Social Interaction
Notes – Social Interaction:
The Need to Belong
Baumeister & Leary (1995)
Humans have a fundamental need to form lasting, positive, and significant relationships.
Relationships are essential for survival and thriving.
Evolutionary Perspective (Hare, 2017)
Early humans lived in small groups in harsh environments.
Being social and caring increased survival chances.
Humans evolved to seek acceptance and form close bonds.
Supporting Evidence
Social Bonds are Easy to Form & Hard to Break
Babies form instant attachments (Bowlby, 1969).
Relationships are difficult to end.
Without Relationships, We Suffer
Rejection hurts → pain, reduced wellbeing, cognitive decline (DeWall & Bushman, 2011).
Lack of social networks → strong predictor of illness & mortality (Coyne et al., 2001; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).
Subjective factors (living alone/marital status) are less important than actual relationship quality.
The Need to Belong Can Be Satiated
People tend to have around 6 close friends (Wheeler & Nezlek, 1977).
Romantic relationships reduce time spent with friends.
But expanding social networks can be beneficial.
The Need to Belong is Universal
Found across cultures (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Hazan & Shaver, 1994).
Suggests belonging is a basic human need.
Surviving vs Thriving: The Quality of Relationships
Relationship quality predicts better survival & life satisfaction (Sun et al., 2020).
The happiest 10% of people have strong, fulfilling relationships (Diener & Seligman, 2002).
Thriving requires satisfying, high-quality relationships, not just social interaction.
Social Interaction: Quantity & Quality
Quantity matters → Having a good number of interactions is beneficial.
Quality matters → Meaningful relationships enhance wellbeing.
Types of Relationships
Close ties: Friends, family, colleagues, romantic partners.
Weak ties: Strangers, acquaintances → unexpected benefits!
The Power of Weak Ties
Interacting with strangers increases happiness.
Talking to a barista improves sense of belonging (Sandstrom & Dunn, 2014).
Talking to a bus driver increases happiness (Gunaydin et al., 2021).
Why?
Positive interactions help people feel valued & connected (Algoe, 2012).
But we underestimate their impact!
People don’t realise how much others like them after a conversation (Boothby et al., 2017).
We underestimate the happiness our kind acts bring (Kumar & Epley, 2022).
Social Interaction: Quantity, Quality & Diversity
Relational diversity: The range of different relationship types in our social life.
Study by Collins et al. (2022) (50,000 participants)
Having a variety of relationship types benefits wellbeing.
Perceived social diversity is as important as actual interactions.
Attraction: Why Do We Like Others?
Attraction is not just romantic → It refers to any positive evaluation of another person.
We are often attracted to those whose presence is rewarding (Clore & Byrne, 1974).
Forces of Attraction
Reciprocity:
We like people who like us (Backman & Secord, 1959; Birnbaum et al., 2018).
Attraction increases if we feel specially chosen, rather than just liked in general.
Similarity:
Birds of a feather flock together (Hampton et al., 2019).
We like those who share our age, race, education, attitudes & values.
Why?
We trust similar others (Singh et al., 2017).
We assume they will like us back (Hampton et al., 2019).
Exceptions:
Personality matters more than similarity (Weidman et al., 2017).
Perceived similarity is more important than actual similarity (Tidwell et al., 2013).
Familiarity (Proximity):
We like people we see/interact with frequently.
MIT Housing Study (Festinger et al., 1950):
65% of friendships formed with people in the same building.
Proximity increases chances of interaction.
Mere Exposure Effect:
We like things/people more when we see them repeatedly.
BUT! If initial impression is negative, more exposure worsens dislike (Norton et al., 2013).
Conclusion
Social affiliation:
We need relationships to survive & thrive.
Quality, quantity, and diversity of interactions influence wellbeing.
Attraction:
Reciprocity, similarity, and familiarity drive attraction.
Next topic: Communication & Perception.
Part 2: Overview of Communication & Perception
Key Focus: Understanding how people communicate and perceive each other, including:
The formation of interpersonal closeness.
The influence of beliefs and biases on perception and behaviour.
The accuracy and biases of interpersonal perception.
Empirical methods used to study communication and perception.
The Interpersonal Gap (Gottman et al., 1979)
Definition: The gap between what the sender intends to communicate and what the receiver perceives.
Stages:
Sender:
Has private knowledge of the message they want to convey.
Encodes it into verbal & non-verbal actions.
Interference may occur (e.g., mood, social skills, environmental distractions).
Receiver:
Decodes the speaker’s actions.
Interpretation is private and can be influenced by biases or misunderstandings.
The Power of Non-Verbal Communication (Hall, 2019)
Communication is not just verbal; non-verbal cues play a significant role.
Key Non-Verbal Channels:
Eye contact & gazing: Signals interest, confidence, or avoidance.
Body movements: Gestures, posture, and facial expressions.
Paralanguage: Tone, pitch, volume of speech.
Interpersonal distance: Proximity and spatial relationships.
Facial Expressions (Yan et al., 2013)
Functions: Convey mood & emotions.
Control:
People can intensify, minimize, neutralize, or mask their emotions.
Microexpressions: Brief, involuntary flashes of true emotions.
Verbal Communication & Self-Disclosure
Definition: Sharing personal information with others to create closeness.
Study by Aron et al. (1997): "36 Questions to Generate Closeness"
Participants answered structured, personal questions.
Example questions:
“Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you want as a dinner guest?”
“If you could change one past experience, what would it be and why?”
Results: Self-disclosure increased perceived closeness.
Key Findings:
We like people who disclose personal information to us.
We also like people more after we disclose to them. (Slatcher, 2010)
Aron’s "Fast-Friends Procedure" has been widely replicated (Sprecher, 2021).
Closeness increased regardless of face-to-face or video-chat interactions.
Caution: Too Much Disclosure (Buck & Plant, 2011; Sprecher & Treger, 2015)
Closeness depends on:
Meaningful disclosure.
The other person’s responsive reaction.
Patience & turn-taking. (Avoid oversharing too quickly.)
Responsiveness in Communication
Definition: Attentive and supportive recognition of another person’s needs and interests.
Key Components (Gable & Reis, 2006; Reis et al., 2011):
Feeling understood.
Feeling valued, respected, and validated.
Feeling cared for.
Impact: Basis of secure, well-functioning, and satisfying relationships.
Accuracy & Biases in Interpersonal Perception
How Accurate Are We at Understanding Others?
"Moderately" accurate (r = .32) (Nater & Zell, 2015).
Heuristics & biases influence interpretations (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974).
Perceptions & Social Cognitive Processes
Attributions (Explanations for Behaviour)
Internal Attribution: Cause is due to the person.
External Attribution: Cause is due to external circumstances.
Examples:
Partner buys flowers:
Internal: "They love me."
External: "They just got them from work."
Partner snaps at you for being late:
Internal: "They’re impatient."
External: "They had a bad day."
Impact of Attributions on Relationship Satisfaction (Weiss, 1980; Walsh & Neff, 2020):
Satisfied partners: Attribute good behaviour to internal causes, bad behaviour to external causes.
Unsatisfied partners: Do the opposite.
Attributions Reinforce Satisfaction Levels (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Osterhout et al., 2011):
Relationship-enhancing: Internal for good, external for bad → happiness.
Distress-maintaining: External for good, internal for bad → dissatisfaction.
Positive Illusions in Relationships
Definition: Seeing a partner through "rose-coloured glasses" (Murray & Holmes, 1999).
People judge their partners more favourably than partners judge themselves (Gignac & Zajenkowski, 2019).
Benefits of Positive Illusions:
Increased relationship satisfaction & stability.
Gives the benefit of the doubt.
Reduces conflict.
Encourages partner’s self-fulfilling prophecy—partners may live up to the idealized image (Murray & Holmes, 1999).
Are Positive Illusions Always Good?
Depends on realism:
Minor illusions → Helpful for social interactions.
Major illusions → Can minimize real problems and create pressure.
Positive Illusions vs. Self-Verification:
Positive Illusions work best in new relationships (Fletcher, 2015).
Self-Verification (being truly understood) is more important in long-term relationships (Swann et al., 1992).
Relationship Beliefs
Beliefs shape expectations about relationships.
Two main types (Knee & Petty, 2013):
Destiny Beliefs: "Relationships are either meant to be or not."
Growth Beliefs: "Challenges can be overcome with effort."
Effects of Destiny vs. Growth Beliefs
Destiny believers:
Happier initially.
Struggle with conflict and disengage easily.
Growth believers:
More optimistic, committed.
Work through conflicts constructively.
Have longer-lasting relationships.
Narrowing the Interpersonal Gap
Mind-Reading Expectation (Wright & Roloff, 2015):
We expect others to "just know" what we think/feel.
In reality, accuracy does not improve over time, but confidence does (Swann & Gill, 1997).
Solving the "Other Minds" Problem (Epley, 2008):
We use egocentric simulations to interpret others (project our own feelings).
Strategies to improve accuracy:
Time & effort in understanding others.
Perspective-taking (but biases still persist).
Actively encoding information rather than assuming.
Construe oneself at a higher level of abstraction (view self as others do).
Conclusion
Communication & perception are central to relationships.
Non-verbal and verbal communication shape closeness.
Perceptions, attributions, and beliefs influence relationship dynamics.
Reducing the interpersonal gap requires effort, awareness, and communication.