5.2 Social Thinking and Social Influence

In the news of late there has been some discussion in reference to being overweight. The articles suggest that there can be a correlation between our weight and that of our social circle. In essence, we become like those we spend time with whether it be personal time or professional time. Can this be actually be proven? A conclusion can be drawn that athletes who socialize together may have some physical similaries when it comes to weight and build; however, is it because they socialize together or because the demands of their employment is making the impact? What about relationships that are inconsistent with this notion....ei; big/tall person and small/short? I suppose that there will be a margin of error in this theory.

Interestingly enough, people tend to gravitate to others with similar interests, employment, etc........ or to whom they admire. Stereotyping and Social Catagorization are two terms that the text elaborates on. Catagorizing may include gender, sex, national origin and religion to name a few. From our life's experiences and applicable education that we may have received we form a collection/series of points of view of a given class. Whether it be good, bad or indifferent, we will have some form of opinion.

Stereotyping deals more with the thought that we have a given set of characteristics that are based on our membership to a particular group. As a result of our participation in this group our behavior will reflect/imitate that of the "group". In the final analysis what can often happen is that we end up hearing the same message regardless of who is speaking simply because of the fact that "they" are a representation of the group. This reminds me of a comment someone had made with regards to employment with a specific company in town. He stated that a personal has to be "GQ" to get a job there......you have to be an avid golfer because it was part of the social expectation that was placed on the position, your "professional style" had to be inline with that of your co-worker (or counter-parts). Failure to fall within this criteria places the applicant at a great disadvantage in the employment selection process.

Perhaps, to some extent, we do meld in with our surroundings....and then there are those situations where can be drawn in to a group simply because we have been catagorized or stereotyped.

The text brings up another issue in Social Thinking/Influence: The Fundamental Attribution Error. According to the text this refers to the tendency to explain other people's behavior as to the result of personal, rather than situational, factors. It goes on to say that a person's vehavior at a given time may or may not be relective of his or her personality. Nevertheless, the observer may tend to assume that it is fully representative. Immediate, spontaneous evaluation of a person based on minimum knowledge of their character may be an inaccurate assessment. But, on the other hand, we could be right on target if we just so happened to can them at the right moment........this could be either positive or negative in nature.

Prejudice comes in many forms and can come in to play in our social interaction process. Person vs Person, Race vs Race, Gender vs Gender, Group vs Group, Company vs Company, Athletic Team vs Athletic Team.....the list goes on. Social catagorization can place stress on relationships, whether personal or professional. Who is in the group, who is not? If we desire to be in the group our response will be that of obedience to the group's value system. We have to compromise or modify our behavior in order to be a part. This is not to say that conforming is good or bad; but, it is a fact of life.