Falling for familiarity...

One of the most fascinating concepts in social psychology is that of attraction and close relationships. While nearly all social psychology concepts are extremely applicable to everyday life, attraction and close relationships takes the cake for being most relatable in my book. In fact, the story of how my boyfriend and I met and started dating illustrates the proximity effect exactly (Latané, Liu, Nowak, Bonevento, & Zheng, 1995). In essence, the proximity effect states that the single best predictor of whether two people will become friends or a couple is how close in proximity they are to one another. For example, you are more likely to form a relationship with someone who lives in the same area or works in the same building, etc. In my case, the proximity factor was attending the same high school (and both being involved in band). My boyfriend and I met at a band lock-in my sophomore year of high school. The ironic part was that we were both in band the previous year, but it wasn’t until we were in a confined setting for nearly ten hours with only band members that we finally had an interaction. Had I not been in band, or attended that high school I would have likely never met him, let alone dated him. The beginning of our relationship also kind of highlights the mere exposure effect which basically says that the more that one is exposed to a certain stimulus (person, object, etc), the more they gradually start to like that particular stimulus (Zajonc, 1968). After our initial meeting at the lock-in, he continued to try to talk to me by meeting me at my locker and essentially making himself more noticeable. As a result, the more I saw him and had chances to talk to him, the more I started to like him. (Mind you this is all still before we actually started dating since I was, ironically, trying to pursue someone else at the time). I can definitely say that my attraction to him stemmed from the combination of our close interactions in band as well as the increased frequency in which I saw him after that night. After about two weeks, we were officially dating and have been happily together ever since.

(n=378)

Latané, B., Liu, J. H., Nowak, A., Bonevento, M., & Zheng, L. (1995). Distance matters: Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 795-805.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9(2), 1-27.

Group projects and the hell they cause...

Group projects: they’re inevitable. For some people, they might seem like a blessing while others consider them cruel torture. Over the years, I have participated in countless group assignments with the majority of them being less than positive experiences. The primary reason for my general dissatisfaction with group projects lies in the fact that I tend to be one doing the majority of the work while the others sit back and do relatively nothing. This ends up negatively impacting the final product (though only marginally since I am a perfectionist and will not have my name associated with poor or mediocre work). You would think that performance would be enhanced when multiple individuals are contributing to the same effort, but in fact, social psychology deems this a myth. What actually occurs is a process called social loafing in which the output/effort of each group member is reduced (relative to if they were working alone) as a result of the group activity/situation (Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). In essence, group members don’t “give it their all” since everyone’s contributions are going to be pulled together in the end. This is precisely what happened last semester when I was assigned a group paper. At first, things were alright since we met and divided up tasks. Everyone seemed motivated and it looked like things were going to come together nicely until our last couple meetings. One member of our group continued to show up late and, to top it off, they did not have their portion of the paper completed. In fact, they had not even started it yet when it was due in less than a week. The rest of us had to pick up slack in order to make sure all of the necessary parts were completed. This led to a lot of last minute scrambling in order to get things done which ultimately affected our own sections of the paper. None of us had done our best work as a result of this group condition (and likely everyone else’s own personal distractions being compounded). The grade we received was not bad, but it definitely could have been higher. I imagine that if I had the opportunity to complete that assignment on my own, I probably would have scored higher and saved myself some of the stress.

(n=386)

Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.

Trade Book Blog

Over the course of this semester, I had the opportunity to read an interesting book titled Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions (Ariely, 2008). Initially, I had hoped to read a different book, but when that was no longer an option I did some research. The reviews of this book were excellent (rave reviews from various sources and a New York Times Bestseller) and the topic did peak my interest so I took a gamble and chose this one. Even though it was not my first choice, it turned out to be a great read and I’m thoroughly pleased with my decision for multiple reasons. First off, Ariely’s book covered several social psychology terms and theories thus adding further cohesion to topics covered in class. Secondly, the examples used were so applicable to everyday life which allowed for a deeper understanding and appreciation of the ideas presented. Lastly, Dan Ariely was able to convey insightful academic literature in a way that was accessible to numerous audiences. He incorporated elements of humor and described the studies and terms in ways that educate the novice while still appealing to those with an understanding of the material. I would certainly recommend this book to anyone interested in social psychology or behavioral economics, or simply to anyone who wishes to understand why humans behave irrationally in a variety of different situations. Ariely’s book has something to offer all audiences and serves as a fantastic supplement to any social psychology (or behavioral economics) course.

One of the best things about this book is just how applicable it is to real day-to-day life. Right from the very beginning, the first chapter elaborates on the concept of relativity. Towards the end of the chapter, Ariely describes a scenario from a study conducted by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (1981). Participants were presented with two hypothetical errands to run: buy a new pen and buy a new suit. At the office supply store, there is a pen for $25, but there is also the same pen on sale for $18 at a different store 15 minutes away. When asked what they would do in this situation, most said they would drive the 15 minutes to save $7. Now participants move on to their second errand (hypothetically): buying a new suit. A similar choice question was posed this time in relation to the suit. The store you are at has a suit you like for $455, but just as you are about to buy it you are told that the same suit is on sale at another store 15 minutes away for $448. What did they choose? Most said they would not take the 15 minute trip to save $7 this time. This example illustrates a way in which relativity can produce irrational decisions. In both scenarios, they could save $7 by driving to the other location, yet they don’t because in the grand scheme of things, $7 dollars is miniscule in comparison to $455 (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). I have found myself following this same pattern on some occasions as well. For example, whenever I take a big trip to the grocery store to stock up, I’m more likely to add a couple small items that I don’t necessarily need since I know it won’t affect the total cost that much relative to everything else. Yet, whenever I go for small purchases (grocery store or otherwise) I try to make sure to choose items on sale even if it only saves me $1 in the long run. Clearly these two mindsets don’t match up, but many people operate this way regardless.

Another prime example that is portrayed in this book (which sometimes feels like the story of my life) is that of procrastination and self-control. Ariely refers to a study he conducted in his own classes where he varied the due date options across the course. In one case, he set strict deadlines for his students. In another case, he had his students select their own deadlines for the assignments but with penalties in the event that they fail to meet their deadlines. The last condition did not set any deadlines other than to have everything submitted by the last day of class. What they found was that the students who were given firm deadlines made the best grades, the students without any deadlines did the worst, and those who set their own deadlines scored in the middle. This suggests that imposing restrictions is the better route to combat procrastination (Ariely & Wertenbroch, 2002). I have seen this prove true time and time again. I would consider myself to be a chronic procrastinator. I don’t like being in those situations so there have been a couple times where I thought to myself “I’m going to set deadlines for myself and write them on a calendar so I won’t end up procrastinating this time”. It’s a great idea in theory, yet I always fail to stick to my own deadlines. It seems that the only ones I can consistently follow through with are those given to me by external sources. What Ariely suggests, however, is that one of the main problems for the students who chose their own deadlines was that they chose deadlines that were not spaced well (Ariely, 2008). Spacing deadlines out over the course of time seems to produce better results than having deadlines close together. Apparently I just need to work on properly spacing my tasks (or just resort to having someone else impose deadlines for me) if I really want to reduce my procrastination tendencies.

One other study Ariely describes refers to honesty and how much people will lie when presented the opportunity. In one study he presented participants with a series of difficult math problems to finish in five minutes. One group was instructed to return their forms to the experimenter (control) and another group was told to write the number of problems they answered correctly on a separate sheet of paper (which was turned in) and discard the original paper. In earlier trials, the second group did in fact lie and inflate the number of correct answers they had. In a second test, prior to completing the math task, participants were either instructed to write down 10 books that they have read or the Ten Commandments. What they found was that writing out the Ten Commandments beforehand primed those participants to think about honesty and morality, which led them to not cheat at all (Ariely, 2008). I find this study particularly relevant given that we adhere to an honor code at Southwestern. Little did we know that every time we write the honor code on an assignment or exam, we are being primed to act honestly and morally (not that SU students are dishonest in the first place). I know that I personally have a stronger appreciation for our honor code and even find it strange when I hear about other institutions that don’t abide by one.

In addition to the real life applications, I found several other qualities of the book to be equally great. I personally appreciated all of the study descriptions included throughout the book. There were at least two mentioned in each chapter, sometimes more. Ariely ultimately strengthened his message by providing empirical evidence to support his explanations. (And of course he provided a bibliography and acknowledged his collaborators in the latter portion of the book so there is evidence that these studies do exist.) Not to mention, his descriptions of the studies are likely very accurate because in numerous cases he contributed directly to the research. He is a credible source who offered unbiased, systematic interpretations for the topics discussed. Furthermore, Ariely conveyed all of this information in such a clever and exciting way. Sometimes scholarly work can come across as esoteric and be intimidating. Yet, Ariely effectively communicated his ideas in “plain language” that was accessible to a variety of audiences while still maintaining the integrity and substance of the research material. I also liked his explanations of traditional economics and how behavioral economics actually does a better job in interpreting consumer behavior. Before reading this book, my understanding of economics was limited but Ariely’s book offered simple descriptions and comparisons which I found useful and informative. His writing style and the inclusion of personal stories also made the book more enjoyable and relatable overall. In fact, I cannot think of anything I did not like about the book. The content was interesting and presented well, plus it was useful in that I will now be more aware of my irrational tendencies and can work to modify my behavior in the future.

 Even though a multitude of irrational behaviors are addressed in this book, there is definitely a prominent take-home message that prevails throughout all the chapters. What the studies in this book reveal is that human beings aren’t as “superior” or rational as we credit ourselves to be; we all fall victim to irrationality whether we recognize it or not. While this may seem dismal to some, the more important note is that by gaining a better understanding of human behavior in realistic terms, we can get better at recognizing when we make these errors and try to modify our behavior to be more rational. In other words, by shedding light on the influences that shape our decisions we can increase our self awareness and thus work to actively change our responses and decisions.

Brief Summary

Predictably Irrational takes the reader on a journey to discover the forces and influences that guide irrational behavior over the course of thirteen chapters. Each chapter addresses a different topic such as relativity, cost of social norms, effects of arousal, procrastination and self-control, the price of ownership, honesty and so much more. The studies cited, some of which were conducted by Ariely himself, offer empirical evidence which aid in explaining why we act the way we do. Ariely also includes personal anecdotes to illustrate these phenomena further. In addition to explaining the errors of our ways, Ariely goes on to offer strategies and suggestions for avoiding these mistakes when they typically arise. The author also strives to make clear distinctions between traditional economic theory and behavioral economics as well as the realistic implications surrounding both approaches. This book challenges readers to think critically about making decisions, especially when money is involved.

About the Author

          Dan Ariely is currently the James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University. He received his B.A. in psychology from Tel Aviv University and went on to earn his M.A. and a PhD in cognitive psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He also earned a second doctoral degree in business administration from Duke University. (His book, Predictably Irrational, was written while he was a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.) From 1998 to 2008, Dan Ariely was a Professor of Behavioral Economics at MIT’s Sloan School of Management. Ariely has published two other books in addition to the one mentioned here: The Upside of Irrationality and The Honest Truth about Dishonesty (Ariely, 2012). Furthermore, his work has been published in numerous academic journals and has been featured in several popular media outlets including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post (Ariely, 2008).

(n=1896)

Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York, NY US: HarperCollins Publishers.

Ariely, D. (2012, December). Curriculum Vitae. Retrieved from http://people.duke.edu/~dandan/webfiles/arielycv.pdf

Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: Self-control by precommitment. Psychological Science, 13(3), 219-224. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00441

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (2004). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. In D. A. Balota, E. J. Marsh (Eds.), Cognitive psychology: Key readings (pp. 621-630). New York, NY US: Psychology Press.

Social Influence

You can’t hide from it. No matter what you do, you will somehow fall victim to social influence, or the social pressures that we perceive (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004; Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969). One of the more prevalent forms of social influence is that of compliance which generally refers to when someone succumbs to an explicit request made by someone of equal status such as a peer (Langer, Blank, & Chanowitz, 1978). Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), there are quite a few techniques one can use to get an individual to comply with a request. Since we are social animals, we often are influenced by the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). The general idea behind the norm of reciprocity resembles that of the “golden rule”: treat others as they have treated you (Gouldner, 1960). So in the cases where other people do nice things for us or give us gifts, we then feel obligated to return the favor. At face value, this seems harmless. However, this norm can be easily used to take advantage of others. I personally experience this on a regular basis, even though I fervently try to avoid it. Case in point: free samples. I remember going to SAM’s with my parents and always looking forward to getting the free samples of different foods. Yet, it never failed. I always felt obligated to buy the product or somehow return the favor of giving me a small sample. At times, the product did manage to find its way into our cart (like cream puffs often did). Luckily, as I have gotten older I have come to the conclusion that people handing out samples are paid to do so and that I don’t have to buy that product. The samples aren’t given out as favors; they’re just advertisement and marketing tools. Another situation where I found myself feeling obligated to make a purchase was when I recently went to a clothing store. I originally went in for one thing but despite my efforts to rebuff service from the sales associates, I found myself trying on multiple items and being given wonderful personalized attention by the employees there. One of them even went to the point to make up a “wish list” for me. I had gotten such wonderful service and attention that I soon found myself at the register with multiple purchases. I had a similar experience at a restaurant a few months back. My boyfriend and I went to this really nice restaurant for dinner on our date night. We decided to order some wine, but we weren’t sure which one to get so we consulted our waitress. She offered some descriptions but then ultimately offered us samples of the two wines we were choosing between. Typically samples are small portions, but on this occasion they were full glasses. This nice free gesture coupled with exceptional personal attention then left us feeling obligated to leave a substantial tip. We ended up leaving around a 40% tip. Social influence wins again.

(n=507)

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

Kiesler, C. A., & Kiesler, S. B. (1969). Conformity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Langer, E. J., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. (1978). The mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 635-642.