Practice Makes Perfect

Social facilitation is a theory proposed by Zajonc (1965; 1980), which describes the idea that the presence of others can either enhance our performance if the task is easy or well-learned or impair our performance if the task is difficult. Zajonc (1965) believed the presence of others causes physiological arousal, which heightens a person’s tendency to perform the dominant response. The dominant response is the automatic, natural response that comes most quickly and easily to us (Zajonc, 1965). Therefore, on an easy task that we are well-practiced with, the dominant response is more likely to be the correct response, but with difficult tasks, the dominant response may not be the best response (Zajonc, 1965).

Zajonc (1969) even tested out his social facilitation theory on cockroaches! The cockroaches were placed on either a simple or more complicated track and raced toward the goal box (Zajonc, 1969). When they raced in front of a crowd of spectator roaches, they raced faster on the simple track (easy task) than when they raced on the difficult track (hard task), supporting Zajonc’s (1965) theory of social facilitation. Therefore, social facilitation is universal and applies to other animals (even insects) in addition to humans (Zajonc, 1969).

Social facilitation is central to the life of an athlete. Its so interesting that I have been applying this theory my entire life and never even knew it! We had volleyball practices constantly in order to prepare for games. We trained so much to make sure that when we are under intense game situations, the automatic dominant response is the successful reaction we want. When under extreme pressure, we often don’t have time to process our options and responses; they just come naturally. Once the set of volleyball skills we need becomes easy and well-practiced, a good dominant response will take over when it matters during games. I guess practice really does make perfect in some cases!

References:

Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269- 274.

Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 82-92.

Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Compresence. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 35-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Word Count: 374

Tradebook Blog: Attachment

For my tradebook blog, I read Attached: The new science of adult attachment and how it can help you find- and keep- love by Levine and Heller (2010). The book offers readers an explanation of adult attachment theory and illustrates how to use it to improve their romantic relationships. It unravels the mystery of why some people navigate relationships with no problem and others constantly struggle (Levine & Heller, 2010). The whole purpose of the book is to help readers find and maintain relationships. I chose this book mostly because I am a total romantic. I also just think the science behind attraction and relationships is really interesting!

Ainsworth (1978) and Bowlby (1988) both proposed the attachment theory in the 50s and 60s. Their research demonstrated that a secure connection between child and caretaker is just as essential for the child’s survival as food and water (Ainsworth, 1978). While their theory mostly focused on attachment during childhood, they also believed attachment is a primary piece of our behavior throughout our entire lifetime (Bowlby, 1988). Hazan and Shaver (1987) then proposed that adults have distinct attachment styles in romantic settings as well. Throughout our lives, the need for intimate connection and the reassurance of our partner’s availability is fundamental (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Bowlby (1988) proposed that throughout evolution, genetic selection favored people who became attached, as it was a survival advantage when they can rely on someone else for protection. Therefore, the need for a close relationship is embedded in our genes!

The adult attachment theory designates three main attachment styles that describe how people perceive and respond to intimacy in romantic relationships: secure, anxious, and avoidant (Levine & Heller, 2010). These are the same attachment types proposed by Ainsworth (1978) and Bowlby (1988). Nosko et al. (2011) suggested that attachment style patterns are predictable from parent-child relations to adult relations. Secure people are comfortable with affection and are usually warm and loving (Levine & Heller, 2010). Anxious people crave more intimacy and tend to worry more about their relationship and their partner’s interest in them (Levine & Heller, 2010). Avoidant people feel like intimacy means a loss of independence and are constantly trying to escape closeness  (Levine & Heller, 2010). Between these three attachment styles, people differ in how they view intimacy, how they deal with conflict, their attitude towards sex, how they communicate their needs and wishes, and their expectations for the relationship (Levine & Heller, 2010). Over half of the population falls under the secure category, while everyone else is split between the anxious and avoidant attachment types (Levine & Heller, 2010). Levine and Heller (2010) propose that these attachment styles predetermine our behavior in romantic situations and understanding them offers a reliable way to understand and predict our partner’s behavior. The good news for people with insecure attachment styles (avoidant or anxious) is that research (Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994) has shown that attachment styles are not fixed or set in stone. About 30% of people may change their attachment style and this may be in response to new relationship experiences (Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994). Levine and Heller (2010) provide many real life examples of this transformation and give advice on how to adjust one’s attachment style.

One of the things I really liked about this book is that its applicable for everyone. Levine and Heller (2010) continually stress that every person falls under one of the three categories, so the book can help you learn about your own behavior in relationships and it can help you learn about your partner’s style. There is a chapter for each attachment style that goes into detail explaining the behavior and attitudes underlying these styles. The book is also good for singles because it talks about how to date and how to choose partners based on your own attachment style and what meshes well with you. In addition, there are several chapters on conflict and break-ups. Levine and Heller (2010) describe how to resolve them effectively depending on you and your partner’s attachment styles. No relationship is perfect, every couple fights at some point. But it is what the argument is about and how we handle the situation that determines how it will play out. When there are conflicts between secure people that are resolved effectively, the conflicts can actually serve to deepen their bond (Levine & Heller, 2010). This book can apply to anyone and I would really recommend it to others interested in learning more about themselves and their relationships. The authors do an awesome job of explaining all the concepts, so the reader needs no background in psychology to understand the book. Levine and Heller (2010) interviewed hundreds of people for the book and used their personal stories throughout the book to keep it interesting and make it easy to understand.

Personally, I am in a new relationship this semester (coming up on 2 months) and this book was extremely helpful for me. I was able to figure out my attachment style and make sure that the two of us fit well together. Turns out, we’re both secure, so we’re good to go (we actually took the little quiz inside the book together… what nerds!)! This means we are both warm and loving and intimacy comes naturally to us. Keelan (1994) proposed that one of the best predictors of happiness in a relationship is a secure attachment style. His research found that secure individuals consistently report higher levels of relationship satisfaction, commitment, and trust (Keelan, 1994). Of course, I was happy to read this! J

For secure individuals, communication and trust are an important aspect of secure relationships (Levine & Heller, 2010). There is a whole chapter on effective communication and how it can help improve your relationship (especially in new relationships). Levine and Heller (2010) discuss how good communication sets the tone in a relationship to be open and honest. In my own relationship, once my partner saw that I was honest, he followed suit and we are now open with each other about anything. I feel like I could trust him with anything and if something is bothering either one of us, we can just put it out in the open and discuss it.

The authors, Levine and Heller, are both experts in the field of adult attachment science and have considerable research backing up their theories. Dr. Amir Levine is an adult psychiatrist and neuroscientist and is working on a research project for the National Institutes of Health in New York City where he has his own private practice (Levine & Heller, 2010). Rachel Heller has a master’s degree in social-organizational psychology from Columbia University (Levine & Heller, 2010). As both authors are experts in the field and cite hundreds of studies backing up their theories, the book is extremely credible. It is scholarly, as it discusses research, but is also entertaining and an easy read as it breaks up the theory and research with personal stories.

Now that I’ve finished the book, I think it was an awesome choice. I truly enjoyed the book and learned a lot from it. I constantly find myself applying the concepts to my relationship and to explain other people’s behavior in their relationships. I’ve noticed my own secure behavior and been able to explain why past relationships have failed. Just a few months ago when I was studying abroad in London, I met this guy who I almost instantly hit it off with. After a few weeks he started distancing himself and began to act really strange even though I knew there was interest. As a secure individual, I was not ok with this and eventually just gave up on the relationship. Now I understand that he had an avoidant attachment style and as we grew closer, he became more and more uncomfortable with intimacy and kept pushing me away. In the past week, I’ve even found myself watching a TV show and been like wow… she’s such an anxious type… It has become a central part to my schema on relationships! There really were not any parts of the book I didn’t like. Even the chapters that didn’t really apply to me (like the ones on falling into the anxious-avoidant trap, in which there is an exhausting cycle in a relationship with an anxious individual and an avoidant individual) were still interesting to read about because I have often seen it in friends’ relationships or in movies, TV shows, and books.

Overall, I highly recommend the book to anyone. It can help singles find the perfect match. It can improve relationships by understanding the predetermined behavior for each attachment style. It can reduce conflict and intensify relationship satisfaction. The purpose of the book is to help its readers find – and keep – love. It was an awesome book that definitely accomplishes that goal!

References:

Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.

Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511- 524.

Keelan, J. R., Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1994). Attachment style and heterosexual relationships among young adults: A short-term panel study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11,  141- 160.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A four-year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1, 123- 142.

Levine, A & Heller, R. S. F. (2010). Attached: The new science of adult attachment and how it can help you find – and keep – love. New York: Penguin Group.

Nosko, A., Tieu, T.-T., Lawford, H., & Pratt, M. W. (2011). How do I love thee? Let me count the ways: Parenting during adolescence, attachment styles, and romantic narratives in emerging adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 47, 645- 657.

Word Count: 1510

Compliance

A couple weeks ago, my mom and I were peacefully walking through the mall when a lady at the Lancôme counter stopped us and said they were giving away free gift packages. Each package had a bunch of little samples of some of their products. Of course, my mom wanted to stop and look at everything. That’s how it begun… the saleswoman got her foot in the door. The foot in the door technique is when someone asks for a small initial request (stopping to pick up a free gift package) that sets the stage to get the target person to comply with a larger request (Freedman & Fraser, 1966). After my mom got her free gifts, the lady then asked her to look at their new line of skin lotions. This was the larger request. She wanted my mom to buy a new product.

In addition to using the foot in the door technique, the norm of reciprocity also came into effect. The norm of reciprocity states that we treat other people as they have treated us. (Gouldner, 1960). In this case, the saleswoman had given my mom a free gift and had spent a good chunk of her time being friendly and chatting with us. Subconsciously, my mom felt like she needed to buy one of the Lancôme products in return for this lady’s time and for getting the free gift package. From the beginning of this whole ordeal, I was irritated that we had stopped at all and I could see how this was unfolding. I tried to be like hey mom… you don’t need any of that. But she started coming up with all kinds of other reasons she needed the products to justify her behavior.

Of course, she ended up buying some of their products. After we left, I asked if she really needed any of that. Her answer was no and she couldn’t explain why she’d bought them anymore. A couple days later, she ended up taking all of it back. That lady had been very persuasive, taking advantage of the foot in the door technique and the norm of reciprocity. My mom couldn’t help it but comply with her requests. Next time, she needs to defend herself by not accepting the free gift package at all and if she does, know that its free and she doesn’t owe that saleswoman anything (Cialdini, 2009)!

References:

Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and Practice (5th edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Freedman, J. L. & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195-202.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

Word Count: 400

Effort Justification

Most of us have spent immeasurable time, money, or effort on something, even when it might not have been worth it. When this happens, cognitive dissonance is naturally aroused due to the inconsistency between effort and outcome (Aronson & Mills, 1959). Festinger (1957) defined cognitive dissonance as a theory that when our attitudes do not match our behavior, physiological tension arises and people are motivated to reduce that tension by changing their attitude. This theory applies to effort justification because when we expend much effort on something that wasn’t worthwhile, we change our attitudes to justify our suffering (Aronson & Mills, 1959). Aronson and Mills (1959) proposed that the more you suffer, the more you must justify your behavior.

A great example of effort justification in my own life is volleyball. I have been playing volleyball pretty much year round since 6^th grade. That’s 11 years… over half my life! Countless hours were spent in the gym at practice and tournaments. Tons of money spent on club volleyball and traveling to tournaments. Once I got to Southwestern, the time and effort required multiplied. Every year before season starts, we have 8 days of two-a-day practices. That means 6 am practice for two hours in the morning, small break for lunch, and another 3 hour practice in the afternoon. Repeat for 8 days. During season, we have practice for 3 hours every day and are gone every weekend for games. My life completely revolves around volleyball. In the spring, we have a slight break. Instead of the entire semester, the off season is only one month (not including the regular workouts required every week of the semester we do on our own). The point is, I put in A LOT of time and effort. Regardless of whether I enjoy the sport (which I really do!! But maybe that’s the effort justification talking…), volleyball is a big sacrifice and I need some way to justify my behavior. I am extremely passionate about the sport and I love playing. My team is my family and we are very tight knit. I have thoroughly convinced myself that my effort was worth it, even if during the fitness test during two-a-days I was about to quit and storm out the door. The more effort I put in, the more passionate I become with volleyball and the more committed I am. I have changed and reinforced my attitude in order to justify the effort I’ve put in. And thank goodness for that! J

References:

Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177-181.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Word Count: 416