Chapter 11 Attraction & Exclusion Today’s Outline Attraction Belongingness Similarity Physical attractiveness Reciprocity Rejection Causes of rejection Effects of rejection Loneliness Attraction & Exclusion As social animals, humans are, at their core, truly concerned with attraction and exclusion Indeed the point of social psychology may be to understand why some are accepted and loved, while others are rejected Take a moment to consider times in your life where you might have been afraid of romantic rejection or perhaps were seeking social acceptance with a new group of peers Attraction & Exclusion The need to belong is defined as the desire to form and maintain close, lasting relationships with some other individuals Needing to belong is considered a fundamental drive or basic need of the human psyche Warren Jones, “In two decades of studying loneliness, I have met many people who said they had no friends. I have never met any one who didn’t want to have any friends.” Need to belong From an evolutionary psychology perspective: Attraction and acceptance are necessary for reproduction Additionally, humans likely developed a herd mentality to increase our odds of survival Consider all the ways we know our behavior changes in groups Monkeys can recognize that any two monkeys may have an alliance, be forming one, or might be likely to fight One theory is that the human brain developed more to keep track of a highly complex social world Two components to belongingness 1. Regular, positive social interactions Regular is key here, many of us have formed friendships but moved on to new situations in our life and lost regular contact with old friends Positive is also key, hanging out with that person you always argue with doesn’t fill that social need 2. Stable relationship/friendship in which people share mutual concern for each other Typically research has shown people want about 1-5 close friends People are less concerned with casual friends/acquaintances How bad for you is not belonging? Belonging is called a need, not a want, perhaps for these reasons Death rates from various diseases increase among people with no social connections (Lynch, 1979) People who are alone have more mental and physical problems (Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996) Loneliness reduces the ability of the immune system to heal the body (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2005) Attraction – Similarity, complementarity, & opposites Which old saying turns out to be true, “Birds of a feather flock together” or “Opposites attract” The research has pointed to birds of a feather being the clear winner In any relationship ranging from acquaintance to lover, opposites are unlikely to stay connected in the long run Typically, but not always, our friends are similar in age, race, education level, political leaning, economic status, etc. Note this is kind of a bad thing too, as it can lead us to assume everyone shares the opinions of your social group How .

1. Chapter 11
Attraction & Exclusion
Today’s Outline
Attraction
Belongingness
Similarity
Physical attractiveness
Reciprocity
Rejection
Causes of rejection
Effects of rejection
Loneliness
Attraction & Exclusion
As social animals, humans are, at their core, truly concerned
with attraction and exclusion
Indeed the point of social psychology may be to understand why
some are accepted and loved, while others are rejected
Take a moment to consider times in your life where you might
have been afraid of romantic rejection or perhaps were seeking
social acceptance with a new group of peers
Attraction & Exclusion

2. The need to belong is defined as the desire to form and maintain
close, lasting relationships with some other individuals
Needing to belong is considered a fundamental drive or basic
need of the human psyche
Warren Jones, “In two decades of studying loneliness, I have
met many people who said they had no friends. I have never
met any one who didn’t want to have any friends.”
Need to belong
From an evolutionary psychology perspective:
Attraction and acceptance are necessary for reproduction
Additionally, humans likely developed a herd mentality to
increase our odds of survival
Consider all the ways we know our behavior changes in groups
Monkeys can recognize that any two monkeys may have an
alliance, be forming one, or might be likely to fight
One theory is that the human brain developed more to keep
track of a highly complex social world
Two components to belongingness
1. Regular, positive social interactions
Regular is key here, many of us have formed friendships but
moved on to new situations in our life and lost regular contact
with old friends
Positive is also key, hanging out with that person you always
argue with doesn’t fill that social need
2. Stable relationship/friendship in which people share mutual
concern for each other
Typically research has shown people want about 1-5 close
friends
People are less concerned with casual friends/acquaintances

3. How bad for you is not belonging?
Belonging is called a need, not a want, perhaps for these
reasons
Death rates from various diseases increase among people with
no social connections (Lynch, 1979)
People who are alone have more mental and physical problems
(Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996)
Loneliness reduces the ability of the immune system to heal the
body (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2005)
Attraction – Similarity,
complementarity, & opposites
Which old saying turns out to be true, “Birds of a feather flock
together” or “Opposites attract”
The research has pointed to birds of a feather being the clear
winner
In any relationship ranging from acquaintance to lover,
opposites are unlikely to stay connected in the long run
Typically, but not always, our friends are similar in age, race,
education level, political leaning, economic status, etc.
Note this is kind of a bad thing too, as it can lead us to assume
everyone shares the opinions of your social group
How often do you see people unfriend others on Facebook over
political disagreements?
Attraction – Similarity,
complementarity, & opposites
Similarity
We tend to like friends who do the same activities that we do
Some researchers have even suggested that when a romantic
couple gets into a relationship, if their levels of physical
attractiveness aren’t quite similar, they will be more likely to
break up
Have couples who are in different physical leagues stuck out to

4. you as unusual?
Attraction – Similarity,
complementarity, & opposites
Indeed, matching
hypothesis has been
supported, couples
are more likely to break
up if there’s a difference
in physical attractiveness
(even serious couples)
Attractiveness & Attraction
Speaking of physical attractiveness, most of us would say ‘we
know it when we see it,’ but how do researchers define and
measure it?
For starters, which of these 3 faces is the most attractive?
Attractiveness & Attraction
I chose the middle one. According to research findings, most
people would choose either the middle or the right photo
The left photo is the original
Attractiveness & Attraction
Facial symmetry
Symmetrical faces are almost always rated as more attractive
The more symmetrical, the better
The implication is that facial symmetry implies genetic fitness.
Asymmetry is a sign of genetic imperfections

5. To demonstrate that genetics are the explanation behind this,
researchers (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999) took the t-shirts that
men slept in and asked women to smell and rate their scent
Some of the men had clear genetic asymmetry, length of pinky
fingers or ear lobes
Women preferred the smell of men with genetic symmetry
They especially preferred the symmetric men’s scent when
at the point in their period when reproduction was ideal
Attractiveness & Attraction
Facial symmetry continued
More research has used computer software to merge/combine
faces
For example, people rate the attractiveness of two faces, and
then the faces are combined, and they rate the composite of the
previous two faces
People mostly like composite faces better
In fact, the more faces that one combines, the more people liked
it
E.g. a 16-face facial composite is preferred over a 4-face
composite
Symmetrical, or ‘averaged,’ faces are preferred
Consider how saying someone looks inbred is the opposite
Lack of genetic diversity causes issues and is unappealing
Attractiveness & Attraction
Alright, we’ve covered faces, what about bodies?

6. Attractiveness & Attraction
Studies by Singh (1993) measured male ratings of silhouettes of
woman’s bodies
He manipulated the size of the waist (belly fat) and the size of
the hips
He find found that a low waist to hip ration, like .7, was
preferred. This matches the standard hourglass shape people
talk about
A small effect was found for women preferring men with a .9
waist to hip ratio
Subsequent research found the male shoulder to waist ratio was
much more important, e.g. a V-shape
Attractiveness & Attraction
Alright, but how does physical attractiveness stack up to other
aspects of attractiveness (having things in common, warmth,
career success, etc.)
It can be summed up by one of my favorite quotes from your
textbook authors:
“The fancy theories about matchmaking and similarity and
reciprocity couldn’t shine through the overwhelming preference
for the best-looking partners”
Attractiveness & Attraction
Attractiveness predicts date satisfaction more than any other
dimension
Relates back to the Halo Effect, which can also be called ‘what
is beautiful is good effect’
People (presumably) have other good traits if they’re attractive
Attractiveness & Attraction
Hortacsu and Ariely (2006) found that women stated a

7. preference for taller men
But that preference could be offset if the man made enough
money
E.g. for a 5 foot 8 inch guy, he could get as many dates as a
taller guy if he made roughly 150k more
E.g. a 5 foot 2 guy could keep up with taller guys if he made
277k more than them
However, other research has shown that while women state a
preference for taller guys, they don’t find them more attractive
once having met them (Sheppard & Strathman, 1989)
Similarly, short men don’t report having less dates than tall men
Attractiveness & Attraction
Beyond considering romantic or sexual partners, being good
looking confers other benefits. Good looking people are more
likely to:
Do better in job interviews
Receive more help from strangers during emergencies
Be more popular among their peers
This even applies to young children
Teachers like attractive kids better as well
Finally, even 3-month-old babies show a preference for staring
longer at attractive faces
Attractiveness & Attraction
According to principles of behaviorism:
We like people and romantic partners when they praise or
compliment us (feels good, so we have positive associations
with them)
We also like people who do us favors. This can take the form
of help, gifts, cooking food, etc.

8. The exception in both of those cases is when the favors or
compliments are seen as manipulative
Attractiveness & Attraction
As we discussed in the social influence chapter, reciprocity has
compelling effects
As such, when someone likes us, we are inclined to like them by
default
One exception is when we don’t like someone back and don’t
want to spend time with them
Can cause us to feel guilty and/or turn them away
Attractiveness & Attraction
Nonverbal reciprocity
Lakin & Chartrand (2005) found that participants liked
confederates better who mimicked their behavior (giggling,
putting one’s hand on one’s face, etc.) than those confederates
who didn’t mimic
Try it out in your life! Just don’t make it too obvious ;p
Attractiveness & Attraction
A few final points about attraction
The ‘mere exposure effect’ (Ch. 7) applies to liking people too
Also called the propinquity effect, we like people that we
encounter regularly
Makes us feel like our environment is stable and predictable
But like the mere exposure effect, if our initial response is
dislike, disliking gets worse
Social allergy effect: a partner’s annoying habits get more
annoying over time

9. Rejection
Rejection is a broad term, referring to being turned down for a
date, being dumped, being fired, being kicked off of a team, not
invited to an event with your usual friends, etc.
Ostracism is another word for it, being excluded, rejected, or
ignored by others
Why does rejection occur?
What causes rejection
Reasons differ by context
Among children, other kids are rejected if they’re:
1. Aggressive
physically or verbally
2. Withdrawn
Often just by him/herself
3. Different/deviant
Just unlike peers in some way
What causes rejection
Among adults
Typically deviance
Just being too different from people around you
Shame on some level, because that stifles uniqueness
Bad apple
Making others of your group look bad
What causes rejection
Romantic Rejection

10. When turning people down, people often cite external reasons
(too busy, not looking for a relationship, etc.)
But the reason is almost always internal (not attracted to
person, don’t like them, etc.)
Those external answers are polite, but can lead to confusion
Rejected people can become a stalkers
There has also been a trend lately of men rejected by women to
become violent and go on a shooting spree as a result
Psychological effects of rejection
The effects of rejection are uniformly bad
Pain
Illness
Depression
Suicidal thoughts
Life seeming pointless
Risky sexual behavior
People can develop rejection sensitivity
Reluctance to open up to new people for fear of being hurt
Psychological effects of rejection
Similar to shocking physical pain, sometimes the psychological
response to an important rejection is numbness
The mental distress, anxiety, and sadness come later
Rejection makes people temporarily stupid, in terms of
cognitive performance
Rejection also suppresses people’s ability to self-regulate or
control their behavior
More likely to binge eat sweets

11. Behavioral effects of rejection
Less generous, cooperative, and helpful
More impulsive and destructive
Higher levels of aggression
Before shootings in the U.S. became so frequent, the narrative
was that school shooters were often rejected outcasts
There may be some truth to that narrative, but it’s not always
the case and it certainly doesn’t excuse shooting people
Loneliness
When we discuss lonely people, we mean chronically lonely,
not temporarily because someone moved to a new city
Comparing lonely to non-lonely people defies a lot of the
stereotypes about lonely people
There are no appreciable differences in attractiveness,
intelligence, or general social skills between lonely and non-
lonely people
But, lonely people do seem to do a bad job of detecting the
emotional states of people they interact with
This may lead to friction in social relationships
Lonely people interact with others as often as non-lonely
(quantity), but the interaction quality is poorer
Loneliness
Recommendations:
Someone who is often lonely should get a pet! They help a lot
Improve at monitoring emotional states
Continuing to attempt to form meaningful bonds with people
Live closer to family
image2.jpeg

12. image3.jpeg
image4.jpeg
image5.jpeg
image6.jpeg
image7.jpeg
image8.jpeg
image9.jpeg
image10.jpeg
image11.jpeg
image1.jpeg
CS547 Wireless Networking and Security
Final Exam
Question 1 (10 pts):
What are millimeter waves? Why is it restricted to short
distance communications? Describe the
application of millimeter waves in airport security scanning
(Research).
Question 2 (15 pts):
Describe the iOS keychain. Describe how hackers can possibly
steal the iOS keychain and crack
Apple account passwords (Research).
Question 3 (10 pts):
Describe Near Field Communication (NFC) wireless technology
(Research).
Question 4 (10 pts):
A new wireless web transmission protocol has been developed
using a numeric value (16-bit size)

13. to represent each word. Discuss the pros and cons of such
scheme in terms of usability, efficiency,
and bandwidth utilization (Research).
Question 5 (15 pts):
Cellular communications work on multiple and sometimes
incompatible technologies: GSM, CDMA and
4G LTE. Briefly describe their main differences. Describe why
the Verizon cellular network does not or
cannot provide the simultaneous talk-and-browse feature similar
to that provided by the AT&T cellular
network (Research).
Question 6 (15 pts):
The earlier wireless encryption, WEP, had been cracked several
years ago, Now, the newer encryption
technology, WPA2 have been cracked. For each of these,
provide a detailed description on how the
password cracking is accomplished (Research).
Question 7 (15 pts):
Describe at least four (4) security services provided by
Bluetooth. Select two (2) from these
services and, for each, briefly describe a realistic way of
defeating its purpose (Research).
Question 8 (10 pts):
Compare and contrast the built-in security features found in the
following cellular technologies:
GSM, GPRS, and UMTS.
Chapter 14

14. Groups
Today’s Outline
Groups
Deindividuation
Social facilitation
Social loafing
The accuracy of group decisions & thinking
Wisdom of crowds
Groupthink
Risky/Stingy Shifts
Leaders and leadership
Toxic and dangerous leaders
Leadership styles and power
What groups are and do
We divide ourselves into many different groups
Sometimes even just two people, a dyad, can count as group
Ideally, people want to have enough in common with a group to
feel close to them, but also stand apart in some ways, called
optimal distinctiveness
Groups, roles, & selves
Being in groups is double-edged sword
They help us to feel like we belong
Even when the group is complete nonsense (e.g. you were
seated at table 1 with other people due to a coin flip), called the

15. minimal group effect from Ch. 13 on prejudice
When our group does well we tend to ‘bask in the reflective
glory’ and feel like we have done well also
E.g. when your favorite team wins an important game
Groups, roles, & selves continued
But groups can also have major downsides
We tend to assume there’s less variability within groups than
between groups, but it’s the opposite
Deindividuation is a huge problem with groups!
A loss of self-awareness and individual accountability
when in groups (E.g. mob violence)
- Said another way, being anonymous. Often results
in aggression, we’ll come back to this in Ch. 10
Group action – Social Facilitation
If you play or played sports, did you like it when your parents
or friends came to watch your games?
Personally I disliked it, felt like it made me play worse, I told
them not to come lol
But research shows observers can indeed affect us
Recall back in chapter 1, Triplett’s original social psychology
study that found bikers biked faster against people than against
the clock
Social facilitation
Since Triplett’s studies, much

16. more research has been conducted!
One finding showed that if you replaced other bikers with just
observers, people still biked harder than with no observers
Thus people called that evaluation apprehension
Concern about how others perceive you and your performance,
we want it to be favorable
This can lead to more effort and better performance
But, the presence of others can make people perform worse too
and ‘choke’ under pressure
Social facilitation
How do we resolve that discrepancy then?
Do people watching make us perform better or worse?
Zajonc (1965) proposed his social facilitation theory
Based on animal behavior, how the presence of animals of the
same species increases an animals arousal and its most common
response/behavior
Zajonc’s Social Facilitation Theory
Presence of other people leads
to arousal
Arousal leads to an increase in the
dominant response
Aka most common/typical
response
If that response is correct, you
perform better (social facilitation)
If it’s incorrect, you perform worse,
(social inhibition)

17. **Put more simply, if you’re
great at something and people
watch you, you’ll do better. If you
suck, you’ll do even worse
Social facilitation continued
Understood another way, if a task is new to you, observers will
be harmful
Also if a task is complex, observers will be more likely to be
harmful, but if it’s simple, observers will likely be helpful
You may recall our discussion of narcissists from before
Narcissists generally perform better when being observed
because they’re ‘glory hounds’
They relish the chance to prove themselves superior
This can elicit resentment from teammates, who know they’re in
it for individual instead of team glory
Evaluation apprehension
Evaluation apprehension can crop in other places too
Binge eating and purging can be a problem among younger
women
Strangely though it went from an unheard of problem to
relatively common…
One study found that sorority members who binge ate were
more popular or highly regarded than ones who didn’t binge eat
We observe similar others and are tempted to engage in similar
behavior, which spreads the problem
Social Loafing

18. As we touched on earlier, farmers noticed that increasing
farmhands didn’t result in more output
Social loafing: people reduce effort when working in a group
compared to working alone
Research on this asked participants to make as much noise as
they can (as measured in decibels)
6 people didn’t really make any more noise than 3 people
Social loafing continued
Generally, people aren’t aware they’re socially loafing
If asked, participants will say they’re working their hardest
A similar, but distinct pattern, is ‘the free rider problem’
Where people deliberately don’t contribute
Free rider references the subway system in Europe where people
were supposed to pay but didn’t
Have you ever done a group project with a free rider? Are you
glad we don’t have any group projects? ;)
Social loafing continued
Explanations – why does social loafing occur
Research has shown that if people are not anonymous and their
individual contribution to the effort is known, social loafing is
greatly reduced
This gets back to the idea of deindividuation being bad
Accountability is good
Once group members suspect or find out someone else is
loafing, they don’t want to be a sucker and do all the work, so
then they loaf too!
Called the bad apple effect
Social Loafing continued

19. How do people react to social loafers?
Psychologists have studied this using game paradigms
Surprisingly, if a player finds out another player is socially
loafing, that person will undermine their own chances of
winning the game to punish the loafer
These findings surprised economists who assume people will act
in their own best interest
The idea of altruistic punishment arose from this, that
ultimately it’s in society’s best interest to punish social loafers
Tragedy of the commons
Regarding deindividuation and social loafing,
have you noticed how public rooms or public
areas usually get messy and/or damaged?
The ‘commons dilemma’ explains this
A tendency for jointly owned spaces, things, or resources, to be
squandered
Explains, in part, why communism doesn’t work
Selfish impulses, like “should I just litter here or walk way over
there to the trash can” often win out
How groups think
Are two heads really better than one?
Brainstorming
E.g. your boss calls a meeting and asks everyone to brainstorm
some ideas about how to resolve a problem
People rate brainstorming as effective and rate it as enjoyable;
boosts morale
But the output is actually worse than that of individuals
If done right though, it can have the desired effect
Participants must brainstorm individually and independently,
then come together, and pool all of the ideas

20. ‘The wisdom of crowds’
Sir Francis Galton started many lines of research later continued
by psychologists
In general he thought people were pretty dumb and groups of
people even dumber
He attended a county fair and asked everyone to guess (write on
a sheet of paper) the weight of a cow
Well, specifically how much the cow would weigh after it had
been slaughtered and chopped into piles of meat
The answer was 1,198 pounds
He tallied results from 800 tickets
The average estimate was 1,197 pounds. Incredibly close!
‘The wisdom of crowds’ continued
Sir Galton was forced to admit, the crowd did indeed have
astounding wisdom
Similar results have been replicated in many settings
E.g. the final betting line in sports is always more accurate than
any one expert
E.g. and the stock market predicts winning stocks better than
any individual stock broker
Note that the conditions for all these studies meet the criteria of
‘independence’
This prevents conformity and allows for a diversity of opinions
Groupthink
Irving Janis came applied the term groupthink to social
psychology
It explains the tendency of group members to think alike

21. Specifically, the group clings to some mistaken belief, which
ends up resulting in bad decisions
There are many potential applications of groupthink in the real
world
E.g. juries, business meetings, political committees, etc.
The root of groupthink is people’s desire to get along with one
another
Groupthink continued
Several factors contribute to making groupthink more likely to
occur:
Group members are similar to each other
A strong leader that people don’t want to contradict
The group is isolated from the opinions of others
The group has high self-esteem/feels elite/morally superior
There’s a pressure to conform
The decision/s appear to be unanimous
Some group members may be censoring themselves if they
privately disagree
Illusion of invulnerability (“There won’t be consequences!”)
The group underestimates opponents
Foolish Committees
Stasser and Titus (1985) were able to demonstrate that
committees mostly spend time discussing what they agree on,
for the sake of getting along, instead of points of contention
Their methodology
The committee consisted of 7 members
They were deciding whether to hire Anderson or Baker
Each group member received a card with information for
him/her
Each member received a card with the same 4 reason to hire
Baker, and 1 reason to hire Anderson

22. But each card had a different reason for why to hire Anderson,
so 7 in total
But the groups never caught on that there was a total of 3 more
reason to hire Anderson than Baker because everyone was too
busy agreeing with each other
Those findings bode poorly for committees, as the whole point
is to pool the individual knowledge each member has
The Risky Shift
The tendency for groups to take greater risks than any
individual member of the group would have taken
The group discussions lead the group to a more extreme point of
view over time
But there was also a ‘stingy shift’ that occurred in studies,
toward more conservative decisions
How do we reconcile these two findings?
It turns out that which ever direction a committee was initially
leaning, will result in a shift in that direction
This is called group polarization
It is extremely similar to the coherence shifts we covered last
class (where people had an initial leaning and then their
opinions of the case polarized) but this time it’s on a group
level
Leaders and Leadership
A good CEO or leader often adds 14% of the company’s value
or 25 million in revenue
Compared to average CEOs
In a case study of 11 successful CEOs, some common traits
emerged
Modest & humble
Fierce resolve
Decisive
Competent

23. Integrity
Vision
Leaders and Leadership
Good leaders succeed at two realms of leaderships
1. Task oriented: sets goals, plans, coordinates, etc.
2. Relationship oriented: takes care of members, resolves
conflicts, boosts morale
Unfortunately, narcissists often become leaders (or toxic
leaders)
In a study that arranged participants into groups of 4, people
who scored highly on the trait of narcissism often emerged as
leaders
Leaders and Leadership
Narcissists like to seek attention, have the confidence to speak
up, and are assertive
Good leaders have just the right amount of assertiveness
though, and not too much
Too much can stifle group morale
Patterns that make for toxic leaders:
1. The leader lacks ability to do the job, may have been
promoted without the requisite knowledge
2. Builds a shoddy team due to bad hiring choices
3. Has poor interpersonal skills & is arrogant
E.g. “Do it because I said so!”
Dangerous national leaders
Mayer (1993) reviewed data from past national leaders and
found the while most have sound cognitive abilities, their
emotional lives are potentially the most important

24. He identified 3 main criteria that constitute a dangerous leader,
with classic examples being Napoleon and Hitler
1. Indifference toward people’s suffering
2. Disregard for criticism
3. Grandiose sense of national entitlement
Leaders and Leadership
Can you think of any leaders of a nation who meet those 3
criteria?
A British nobleman named Lord Acton once said, “Power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”
Some researchers have attempted to test that assertion!
Leaders and leadership
Research by Kipnis (1976):
He made participants managers and gave them either low-power
(just worked with the staff, no real difference) or high-power
(power to fire, promote, withhold money, etc.)
The staff and their actions were the same/controlled
He found that the managers used completely different strategies
Low-power managers praised workers, gave advice, etc.
High-power managers made threats, ‘threw their weight
around’, etc.
Leaders and leadership styles
In general, authoritarian leaders (‘do as I say’) are less
successful than autoritative leaders (‘come with me’)
Same goes for authoritarian vs authoritative parenting styles
Explaining to a kid why he must do something is more effective
than saying “Because I told you to.”

25. Authoritarian leaders are the type to throw their power around
instead of inspiring their workers
The effects of power
In some situations power can lead to good, in others it can lead
to bad
But one thing it almost always leads to is more action being
taken
Opposite of that, people in positions of less power have a wait
and see mentality
In one study (Galinsky et al, 2003) participants were assigned to
be either manager or a worker
Following that activity, they played some blackjack
Managers were more likely to hit (ask for another card),
whereas workers were more likely to hold (keep what they had)
image2.jpeg
image3.jpeg
image4.jpeg
image5.jpeg
image6.jpeg
image7.jpeg
image8.jpeg
image9.jpeg
image10.png
image11.jpeg
image12.jpeg
image13.jpeg
image14.jpeg
image15.jpeg
image1.jpeg