What are Dale Carnegie’s Golden Rules for Becoming Friendlier
- Don’t criticise, condemn, or complain
- Give honest, sincere appreciation
- Arouse in the other person an eager want
- Become genuinely interested in other people
- Smile
- Remember that a person’s name is to that person
the sweetest and most important sound - Be a good listener; encourage others to talk about themselves
- Talk in terms of the other person’s interests
- Make the other person feel important - do it sincerely
Discuss Making a First Impression
Snap judgements: how quickly do we form impressions?
Thin slices: how much information do we need to form accurate
impressions?
Person perception: what information do we use to form impressions?
Lack of sufficient information rarely
stops us from making judgements
about others
* We often make snap judgements about
people - quick impressions based on
the briefest of glances
Discuss Willis & Todorov (2006)
Willis & Todorov (2006) showed people
faces and had them rate those faces on
a range of traits (likeable, competent,
honest, aggressive, extraverted etc)
* Some participants rated at their own pace (“gold
standard” comparison)
* Others rated after seeing the faces for 1 second,
half a second, or 100 milliseconds
Discuss Impressions that make a difference
Our judgements of others predict consequential decisions, not least in the
form of voting behaviour
* Politicians with faces judged to be more competent after 1 second exposure were 69%
more likely to win their election (Todorov, Mandisodza, Goren, & Hall, 2005)
* Replicates when the faces are shown for 1 tenth of a second (Ballew & Todorov, 2007)
* Snap competence judgements made before an election accurately predict who will win that
election in 70% of cases (Ballew & Todorov, 2007)
Of course, snap judgements of competence aren’t necessarily based in reality
but they can affect perceivers’ thoughts and behaviour
Discuss thin slicing
The ability to find patterns in events
based on “thin slices”, or narrow
windows, of experience
* Our ability to draw relatively accurate
conclusions about the emotions and
attitudes of people in short interactions
* Ambady and Rosenthal (1993) had
participants form judgements of
university lecturers and high school
teachers
* The catch: judgements were based on 10 second
videos of the person teaching
* Participant judgements were compared against
student evaluations (lecturer) and principal ratings
(high school teacher)
Discuss Person Perception
How we perceive others is a
complex process influenced by a
number of factors
But judgements do appear to be
based on two primary dimensions:
warmth and competence
* When we meet people, we ask
ourselves: what is this person’s intention
toward me (friend or foe)?
* We also ask: is this person capable of
acting effectively (achieving goals)?
Discuss Warmth
Traits that help us assess others’ intent in a
social contex
“Are this person’s intentions toward me
good or bad?”
Friendly, kind, sincere, generous, helpful,
tolerant, understanding, fair, honest
Discuss competence
Traits that help us assess others’ ability to
act on their intent
“Can this person carry out their intentions
toward me?”
Skill, efficiency, confidence, intelligence,
clever, knowledgeable, foresighted
Discuss Fundamental Dimensions
Warmth and competence are
independent but important dimensions on
which we judge people * Cold and incompetent * Cold and competent * Warm and incompetent * Warm and competent
Warmth judgements appear to be
primary, and are made more quickly than
competence judgements (Fiske, 2006)
“From an evolutionary perspective, the primacy of
warmth is fitting because another person’s intent for
good or ill is more important to survival than whether
the other person can act on those intentions”
Discuss Impression by Innuendo
We like to form well-rounded impressions
of people, meaning we may infer qualities
about people if we don’t have concrete
evidence about those qualities
Kervyn et al. (2012) devised a study to
test the “innuendo effect”
* Warm: “Pat seems like a very nice, sociable,
and outgoing person”
* Control: “Pat made a very positive overall
impression”
* Competent: “Pat seems like a very smart,
hard-working, and competent person”
Discuss Updating a First Impression
Impression formation: the process by which people combine information
about others to make overall judgements
Two ways in which impressions are updated:
- Algebraically
- Configurationally
Discuss Algebraic Models
Impressions formed on the basis of a
mechanical combination of
information about a person
Three ways of combining information
to form overall impressions
* Summative
* Averaging
* Weighted averaging
Discuss Configurational Model
Based on Gestalt principles: the whole
is greater than the sum of its parts
People combine information they
receive about someone into an overall
impression that can be different from
the simple sum of items of information
about that person
* Central traits: influential in impression
formation
* Peripheral traits: less influential in
impression formation
Discuss Asch (1946)
Asch (1946) tested how small
changes to a description of an
individual might affect overall
impression formation
A person was described as:
* Intelligent, skilful, industrious, warm,
determined, practical, cautious
* Intelligent, skilful, industrious, cold,
determined, practical, cautious
* Participants asked how likely the person
was to also possess other traits
Discuss getting to know someone
Impressions aren’t formed algebraically through a careful weighing of all
relevant pieces of information
An emergent impression is formed that may vary depending on the total
context of the information provided
Central traits (traits that hold a lot of weight due to context) change the
impressions that we form
Initial liking: factors that make us like others
Getting closer: sharing and self-disclosure
Discuss What do we like in others?
To understand how to deepen
connections, we need to understand
what people generally like in others
We like people who are familiar
* Mere exposure effect: the more we are
exposed to something, the more we like it
* Moreland and Beach (1992) tested the
mere exposure effect among students
* Four people attended psychology lectures
but didn’t participate (mere exposure)
* Varied the number of lectures attended: 0,
5, 10, 15
What are the 2 things we like in others?
We like people who are similar
* Burgess and Wallin (1953) had 1000 couples
provide information on 88 characteristics
* Real couples were more similar to each other than
“random couples” on 66 of 88 characteristics
* Actual similarity only seems to predict liking in
short interactions; perceived similarity matters
most in existing relationships (Montoya et al., 2008)
* The less we know about someone, the more
actual similarity affects liking (because we have
little else to base our impression on)
We like people who are attractive
* We tend to like attractive people more: the Beautyis-Good stereotype (Dion et al., 1972)
* We’re more likely to come to the aid of an attractive person
(Cash & Trimer, 1984)
* Attractive criminals receive lighter sentences (Stewart, 1980)
* Each 1 point increase in attractiveness on a 5 point scale is
worth $2,000 in annual salary (Frieze et al., 1991)
* Happily, there is considerable variation in what
people find attractive and we find people we like
more attractive than people we don’t like (Murray,
Holmes, & Griffin, 1996)
Discuss What strategies help us get
closer with others?
Healthy patterns of communication
foster more satisfying social bonds
In general, communication that
builds trust improves relationships
* Sharing with others
* Self-disclosure
Healthy patterns of communication
foster more satisfying social bonds
In general, communication that
builds trust improves relationships
* Sharing with others
* Self-disclosure
Healthy patterns of communication
foster more satisfying social bonds
In general, communication that builds
trust improves relationships
* Sharing information with others is a good
way to deepen connections with others
* In the case of positive information (e.g.,
good news), this can result in capitalisation
- a process in which we turbo-charge our
own positive experience and social intimacy - BUT it depends on an engaged other
In general, communication that builds
trust improves relationships
* Self-disclosure: revealing personal
information about yourself not readily
known by the other person
* Can build trust because we are being
vulnerable
* Self-disclosure begets more selfdisclosure: norm of reciprocity
Name Dale Carnegie’s Golden Rules for Winning People to
Your Way of Thinking
- The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it
- Show respect for the other person’s opinion; never say, “you’re wrong”
- If you are wrong admit it quickly and emphatically
- Begin in a friendly way
- Get the other person to say “yes, yes” immediately
- Let the other person do a great deal of the talking
- Let the other person feel the idea is his or hers
- Try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view
- Dramatise your ideas
- Throw down a challenge
Discuss Milgram’s Obedience Studies
Electrocution one, people looked like they were in pain, and people giving the pain were told they ‘had’ to keep going
People/teachers didn’t like giving shocks
Most participants (despite what was thought, gave shocks on extreme level 68%)
Why did Milgram’s study work?
The high rate of obedience is typically
attributed to a number of factors:
* The authority figure has high status
* Participants believe the authority figure (not
themselves) is responsible for the actions
* No clear-cut point to switch to disobedience
* Many obedience situations have gradual
escalation - following orders at first has mild
consequences with more harmful
consequences coming later (at which point
you’ve already obeyed a lot…)
In reality, Milgram conducted 23
different versions of his ‘experiment’,
varying many different conditions
Obedience varied greatly across the
different conditions
(Nick) Haslam, Loughnan, & Perry
(2014) accessed Milgram’s original
data and meta-analysed the findings
across 21 of the 23 conditions.
Overall, fewer than half of the
participants continued to the
maximum voltage
In other words, the majority
disobeyed (at some point)
Factors that reduced likelihood of
obeying included a non-committed
experimenter, having a close
relationship with the learner, and
seeing other people disobey
Discuss replications of Milram’s work
Would people disobey today?
* Burger (2009) replicated Milgram under more ethical conditions (‘only’ 150 volts, pre-study
interviews with a clinical psychologist, told 3 times they could withdraw from the study)
* Found similar results: 70% of people obeyed to a critical shock level
* No gender differences, but people with greater desire for control and more empathic
concern for others were more reluctant
Shock Room (film, 2015)
* (Alex) Haslam, Reicher, & Millard (2015) reenacted Milgram with naive actors
* Almost everyone refused to administer the final shock
* The final straw for most people? Being told “you have no other choice”
Discuss Stanford Prison Experiment
Zimbardo and colleagues (1973) conducted
a study designed to simulate prison life
Participants were college students who
answered an ad and were randomly
assigned to groups
* Prison guards
* Prisoners
“Prisoners” were arrested and brought to
the basement of the Stanford psychology
building; the Prison warden (Zimbardo)
explained prison rules to all involved
A number of “prisoners” became
emotionally disturbed
Some “guards” began tormenting and
abusing prisoners
The experiment was supposed to last for
two weeks, but was stopped after 6 days
Often cited as an example of how we
conform to roles and behave in ways
expected by the situation
Discuss criticisms of the Stanford Prison experiment
Not an experiment!
In reality, despite the brutal conditions, only 30% of guards behaved cruelly (Fromm, 1973)
Self-selection
* Carnahan & McFarland (2007) conducted an experiment showing the mention of “prison life” in the study recruitment
materials likely biased who volunteered to take part (high in aggression, low in empathy)
Demand characteristics
* Banuazizi & Mohavedi (1975) had students read a description of the study procedure
* 80% correctly identified the hypotheses; 89% predicted the guards would be oppressive
Motivated leadership
* Far from being an impartial observer, Zimbardo actively encouraged guards to act in hostile ways
* Used an appeal to shared identity among the guards (using language like “we”, “us and them”; [Alex] Haslam et al., 2019)
-
Week 135
-
Week 244
-
Week 325
-
Clinical Psych readings63
-
Week 427
-
Week 532
-
Week 617
-
Developmental Psychology Readings50
-
Week 737
-
Week 840
-
Week 933
-
Social Psych Readings46
-
Week 1050
-
Week 1137
-
Week 1236
-
Personality Psych Reading77
-
Modules Week 116
-
Modules Week 216
-
Modules Week 315
-
Modules Week 43
-
Modules week 51
-
Modules Week 75
-
Research Methods Readings50
-
Social Psychology157
-
Personality Psychology Reading139
-
Clinical psychology readings/quiz questions193
