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