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.