Social Interaction Flashcards
The need to belong: evolutionary perspective
through evolution , certain psychological characteristics have been selected because they are beneficial for survival
early humans lived in small groups in difficult environments
adapted to be social and caring - more likely to grow, mature and reproduce > species is now characterised by being close to others, caring and seeking acceptance
The need to belong: health and wellbeing 4 main evidence
- social bonds are easy to form and difficult to break
- without relationships we suffer
- our need to belong can be satiated
- the need to belong is universal
- social bonds are easy to form and difficult to break
babies instantly form attachments
we have difficulty ending relatiosnhips
mortality and relationships
social support, social integration, and overall social relationships are a greater predictor of mortality than smoking, drinking, and obesity
perception of how your life is is far more important than reality
e.g. marriage in general does not predict but being in a happy marriage predicted higher heart attack survival than an unhappy marriage
- without relationships we suffer
rejection hurts = pain, reduced wellbeing and intellectual functioning
social factors predict health and mortality
- The need to belong can be satiated
we have a limited no. of friends, 6 is enough for people to stop making an effort to make new friends - Wheeler and Nezleck
people spend less time with friends when in a romantic relationship - social interaction needs are fulfilled
- the need to belong is universal
the need to belong does not seem culture-specific based on reviewed evidence
The quality of relationships matters
pleasant daily social interactions are associated with greater life satisfaction - Sun
10% happiest people are highly social and have the strongest, most satisfying and fulfilling relationships
weak ties
strangers, people we do not know very well
interacting with weak ties can make us happier and induce a greater sense of belonging
weak ties research
barista = happier and greater sense of belonging
bus driver = happier
why do weak ties make us happier
- help us to recognise the value of others and feel connected
- others typically feel happy and respond positively
THEY MAKE US FEEL GOOD
barriers/underestimation to interacting with weak ties
we underestimate:
- how happy the target will feel
- how much people like us after a conversation
- positive effects and expressions of gratitude
relational diversity definition
the richness and evenness of relationship types across one’s social interactions
relational diversity
more people = more interactions –> good as we already know
diversity has its own benefits too
attraction definition
evaluating another person positively - not just romantic
we are often attracted to people whose presence is rewarding
3 forces that attract
reciprocity
similarity
familiarity (proximity)
reciprocity
we like people who like us
we like others more after knowing that they like us - even MORE so if they like us especially, not just like everyone
similarity
we like people who are like us, especially when they have similar backgrounds (race, age, education), interests and attitudes/values - Hampton 2019
–> we understand ourselves and they are like us so we understand them
–> they want to do the same things as us
–> trust them more - Singh 2017
–> assured that they will enjoy spending time w us and like us - Hampton 2019
similarity doe not always matter e.g. with..
PERSONALITY
actual traits like:
agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability matter more than similarity on traits - Weidman 2017
BECAUSE
these traits generally make it more enjoyable to interact with people - Watson 2014
Perceived vs actual similarity
- perceived similarity makes people like each other more than actual similarity - Tidwell 2013
- it increases the more relationships progress - Goel 2010
- outsides may see actual DISsimilarities and wrongly conclude that opposites attract
Familiarity (proximity)
- the people who you see and interact with the most —> most likely to become friends/romantic partners
friends are merely the people who got their first (Sir Peter Ustinov)
Familiarity: MIT housing study
Festinger et al 1950
studies physical proximity + friendship formation
- students were randomly assigned to 1 of 17 buildings in a housing complex on campus
- asked who are your 3 closest friends?
- despite 1 building representing 5% of residents - 65% had at least one friend who lived in their own building - most of which were next door !!!1
ME BEN ELLA
How does familiarity work?
- increased opportunity to meet people who live close
- we tend to like things that we are repeatedly exposed to more, and they become more similar to us = mere exposure effect
LIMIT: initial disliking breeds contempt after further exposure - Norton 2013
Interpersonal gap
gap between what the sender intends to communicate and what the listener perceives
i.e., someone thinks you said something and you are certain you said something else (+ visa versa)
common
The sender
- we have private knowledge on what we wish to convey –> we turn this into verbal and non-verbal behaviours
- interference - aspects that can affect how these actions are perceived e.g. tone (mood), social skills, distractions
interference
aspects that can affect how these actions are perceived e.g. tone (mood), social skills, distractions
receiver
Tries to work out what the sender is trying to say/convey
Interference can be on both ends
Biases can come into play such that a message may not be received as intended
interpretation is private - sometimes we may converse about mismatch but most of the time we do not know we have mismatched
channels through which information can be transmitted
- eyes + gazing (Eye contact)
- body movements e.g. gestures and posture
paralanguage e.g. pitch and pace
interpersonal distance - when someone is standing a lot closer than were comfortable with
interpersonal distance
when someone is standing a lot closer than were comfortable with e.g. due to cultural normalities - may make us feel impinged upon
example: facial expressions
- convey mood and emotion
- can be controlled - intensify, minimise, neutralise (masking)
BUT
- hard to control - often the truth leaks out even if for a split second:
micro expressions: authentic flashes of our real emotions
Gottman: Facial expressions
coded micro expressions in romantic couples
- may sometimes be so little people pass it off as benign but we can actually code for flashes of contempt or criticism that leak out for a fraction of a second
(sender unaware - receiver may notice - especially if it is consistent)
verbal communication
actual conversations
vital part of communication
extensively involved in developing closeness
Self disclosure: Aron 1997
lab experiment to generate closeness –> promotes self-disclosure
- p’s randomly paired up
- answer fix set of questions
e.g., who would be your dinner guest of anyone in the world
‘36 questions that will make you fall in love with anyone’
- p’s felt closer than those who engaged in small talk or an unstructured getting-acquainted task
face-2f-face or video chat - didn’t matter
self- disclosure benefits
revealing personal information to someone else generates closeness - Aron 1997
we tend to like people who disclose personal info to us
and we also like people more after we have self disclosed (Slatcher 2010)
disclosure set-backs - patience and turn taking
need some social skills for it to succeed
make sure turns are being taken and that the other person is actually interested
closeness develops based upon:
- meaningful disclosure
- other responds with interest and empathy
- other is perceived as responsive
communication is a 2-way street
does the sender feel understood and listened to?
closeness develops based upon:
- meaningful disclosure
- other responds with interest and empathy
- other is perceived as responsive
responsiveness definition
attentive and supportive recognition of one person’s needs and interests by another
perceived partner responsiveness
- feeling understood
- feeling valued, respected and validated
- feeling cared for
basis of secure, well-functioning, and highly satisfying relationships
example of not responsive
talking over someone
How big is the interpersonal gap:
meta-analysis: how accurate are we at reading other people’s intentions?
moderately accurate - nater 2015
room for interpretation
My intention of what im trying to convey and your perception of the info -
when there is a gap it could be because of EITHER individual e.g sender (facial expression tone) receiver (distraction, attention)
This means the gap is quite big AND we are aware of this
perceptions can be affected by these social cognitive processes:
- attributions we make
- positive illusions - seeing through rose-tinted glasses
- individual differences in relationship beliefs
attributions definition
explanations we use to understand each other’s behaviour
attributions info
E.g. if someone bumps into you = most people would assume it was an accident
Some = immediate angry
HOSTILE ATTRIBUTION BIAS
The way we attribute our own and other’s behaviour has a significant effect on how we think about and behave in our relationships
We identify the causes of event by emphasizing the role of some influences and minimizing the role of others.
internal = cause is due to the person
external = cause is due to something else
internal attribution
cause is due to the person
external attribution
cause is due to something else
relationship attributions: explaining good behaviour
your partner brings you a box of chocolates for no particular reason
internal attribution: they always know what to get me - they are so thoughtful
external attribution: they got them from someone else at work today and is just re-gifting them to me
relationship attributions: explaining bad attributions
your partner snaps at you for being 5 minutes late
internal attribution: they are such an impatient and irritable person
external attribution: they must have had a really hard day at work
attributions and satisfaction
satisfaction influences attributions of partners’ behaviour (Weiss 1980)
satisfied partners make internal attributions for partners’ good behaviour and external attributions for bad behaviour –>
we are happier if we attribute people’s action to external reasons
unsatisfied partners do the opposite
relationship enhancing attributions
individuals who make internal attributions for partners good behaviour and external attributions for bad behaviour become happier
help maintain satisfaction by giving partners credit for their kindness and explaining away misbehaviour
distress maintaining attributions
people who make external attributions for partners’ good behaviour, internal attributions for bad behaviour become more unhappy
explain one another’s behaviour in ways that maintain distress
positive illusions
emphasise partners good qualities, minimise faults (Murray 1999)
judge partner more favourably than they judge themselves
advantages of positive illusions
Murray 1999
- increased relationship satisfaction and stability
- give the BOD
- minimizes conflict
- partner feels goof and more secure –> you are treating them as if they are special
partner fulfilling prophecy –> partner may ‘live up’ to our idealized image of them’
partner fulfilling prophecy
Murray 1999
partner may ‘live up’ to our idealized image of them’
flipside: pressure/they are not understood/being manipulated
positive illusions - evaluation
depends on how unrealistic they are:
- minor illusions = smoothing effect on social interaction
- glossing over large character flaws = detrimental, minimise problems
partner may feel pressure to live up to ideals
self-verifciation
partner knows me and they STILL love me for my authentic self - highly relevant to traits that are important to us –> feel understood and loved ‘despite’
positive illusions vs self-verification
positive illusions = more beneficial for new relationships - we want to know our partners see us positively so we know it is safe to commit
self-verification =
longer-term relationships –> feel understood
or
when it is related to aspects of the self-concept that are very important
relationship beliefs
beliefs about how relationships should operate
destiny beliefs: people are either compatible or they are not
growth beliefs: relationship challenges can be overcome
destiny beliefs
people are either compatible or they are not:
relationship conflict is a sign they are not the one
growth beliefs
relationship challenges can be overcome
its all about working it out; conflict is just part of the process
destiny beliefs: relationship outcomes
- initially happier –> but when faced with conflict satisfaction decreases
especially sensitive to signs that their relationship is ‘not meant to be’
disengage when there is a problem
growth beliefs: relationship outcomes
constructive, optimistic and committed in the face of conflict
fewer one -night stands, date for longer periods
try to maintain when there is a problem
destiny beliefs and satisfaction
associated with lower satisfaction when challenges arise
growth beliefs and satisfaction
more satisfaction overall - help couples work through challenges
why it is hard to narrow the interpersonal gap
we expect others to read our minds (wright 2015) to know when and why we are upset
we are bad at knowing what other people are thinking
the longer we know someone we do not get better - we just get more confident that we do (Swann 1997)
NEED COMMUNICATION
how we can narrow the interpersonal gap
We need to consciously remember that others think differently to us
take time and effort to step back and assess our own biases and interpretations
Try and encode WITHOUT these
EPLEY - ESSENTIAL READING - construe oneself at a higher level of abstraction - see ourselves as we see others
egocentric stimulations
our interpretations are influenced by how we think, feel and behave - we assume that others think like we do (egocentric)
