Balance Theory (Fritz Heider )

1. Balance Theory (Fritz Heider) Betty (-) + + (-) Sue Joan + (-) Balance in Relationships

2. Balance Theory (cont.) Betty (+) - + (-) Sue Joan + (-) Imbalance in Relationships

3. What about the “value” of this relationship? Betty + - + Sue Joan - +

4. Early Impression Formation • Demonstrate socially desirable behavior • Present oneself in a positive light • Communicate positive views of others (including 3rd parties) “Positive” people are generally perceived as more likeable

5. ~ Shared Negative Information and Liking ~ • Power of negative information • In photos, negative images have greater effect on likeability ratings • Quicker decision-making • Subliminal negative information processed more accurately and faster • Negative information more salient (uncommon) and informative about the • person’s “true” feelings (augments a dispositional attribution – Kelley) • (positive information more “normative” and affected by social desirability) • Role of gossiping • Implied trust in another • Promotes downward social comparison • Fosters in-group status and increased social identity (greater self-esteem) Sharing negative information about another = (to the other person) you are not like them, you’re a member of a different (“in”) group

6. ~ Social Identity Theory ~ [In-Group Bias] They tendency to link one’s self-concept and self esteem with the status and/or behavior of groups Also, people tend to reward members of in-groups (e.g., Minimal Group Paradigm) --- Self-esteem Basking in Reflected Glory --- Favorite Football Team wins --- “We” --- More likely to wear team t-shirt Favorite Football Team loses --- “They”

7. Study 1 (accounts of relationship with previous best friend and nonperson objects) Study 2 (accounts of relationship with current three close friends and nonperson objects) “While we were getting to know each other, my friend and I learned that we both liked (disliked) _____ Participants believed that sharing positive attitudes promote interpersonal closeness People remembered sharing a greater percent of negative attitudes about other people early in their friendships Participants recalled sharing a higher percent of positive attitudes about nonperson objects/events(e.g., movies, beliefs) with their best friends Negative information about others Positive information about events, issues Relationship closeness *** This may be especially true for those considered to be their closest friend

9. Study 3 (attempt to test for “causation”) Valence manipulation: “I looked over the other participant’s evaluations of Brad, and I just wanted to let you know that you both identified the same thing that you liked/disliked about Brad.” Commonness manipulation (uncommon example): “Actually, it’s pretty uncommon for people to mention liking/disliking that particular thing about Brad.” In fact, nobody else who has participated in this study has indicated that attitude.” Evaluation of partner: To what degree do you think you and the other participant will click” To what extent is the other person someone with whom you could establish a a friendship?

10. Regression: DV = Closeness; IVs = Attitude valence, Commonness of attitude, Strength of attitude • Predictors = Negative attitude (marginal) and attitude strength. No effect of commonness • Significant interaction between attitude valence and strength (see above). Negative valence of • shared attitudes affected closeness for those whose attitudes were weak Gossip: Shared, mild, negative attitudes regarding others = closeness

11. Prejudice Quotes “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.” --- Mark Twain “Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts” --- E. B. White Prejudices are rarely overcome by argument; not being founded in reason they cannot be destroyed by logic” --- Tryon Edwards

12. Allport • Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination • Key Factors • Support of Authority (e.g., teachers, upper administration) • Equal Status Contact • Work on Common Goals • (e.g., Sherif’s work and cooperative classroom environments)

13. Jigsaw Classroom Student-1 Student-6 Student-2 Task Student-5 Student-3 Student-4 Process: Each person is given information to present to the group that is valuable to find a solution to a problem or learn material. It requires cooperation and interdependence. “It is the element of required interdependence among students which makes this a unique learning experience, and it is this interdependence that encourages the students to take an active part in their learning.” Aronson et al. 1978)

14. School A (Cooperative classroom): 90 minutes/day, 5 days/week for four weeks 4 groups of 6 students School B Jigsaw) classroom): 1 hour/day, 5 days/week for three weeks 4 groups of 4 students Distributed as evenly as possible by ethnicity, age, and grades

15. Results • Improved academic performance • Self-esteem and liking of school not significant (ceiling effect?) • More positive view of peers • Lower social distance ratings (except for Aboriginal children) • Decreased negative ethnic stereotypes

16. Why Does the Jigsaw Approach Work? • Greater cooperation/interdependence in school activities • Greater ability to role-take (empathize with others) • Different attributions for success & failure (i.e., more external attributions for failures of others; avoidance of fundamental attribution error)