R. Zajonc Institute for Social Studies (ZISS)
University of Warsaw
Preferences in interdependence.
Years after...
Janusz Grzelak
Conference ‘Questions Robert Zajonc asked’
Warsaw, May 1313-14, 2010
R. Zajonc Institute for Social Studies (ZISS)
University of Warsaw
.
Janusz Grzelak
Conference ‘Questions Robert Zajonc asked’
Warsaw, May 1313-14, 2010
ZISS
Bob Zajonc’s great impact on generations of social
psychologists is out of question.
Here, there, everywhere.
Regardless geographic, national, ethnic borders...
It does not exlude, however, that psychologists in Poland
have profited more than others and have special
reasons to be thankful to Bob for a number of things ( ...)
Bob affected and affects the style of theorizing and doing
research in many other fields, including as seemingly
distant field as that of social interdependence.
ZISS
Today’s talk will be mainly focused on:
1. preferences and some of their effects
• mere presence/social inhibition
2. social passion
The first section will be based on my and my
colleagues studies on interdependence, the
secondwill not.
ZISS
In short...
Any interpersonal interaction can be described in
terms of outcome interdependence.
Outcomes being prestige, money, love, control...
Interdependence meaning that outcomes result from
both own actions and actions taken by interaction
partners.
Type of interdependence is defined by
outcome allocation to self and others (in game
theoretical approach)
and distribution of power to change own and others’
outcomes, that is to change outcome allocations (Kelley
& Thibaut tradition).
ZISS
Early experiments on social interdependence show that
a lot of people choose what is worse rather then better
for them, at least from a purely economic self-interest.
Is it because
people are stupid (irrational),
or they are rational but the theory is wrong,
especially the early psychological theory reducing selfinterest only to own, individual gain.
ZISS
People care for what outcomes are allocated to others.
Their self-interest may include others’ outcomess with +
or – sign. Thus, people may show different social
orientations, that is tend to maximize own gain as well
as relative, joint gain... (Messick, McClintock, 1968;
Kuhlman, Wimberley, 1973, van Lange, 2006).
A lot of studies have demonstrated how strongly the
attractiveness of social interaction depends upon
outcome allocations.
We also claim that attractiveness of interactions
depends on who and to what extent controls the
allocations, that is on the basic control
properties of interdependence (what was
demonstrated in a study by Grzelak, Kuhlman,
Eagley, Joireman, 2009).
What are the basic properties?
ZISS
Kelley & Thibaut (1978) analysis of control was based on two
sources of outcome variance in two (own and partner’s)
outcome domains.
Domain
Source
Me
My fate
(outcomes)
Other’s fate
(outcomes)
self-control
power
Other
dependence
other’s self-control
Me * other
partnership
partnership
Are people sensitive to control properties of interdependence?...
7
6
5
4
3
2
NoTrust
Trust
1
0
X
F
R
none
only over
partner’s
fate
only over
own fate
C
D
own &
own &
partner’s partner’s
concordan discordan
t
t
Attractiveness of a relationship varies depending upon control
properties of that relationship (Grzelak et al, 2009)
ZISS
A questionaire to assess control orientations is
composed of five scales:
Self-control:
Power:
Respect:
Dependence:
Partnership:
I like to rely on myself.
I like to decide for others.
I like people who do not ask for advise.
It is good when somebody takes care
of myself.
I like to be in a group in which
decisions are made together.
ZISS
Correlation between generalized locus of control (Rotter
and Rotter like scales) and control preferences is nearly
null except for self-control. In the latter case it reaches
.26 (in one of 3 studies)
I can ≠ I want
None of the control orientation scales correlates with
social value orientations at a level higher than .23 (in 6
studies).
Social orientations ≠ Control orientations
ZISS
A few results on differential effects of social
and control orientations (preferences)
ZISS
.
Dominant control orientation and information seeking
in ill-defined interdependence situation (Grzelak,
Biernacka, 2000)
8
7,83
N u m ber of qu estio ns
7,5
7
6,5
6
6,06
5,43
5,5
4,8
5
4,5
4
3,5
3
Self-control
Partnership
Power
Dependence
ZISS
.
PDG like payoff matrix presented to subjects
5
4
3
Equality
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
ZISS
.
Matrix recalled 10 min. later by equality
oriented subjects (minimizing difference
effect)
5
4
3
Equality
2
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Subjects bargaining a price for an appartment to be sold by them.
They reached an agreement with a buyer. In one condition they
knew that byers are poor, in the other condition they did not.
Question: how much they are satisfied with the agreement?
Satisfaction with Compromise:
Partnership & Type of Entry
8
7
Satisfaction
6
5
mm
4
Outcomes
Value
3
2
1
0
Partnership L Partnership H
High on partnership are more satisfied when they know subjective
value of partner’s outcomes, low on partnership – the opposite.
Social Orientations,
Control Orientations
and passing Control to Others
Passing control
1,6
1,5
1,4
1,3
1,2
Pro-self
1,1
Pro-social
1
Selfcontrol L
Selfcontrol H
In passing control to others those who are self-control oriented
differentiate if others are prososocial, it does not make any
difference for others.
Control orientations and Trust in „familiar”
individuals
4,2
4,15
trust
4,1
4,05
Partner L
Partner H
4
3,95
3,9
3,85
Sels-control L
Self-control H
main effects of self-control and partnership orientation
Control Orientations and Trust in institutions
(survey, 2004)
Information about trustworthiness of institution markedly affected
trust in institution of those who do not care for own control,
whereas, it did not for those who showed strong preference to
control their own fate.
Natural resources dilemma – a severe drought.
Three computer simulated scenarios: (1) community is doing
good, no Crisis, (2) doing bad, dramatically increasing Crrisis, (3)
unstable, fluctuating situation. Question: how many people want
to solve dilemma by leaving the situation?
Self-control o. and tendency to exit Crisis
Self-control oriented Ss wanted to exit Crisis situation more often
than those with relatively low desire for Self-control
ZISS
Mere presence effect
1,8
1,6
1,4
1,2
1
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
e o.
e o.
ic o.
v
t
v
i
i
s
t
t
i
i
l
a
t
r
idua
mpe
ope
v
o
o
i
C
d
C
n
I
Two persons
Three persons
ZISS
A question Bob Zajonc could have asked...
Most psychologists studying social interdependence
treat social and control orientations in terms of
generalized, trait like characteristics, in terms of
individual differences. Cognitions, evaluations, behaviors
are then most often seen as the effects of orientations.
Is there such a thing like generalized preferences?
Another approach is to look at preferences as changing
over time, and situation dependent states of mind.
People differ not in general orientation but in probability
distributions of inducing certain preference in given
situation(s). This approach would enable us to study a
subtle interplay of preferences, cognitions and behaviors
also in interdependence situations.