While reading this hypothetical, I wondered if the people's answers would be different if their name was not on the envelope. For example, if their friend found an anonymous envelope of cash, would the reader still believe strongly that their friend would return the envelope to a police station or attempt to find the original owner? In his explanation of the original hypothetical, Frank notes that the reason people think that their friends would return their money is because they believe that "the prospect of keeping a friend's cash would make them feel so bad that it just wouldn't be worth it" (12). People believe their friends would feel guilty because they would be harming someone who they had an emotional attachment with, which relies mostly on Frank's second reason for trusting friends (stated above).
Thus, this change in the hypothetical causes the reader to move away from evaluating their emotional attachment with the individual person. However, in considering this change to the hypothetical, it became unclear to me is if this person would now be evaluating their friend based off of their "emotional makeup" or their "reputation," or if these are the same concept. Frank's discussion of initial interactions seems to indicate a difference between emotional makeup and reputation; he states that when meeting a person, "reputation matters," and therefore reputation must be a factor that precedes this initial interaction. Emotional makeup, conversely, seems to arise from following interactions that indicate the ability of a person to demonstrate trustworthy characteristics through action, voice intonation, etc. Thus, a person knows their friend through their personal understanding of their friend's emotional makeup and their friend's overall reputation. If these concepts are distinct, what happens when their understandings do not align?
An example that demonstrates this difference in emotional makeup and reputation could come from Sandy and Danny in Grease. Sandy understand Danny's emotional makeup as trustworthy and caring from her relationship with him in the summer. She only comes to realize his reputation as a player, or "untrustworthy mate" in Frank's terms, once she comes to school. Upon learning of Danny's reputation, Sandy admittedly struggles to trust Danny, but she ultimately seems to trust her personal knowledge of his emotional makeup from the summer when she chooses to be with him at the end of the movie. Sandy demonstrates that people will often trust a person's emotional makeup even if it is contrary to their general reputation as untrustworthy.
If we apply Sandy and Danny to the envelope hypothetical, Sandy would probably trust Danny to return the money to her, but could think that if the money had no label, Danny would keep the money for himself. Here, the disparity between emotional makeup and reputation is demonstrated. From this example, my question for Frank is: What weight should we give reputation when considering a person's trustworthiness? Should we take the Sandy approach, or are there times where reputation is more important?
Nish! I love Grease! Love this post.
ReplyDeleteSo at the end of the movie, when Sandy chooses Danny, doesn't she do so at the expense of her own reputation, as well? She ends up changing everything about herself-- putting on the leather leggings and the whole nine yards-- to be appealing enough to Danny's "player" reputation and friends. Since Danny's reputation does not align with her emotional trusting of him, I would argue that Sandy actually aligns her own reputation with Danny's in order to rectify this disparity. In that sense, I believe that reputation and a person's trustworthiness are so interconnected that reputation is an inherent factor in trustworthiness which Sandy attempted to bring in accordance with each other. She fixed this cognitive dissonance by stooping to Danny's reputation's level.
So to take that back to the envelope example, your reputation as a trustworthy friend is part of the reason you give the envelope back to your friend. But if there wasn't a name on the envelope, your reputation would be the biggest factor in your decision to return the envelope to a security personnel. Wouldn't she return the unaddressed envelope to security to reaffirm her reputation as a trustworthy person to herself and the people around her, precisely because she didn't have a trusting relationship--or emotional attachment--with the person who lost the money? Moreover, wouldn't that act more be an affirmation of a public reputation of trustworthiness, instead of a private transaction of emotional trust if the envelope were to be addressed? And wouldn't the person that did that, out of good reputation, generally have a better character or emotional makeup within their private relationships? It seems the two are clearly linked.
Hi Nisha! This post is so cute! Sandy and Danny example illustrates the tension between emotional makeup and reputation. I definitely agree with your analysis that Frank considers these two concepts as distinct from one another. It seems that reputation carries a greater weight than emotional makeup in evaluating a personal relationship. In an initial interaction, reputation plays a large role in determining whether or not you want to continue the friendship or if it was a just simple friendly interaction between strangers. After you make this decision to enter the friendship based on a person's reputation, emotional makeup determines whether you want to sustain the relationship. Frank highlights that in a positive initial evaluation, "You are more likely to treat ambiguous signals in a positive light" as opposed to a negative initial evaluation (15). The "ambiguous signals" would be evaluated based on a person's emotional makeup.
ReplyDeleteBecca, I love the connection you made! Sandy changing her reputation at the end of the movie involves altering her physical appearance to arguably become more attractive in Danny’s eyes. While Frank supports the importance of reputation, he later mentions that, “Attractiveness is important. Physically attractive persons are more likely than others to receive a positive initial evaluation” (Frank 15). In accordance with the Danny and Sandy example, I would argue that “attractiveness” or physical appearance influences reputation. According to Frank, attractiveness enhances a person’s reputation. In considering the weight of reputation in evaluating a relationship, I wonder how much importance we should place on physical appearance.