepting me into the program. All of this meant that my partner and I, through our application and interactions with them during the interview, would have to give a strong and positive first impression. I don’t think that any of the committee members knew me or even of me, either, thus they had to base my entire personality off of that one interaction.

            My partner and I must have given a pretty good impression, considering that we got into the program and are PAFs this year. What brought this whole idea of the weight of first impression to mind was recently applying to be an Honor Council Orienteer, another position on a Customs team, for next year. This time, things were a little different. I had definitely met and interacted with the majority of the members of the HCO Committee. While I wasn’t exactly friends with any of them, I’m sure that the members who already knew me had formed an impression of me prior to this experience. Not only would I have to take into consideration my application and the interview, but also whatever first impression or further impressions they had already formed about me. And for the couple of members who may have had no idea who I was, I would have to “wow” them and hope that the way I was presenting myself would lead to a good first impression.

            As my partner put it after our interview, “We’ve done all we can. They’ve read our applications and interviewed us, and if they don’t like us, then they don’t like us.” We put our greatest efforts forward to attempt to make a good first impression for the members who didn’t know us. For the members with whom we were acquainted, we hoped that they had already formed a good impression of us, or that our application and interview would change any negative impressions from a prior experience.

            We make and form first impressions everyday, and adjust our impressions as we gain new information through our social interactions. Going through processes like applications and interviews helps me become aware of how much first impressions really matter. Whether I get a job or position depends on the positivity or negativity of the impression I make, as well as the strength of that impression. An interesting aspect about an interview or application is that the applicant has the opportunity to put his or her best self forward to show the interviewer or person reading the application that he or she is a wonderful person and qualified for the position. Because there is this aspect of control, one would not typically behave in a negative way or show aspects of his or her personality that may be undesirable. And while the impression we make depends on how the other individual perceives us, I think that in a situation like this, we have more control over the positivity of the impression.

            In regular, everyday interactions, we have a degree of this control in that most of us try to be friendly and polite so that the people we interact with maintain a good impression of us. However, it is harder to control our daily behavior than it is to shape our behavior during an interview. In an interview, I usually have the mindset that whatever I say or do has to reflect a positive image of myself as a person or as a candidate. Going about my daily life, there are so many more situations that I encounter in which I am not as conscious about presenting myself in a way that would leave a lasting, positive impression. I am in a more natural habitat and I do not feel the pressure I would feel during an interview. This also means that there may be more opportunity for people to form a negative impression of me—there is more range, since my behaviors aren’t necessarily catered to forming the best impression possible all throughout the day.

            Needless to say, since it is extremely hard to alter first impressions, it would be a bad situation if one of the PAF or HCO committee members had formed a negative impression of me before their respective application processes. Even if they had only observed or interacted with me in one situation in which they viewed my behavior negatively, that would be the only information they would have to form an impression of me. And since this information is negative, and people tend to pay more attention to negativity, it would have a greater impact on the committee’s perception of me as a person, no matter how great I may portray myself in the application or how well my interview goes. As well, because of the perseverance effect, new information that the committee would gain about me during the application process would not likely change their initial impression. First impressions, whether they are made on a day-to-day basis or on a special occasion like an interview, really matter.