Now that SING! is over, I'm willing to take some time to analyze some of the events that happened during our numerous practices. One concept that seems to stick out to me when I think about SING! is that of social loafing. Social loafing occurs when individuals in a group exert less effort than they would if they were performing the task alone (Latane et al., 1979). For those of you who did not perform in or attend SING!, the Tri Delta routine involved groups of girls performing dance routines to various one-hit wonder songs of the past. One particular group was having a difficult time with a choreographed move and repetition was not improving their performance. Wisely, one of the dance leaders asked each girl to perform the move on her own. Almost instantly, each move was perfected upon her request. It seems that, by dancing in a group, each girl did not put forth as much effort into perfecting her dance moves as she would have with a solo dance. By requiring each girl to essentially perform a solo, the girls contributed a more appropriate amount of effort to the task of a synchronized dance. Our SING! performance also involved singing by members of the chapter who were not dancing during the skits. As usual, we were having trouble ensuring that everyone knew the lyrics and that each performer was singing at an appropriate volume. Once again, the girls were required to sing the songs individually. This seemed to remind the girls of how much they could contribute individually and our performance benefited from this. Although it was not a very popular move, singling out individuals to remind them not to engage in social loafing improved their output and our group benefited from the contributions made by each individual.
Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
One thing I have learned in reading Paul Eckman's book "Emotions Revealed" is that people are driven by emotions. It's easy to see why; everywhere we go and everything we do involves some sort of emotional transaction. As inquisitive people, we want to know what elicits certain emotions and predict their occurrence in our daily lives. I've never heard of an animal that daydreamed, but ask anyone around you and they will confess that their mind occasionally wanders towards the imaginings of a different reality or of their future. If we all do it, then we're probably good at making these predictions, right? Wrong. It seems that when people make predictions about the impact of a future events on their emotional state, a process known as affective forecasting, these predictions often fall prey to the impact bias (Wilson & Gilbert, 2003; Wilson & Gilbert, 2005). The impact bias, also termed the durability bias, occurs when we fail to make appropriate predictions about the impact of major life events on our emotional conditions (Gilbert et al., 1998). Social psychologists have found two possible reasons for the possible biases in affective forecasting. For one thing, when we contemplate hypothetical negative events, we fail to appropriately estimate the extent to which we effectively cope with the adversity we are experiencing. This is good news for coping, but underestimations of effective coping can lead us to incorrectly predict our future happiness (Gilbert et al., 1998). Furthermore, it is thought that "tunnel vision" biases our affective forecasting as well. When contemplating the future, we tend to fail to consider all aspects of our lives that contribute to the emotion we are attempting to predict. Thus, when asked to predict how happy a pay raise would make us, we fail to consider other factors (i.e., close relationships, economic crisis, etc.) that have an emotional impact on our lives.
After learning about the tendencies of affective forecasting, I was startled to realize the number of times I have fallen prey to the impact bias. Knowing that I am not alone in my ability to inappropriately forecast, I set out to document my friends doing just that. After reading about studies conducted by social psychologist Daniel Gilbert and others, I created a list of eight scenarios and asked people (a) to identify the emotion they would feel, (b) the extent to which they would feel it by rating the emotional impact on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest), and (c) how long they would feel the predicted emotion. As you can hear in the videos, the following scenarios are presented:
The candidate you supported won the presidential election.
The candidate you supported lost the presidential election.
You win one million dollars by playing the lottery.
A close friend passes away.
You have just graduated from high school and are offered a scholarship that will allow you to attend the college of your dreams.
Your favorite pet runs away from home and you cannot find it.
You save up and finally buy your "dream car."
Due to the economic crisis, you are forced to take a job that you are overqualified for and do not enjoy.
I chose these scenarios after thinking about events that have either recently transpired or are likely to occur in the lives of the people around me. It is known that, for most negative life events (every other question asked), even the most negative occurrences affect us for a period of no more than three months. In predicting future happiness after an election, voters with winning and losing candidates showed no differences in happiness levels one month post-election. The temporal effects of life events on emotional wellfare have been replicated in countless studies.
Although we often fall prey to the impact bias, it can be avoided. As Wilson et al. (2000) noted, when students were reminded of their daily activities before making predictions, the bias disappeared. By reminding ourselves of all the events that contribute to our future emotions, we become more rational forecasters and make better predictions. This can be seen in my final interview of a former social psychology student who was able to make appropriate predictions, armed with her knowledge of the impact bias. Although I documented my non-social psychology friends making this error countless times, I was careful to inform them of the concept after each interview in hopes of helping them to make better predictions about their futures. Each person was able to realize that they had greatly overestimated the impact of the scenarios I presented and adjusted their estimations to be more accurate. It is my hope that, when appropriate reminders are present, we will all be able to make better predictions and thus avoid disappointment and unrealistic expectations.
Eckman, Paul. (2007). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication and emotional life. New York: Holt.
Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. (1998). Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 617-638.
Wilson, T. D., Wheatley, T., Meyers, J. M., Gilbert, D. T., & Axsom, D. (2000). Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 821-836.
Wilson, T. D. & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 345-411.
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 131-134.
The norm of reciprocity can be found everywhere; the Bible preaches the "golden rule" of treating others as you would wish them to treat you, some cultures are driven by the "eye for an eye" mentality, and many people operate on a system of "paybacks." Whether the results of reciprocity are positive or negative, this need to repay others has a great impact on social interactions (Gouldner, 1960).
Fortunately, most of my social interactions involving reciprocity are positive. One of my best friends at Southwestern and I met three years ago when we lived next door to one another in our dorm. We have spent countless hours together and, often, one of us forgets our wallet when we go to eat or shop. Without hesitation, the other always says, "Oh, don't worry about it. I'll just take care of it." Although we've never kept a running tab and certainly don't expect the other person to return the favor (we often forget when who payed for what), the other person always seems to happily provide for the other due to recollections of past reciprocity.
At the end of this summer, my life seemed to fall apart. My boyfriend and I broke up and my 19 year-old parrot (essentially a sibling for an only-child like myself) died within a 24-hour time period. While I don't consider myself to be someone who mopes around all day, I was devastated and could not function. My roommate and another one of my best friends quietly stepped in and made sure that I managed to put one foot in front of the other. When I stopped eating, she made me bake with her. When all I could do was think about what was lost, she made me craft and create things with her. When all I could do was cry, she wiped away my tear and read Dr. Seuss' 'Oh, the places you'll go!' As mushy and sentimental as this sounds, it's the truth. My friend gave me the loving care that helped me pull through the situation. Unlike paying for a meal at Chipotle when I don't have my wallet, the kindness my friend showed me has been difficult to reciprocate due to the immensity of what she did. I bought her flowers, made her cards, baked countless goodies for her sweettooth, and crafted for her, all to no avail. Finally, I admitted a seeming defeat in that I could not immediately reciprocate the magnitude of care that she had given me. Although I'm still trying to make up for a debt I feel I owe, I simply have to remember that, as unfortunate as it will be, she will inevitably need me to treat her as she has treated me and I will then be able to give her what she gave me so selflessly.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
