Chapter 7Chapter 7

Affiliation and FriendshipAffiliation and Friendship

Chapter Outline

What is A Friend?

Goals of Affiliative Behavior

Getting Social Support

Getting Information

Gaining Status

Exchanging Material Benefits

What is a Friend?

Affiliation motive - the desire to be near others and to have pleasant and affectionate interactions with them.

This chapter focuses on the “platonic” aspects of friendship and affiliation.

Studying Real-Life Relationships

People tend to be inaccurate in their recall of social interactions.

57 scientists asked to remember recent e-mail communication partners forgot 2/3 of them.

Naturalistic observation of friendships poses problems, because people might adjust their behavior if they know they are being observed.

What is a Friend?

Focus on Method:Studying Intimate Relationships

without Really Being There

Experience sampling skips the observer.

The experience sampling method involves participants recording their own interactions.

Example: When a portable beeper sounds, you fill out a short description detailing who you are with, and what is going on.

Agreeableness and Dominance

People’s thoughts about themselves and other people can be well described along two dimensions:

• Agreeableness - How likable or warm is this person?

• Dominance - How outgoing and self-confident is this person?

What is a Friend?

The interpersonal circumplexAgreeableness and Dominance

Cold-HeartedCold-Hearted Warm-AgreeableWarm-Agreeable

Assured-DominantAssured-Dominant

Unassured-SubmissiveUnassured-Submissive

Arrogant-CalculatingArrogant-Calculating Gregarious-ExtravertedGregarious-Extraverted

Aloof-IntrovertedAloof-Introverted Unassuming-IngenuousUnassuming-Ingenuous

A circumplex ofinterpersonal problems

ColdCold Overly NurturantOverly Nurturant

DomineeringDomineering

NonassertiveNonassertive

VindictiveVindictive IntrusiveIntrusive

Socially AvoidantSocially Avoidant ExploitableExploitable

Agreeableness and Dominance

Domineering – do not deal well with criticism; do not respond well to authority

Vindictive – suspicious of others; not supportive of others; willing to harm others

Cold – not close to others; not affectionate

Socially avoidant – easily embarrassed; socially withdrawn and awkward

Nonassertive – not open with feelings, needs; not self-confident

Exploitable – gullible; easily taken advantage of

Overly nurturant – don’t set limits on others; too generous and giving

Intrusive – too open about self and others; gossipy

Goals of Affiliative Behavior

The reinforcement-affect model posits a domain-general goal of feeling good.

Reinforcement-affect model - the theory that we like people we associate with positive feelings and dislike those we associate with negative feelings.

What is a Friend?

Goals of Affiliative Behavior

Chapter examines four main goals for affiliating and forming friendships:• getting social support• getting information• gaining status• exchanging material benefits.

What is a Friend?

Domain-specific models assume different relationships have different goals at different times.

GETTING SOCIAL SUPPORT

Social support - the emotional, informational, or material assistance provided by other people in one’s social network. (Perception or actual)

We often turn to others for support when we are under stress.

Why Do We Need It?

Security: Both Physical and Emotional

Social Reality

Social Regulation

Social Utility

Focus on Application: Health Psychology and Social Support

Health psychology -the study of behavioral and psychological factors that affect illness.

There are a number of positive health benefits that come with having social (either human or canine) support.

Focus on Application: Health Psychology and Social Support

Effects of High Social Support –

Perceived and actual high SS have lower mortality rates

Have less incidence of CHD

Faster recovery from chronic illness

High and low SS in marriage moderates the effect of other SS

Intro To Schachter’s Work on Anxiety (Fear) and Affiliation

Does Anxiety Lead to Affiliation?

Induce High or Low Anxiety via Supposed Shock Levels

People then fill out a scale of affiliation

Very much prefer to be alone

prefer to be alone

don’t care

prefer being together with others

very much prefer being together with others.

Intro To Schachter’s Work on Anxiety (Fear) and Affiliation

High Anxiety People Strongly Prefer to be With Others

So It does lead to affiliation, but with whom?

Same Study, but varies whether people who they can wait with are in the same situation (will be shocked), or are just others in general (not waiting for the study)

In the condition where they could wait with others who would be shocked, the majority choose this option. If they could wait with general others, none choose this option.

So the desire appears to be motivated by similarity of circumstances

Intro To Schachter’s Work on Anxiety (Fear) and Affiliation

Why Does Anxiety Lead to Affiliation with Similar Others?

1. Escape

2. Cognitive clarity

3. Direct anxiety reduction

4. Indirect anxiety reduction

5. Self-evaluation

Ruled out by no talking studies

Ruled out by dissimilar others study

Summary of Anxiety and Affiliation

Affiliation with whom:

People desire to be with similar others, others in similar circumstances

Why?

Direct anxiety reduction

Social Evaluation

Schachter’s Other Work - Birth Order and Fear (Anxiety)

Stanley Schachter (1959) informed students they would be receiving electric shocks that, though “quite painful,” would do no “permanent damage”:

“These shocks will hurt. They will be painful. As you can guess, if, in research of this sort, we’re to learn anything at all that will really help humanity, it is necessary that our shocks be intense.” (High Fear)

Other students (Low Fear) were told they would receive mild and painless electrical stimulations, that will “resemble more a tickle or a tingle than anything unpleasant.”

Students were then given the opportunity to wait alone or with others.

Getting Social Support

Birth Order and Fear

The researchers compared how first-born (and only children) reacted to fear, as compared to later-born children.

Schachter hypothesized that first-borns, whose parents had been more likely to soothe their every concern, would be more likely to want to affiliate with others when they were threatened.

Getting Social Support

Birth Order and Fear

Later-born participants’ decisions to wait alone or with others were not influenced by fear.

Later-born participants’ decisions to wait alone or with others were not influenced by fear.

100 100

7575

2525

00

Low FearLow Fear High FearHigh Fear

50 50

esearchesearch

Percentage Wanting to Wait With

Others

Percentage Wanting to Wait With

Others

Getting Social Support

First-born participants, however, were substantially more likely to want to wait with others when they were afraid.

First-born participants, however, were substantially more likely to want to wait with others when they were afraid.

100 100

7575

2525

00

Low FearLow Fear High FearHigh Fear

50 50

Percentage Wanting to Wait With

Others

Percentage Wanting to Wait With

Others

Getting Social Supportesearchesearch

Birth Order and Fear

Conclusion: Firstborn and only children tend to seek social support in anticipation of a stressful event, while later-borns are less likely to seek social support.

Getting Social Support

Threats: Why Misery (Sometimes) Loves Company

Impersonal dangers and social isolation both increase our motivation for social support.

The potential for embarrassment decreases that motivation.

Getting Social Support

Interactions: Pushing Support Away

Some people actively reject social support.

We do not always perceive social social support as a good thing, especially when we cannot reciprocate.

Getting Social Support

Focus on Social Dysfunction:The Self-Perpetuating Cycle of

Loneliness and Depression

Loneliness

Discomfort around others

Avoiding Others

Self-Defeating Thoughts

Others begin to avoid person

Negative Interpersonal

Behaviors

Depression

Focus on Social Dysfunction:The Self-Perpetuating Cycle of

Loneliness and Depression

Depressed individuals tend to focus on negative aspects of their lives, which can alienate others.

Lonely people often cope with isolation in counterproductive ways.

Attachment and Social Development

People whose parents provided a secure relationship are better suited to handle stresses later on in life.

This may be because they are better equipped to get support.

Attachment and Social Development

Adolescents and college students increasingly turn from parents to peers for support.

Even in college, people who have reassuring relationships with parents have less negative moods and get good grades.

GETTING INFORMATION

Other people can provide a wealth of facts helpful for solving problems in the physical world (Example: How to build a fire)

When it comes to social realities (do others perceive you as friendly?) - other people’s opinions are more or less all that matters.

Social Comparison andLiking for Similar Others

Our motivation to obtain information from others is partly driven by a desire for accurate information.

But part of the attraction of getting information from similar others is the positivity bias.

Information that others agree with us makes us feel good.

Getting Information

Self-Disclosers and Non-Disclosers

A key aspect of being a friend is self-disclosure.

Self-disclosure - the sharing of intimate information about oneself.

• People who disclose more about themselves are more likable.

• Women are generally more disclosing than men.

Getting Information

Uncertainty andSimilarity of Others

Uncertainty increases the desire to make social comparisons.

When we’re afraid, part of why we desire the company of others is to compare our own reactions with theirs.

Getting Information

Uncertainty andSimilarity of Others

Many studies support the theory that when we’re uncertain, we prefer information from similar others.

But if the issue is highly important to us (not ambiguous and is self-relevant), we prefer affiliating with others who can give us accurate information, whether they are similar or not.

Getting Information

When Dissimilarity Can SaveSelf-Esteem

We tend to be uncomfortable when someone excels on a characteristic we see as central to our self-esteem, especially when that person is a close friend.

Getting Information

GAINING STATUS

Humans, like chimpanzees, often form alliances to improve their position in the social dominance hierarchy.

Sex Differences in Friendships

Men’s relationships are marked more by hierarchy and instrumentality (components of status-seeking)

Women’s more by an emphasis on emotional support and intimacy.

Consequently, men get more respect in their relationships, but women get more affection.

Gaining Status

Status by Association

The desire to form friendships with high status individuals is especially strong in status-oriented cultures (example: Japan > United States)

People often try to break social connections that could reflect poorly on them (example: dishonest, hostile, or stigmatized others).

Gaining Status

Students in one experiment were assigned to the “Blue Team,” to work together on intellectual problems.

They were later told that their team scored either:

• Above 90 percent of people their age• Below 70 percent of people their age• Controls were given no information

Gaining Status

Cutting Off Reflected Failure

Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford (1986)

Students whose team had performed well “basked in reflecting glory,” proudly displaying their team affiliation.

Students whose team had performed well “basked in reflecting glory,” proudly displaying their team affiliation.

100 100

8080

6060

4040

2020

SuccessSuccessFailureFailure No Information

No Information

Percent Taking a

“Blue Team” Badge

Percent Taking a

“Blue Team” Badge

Gaining Statusesearchesearch

Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford (1986)

Students whose team had performed poorly “cut off reflected failure” by avoiding wearing the badges.

Students whose team had performed poorly “cut off reflected failure” by avoiding wearing the badges.

100 100

8080

6060

4040

2020

SuccessSuccessFailureFailure No Information

No Information

Percent Taking a

“Blue Team” Badge

Percent Taking a

“Blue Team” Badge

Gaining Statusesearchesearch

Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford (1986)

Seeking Status May Erode Social Support

Pursuing status motives in our relationships may reduce social support.

• Men may create social worlds that are status-oriented but not as socially supportive as the worlds created by women.

Gaining Status

EXCHANGING MATERIAL BENEFITS

Because of the importance of sharing resources, all societies have strong rules about sharing.

(Example: Ache hunters in Paraguay have random runs of luck, and would not survive if they did not share with one another)

Fundamental Patterns of Social Exchange

Equity -State of affairs in which one person’s benefits and costs from relationship are proportional to benefits and costs incurred by partner.

Equity is not the only form of social exchange for all relationships:

Exchanging Material Benefits

Social exchange -The trading of benefits within relationships.

Communal Sharing

Exchange Rules Example

Authority Ranking

Equality Matching

Market Pricing

Models of Social Exchange

Communal Sharing

All group members share in the group’s resources as needed and depend on one another for mutual

care.

Tight-knit family

Exchange Rules Example

Authority Ranking

Equality Matching

Market Pricing

Models of Social Exchange

Communal Sharing

Higher-ranking individuals are entitled to

loyalty, respect, and deference; lower-ranking individuals are entitled to

protection, advice, and leadership.

Tight-knit family

Exchange Rules Example

Authority Ranking

Equality Matching

Market Pricing

Military squad

Models of Social Exchange

Communal Sharing

No one gets more than others; people take turns,

share equally, and reciprocate benefits.

Tight-knit family

Exchange Rules Example

Authority Ranking

Equality Matching

Market Pricing

Military squad

Children playing a

game

Models of Social Exchange

Communal Sharing

Individuals trade according to rational rules of self-interest,

taking goods and services in proportion to what

they put in, and seeking the best possible “deal.”

Tight-knit family

Exchange Rules Example

Authority Ranking

Equality Matching

Market Pricing

Military squad

Children playing a

game

Customer & Shopkeeper

Models of Social Exchange

Individual Differences in Communal Orientation

People who have a communal orientation are less concerned with keeping careful track of inputs and outputs in their relationships with others.

Exchanging Material Benefits

Communal and Exchange Relationships

People are more likely to adopt a needs-based rule in communal relationships.

(Example: If you are taken sick, your spouse will excuse you from your share of the housework, but your credit-card banker won’t care)

Exchanging Material Benefits

Proximity

Proximity-attraction principle -The tendency to become friends with those who live or work nearby.

May be due partly to the ease of exchange with neighbors, and partly to:

Mere exposure effect -The tendency to feel positively towards stimuli we have seen frequently.

Exchanging Material Benefits