Soc 319: Sociological Approaches to Social

Psychology

Self-Presentation and Impression Management/Interpersonal Attraction

March 12, 2009

II. Specific Impression Management Tactics Specific strategies for reaching impression

management goals. Ingratiation

Conformity of opinions Other enhancement

Selective self-presentation Self-enhancement Self-deprecation

Less frequently used tactics include: Exemplification. Intimidation Supplication.

III. When Interactions Fall Apart

A. Embarrassment B. Aligning Actions

1. Disclaimers

2. Role-distancing

III. When Interactions Fall Apart

3. Account-making: A statement made by actor to explain unanticipated or untoward behavior (Scott & Lyman, 1968).

“Neutralization” techniques of account-making frequently used to account for deviant acts (Sykes & Matza)

Example of account-making (Kalab 1987): Students’ explanations for missing classesa. Excuses: Actor recognizes wrong, deflects

responsibility. **b. Justifications: Actor takes responsibility, denies

wrong.c. Concessions: Admit failure and apologize.d. Refusals: Deny that act occurred.

IV. Do all people impression manage? The role of self-monitoring

A. Self-monitoring (Snyder):1. High: highly concerned with situational

appropriateness of behavior

2. Low: less concern for situational appropriateness of behavior

B. Variants

1. “Getting ahead”

2. “Getting along”

Self-monitoring scale items (Snyder)

My behavior is usually an expression of my true inner feelings, attitudes, and beliefs. At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will

like. I can only argue for ideas which I already believe. When I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I look to the behavior of others

for cues. I sometimes appear to others to be experiencing deeper emotions than I actually am. In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons. I am not particularly good at making other people like me. I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to please someone

else or win their favor. In order to get along and be liked, I tend to be what people expect me to be rather than

anything else. I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and different situations. I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them.

A. Interpersonal Attraction: Who do we choose?

1. “Availables” a. Institutional structures

i. Despite cultural myth of “freedom of choice,” institutional structures guide who we meet, and how we meet them.

ii. Neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, and social networks are bound by social class & race/ethnicity, and - in earlier eras – religion.

A. Interpersonal Attraction: Who do we choose?

b. Physical proximity Exchange theory: Easy to interact with those who

are near by. The “costs” are low because there is little investment in terms of time, effort, or travel costs.

c. Familiarity: Importance of familiarity: Proximity familiarity liking.

Mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968). Repeatedly viewing a person or object over time leads to liking. We respond with mild discomfort to anything or anyone new. With repeated exposure, the feelings of anxiety decrease and the new object becomes familiar.

B. What characteristics do we seek in a partner? 1. Physical attractiveness a. Buss & colleagues: Universal importance of

attractiveness; indicator of “fitness.” Physical attractiveness-economic prospects “trade off”

when selecting long-term partners. Women have greater vested interest in offspring well-being.

Attractive women can “trade up.” [Economists’ data support this]

Data from 37 countries offer support for hypothesis.

b. Stevens, Owens and Schaefer (1990) Found men and women “match” on both physical

attractiveness and socioeconomic prospects. Supports “matching” hypothesis.

B. What characteristics do we seek in a partner? 1. Physical attractiveness

b. Debates over importance of attractiveness i. Most people seek “beautiful” partners (recall “halo

effect”). Self-fulfilling prophecy (Snyder)

Ii. Equity guides partner choices. Expectancy value theories: higher likelihood of success

when we strive for others of like “quality.” (Level of Aspiration)

Equity theories: Inequities lead to imbalance and desire to offset such imbalances.

Normative influences discourage “mismatches” (Forgas,1993).

Couples who match in attractiveness

Abhishek Bacchanal and Aishwarya Rai

Elizabeth Moss and Fred Armisen

Couples who don’t match in attractiveness (support for Buss??)

Donald Trump and Melania Knauss

B. What characteristics do we seek in a partner? 2. Similarity

a. Matching hypothesis i. Equity theory ii. Expectancy value theories iii. Consistency theories

“Matching” or Homogamy Hypothesis: Shifting Criteria Over Time

Religion: Was important influence; has waned since mid-20th century;

Race: Important influence throughout 20th century, though drastic reduction in importance. Specific race-gender patterns persist.

Social class: Key stratifier today, reflecting institutional structures, timing of partner selection (Mare; Kalmijn). Powerful implications for social stratification and transmission of class.

Importance of third-party influences endorsing homogamy has waned throughout 20th century (Kalmijn), esp. among higher-order partnerings.

U.S. Interracial Couples in Millions and as Percent of all Married Couples, 1970-2000

0.7

22.9

5.4

0

1

23

4

5

6

1970 1980 1990 2000

Num

ber

(mill

ions

)

Number (millions)

Percent of allmarried couples

Trends in U.S. Interracial Marriage

B. What characteristics do we seek in a partner? 3. Complementarity or “opposites attract”

(Winch,1958) Limited empirical support for notion that people seek

those with different personality traits that complement their own. Most data support similarity of personality traits among partners.