Past research has found that recipients agree with majority group positions and resist minority group positions on direct measures of influence. The authors suggest that these attitude shifts reflect normative pressures to align with valued majorities and to differentiate from derogated minorities. In support of this idea, participants who considered a majority group relevant to their own self-definitions (but not those who judged it irrelevant), on learning that the group held a counterattitudinal position, shifted their attitudes to agree with the source. In a second study, recipients who judged a minority group (negatively) self-relevant, on learning that the group held a similar attitude to their own, shifted their attitudes to diverge from the source. These shifts in attitudes were based on participants' interpretations of the attitude issues.

Heterosexual men and women were told they were competing with another same-sex individual for a date with an attractive opposite-sex interviewer. After answering 6 questions, participants were asked to tell the competitor why the interviewer should choose them over the competitor. Participants' videotaped behavior was coded for different behavioral tactics. Men who were more symmetrical and who had a more unrestricted sociosexual orientation were more likely to use direct competition tactics than were less symmetrical and restricted men. Restricted men accentuated their positive personal qualities, presenting themselves as "nice guys." Structural equation modeling revealed that fluctuating asymmetry (FA) was directly associated with the use of direct competition tactics. However, the link between FA and presenting oneself as a nice guy was mediated through sociosexuality. No effects were found for women.

This research provides evidence for the role of self-esteem in social influence; it demonstrates that the positions taken by self-relevant social groups can threaten people's self-esteem. Participants who wished to align themselves with a majority group and who learned that the group held a counterattitudinal position suffered a reduction in self-esteem. Similarly, participants who wished to differentiate themselves from a derogated minority group and who learned that the group held attitudes similar to theirs experienced reduced self-esteem. Group attitudes, however, did not affect the self-esteem of participants who were indifferent to the group. In addition, this study demonstrates that self-relevant motivations direct the way people process influence appeals. Participants adopted interpretations of the issues that allowed them to align themselves with valued majorities and differentiate themselves from derogated minorities. Social psychologists have long recognized that people's attitudes and interpretations of events are influenced by important reference groups. According to classic theories of social influence, people adopt the attitudes of valued groups in order to obtain valid information and to achieve a broad set of normative, or social, goals (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; Kelley, 1952; Kelman, 1958). Normatively based influence occurs when people conform with the expectations of a group, another person, or themselves (e.g., Insko, Drenan, Solomon, Smith, & Wade, 1983). Influence that fulfills one's own or others' expectations supposedly generates positive feelings of self-esteem and approval and avoids negative feelings of anxiety, guilt, and alienation. Self-Esteem and Influence A number of specific influence theories have drawn on the idea that people adopt attitudes of social groups in order to achieve or maintain a positive self-view. In early social judgment research, membership in a social group was sometimes used as a proxy for ego-involvement in an issue closely related to group identity (Hovland, Harvey, & Sherif, 1957). According to more recent social identity and self-categorization theories, people align themselves with positively valued reference groups and differentiate themselves from negatively valued groups in order

This study examined the world of Internet dating. It explored the motivations of daters, their styles of courtship, and how they negotiated problems of trust and deception. The authors employed in-depth interviews and participant observation with men and women who met online. Internet daters sought companionship, comfort after a life crisis, control over presentation of themselves and their environments, freedom from commitment and stereotypic roles, adventure, and romantic fantasy. The authors also studied the development of trust between daters, the risks they assume, and lying online. Most participants in the study eventually met, which sometimes resulted in abrupt rejection and loss of face, but other times ended in marriage.

Researchers have associated minimal dating with numerous factors. The present author tested shyness, introversion, physical attractiveness, performance evaluation, anxiety, social skill, social self-esteem, and loneliness to determine the nature of their relationships with 2 measures of self-reported minimal dating in a sample of 175 college students. For women, shyness, introversion, physical attractiveness, self-rated anxiety, social self-esteem, and loneliness correlated with 1 or both measures of minimal dating. For men, physical attractiveness, observer-rated social skill, social self-esteem, and loneliness correlated with 1 or both measures of minimal dating. The patterns of relationships were not identical for the 2 indicators of minimal dating, indicating the possibility that minimal dating is not a single construct as researchers previously believed. The present author discussed implications and suggestions for future researchers.