1 / 19

The Effects of Actor and Partner Status on Implicit Measures of Peer Influence

Tessa A. M. Lansu Antonius H. N. Cillessen Johan C. T. M. Karremans. The Effects of Actor and Partner Status on Implicit Measures of Peer Influence. Background. Status and Peer Influence. High status peer often most influential Longitudinal or cross-sectional studies

dakota-huff
Download Presentation

The Effects of Actor and Partner Status on Implicit Measures of Peer Influence

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tessa A. M. Lansu Antonius H. N. Cillessen Johan C. T. M. Karremans The Effects of Actor and Partner Statuson Implicit Measures of Peer Influence

  2. Background Status and Peer Influence • High status peer often most influential • Longitudinal or cross-sectional studies • Few experimental studies (e.g. Cohen & Prinstein, 2006) • Distinction 2 types of social status (Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998) • Social acceptance - Perceived popularity • Actor characteristics: actor status and self-esteem • On an explicit and implicit level

  3. Expectations Effect of social status of the partner • Popular peer  most influence Effect of social status of the actor • Birds of a feather? or Basking in reflected glory? Effect of self-esteem of the actor • Birds of a feather? or Basking in reflected glory?

  4. Method Participants • Step 1 • Students Arts Therapy, N = 296, in 25 classrooms • Step 2 • Women from step 1, N = 67, M age: 20 years Measurement of social status • Sociometric nominations in classroom • Who do you like most / least?  social acceptance • Who is most / least popular?  perceived popularity Measurement of self-esteem • State self-esteem, 3 questions, α = .84

  5. Method Explanation display answers peers • Difficult task, therefore the answers of two earlier participants (person A and B) are shown Manipulation status person A and B • Describe your social life in a few lines • Person A: friendly and popular • Person B: friendly and average in popularity • Manipulation-check: differed in popularity, not in likeability

  6. Method Unconscious Imitation Unconscious Imitation • Guess the number of dots on screen  5 sec display • 1 practice-trial, 5 ‘real’ trials

  7. Method

  8. Method Unconscious Imitation DV Unconscious Imitation

  9. Results Unconscious Imitation Partner effect • Average peer is being imitated • On average 26% divergence from actual nr of dots towards guess of the low status peer

  10. Actor effects Results Unconscious Imitation • Socially accepted participants imitate the popular peer more than unaccepted participants β = .40, R² = .18 Imitation of popular peer predicted by actor social acceptance Imitation of popular peer Actor social acceptance

  11. Results Unconscious Imitation Interaction effect • Social acceptance x self-esteem on imitation

  12. Results Unconscious Imitation Interaction effect • Perceived popularity x self-esteem on imitation

  13. Method Conscious Choice Conscious choice • The couple that performs best on the next task wins an iPod DV Conscious choice • With who do you want to team up? Person A or B? • Dichotomous variable • Choice of average popularity peer = 0 • Choice of popular peer = 1

  14. Results Conscious Choice Partner effect • More often choice for average peer (66%) than popular peer (34%) as a task partner

  15. Actor effect Results Conscious Choice • High self-esteem actors choose popular partner more often • With every increase of self-esteem with 1 point the odds of choosing the high status partner are multiplied by 2.3 probability self-esteem

  16. Discussion Expectation: Popular peer strongest influence Result: Average peer strongest influence • Type of behavior, type of interaction, age, gender? Expectation: Effect of actor social status Result: Effect of actor acceptance on imitation Expectation: Effect of participant self-esteem Result: Effect of participant self-esteem on choice

  17. Discussion Unexpected: Result: Strongest imitators of average peer: Unaccepted participants with high self-esteem Result: Effect of self-esteem only for popular actors: Low self-esteem actors imitate popular peer High self-esteem actors imitate average peer Limitation: • Sympathy or antipathy?

  18. Thank you for your attention Take home summary available E-mail: t.lansu@psych.ru.nl Website: www.tessalansu.nl

  19. General discussion • Status predicted peer influence in new environment • Influence by an unknown partner • Without direct interaction • High status does not always mean more influence Effect may have depended on: • Sensitivity of (age)group to status • Whether the behavior is related to status • Interaction versus static information

More Related