2.people who are similar (to us) are more likable. suedfeld et. al., 1971: antiwar petition
TRANSCRIPT
2.People who are similar (to us) are more likable.
0
50
100
150
200
250
Low Moderate High
Similarity in Attire
# o
f p
eti
tio
n s
ign
atu
res
ac
qu
ire
d
Male
Female
Suedfeld et. al., 1971: Antiwar petition
British Negotiation Study (Bulryne) •9 year study of professional contract and labor negotiators
•Negotiators categorized as “average” or “skilled” based on success
•How do negotiators spend their time in discussion?
Average Skilled
2.People who are similar (to us) are more likable.
EmphasizeDissimilarity
EmphasizeSimilarity
•Stanford/Northwestern Online Negotiation Game
•Two negotiation conditions:
• “Strictly Business”: personal talk prohibited
2.People who are similar (to us) are more likable.
Online Negotiation Study
•Stanford vs. Northwestern MBA students negotiate via internet
•Two negotiation conditions:
• “Strictly Business”: personal talk prohibited
• “Soc. Info. Exchange”: personal talk allowed in first 30 minutes
2.People who are similar (to us) are more likable.
Van Baaren et al: Mimicry and Tipping
2.People who are similar (to us) are more likable.
Van Baaren et al: Mimicry and Tipping
Problems: Waitress not naïve; did mimicry inreaseTip size or did non-mimicry decrease it?
3. People who cooperate with us are more likable.
Robbers Cave Experiment
(Sherif et al., 1958)– 22 5th grade boys in
summer camp in 1954– Divided into two groups
(“Eagles” and “Rattlers”) for one week
– Groups interact in competitions (e.g., football, tug-of-war)
– rivalry became violent
3. People who cooperate with us are more likable.
Robbers Cave Experiment(Sherif et al., 1958)
How to reduce violence and prejudice?
1. Neutral, non-competitive activities (e.g., watching movies) didn’t help.
2. Cooperating to solve staged “emergencies”
(e.g., towing camp truck) did help eventually.
3. People who cooperate with us are more likable.
Group 1: Ethnic/gender mix of 5 kids learning about
pets
Child 1Canaries
Child 2Hamsters
Child 3Goldfish
Child 4Dogs
Child 5Cats
The Jigsaw Classroom (Aronson et al., 1978)
a. Divide class into 5-6 person groups
b. Each student responsible for one part of lesson plan
3. People who cooperate with us are more likable.
Group 1: Ethnic/gender mix of 5 kids learning about
pets
Child 1Canaries
Child 2Hamsters
Child 3Goldfish
Child 4Dogs
Child 5Cats
Canaryexpertgroup
Hamsterexpertgroup
Goldfishexpertgroup
Dogexpertgroup
Catexpertgroup
The Jigsaw Classroom (Aronson et al., 1978)
a. Divide class into 5-6 person groups
b. Each student responsible for one part of lesson plan (“expert”)
c. Experts from different groups gather to
learn about topic
3. People who cooperate with us are more likable.
Group 1: Ethnic/gender mix of 5 kids learning about
pets
Child 1Canaries
Child 2Hamsters
Child 3Goldfish
Child 4Dogs
Child 5Cats
Canaryexpertgroup
Hamsterexpertgroup
Goldfishexpertgroup
Dogexpertgroup
Catexpertgroup
The Jigsaw Classroom (Aronson et al., 1978)
a. Divide class into 5-6 person groups
b. Each student responsible for one part of lesson plan (“expert”)
c. Experts from different groups gather to
learn about topic
d. Experts return to their groups to teach others about topic.
3. People who cooperate with us are more likable.
Outcome Minority Students Majority Students
# of classmate friendships Increase Increase
# of fights, disagreements Decrease Decrease
Reported belief in ethnic stereotypes Decrease Decrease
Reported liking of school Increase No Difference
Test Performance Increase No Difference
Jigsaw vs. Traditional Classroom Outcomes
3. People who cooperate with us are more likable.
Good Cop/Bad Cop (clip)
Bad Cop: offers threats, abuseGood Cop: offers advice and protection from bad cop
•Perceptual Contrast (good vs. bad)•Reciprocity (protection for confession)•Likability (“cooperation” = likability)
4. People we associate with good (bad) things are more (less) likable.
+
+
+
Your photohere
Celebrity
Source
4. People we associate with good (bad) things are more (less) likable.
+
+
+
Your photohere
Good Food
Lunch Host
The “Luncheon Technique” (Razran, 1938)
The Mum Effect (Tesser & Rosen, 1970)
Q: Why do people “keep mum”?
A1: They don’t want to hurt people’s feelings.
A2: Don’t want to be associated with bad news!
G.L. just received a call from his parents.They said they have GOOD news.
G.L. just received a call from his parents.They said they have GOOD news.
Your parents called. (~100%)They have good news. (~75%)
Your parents called. (~100%)They have good news. (~75%)
Experimenter Participant Confederate(G.L.)
G.L. just received a call from his parents.They said they have BAD news.
G.L. just received a call from his parents.They said they have BAD news.
Your parents called. (~100%)They have bad news. (~20%)
Your parents called. (~100%)They have bad news. (~20%)
BUT: When anonymous, they don’t mind transmitting bad news.
5. Familiar people are more likable.
Frequency of Exposure and Liking in the Classroom (from Moreland & Beach, 1992)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 5 10 15# of Times the RA came to Class
Att
ract
ion
Rati
ng
Slide 10
Ivan Pavlov’s Classic Experiment
Before Conditioning
During Conditioning After Conditioning
UCS (foodin mouth)
Neutralstimulus(tone)
Nosalivation
UCR(salivation)
Neutralstimulus(tone)
UCS (foodin mouth)
UCR(salivation)
CS(tone)
CR (salivation)
Mere Exposure effect (Zajonc 1968, 1980)
Mere Exposure effect (Zajonc 1968, 1980)
Exposure
Explanation for the Mere Exposure Effect
– Fluency (Bornstein and D’Agostino 1994):• high levels of exposure make it
easier to process the information, which makes consumers like it more. It is an automatic, unconscious process.
PERCEPTION
What product is being advertised?
CS Cowboy, “Swish”US Marlboro, Nike