cpss315w1

Social Psychology

Author: Nyla R. Branscombe

ISBN: 9780134411255

https://phoenix.vitalsource.com/#/books/9780134411255

1.1: Social Psychology: What It Is and Is Not

Objective

1. Evaluate the diverse topics that social psychology seeks to understand

Providing a definition of almost any field is a complex task. In the case of social psychology, this difficulty is increased by the field’s broad scope. As you will see in every chapter of this book, social psychologists truly have a wide range of interests. Yet, despite this variation, most focus mainly on the following task: understanding how and why individuals behave, think, and feel as they do in social situations—ones involving the actual or symbolic presence of other people. How people define themselves and others in a given situation can alter how we behave. Accordingly, we define social psychology as the scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behavior, feelings, and thoughts in social situations. Another way to put this is to say that social psychology investigates the ways in which our thoughts, feelings, and actions are influenced by the social environments in which we find ourselves—by other people or our thoughts about them. We’ll now clarify this definition by taking a closer look at several of its key aspects.

1.1.1: Social Psychology Is Scientific in Nature

Many people seem to believe that this term science applies only to fields such as chemistry, physics, and biology—ones that use the kind of equipment shown in  Figure 1.2  to investigate some aspect of the physical world. If you share that view, you may find our suggestion that social psychology is a scientific discipline perplexing. How can a field that seeks to study the nature of love, the causes of aggression, the influence of groups on conceptions of ourselves, and many other topics be scientific in the same sense as physics or chemistry? The answer is surprisingly simple.

The term science does not refer to a special group of highly advanced fields. Rather, it refers to two things: (1) a set of values and (2) methods that can be used to study a wide range of topics. In deciding whether a given field is or is not scientific, therefore, the critical question is: Does it adopt these values and methods? To the extent the field does, it is scientific in nature. To the extent it does not, it falls outside the realm of science. We’ll examine the procedures used by social psychologists in their research in detail in a later section, so here we will focus on the core values that all fields must adopt to be considered scientific in nature. Four of these are most important:

· Accuracy: A commitment to gathering and evaluating information about the world (including social behavior) in as careful, precise, and error-free a manner as possible. This means that casual “people watching” that each of us might do at a crowded event will not meet this definition. Each of us may focus on different things so there is little precision, and the observations will lack replicability—the same “findings” when performed by someone else may not be obtained.

· Objectivity: A commitment to obtaining and evaluating such information in a manner that is as free from bias as possible. This means that with causal “people watching” we may evaluate what we see differently than others would, so our observations lack objectivity.

· Skepticism: A commitment to accepting findings as accurate only to the extent they have been verified over and over again. Here again you should notice the importance of replication—where different investigators can re-produce the procedure used by others and arrive at the same conceptual conclusions.

Figure 1.2 What Is Science?

Many people believe that only fields that use equipment like that shown here (left photo) to study the physical world can be viewed as scientific. Others think that “people watching” as shown in the middle photo is a form of science. However, the term science actually refers to adherence to a set of basic values (e.g., accuracy, objectivity) and use of a set of methods to systematically examine almost any aspect of the world around us—including the social side of life. In contrast, other approaches that are not scientific in nature (right photo) do not accept these values or use these methods.

· Open-Mindedness: A commitment to changing one’s views—even those that are strongly held—if existing evidence suggests that these views are inaccurate. Social psychologists have produced plenty of surprises by conducting research, which has required us to reconsider the role of groups for our well-being, how many processes operate non-consciously, how the framing of issues can affect our attitudes and preferences, and why what actually makes people happy is often different than our expectations of what will do so. All of these have suggested revisions in assumptions about human nature.

Social psychology, as a field, is committed to these values and applies them in its efforts to understand the nature of social behavior. In contrast, fields that are not scientific make assertions about the world, and about people, that are not put to the careful test and analysis required by the values that guide social psychology. In such fields—ones like astrology and aromatherapy—intuition, faith, and unobservable forces are considered to be sufficient (see  Figure 1.2 ) for reaching conclusions—the opposite of what is true in social psychology.

“But why adopt the scientific approach? Isn’t social psychology just common sense?” Having taught for many years, we can almost hear you asking this question. After all, we all spend much of our lives interacting with other people and thinking about them, so in a sense, we are all amateur social psychologists. So, why don’t we each just rely on our own experience and intuition as a basis for drawing conclusions about the social side of life?

Our answer is straightforward: because such sources provide an inconsistent and unreliable guide to understanding social behavior. This is so because our own experiences are unique and may not provide a solid foundation for answering general questions such as: “Why do people sometimes ‘go along with the group’ even when they might disagree with what it is doing?” and “How can we know what other people are thinking or feeling at any given time?” In addition, as we have learned from social psychological research, people are often unaware of what influences them. Individuals may be able to generate “theories” about how they are or are not influenced by other people, but such common sense beliefs are often biased by wishful thinking. For example, as suggested by  Figure1.3 , we might want to view ourselves as “independent” and fail to see how we are actually influenced by other people, or alternatively we might want to believe a certain kind of change is possible so we claim to have been influenced by others who share our views, perhaps more than we actually are.

Figure 1.3 Being Influenced by the Actions of Other People

We can be influenced by the behavior of other people—either by seeing and being with them via social media or by physically being immersed ourselves in such events. Such exposure to others, especially when we identify with them, often exerts powerful effects on our own behavior and thought.

It is also the case that there are widely endorsed ideas about various aspects of social life that are inconsistent with each other. Only objective research evidence can provide clear answers about which of such contradictory ideas are true. For instance, consider the following statement: “Absence makes the heart grow fonder.” When people are separated from those they love, they miss them and may experience increased longing for them. Many people would agree with this idea, in part because they can retrieve an instance like that from their own memory. But now consider the following statement: “Out of sight, out of mind.” Is this idea true? Did you, after leaving your high school sweetheart and swearing undying love, find a new romantic interest fairly quickly upon arriving at college? Many popular songs advocate just that—for instance, Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young’s song: “If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.” As you can see, these two views—both suggested by common sense and popular culture—are contradictory. The same is true for many other informal observations about human behavior—they each seem plausible, but often imply opposite conclusions. How about these: “Two heads are better than one,” and “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” One suggests that when people work together, they perform better (e.g., make better decisions). The other suggests that when people work together, they may act in ways that actually harm the product (e.g., that they make worse decisions). Much careful systematic research has revealed that whether groups show better or worse performance than individuals depends on a variety of factors: the nature of the task, whether the work can be effectively divided up, the expertise of the group members, and how well information is shared among them ( Minson & Mueller, 2012 ;  Stasser, Stewart, & Wittenbaum, 1995 ;  van Ginkel & van Knippenberg, 2009 ).

By now, our main point should be clear: Common sense often suggests a confusing and inconsistent picture of human behavior. Yet, it can offer intriguing hypotheses that can be tested in controlled research. What it doesn’t tell us is when various principles or generalizations hold—for instance, does “absence makes the heart grow fonder,” primarily among relationships that have already attained a certain level of commitment? Likewise, it doesn’t tell us for whom, or the sort of relationships, “out of sight, out of mind” is most likely to occur. Only a scientific approach that examines social thought and behavior in different contexts and populations (such as young versus older people) can provide that kind of information, and this is one basic reason that social psychologists put their faith in the scientific method: It yields more conclusive evidence. In fact, as you’ll soon see, it is designed to help us determine not just which of the opposite sets of predictions mentioned earlier is correct, but also when, for whom, and why one or the other might apply.

But this is not the only reason for not relying on common sense. As we’ll note over and over again (e.g.,  Chapters 2 ,  3 ,  4 ,  6 , and  8 ), our thinking is subject to several types of biases that can lead us badly astray. Here’s one example: Think back over major projects on which you have worked in the past (writing term papers, cooking a complicated dish, painting your room). Now, try to remember two things: (1) your initial estimates about how long it would take you to complete these jobs and (2) how long it actually took. Is there a gap between these two numbers? In all likelihood because most of us fall victim to the planning fallacy, there is a strong tendency to believe that projects will take less time than they actually do or, alternatively, that we can accomplish more in a given period of time than is really true ( Halkjelsvik & Jorgensen, 2012 ). Moreover, we fall victim to this bias in our thoughts over and over again, despite repeated experiences that tell us “everything takes longer than we think it will.”

Why are we subject to this kind of error? Research by social psychologists indicates that part of the answer involves a tendency to think about the future when we are estimating how long a job will take. This prevents us from remembering how long similar tasks took in the past, and that, in turn, leads us to underestimate the time we need now ( Buehler, Griffin, & Ross, 1994 ). This is just one of the many ways in which we can—and often do—make errors in thinking about other people (and ourselves). Because we are prone to such errors in our thinking about the social world, we cannot rely on introspecting about the influences on us—or rely on common sense—to solve the mysteries of social behavior. Rather, we need scientific evidence about what most people do, whether they realize that they do so or not, and providing such evidence is, in essence, what social psychology is all about.

1.1.2: Social Psychology Focuses on the Behavior of Individuals

Societies vary greatly in terms of their overall levels of violence; yet, social psychology focuses on explaining why individuals perform aggressive actions or refrain from doing so. Such acknowledgment of cultural differences applies to virtually all other aspects of social behavior, from conformity to helping, love as well as conflict, but social psychology aims to address the thought and emotional processes underlying those actions in individuals. This means that, as we noted earlier, because none of us are “islands” and all of us, instead, are strongly influenced by other people and the situations we find ourselves in, much research will systematically examine cultural and other contextual factors to illuminate just how those influences are exerted on the individual.

Social psychologists examine how groups influence individual behavior, how culture becomes internalized and affects individual preferences, and how emotions and moods affect the decisions made by the individual. Although our emphasis will be on how social factors affect the individual, as you will see throughout this book, many nonsocial factors (features of the environment; how the information we receive is framed) can exert powerful effects on us, often by influencing our emotions and social thoughts. The field’s major interest lies in understanding just how social situations shape the actions of individuals.

Clearly, this does not mean the role that social and cultural factors play in shaping the individual is neglected. Far from it. For example, considerable research has begun to address how ethnicity and social class shape our “selves” (whether we construe it as independent from others or as interdependent with them) and, consequently, social behavior ( Markus & Kitayama, 2010 ). This means that some institutional settings will be experienced as “friendly” or more congenial for one type of self rather than the other. For example, American universities tend to promote an independent model of self, which is more consistent with a middle-class standard of behavior than the self that is formed as a result of growing up in a working-class environment ( Stephens, Fryberg, & Markus, 2012 ). In part because of differences in material resources, students from middle-class homes are encouraged to leave home, develop their own distinct interests, and choose their own pathway in life. In contrast, those from working-class backgrounds are more likely to live in the same place most of their lives, be more strongly embedded in familial and local social networks, and feel a need to fit in by displaying concern for the interests of others. Because of the different life experiences and selves that emerge among those whose social class origins differ, the norms prevalent in American university settings can be a good or rather poor cultural match. What this research reveals is how life experiences, which differ systematically according to social class and other group memberships, affect the individual. Because “who we are”—our identities—affects our thought and behavior, social psychological understanding of the individual is enriched by close examination of the following links.

Social Contexts/Experiences⇒Self-Identities⇒Social behavior

1.1.3: Social Psychology Seeks to Understand the Causes of Social Behavior

Social psychologists are primarily interested in understanding the many factors and conditions that shape the social thought and behavior of individuals—their actions, feelings, beliefs, memories, and judgments. Obviously, a huge number of variables can play a role, although most fall under the five major headings described here.

The Actions and Characteristics of Other Persons

Consider the following events:

You are at a party and you notice that a very attractive person is smiling at you. In fact, this person is looking at you in a way that leaves little room for interpretation: That person is sending a clear signal saying “Hey, you look good!”

You return from class one day and as you approach the door to your dorm room you see a friend of yours is sitting on the floor looking very down. You stop to ask if she’s ok, and you see that she’s been crying.

Will these actions of others have any effect on your own emotions, thoughts, and behavior? Very likely. If you too are interested in potential romance, you may be very pleased when you see someone looking at you in a “let’s get to know each other” kind of way, and you may then go over and say “Hi!” When you see that your friend has been crying, you are likely to ask “what happened?” and sit down to provide her with some comfort while you listen to her story. Instances like these, where we observe other people and respond to them, indicate that other people’s emotional expressions often have a powerful impact upon us (see  Figure 1.4 ).

Figure 1.4 When Other People Communicate Their Emotions, We Respond

We are often affected by others people’s expression of emotions. Even though in one case the person is expressing positive emotion toward us and in the other the person is expressing negative feelings, in both these instances we may be motivated to approach the other person.

In addition, we are also often affected by others’ appearance. Be honest: Don’t you behave differently toward highly attractive persons than toward less attractive ones? Toward very old people compared to young ones? Toward people who belong to your own ethnic group compared to ones different from your own? Your answer to these questions is probably “yes,” because we do often react to others’ visible characteristics, such as their appearance ( McCall, 1997 ;  Twenge & Manis, 1998 ). In fact, research findings (e.g.,  Hassin & Trope, 2000 ) indicate that we cannot ignore others’ appearance even when we consciously try to do so. So despite warnings to avoid “judging books by their covers,” we are often strongly affected by other people’s group memberships as indicated by appearance—even if we are unaware of such effects and might deny their existence (see  Chapters 6  and  7 ). Interestingly, research findings indicate that relying on others’ appearance as a guide to their characteristics is not always wrong; in fact, they can be relatively accurate, especially when we can observe others behaving spontaneously, rather than in posed photos ( Nauman, Vazire, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2009 ).

Cognitive Processes

Suppose that you have arranged to meet a friend, and this person is late. In fact, after 30 minutes you begin to suspect that your friend will never arrive. Finally, she or he does appear and says “Sorry . . . I forgot all about meeting you until a few minutes ago.” How will you react? Probably you will feel some annoyance. Imagine that instead, however, your friend says “I’m so sorry to be late. . . . There was a big accident, and the traffic was tied up for miles.” Now how will you react? Perhaps you’ll fell less annoyance—but not necessarily. If your friend is often late and has used this excuse before, you may be suspicious about whether this explanation is true. In contrast, if this is the first time your friend has been late, or if your friend has never used such an excuse in the past, you may accept it as true. In other words, your reactions in this situation will depend upon your memories of your friend’s past behavior and your inferences about whether her or his explanation is really true. Situations like this one call attention to the fact that cognitive processes play a crucial role in social behavior. We try to make sense of people in our social world by attributing their actions to something about them (e.g., their traits) or something about the circumstances (e.g., unforeseeable traffic). This means we engage in lots of social cognition—thinking long and hard about other people—what they are like, why they do what they do, how they might react to our behavior, and so on ( Shah, 2003 ). Social psychologists are well aware of the importance of such processes and social cognition is a very important area of research ( Fiske, 2009 ).

Environmental Variables: Impact of the Physical World

Do we become more irritable and aggressive when the weather is hot and steamy than when it is cooler and more comfortable ( Bell, Greene, Fisher, & Baum, 2001 ;  Rotton & Cohn, 2000 )? Does exposure to a pleasant smell in the air make people more helpful to others ( Baron, 1997 )? Does simply seeing money—such as a picture of a dollar bill—interfere with our ability to enjoy small pleasures in life like the taste of chocolate ( Quoidbach, Dunn, Petrides, & Mikolajczak, 2010 )? Research findings indicate that aspects of the physical environment can indeed influence our feelings, thoughts, and behavior, so these variables, too, certainly fall within the realm of modern social psychology.

Biological Factors

Is social behavior influenced by biological processes? In the past, most social psychologists might have answered no, and certainly not in any direct fashion. Now, however, some suggest that our preferences, emotions, and behaviors may be linked, to some extent, to our biological inheritance ( Buss, 2008 ;  Schmitt, 2004 )—although social experiences too have a powerful effect and may interact with genetic factors in generating the complex patterns of our social lives ( Gillath, Shaver, Baek, & Chun, 2008 ).

In fact, it is becoming clear that the operation of these two factors—biology and social experience—is not unidirectional. Experiences of stress, especially early in life but also in adulthood as a function of exposure to various forms of trauma including political violence, can induce neurobiological changes that affect psychological well-being ( Canetti & Lindner, 2015 ;  Hertzman & Boyce, 2010 ;  McInnis, McQuaid, Matheson, & Anisman, 2015 ). Indeed, there is now accumulating evidence that environmental factors and social experiences—through what is called epigenetic processes, where the operation of certain genes is turned on or off—can influence behavior, sometimes long after initial exposure ( Spector, 2012 ).

The view that biological factors play an important role in social behavior has been emphasized among those who take an  evolutionary psychology  perspective (e.g.,  Buss, 2004 ;  Buss & Shackelford, 1997 ). This branch of psychology suggests that our species, like all others, has been subject to the process of biological evolution throughout its history and that, as a result, we now possess a large number of evolved psychological mechanisms that help (or once helped) us to deal with important problems relating to survival.

Through the process of evolution, which involves the three basic components of variation, inheritance, and selection, such tendencies become part of our biological inheritance. Variation refers to the fact that organisms belonging to a given species vary in many different ways; indeed, such variation is a basic part of life on our planet. Human beings, as you already know, vary on what sometimes seems to be an almost countless number of dimensions. Inheritance refers to the fact that some of these variations can be passed from one generation to the next through complex mechanisms that we are beginning to understand only now. Selection refers to the fact that some variations give the individuals who possess them an “edge” in terms of reproduction: They are more likely to survive, find mates, and pass these variations on to succeeding generations. The result is that over time, more and more members of the species possess these variations. This change in the characteristics of a species over time—immensely long periods of time—is the concrete outcome of evolution. (See  Figure 1.5  for a summary of this process.)

Social psychologists who adopt the evolutionary perspective suggest that this process applies to at least some aspects of social behavior. For instance, consider the question of mate preference. Why do we find some people attractive? According to the evolutionary perspective because the characteristics they show—symmetrical facial features; well-toned, shapely bodies; clear skin; lustrous hair—are associated with “good genes,” they are likely to indicate that the people who possess them are healthy and vigorous and therefore good mates ( Schmitt & Buss, 2001 ;  Tesser & Martin, 1996 ). For instance, these characteristics—the ones we find attractive—potentially indicate that the persons who show them have strong immune systems that protect them from many illnesses ( Li & Kenrick, 2006 ). Presumably, a preference for characteristics associated with good health and vigor among our ancestors increased their chances of successfully reproducing; this, in turn, could have contributed to our preference for people who possess these aspects of appearance.

Is there any reason to suppose that evolution might favor different behaviors for men and women? When asked to indicate the characteristics in potential romantic partners that they find desirable, both genders—but especially women—rate a sense of humor high on the list (e.g.,  Buss, 2008 ). From an evolutionary point of view, a sense of humor might signal high intelligence, which would make humorous people attractive ( Griskevicius et al., 2009 ). Another possibility is that a sense of humor signals something else: interest in forming new relationships. Humor might signal that the person is available—and interested. Research by  Li and colleagues (2009)  found that people are more likely to use humor and laugh when they find another person attractive than when they do not; people who used humor during speed dating sessions were perceived as showing more romantic interest than ones who did not (see  Figure 1.6 ).

Figure 1.5 Evolutionary Psychology Perspective

Evolution involves three major components: variation, inheritance, and selection. Social psychologists who are guided by this perspective are particularly interested in features that might account for gendered behavior, especially those related to sexuality.

Figure 1.6 Humor: An Important “Plus” in Dating

Research findings indicate that humor is viewed as a desirable characteristic in potential romantic partners, partly because it is perceived as a sign that the person is interested in forming a new relationship. Such effects occur in many situations, including dating. So, if you want romantic partners, keep on smiling and make jokes.

Other topics have been studied from the evolutionary perspective (e.g., helping others; aggression; preferences for various ways of attracting persons who are already in a relationship), and we’ll describe this research in other chapters. Here, we wish to emphasize the following fact: The evolutionary perspective does not suggest that we inherit specific patterns of social behavior; rather, it contends that we inherit tendencies or predispositions that may be apparent in our overt actions, depending on the environments in which we live. Similarly, this perspective does notsuggest that we are “forced” or driven by our genes to act in specific ways. Rather, it merely suggests that because of our genetic inheritance, we have tendencies to behave in certain ways that, at least in the past, may have enhanced the chances that our ancestors would survive and pass their genes on to us. These tendencies, can be—and often are—overridden by cognitive factors and the effects of experience ( Pettijohn & Jungeberg, 2004 ). For instance, what is viewed as attractive changes over time and is often very different in diverse cultures. So yes, genetic factors play some role in our behavior and thought, but they are clearly only one factor among many that influence how we think and act.

1.1.4: The Search for Basic Principles in a Changing Social World

One key goal of science is the development of basic principles that are accurate regardless of when or where they are applied or tested. Social psychologists seek to uncover the basic principles that govern social life. For instance, they’d like to determine what factors influence attraction, helping, obedience, the attitudes we form, and so on. The research they conduct is aimed to yield such knowledge—basic principles that will be true across time and in different cultures.

On the other hand, social psychologists recognize that cultures differ greatly and that the social world in which we live is constantly changing—in very important ways. For instance, cultures vary greatly with respect to when and where people are expected to “dress up” rather than dress casually. While casual is acceptable in almost all contexts in the United States, more formal “dressy” attire is often expected in other cultures. This same point applies to more important aspects of social life, too: Should teenagers be allowed to date and meet without adult supervision? Should you name your baby after a relative, or should you give your child a unique and, perhaps, unusual name? At what age should people retire, and how should they be treated after they do? Should we make choices that are the same as other people we know, or should we try to be “different” and stand out from others (see  Figure 1.7 )?

Cultures differ tremendously in these and countless other ways, and this complicates the task of establishing general principles of social behavior and social thought. Should we try to compliment another person to make him or her like us? This is an ingratiation tactic that, as you will see in  Chapter 8 , has been found to be generally effective in individualistic cultures. Yet, research has revealed that because people from some cultures value independence (being seen as unique and separate from others) while others value interdependence (being seen as similar to and connected to others), responses to such seemingly positive treatment depends on whether it implies the person is different or the same as other members of his or her group ( Siy & Cheryan, 2013 ). So, for example, those who are Asian-born respond more negatively to treatment that implies they are different from other group members, whereas those who are U.S.-born respond more negatively to treatment that implies they are the same as other group members.

In addition, within a culture, how we interact with each other can change across time. Because of social media, and digital technology more generally, people now meet potential romantic partners in different ways than in the past when, typically, they were introduced by friends or met at dances arranged by their schools, churches, or other social organizations. Does this mean that the foundations of attraction are different today than in the past? Social psychologists believe that despite these changes, the same basic principles apply: Physical attractiveness is still a basic ingredient, even though what is deemed attractive may differ across time. Likewise, the basic principles of persuasion too remain much the same, even if messages aimed at influencing us are delivered in a different format (e.g., electronically) than in the past (e.g., print). In short, although the task of identifying basic, accurate principles of social behavior and social thought is complicated by the existence of cultural differences and rapid changes in social life, the goals of social psychological research remain the same: uncovering basic, accurate knowledge about the social side of life that applies in a wide range of contexts and situations.

Figure 1.7 Cultures Differ in Many Ways—Including the Importance of Personal Uniqueness

In some cultures, it is considered important to be different from others, while in others it is seen as important to fit in with those around us.

In summary, social psychology focuses mainly on understanding the causes of social behavior—on identifying factors that shape our feelings, behavior, and thought in social situations. It seeks to accomplish this goal through the use of scientific methods, and it takes careful note of the fact that social behavior is influenced by a wide range of social, cognitive, environmental, cultural, and biological factors. The remainder of this text is devoted to describing some of the key findings of social psychology. We’re certain that you will find it fascinating—after all, it is about us and the social side of our lives! We’re equally sure that you will find the outcomes of some research surprising and that it may challenge many of your ideas about people and social relations. We predict that after reading this book, you’ll never think about the social side of life in quite the same way as before.

Key Points

· Social psychology is the scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behavior in social situations.

· It is scientific in nature because it adopts the values and methods used in the other fields of science.

· Social psychologists adopt the scientific method because “common sense” provides an unreliable guide to predicting social behavior and because our thought is influenced by many potential sources of bias.

· Social psychology focuses on the behavior of individuals and seeks to understand the causes of their emotions, thoughts, and social behavior. These can involve the behavior and appearance of others, environmental factors, cultural values, and even biological and genetic factors.

· Research from an evolutionary psychology perspective emphasizes how natural selection may have encouraged particular behavioral tendencies, especially those related to mating and sexuality.

· Social psychology seeks to establish the basic principles that govern social life, despite cultural differences and rapid changes in technology that affect how social life unfolds.