Some Relationships Between Interpersonal Judgments and Sociometric Status in a College Group

French, R. L.; Mensh, Ivan N.

doi:10.2307/2785194

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sociometric studies have typically shown that similarity, an important determinant of attraction (Byrne, 1971), is a good predictor of affiliation (for a review, see McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). More generally, sociometric studies have shown that ratings of attraction and liking are positively correlated with sociometric nomination measures (Bukowski, Sippola, Hoza, & Newcomb, 2000; Hoffman, 1962; Maassen, van der Linden, Goossens, & Bokhorst, 2000) and that popular individuals tend to have more likable characteristics (Bonney, 1947; French, 1956; French & Mensh, 1948; Jennings, 1950; Leman & Solomon, 1952; A. F. Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993).…”

Section: Sampling In Impression Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Most People Disapprove of Me: Experience Sampling in Impression Formation.

Denrell¹

2005

Psychological Review

299

314

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals are typically more likely to continue to interact with people if they have a positive impression of them. This article shows how this sequential sampling feature of impression formation can explain several biases in impression formation. The underlying mechanism is the sample bias generated when the probability of interaction depends on current impressions. Because negative experiences decrease the probability of interaction, negative initial impressions are more stable than positive impressions. Negative initial impressions, however, are more likely to change for individuals who are frequently exposed to others. As a result, systematic differences in interaction patterns, due to social similarity or proximity, will produce systematic differences in impressions. This mechanism suggests an alternative explanation of several regularities in impression formation, including a negativity bias in impressions of outgroup members, systematic differences in performance evaluations, and more positive evaluations of proximate others.

show abstract

Section: Sampling In Impression Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Most People Disapprove of Me: Experience Sampling in Impression Formation.

Denrell¹

2005

Psychological Review

299

314

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In sociometry, people who receive many choices are referred to as sociometric stars (Forsyth & Katz, 1946;Secord & Backman, 1964). French and Mensh (1948) argued that these popular people are more likely to represent the group ideal or valued norms; therefore they receive more selections. Jennings (1950Jennings ( , 1977 proposed that the more frequently selected people help, protect, and provide emotional satisfaction to group members more than others do.…”

Section: Sociometric Choice Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, past research has related sociometric selections to a) propinquity, b) compatible norms and values with the group, c) socially valued traits, d) similarity of attitudes and social background between members, e) social adjustment of the individual to the group life, and f) the abilities (e.g., intelligence and performance) of the person (Festinger, 1950(Festinger, , 1954Festinger et al, 1950;French & Mensh, 1948;Lindzey & Byrne, 1968;Lott & Lott, 1965;Newcomb, 1943Newcomb, , 1961Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Whatever the reason for higher choice status in a group, the more frequent selection rate indicates a better social potential of the person relative to other group members.…”

Section: Sociometric Choice Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relation between Sociometric Choices and Group Cohesion

Salo¹

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…476-479). In addition, frequently chosen individuals are more likely to be characterized with positive social traits as compared with isolates (French & Mensch, 1948). Newcomb's (1961) findings are consistent with this literature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A social relations analysis of agreement in liking judgments.

Park¹,

Flink²

1989

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a round-robin design in which every subject served both as judge and target, subjects made liking judgments, trait ratings, and physical attractiveness ratings of each other on each of 4 days. Although there was some agreement in the liking judgments, most of the variance was due to idiosyncratic preferences for different targets. Differences in evaluations were due to at least 2 factors: disagreements in how targets were perceived (is this person honest?) and disagreements in how to weight the trait attributes that predicted liking (is honesty more important than friendliness?) When evaluating the targets in specific roles (as a study partner), judgments showed much greater agreement, as did the weights of the trait attributes. A 2nd study confirmed the differential weighting of trait attributes when rating liking in general and the increased agreement when rating specific roles.

show abstract

Some Relationships Between Interpersonal Judgments and Sociometric Status in a College Group

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

Why Most People Disapprove of Me: Experience Sampling in Impression Formation.

Why Most People Disapprove of Me: Experience Sampling in Impression Formation.

The Relation between Sociometric Choices and Group Cohesion

A social relations analysis of agreement in liking judgments.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About