11/7/24 Expectancies and Social Interaction- ADD READINGS Flashcards

1
Q

What is an example of Expectancy confirmation? (Hint: Rosenthal & Jacobson 1968 and Seaver 1973) What improvments did Seaver make and what is his paradigm/name of experiment?

A

Elementary education:

Exp. 1: Rosen and Jacobson: Harvard Test of Inflected Acquistion (fake test) told them some kids are “bloomers” who’d show spurt, and they did make heavy IQ gains as result of teacher expectations. Though criticized, it stood test of time.

Exp 2: Seaver. Sibling classroom data. Siblings with the same or different teacher as older siblings. Control: younger sib different teacher.

This was 1st grade. +2.6 units higher when they had high older sibling and less when low older sib. vs. .1-.2 based on genetics in different group

Name: “Naturally Induced Teacher Expectancies”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What was Darley and Fazio (1980)’s paradigm/sequence about social interaction?

A

Social Interaction Sequence

P forms expectancy of T –> P acts –> T responds –> P interprets T’s actions

P forms expectancy of T —> P interacts vs. avoids

Weird thing involving beans. Need to survive. Green = good amount of beans, some gains and losses.

However, unless information, you can’t learn to avoid. But, no info gained when you avoid. Valence Asymmetry.

1st generation: successful, no death, avoid circles with few speckles vs. good circles with few speckles.

2nd gen: good advice.

Now, P interacts or doesn’t interact. Will they correct? What happens?

When truely negative, it’s find whether told + or not, because they learn quickly

BUT! don’t self correct when truly positive and told negative because they avoid them and learn no new information.

Expectancy is maintained when you avoid

When you interact, P acts in accord with expectancy.

In fact, avoidance not just maintain expectancy, but Stregthening of negative expectation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Teacher-Pupil Paradigms.

List them, what were the effects?

Know the most important effect (feedback)

other examples of P’s actions toward T

A
  1. Chaikin et al. 1972: Tutor lead to believe 10 year old bright or dull. More positive nonverbal behavior with bright student. Forward lean, eye contact, head nods, and smiling.
  2. Effects of teacher-pupil: more differentiated feedback: positive when correct, negative when incorrect, greater amount of and more difficult material to learn, more chances to respond.
  3. Kelley (1950) Warm vs. cold: More participant when expecting warm instructor
  4. Snyder and Swann (1978a): competition game, hit button when light on, also have weapon to distract partner. When you believe your partner is competative, act competitive in response. Led to believe that partner was generally hostile made greater use of noise weapon when competing against partner in a reaction time game.
  5. Herr (1986): extreme/moderate priming affected impression, which then affected competitive behavior. Perciever followers expectation.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Word, Zanna, Cooper 1974 Exp 1: White interviewer’s behavior as function of applicant race

What step in P T interactions does this show?

A

Interviewer randomly selection for high school students. One white (baseline) then (counterbalance) black and white students, 4th never takes place, out of time.

White interviewers. 15 questiosn to ask, 45 minutes to interview all applicants. Move on to next one.

Distance: Chair furthur when talking to a black applicant. Give them less time to talk and stumble around in their speech more often.

This is step 1: P has expectancy of T, P acts or avoids when giving interview less time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Word, Zanna, and Cooper 1974 Exp. 2 Applicant Response as Function of Interviewer Warmth

A

When applicant White Applicant arrived to the interview in comfortable chair, swiveled, sheels. 5 min in, given folding chair so they choose distance.

Participants treated coldly (becaues confederate interviewers were trained to act like cold/warm interviewer from exp 1) put chair farther away.

Judge white applicant less suited for job when treated coldly, even though they are just responding to the interviewer. Also less composure and more speech errors.

Stereotype –> Expectancy –> Target responds that way.

It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Synder, Tanke, and Berscheid 1977

Phsyical Attractiveness stereotype

A

Males who think woman more attractive rate as more funny, social, intelligent, socially adept.

Dyad had 10 min convo. Tapes rated by judge.

Males who thought they were talking to attractive woman were rated as (by blind judges), were more confident and animated during the conversation, took initiative, acted in exceptations. the women were rated similarly

They believe they are attractive. No rational basis.

Those Males were rated as acting better. They acted in accordance with expectations.

The Females who were presumed to be attractive were rated better too, they react the way they’ve been treated. They respond in kind. Evidence of behavioral confirmation.

All started with expectancy.

Point: Behavioral confirmation that is obvious even to outside observer.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

How can our own attitudes bias perceptions?

A

P interprets as subjective confirmation when we get an ambiguous response.

When T responds along with our expectation/actions, objective expectancy confirmation. Not just eyes of P, everyone else sees it too, that’s how they respond to P.

When P avoids T, Expectancy maintained as we discussed.

Examples:
Football game interpreted in terms of allegiance
Nixon supporters say he’s in legal limits
Captial punishment less crime deterrant when I’m against it
attitudes towards canidates = how we think they do at a debate.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What if the target acts in a way that DISPROVES our expectation?

A

T is confirming, confirmation

T is ambiguous, subjective confirmation

T is disconfirming, impression-maintenance attributional bias

behavior not like impression, attribute to situational resason instead of giving them credit.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Impression maintenance attributional bias

A

Attitudinally inconsistent behavior dismised as external forces, internall consistent due to internal causes

Skills performanced by liked other or unskilled by unliked = talent, but luck if it is the opposite.

Similar demonstrations with attractiveness, racial stereotypes, sex role stereotypes.

Charitable act by liked other is internally, but by disliked other attributed externally (they were just in a good mood).

It takes a LOT for us to change or believe something negative about ourselves.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What about when T interprets own action AND P interpret’s T’s action.

Does that result in self-concept change? Who investigated?

A

Snyder and Swann 1978b

Hypothesis testing. Extrovert and introvert questions and unrealted.

If testing extroversion, asked more extroverted questions and vis versa.

BUT! Not all! when judges listened to interviewee’s response, hear audio track. Don’t know what questions were asked, just what they were saying. Judged extroverted condition as more extraverted, confident, etc.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Fazio, Effrein and Falender 1981 follow up to extrovert and introvert questions

A

2 neutral, and either 8 introvert or 8 extrovert questions

Complete self description form and arrange for them to have possibility of interaction in which they behavior introvertedly or extravertedly.

1/2 describe selves before 1/2 end of experiment.

Extrovert Q respondants said they were more extroverted.

Vicky: distance they put chair from her, % initiating convo, time talking to her, confederate and judge’s ratings all aligned with extroversion for those with extroverted questions.

These were subjective and objective measures.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Stuff not on slides: Deference and NonDeference conditions

A

Deference condition: more successful applicants tend to go with the flow, let the interviewer set the tone and agenda and follow their lead to make both comfortable and facilitate a more positive interaction.

Non Deference condition: ineffective applicants are the ones who allow interviewer to set pace and tone, they don’t always get ideas across.

In non-deference: No self fulfilling prophecy.

We tend to deference, which allows a self fulfilling prophency.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly