AFFILIATION

TWO REASONS FOR AFFILIATION

• Social Comparison

• Social Exchange

Social Comparison

Assumption: People have a need for accuracy about self and

others.

Proposition: The need for accuracy is highest when in state of

uncertainty about the self

Prediction: People will have a preference for comparison

with similar others

Social Exchange

Assumption: People are hedonists

Proposition: People will seek out and maintain those relationships whose rewards exceed their costs.

Prediction: People will be attracted to those who are best able to reward them.

VARIABILITY IN NEED FOR SOCIAL CONTACT

1. Genetic Factors

The need to affiliate is an inherited trait that has helped human to survive and procreate as a species.

2. Personality Factors

Need for Affiliation vs. Need for Intimacy

Need for Affiliation: Maintaining many positive interpersonal relationships.

Hi (as Opposed to Low) Need for Affiliation People

• •Don't like being alone

• •Are active in pursuing social contacts (people persons)

• •Seek approval and avoid conflict

• •Prefer group feedback on social than task dimensions

• •Are less competitive

• •Are less likely to talk negatively about others

Need for Intimacy: Desire for a few warm and close relationships.

High (as Opposed to Low) Need for Intimacy People

• •Have a small close of friends

• •Interact frequently with their friends

• •Are judged (by peers) as more warm and trusting

3. Cultural Factors

Individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures

4. Situational Factors

a) Proximity (location of people relative to one another)

Study by Festinger, Schachter, & Back (1950):

The development of friendships in married post-graduate student housing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Boston, USA)

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF RESIDENCE

Method:

Interviews of residents in each of 17 housing units.

Question:

"Name your three closest friends in the housing units.

Results:

• Two thirds of the listed friends resided in the same unit as those who nominated them.

• Two-thirds of them lived on the same floor.

• Within each floor (of 5 flats), people were more likely to be nominated as close friends if they lived in the middle flats (#s 3 & 8) rather than in the end flat.

• Those who lived in the 1^st floor flats near the steps (#s 1 & 5) were nominated more than those living farther away from the steps.

Generalizability of Findings?

• Urban housing projects for the elderly

• First-year university student dormitories

• Classroom settings

Yes, But, Are the Findings Generalisable to Marriage?

Study:

Bossard (1932) plotted the residences of each applicant of 5,000 marriage licenses in Philadelphia, USA.

Result:

Couples were more likely to get married the closer they lived to one another.

Is Proximity a Solution to the Anger, Aggression, and Violence Problem?

Study:

Ebbesen et al. (1976), condominium complex, California, USA.

Results:

• Residents established most of their friendships with people who lived in the same housing units

• Residents developed most of their enemies with people who lived in the same housing units.

b) Familiarity (frequency of actual social contact)

Mere Exposure Hypothesis (Zajonc, 1968):

Repeated exposure to a person (or object) increases liking.

Study by Saegert et al. (1973):

Ps

• •evaluated the taste of solutions located in different rooms

• •moved from one tasting sation to the next

• •were differentially exposed to one another

• •liked the people they had seen more often.

Effect of Exposure of Political Candidates on Voting Behavior?

Why Does Familiarity Lead to Liking?

c) External Events: The Role of Anxiety

Schachter's (1950) study

• Experimenter: "Dr. Gregor Zelstein" of the Neurology and Psychiatry Department.

• Ps: Would receive a series of electrical shocks as part of an experiment on their physiological effects.

HIGH ANXIETY LOW ANXIETY

Shocks would be painful Shocks would be painless

• There would be a 10-min delay while the equipment was set up.

• Ps could wait in a room alone or in a room with another participant.

• DM: "Dr. Zelstein" asked Ps which room they preferred.

Wrinkles in the Anxiety-Affiliation Paradigm

Does this stress-induced affiliation response hold true in people who are faced with an upcoming embarrassing event?

Sarnoff & Zimbardo (1961)

Firestone, Kaplan, & Russel (1973)

Procedure:

Ps would soon suck on large nipples and baby pacifiers in the presence of an experimenter

Results:

• Most Ps preferred to wait alone for the commencement of the embarrassing event

• When they chose to affiliate, they preferred to do so with people who were not going to be in the same embarrassing experiment

Another wrinkle (Kulik & Mahler, 1989):

Ps = Hospital patients about to undergo coronary bypass surgery.

72% preferred to be placed in a room with someone who had already undergone the procedure

22%: preferred to be placed in a room with someone like them