Social psychology - Library Management System · 2017-08-22 · What is social psychology? Social psychology is a discipline concerned with individuals as social beings. This means

Social psychology

Vlad Glaveanu

FP0005

2013

International Foundation Programme

This guide was prepared for the University of London International Programmes by:

� V. Glaveanu, The London School of Economics and Political Science

This is one of a series of subject guides published by the University. We regret that due to pressure of work the author is unable to enter into any correspondence relating to, or arising from, the guide. If you have any comments on this subject guide, favourable or unfavourable, please use the online form found on the virtual learning environment.

University of London International ProgrammesPublications OfficeStewart House32 Russell SquareLondon WC1B 5DNUnited Kingdom

www.londoninternational.ac.uk

Published by: University of London© University of London 2013Minor amend to Appendix 1, March 2014

The University of London asserts copyright over all material in this subject guide except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, or by any means, without permission in writing from the publisher. We make every effort to respect copyright. If you think we have inadvertently used your copyright material, please let us know.

Cover image © Ocean/Corbis

i

Contents

© University of London 2013

Soc

ial

pSyc

ho

log

y

Introduction to the course ................................................................................ 1

Unit 1: Studying social psychologyintroduction to Unit 1 ............................................................................................................................8Section 1.1: introduction to social psychology ......................................................................11Section 1.2: Methodology and ethics in social psychology ...........................................17Test your knowledge and understanding .................................................................................23concluding comments .........................................................................................................................24

Unit 2: The self in social contextintroduction to Unit 2 ............................................................................................................................25Section 2.1: What is the self? ..............................................................................................................29Section 2.2: how do we get to know ourselves? ..................................................................34Section 2.3: Why do we need self-esteem? ..............................................................................40Section 2.4: how do we present the self? .................................................................................45Test your knowledge and understanding .................................................................................51concluding comments .........................................................................................................................52

Unit 3: Interpersonal relationsintroduction to Unit 3 ............................................................................................................................53Section 3.1: Why do we form relationships? ............................................................................57Section 3.2: how are relationships maintained? ...................................................................63Section 3.3: What are the ‘laws’ of attraction? .........................................................................68Section 3.4: how well do we ‘read’ others? ...............................................................................74Test your knowledge and understanding .................................................................................79concluding comments .........................................................................................................................80

Unit 4: Group and inter-group relationsintroduction to Unit 4 ............................................................................................................................81Section 4.1: What is a group? ............................................................................................................85Section 4.2: are groups productive? .............................................................................................91Section 4.3: is prejudice unavoidable? ........................................................................................97Section 4.4: how can we help groups cooperate? .............................................................103

Contents ii

Test your knowledge and understanding .................................................................................109concluding comments .........................................................................................................................110

Unit 5: Cultural phenomenaintroduction to Unit 5 ............................................................................................................................111Section 5.1: What is culture? .............................................................................................................115Section 5.2: Why is culture important? ......................................................................................121Section 5.3: how do people attribute causes in different cultures? .............................................................................................................127Section 5.4: how to facilitate intercultural communication? .......................................133Test your knowledge and understanding .................................................................................139concluding comments .........................................................................................................................140

Unit 6: Applcation and reviewintroduction to Unit 6 ............................................................................................................................141Section 6.1: applying social psychology ....................................................................................143Section 6.2: connecting themes in social psychology ....................................................149Test your knowledge and understanding .................................................................................155

Appendix 1: Sample examination paper ....................................................... 156

1


Introduction to the course

intr

oduc

tion

to th

e co

urse

Route map to the guide 2

What is social psychology? 3

Syllabus 3

aims of the course 5

learning outcomes for the course 5

overview of learning resources 5

Examination advice 6

Introduction to the course 2

Route map to the guide

Welcome to the fascinating world of social psychology. This foundation course introduces you to key concepts, theories and methodologies within this discipline as well as important pieces of research conducted by social psychologists in the past decades. one distinctive feature of social psychology is the fact that it addresses phenomena that are very relevant to you as a human being, member of a family, society and culture. This means that you will be able to reflect on everyday experiences while reading this guide and use your own examples to illustrate the material covered here. at the same time, the subject guide will help you to organise and enrich your knowledge of yourself, of others and of human society. its aim is not to offer a fully comprehensive description of everything that is studied by social psychologists. instead, it will selectively introduce you to essential theories regarding:

� the self

� interpersonal relations

� group and inter-group relations

� cultural phenomena.

This will help you to acquire basic knowledge in the discipline and, most of all, thinking skills specific for a social psychologist, which should enable the successful completion of university level social psychology courses, should you wish to follow this route in the future.

The guide is divided into 20 sections grouped under six main units:

� Unit 1: Studying social psychology

� Unit 2: The self in social context

� Unit 3: interpersonal relations

� Unit 4: group and inter-group relations

� Unit 5: cultural phenomena

� Unit 6: application and review.

Each section is based on associated readings from Social psychology by aronson, Wilson and akert (eighth edition, 2012) and points to (optional) Further readings from this book plus resources found on the virtual learning environment (VlE). The course emphasises an active approach to the study of social psychology and requires you to engage with the discipline at a practical level by answering a series of questions and completing activities included at the end of each unit.

The subject guide makes use of two main types of task. Point of reflection invites you to use your own experience as a case study for understanding a certain social psychological phenomenon. Thinking like a social psychologist requires you to formulate social psychological questions and attempt to answer them. as a social psychologist, you would be required to conduct research and analyse data, which is why you will also need to develop some skills in these areas, including familiarity with mathematics and statistics.

The aims of this subject guide are to:

� provide a framework for the study of social psychology

� introduce you to relevant subject material

� present the material in a structured format and direct you to appropriate learning resources

� encourage you to take an active approach to learning by reading the recommended material, using the VlE resources and undertaking a range of different learning activities.


What is social psychology?

Social psychology is a discipline concerned with individuals as social beings. This means that, similar to any other branch of psychology, it considers mental functions (such as thinking, affect, motivation, etc.) and human behaviour. however, social psychology studies their expression in relation to a social environment, from proximal, meaning close contexts (for example, family, peer groups) to macro-social contexts (‘wide’ contexts, such as institutions and culture). From a social psychological perspective, our mind is shaped by this complex environment through means of social interaction. in fact, social psychology is one of the main disciplines concerned with social interaction and communication at different levels: between individuals, between groups, between national cultures, and so on. To think like a social psychologist means to formulate questions about individuals and their behaviour in the context of their relation to other individuals, groups and communities. More details about social psychology can be found in Section 1.1 ‘introduction to social psychology’. For examples of typical social psychological questions have a look at the titles of sections and notice how they range from ‘What is the self?’ and ‘how do we get to know ourselves?’, ‘Why do we form relationships?’ and ‘how are relationships maintained?’, to ‘What is a group?’ and ‘Why is culture important?’ – how do we go about answering such questions?

The second important thing to remember about social psychology is the fact that it is an empirical or scientific discipline. This means that, after formulating a question, social psychologists conduct research to answer it. Research in social psychology is extremely wide-ranging and Section 1.2 will offer you more details on this topic. For now let us just note that social psychologists use a variety of information sources as data and they collect and analyse them in a logical and organised manner. They observe behaviour, analyse the content of media and everyday conversation, talk to others (conduct interviews or focus groups), ask them to complete different questionnaires or tests, and might even invite them to the laboratory to take part in a social psychological experiment. Experiments are used to study causal relationships and establish what determines or causes a certain phenomenon (for example, what makes people more aggressive or more cooperative). We are able to conclude on this type of relationship during an experiment because we can control/manipulate different aspects of the environment (for instance, in determining what makes people aggressive, we can control the heat in the room or the noise level, etc.). The use of experiments sets psychology apart from other social sciences but it also raises important ethical questions. Social psychologists need to bear in mind that, unlike experiments in physics and chemistry, here human beings are involved as participants and their well-being should be the priority of the researcher.

Syllabus

as already mentioned, this guide is primarily concerned with four key areas within social psychology: the self, interpersonal relations, group and inter-group relations, and cultural phenomena. These four areas describe a wide range of social phenomena, from the individual to groups and up to macro-social realities, such as culture. This testifies on the one hand to the astonishing diversity of topics covered by social psychology and, on the other, talks about the intrinsic unity within the discipline since each new unit adds a layer of ‘complexity’ to the previous one – the self is developed through interpersonal relations, this system of individuals and interactions is specific for the existence of groups and, in the end, every group is embedded in a society and a culture.


� The Overview introduces students to key issue areas of social psychology, outlining how key researchers have contributed to the development of theory. These issues areas are also used to briefly describe the role of research methods in social psychological research.

� The self in social context introduces you to key concepts, theories and methodological approaches specific for the study of self. These include the self-concept, self-awareness, self-perception and social comparison, self-esteem and impression management.

� Interpersonal relations introduces you to key concepts, theories and methodological approaches to the study of interpersonal relations. These include attachment theory, social exchange and equity theory, factors of attraction and the interpretation of the behaviour of others.

� Group and inter-group relations introduces you to key concepts, theories and methodological approaches regarding groups and intergroup relations. These include group norms and roles, social facilitation and social loafing, theories of prejudice and intergroup collaboration.

� Cultural phenomena introduces you to key concepts, theories and methodological approaches related to culture and cultural phenomena. These include cultural experiences of the self, aggression, prosocial behaviour and culture, attribution and culture, and intercultural communication.

Week Unit Section1 1: Studying social psychology introduction to the course

1.1: introduction to social psychology

2 1.2: Methodology and ethics in social psychology

3 2: The self in social context 2.1: What is the self?

4 2.2: how do we get to know ourselves?

5 2.3: Why do we need self-esteem?

6 2.4: how do we present the self?

7 3: interpersonal relations 3.1: Why do we form relationships?

8 3.2: how are relationships maintained?

9 3.3: What are the ‘laws’ of attraction?

10 3.4: how well do we ‘read’ others?

11 4: group and inter-group relations

4.1: What is a group?

12 4.2: are groups productive?

13 4.3: is prejudice unavoidable?

14 4.4: how can we help groups cooperate?

15 5: cultural phenomena 5.1: What is culture?

16 5.2: Why is culture important?

17 5.3: how do people attribute causes in different cultures?

18 5.4: how to facilitate intercultural communication?

19 6: application and review 6.1: applying social psychology

20 6.2: connecting themes in social psychology


Aims of the course

This course aims to:

� provide an introduction to social psychology as a social scientific discipline, its areas of interest, theory and methodologies

� consider key ways in which social psychological knowledge can be applied to real-life contexts

� provide tools that support students in critical thinking and argumentation.

Learning outcomes for the course

at the end of this course, and having completed the Essential reading and activities, you should be able to:

� identify and explain key concepts, theories and methodological approaches used in social psychology

� apply social psychological theories to key issues covered in the course

� assess the validity and relevance of different approaches to the study of social psychological phenomena.

Overview of learning resources

The subject guide introduces you to a different topic in each section and discusses relevant excerpts from the following Essential reading textbook that you will be working with.

Essential readingaronson, E., T.D. Wilson and R.M. akert Social psychology. (Upper Saddle River; harlow: pearson,

2012) eighth edition [iSBN 9780205918027].

you are certainly welcome to explore this textbook beyond the indicated passages and extracts are mentioned at the end of each section in this guide. Moreover, among cited references there are books and articles that you can look for if you want to learn more about a particular theory or research. you will find some of the articles through the Online Library of the University of london, and some books may be in your institution’s library.

Further readingThere are also other textbooks that can help you to gain more knowledge of the topics covered here for example:

hayes, N. Principles of social psychology. (New york: psychology press, 1993) [iSBN 9780863772597].

hewstone, M., W. Stroebe and K. Jonas (eds) Introduction to social psychology. A European perspective. (hoboken: John Wiley, 2012) fifth edition [iSBN 9781444335446].

Other learning resources

Questions and activitiesMost importantly, the subject guide includes plenty of questions and activities. These are found within the text of each section (point of reflection; Thinking like a social psychologist) or towards the end (activity). you are advised to consider all questions and commentaries and perform the tasks required by the activity as these are an essential part of your learning.


VLE activities and resourcesMore activities and resources can be found on the VlE and they offer invaluable support to the subject guide by asking you to consider different types of materials from videos to written texts and images, all relevant for learning the content of each unit. it is anticipated that about six hours of independent study will be needed on your part to engage with the material and exercises proposed for each section.

Glossary of key termsit would also be useful to start your own glossary of key terms in social psychology based on definitions that you find in this subject guide but also in the textbook and other sources (suggestions for what terms to focus on are included in bold in each section).

Accessing the Student Portal and virtual learning environment To manage all of your student administrative processes you will need to log in to the Student portal via: http://my.londoninternational.ac.uk

you should have received your login details for the Student portal with your official offer, which was emailed to the address that you gave on your application form. you have probably already logged in to the Student portal in order to register. as soon as you register, you will automatically be granted access to the VlE, online library and fully functional University of london email account. if you have forgotten these login details, please click on the ‘Forgotten your password’ link on the login page.

in order to access your learning materials for each course, you can click on the VlE tab within the Student portal or login to the VlE directly via: https://ifp.elearning.london.ac.uk/

Examination advice

Important: the information and advice given in the following section are based on the examination structure used at the time this subject guide was written. We strongly advise you to check both the current Regulations for relevant information about the examination and the VlE where you should be advised of any forthcoming changes. you should also carefully check the rubric/instructions on the paper you actually sit and follow those instructions.

as with any course, this also ends with an examination, a good opportunity for you to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of social psychology. This course is examined through a two-hour unseen written examination. The examination paper has three parts.

Section a contains short-answer questions where you are expected to give brief answers that are one- or two- paragraphs long. you can find examples of such questions at the end of each unit in this guide.

Section B asks you to answer questions regarding certain material (text, figure, image, etc.) and therefore to engage in a social psychological analysis of those pieces of ‘data’. By completing the VlE exercises in each section you will gain the necessary skills required for this kind of task.

Finally, Section c contains long-answer questions where you are expected to give a detailed answer (at least a couple of pages) in an essay format. here you are required to answer one essay question out of five. These questions will ask you to reflect on the material covered in the course and make links between ideas from different sections and different units. you can find examples of such questions at the end of this guide, in the Review section, and you should also have a look at appendix 1 which contains a Sample examination paper.

http://my.londoninternational.ac.uk

https://ifp.elearning.london.ac.uk/


During the examination it is important to demonstrate not only that you know and can define key concepts and theories in the discipline but that you can make good use of this knowledge to analyse concrete situations, give examples, and think critically about social psychology and its application. you will receive plenty of support in preparation for the examination through formative assessment (assignments marked by your tutor that will not be taken into account for the final grade) and class discussions of questions and activities. one of the most important skills you will learn, and something that will be helpful for your academic progress beyond psychology, is how to write an essay in response to a question. This is a skill that you will develop throughout this course by first trying to write short answers for the activities proposed in each section. a brief introduction to essay writing in psychology and the difference between short and long answers is offered in VlE resource 1. it will help you start your learning of social psychology.

good luck!

VlE resource 1How to answer a question in social psychology.

https://ifp.elearning.london.ac.uk/mod/page/view.php?id=94

8


Introduction to Unit 1

Uni

t 1: S

tudy

ing

soci

al p

sych

olog

y

overview of the unit 9

aims 9

learning outcomes 9

Essential reading 9

Further reading 9

References cited 10

Unit 1: Studying social psychology 9

Overview of the unit

This unit will introduce you to the discipline of social psychology and its methodology. Social psychology is a scientific discipline concerned with the study of individuals in their social context. it explores phenomena such as social influence and social interpretation and uses a rich methodological toolkit including observational, correlational and experimental methods. Social psychologists can describe, interpret and explain phenomena situated at the intersection between psychology and society. in doing so, they need to respect a series of ethical guidelines specific for research that includes human participants.

Week Unit Section1 1: Studying social psychology introduction to the course

1.1: introduction to social psychology

2 1.2: Methodology and ethics in social psychology

Aims

This unit aims to introduce you to:

� the discipline of social psychology and its main areas of study

� basic methodological tools in social psychology.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this unit, and having completed the Essential reading and activities, you should be able to:

� describe social psychology and its focus on social influence and social interpretation

� explain how social psychologists choose their research methods

� identify dependent and independent variables in an experiment

� list the main ethical guidelines followed in the discipline.

Essential reading

Section 1.1aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.1–5.

Section 1.2aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.22–24, 40–41, 224–26.

Further reading

Section 1.1aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), ‘Social psychology and social problems’, pp.16–17.


Unit 1: Studying social psychology 10

References cited

allport, g.W. ‘The historical background of social psychology’ in lindzey, g. and E. aronson (eds) The handbook of social psychology. Volume 1. (New york: Random house, 1985) third edition Volume 1 [iSBN 9780394350493].

arendt, h. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. (New york: Viking, 1965) [iSBN 9780670001651]; also (penguin Books ltd., 1994) new edition [iSBN 9780140187656].

asch, S.E. ‘opinions and social pressure’, Scientific American 193 1955, pp.31–35.

lewin, K. ‘Defining the “field at a given time”’, Psychological Review 50 1943, pp.292–310.

Milgram, S. ‘Behavioral study of obedience’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67(4) 1963, pp.371–78.

Milgram, S. Obedience to authority: An experimental view. (New york: harper & Row, 1974) [iSBN 9780422745802]; also (pinter and Martin ltd., 2010) [iSBN 9781905177325].

11U

nit 1

: Stu

dyin

g so

cial

psy

chol

ogy

Section 1.1: introduction to social psychology

introduction 12

The power of social influence 13

The power of social interpretation 14

What else does social psychology study? 15

Further reading 15

Unit 1: Studying social psychology • Section 1.1: Introduction to social psychology 12

Introductory actIvItyaronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.1–5.

read the sections ‘Introducing social psychology’ and the first pages of ‘What is social psychology?’

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – social psychology, social influence and construal – and write them down in your glossary.

also consider these questions:

1. What phenomena are of interest to a social psychologist?

2. What is social influence and how can we illustrate its effect on human behaviour?

3. Why are interpretations of a situation often more important than the situation itself?

4. What kind of questions does a social psychologist ask?

Introduction

What do you think it means to be a psychologist? What does a psychologist do and, more importantly, what is a social psychologist? if we rely on mass-media representations, we will probably associate psychologists with therapists or counsellors in different settings such as schools or business organisations (see VlE resource 1). We might also think that psychology deals either with emotional life or, alternatively, that it has something to do with the brain. We could even assume that someone who studies psychology can ‘read’ us very well and that they will always try to analyse us when we are having a conversation with them.

VlE resource 1: TV commercial for 5th Street Wine and DeliWhat is typical about this depiction of a psychologist’s work?

These are all more or less standard popular understandings of the discipline. and yet, although not entirely incorrect, they do miss a lot about what it means to be a psychologist. Not all psychologists are therapists; not all of them are concerned with the brain; and they are most certainly not trying to ‘analyse’ you any more than other people do in any casual social interaction. however, some psychologists would like to know how stereotypical images of different professions (including their own) and, more broadly, of different groups of individuals, are formed and maintained in society. These psychologists are typically social psychologists. What is their discipline about?

in a well-known academic article produced by allport (1985, p.3) he defined social psychology as the ‘scientific study of people’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours as they are influenced by the real or imagined presence of others’. This means that, just like any psychologist, a social psychologist is concerned with mental processes and behaviour. however, what is specific for social psychology is the fact that it considers this behaviour and these processes as they take place in social interaction, shaped by the presence and actions of others. Why is this presence real or ‘imagined’?

Well, think about spending a day alone, hiking in the mountains. you are away from family and friends and there is no other person in sight. Does this mean that you stop being influenced by all other people in that situation? certainly not. as you hike you might stop for lunch and then need to dispose of some rubbish. Since you are completely alone, you could just leave it behind but years of education might have taught you not to leave litter; so what do you do? if you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4RYvPQXOI


acquired this social norm or expected behaviour then probably you will conform to it and take your rubbish with you to the nearest bin. So even when walking in complete solitude, you are never outside the range of social influence and social interpretation of a situation and this is exactly what social psychologists are concerned with.

The power of social influence

as mentioned above, the phenomenon of social influence is ever-present in our lives. We are influenced by what other people say, what they do and even by their mere presence. in turn, we try to influence others, to persuade them to do certain things or simply to allow us to behave in a certain way. Social influence therefore takes many shapes – from a friend’s attempt to convince us that they are right about something to the political speeches of a presidential candidate trying to get our vote. living in a human society means that people constantly seek, in a more direct or indirect manner, to predict and control the behaviour of those around them in order to achieve different goals. The ways in which they do this are of great concern and of great interest to a social psychologist.

Take for instance two examples of social influence presented in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012). The first shows quite an ordinary situation. it refers to the ‘hazing’ practices (rituals undertaken in order to join a particular group) that oscar went though when joining a large university. What do you think determines people to submit themselves to dangerous rituals of this kind? Now read further to discover a much ‘darker’ side of social influence: the mass suicide of hundreds of people in Jonestown in the 1970s. Read about the story of Reverend Jim Jones and how he was persuasive enough to make others follow him to guyana and, later on, follow him into death. What could possibly explain a behaviour that goes against our most basic survival instincts?

Thinking like a social psychologist Whenever you hear about social situations like the above, from very mundane to extreme ones, try to formulate social psychological questions about them. For instance, in the first case, you might want to know how much the person wants to join a certain group. Would that influence whether they undergo hazing practices? in the second case, think about what might have influenced so many people to take their own life. Was it a mental condition that affected them, the charisma of Reverend Jones, or the strange social circumstances in which they found themselves?

The social influence continuum has many in-between instances. listen to a short talk by social psychologist Robert cialdini on the VlE (resource 2) explaining what attracted him to this particular research topic. he gives examples of well respected studies in the social psychology of influence revealing very interesting (and sometimes shocking) findings about humans’ capacity to obey others and conform to their wishes and their views in particular social situations. For instance, when a legitimate or accepted authority is telling us what to do, we often stop reflecting on the consequences of our actions and simply do as we are told. other times, when other people around us react in a certain way, we become inclined to align our behaviour to theirs even if we have never met them before.

VlE resource 2: Robert Cialdini talks about social influenceMake a summary of the examples he offers in this regard.

a classic study in psychology, this experiment changed the way in which psychologists think about the world and became the basis for a vast amount of further research. This is the lesson of the line experiment performed by Solomon asch (1955). in this study, groups of people

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF1pVqkGTO4


were told to look at a set of lines and estimate their length, a very simple and straightforward task. however, many of the participants consistently gave the same incorrect answer because they were in agreement with the researcher to do so (participants who act according to the experimenter’s secret instructions are called ‘confederates’). This left the one person who didn’t know about this agreement (the only ‘real’ participant) with a dilemma: should they contradict all the others and give the correct answer or copy the others in the group? as findings show, contradicting others didn’t happen most of the times. Now go back to our previous example: would you take part in hazing practices at university if all your friends were subjected to them?

The power of social interpretation

asch’s experiment was replicated or repeated several times and different factors were changed to determine under what circumstances people conform most to the views of others. it was found, for instance, that unanimity (everyone agreeing) in giving the same answer is actually crucial. Even if there was only one other person in the group disagreeing with the wrong answer then the ‘real’ participant was much more inclined to do the same. Why is this the case? We have to remember that the situation was unambiguous; that is, the experimental task and the correct answer were obvious for any external observer to see. What mattered was the social interpretation of the situation by the participant. What do you think went through the person’s mind when they saw people before them giving a wrong answer?

if you were in that situation you would probably start by wondering if you were seeing things correctly. after establishing (once more) that you were, you’d probably think that the other people knew something that you didn’t and that, if they considered it appropriate to act like this, you should do the same (otherwise the group might ‘reject’ you at the end). But how does your view of this same situation change when another person in the group gives the right answer? you become more confident and probably conclude that some participants are deliberately wrong and you shouldn’t go along with their answer. in other words, you construe or perceive the situation differently and consequently your behaviour changes.

Point of reflection let’s take another example. Think about the times you have seen a person begging for money or asking for help on the street. how many times did you stop and offer to help? What do you think makes you willing to help or prevents you from helping another person?

you probably wonder what happened to the person asking for your help and if it is appropriate to intervene or not. By looking at the individual you quickly notice the clothes, the tone of voice, movement and so on and assess their condition. are they in any danger or are they sick, or is this the effect of being drunk? Would you help someone with a health condition or someone who drank too much and is now in pain? you also need to consider the anticipated or possible consequences of interacting with this person: if they are indeed drunk there might be a risk of them becoming aggressive towards you. at the same time, you may look around at other people passing by to see how they interpret the situation. if they walk on, pretending not to notice, maybe you should do the same because they might know something about this individual that you don’t; plus, if there is any real emergency, then someone else can help, why should it be you?

in social psychology, this phenomenon is called the bystander effect and it can have serious consequences. consider for instance the example of abraham Biggs Jr offered by aronson, Wilson and akert (2012). in this example, what stopped viewers from calling the police? Watch VlE resource 3 illustrating the bystander effect and showing when people are more inclined to ignore, rather than to assist, others. in the end, many of our actions depend on how we interpret the world, how we perceive others and their behaviour. This interpretation of social situations is


a key concern for social psychologists (lewin, 1943) as it explains our own behaviour in particular everyday contexts.

VlE resource 3: The bystander effectcan you define it? How does it relate to the ways in which we understand a certain situation?

What else does social psychology study?

There are plenty of other topics outside of group conformity and the bystander effect that social psychologists investigate, and a quick glance at the units covered in this foundation course can give you a better idea of just how diverse or varied the discipline is: self and identity, interpersonal relationships, group and inter-group relations, culture and society, and so on. and yet, despite such a broad range, there are a few things that characterise a social psychological approach and make it different from how a sociologist or anthropologist would study the same phenomena.

To begin with, social psychology is not exclusively about individuals nor is it about the social world. it focuses precisely on the connection between these two or, in other words, it studies individuals within their social environment. Second, it is an empirical or scientific discipline and this means it conducts research commonly in laboratories to test its theories and assumptions. The next section discusses the methodological aspect of doing social psychological research in greater detail.

Most importantly, learning this discipline will help you to reflect on your own behaviour and the behaviour of others and understand better why certain things happen in the relations between people. in this regard, social psychological knowledge builds on what we already know about the world but it also expands and sometimes contradicts common sense (see also the discussion about social psychology, science and common sense in aronson, Wilson and akert, 2012). To discover just how much of a difference there is between the two, test your knowledge of social reality with the help of VlE resource 4 below. any surprises?

VlE resource 4: Social psychology and common senseHow many questions did you answer correctly?

Further reading

in addition to the above, social psychological theories have an applied dimension and their findings can be useful in solving real world problems. To have a better grasp of this, read the ‘Social psychology and social problems’ section from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.16–17).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSsPfbup0ac

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072842121/student_view0/module2/activity_2_2.html


actIvItythis introductory section covered key phenomena and areas that social psychologists are interested in, especially related to the power of social influence and interpretation processes to shape our thoughts and actions, and the way they go about asking questions. try to think of three examples of issues or situations that you think a social psychologist would study and answer the questions below for each:

1. Why is the issue or situation important to know about? How often do we encounter it?

2. Is it a case of social influence or of social interpretation or something else altogether? are processes of influence and interpretation both involved in the situation?

3. What kind of questions would a social psychologist ask about the phenomenon?

4. do you think knowledge gained through social psychological studies might be useful for improving the condition of the people involved? How hard or easy is it to make a change?

17U

nit 1

: Stu

dyin

g so

cial

psy

chol

ogy

Section 1.2: Methodology and ethics in social psychology

introduction 18

choosing a method 19

Designing experiments in social psychology 20

The ethics of research 21

Further reading 22

Unit 1: Studying social psychology • Section 1.2: Methodology and ethics in social psychology 18

Introductory actIvItyaronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.22–24, 40–41, 224–26.

read the sections ‘Formulating hypotheses and theories’, ‘Guidelines for ethical research’ and ‘obedience to authority’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – observational, correlational and experimental method, informed consent, deception, debriefing and obedience – and write them down in your glossary.


1. How are hypotheses developed by social psychologists and what is their role in research?

2. What kinds of methods are used in social psychological research?

3. Why is it important to have and respect a code of ethics while doing research?

4. What are the main findings of Milgram’s experiment on obedience?

Introduction

We mentioned previously that social psychology is an empirical discipline. What this means is that social psychologists perform experimental research and collect data to support and improve their theories. This section will briefly consider the methodological and ethical aspects of conducting social psychological research. The best way to do this is with the help of an example and, again, we will build here on what was discussed before about social influence and particularly its ‘dark’ side: blind obedience to authority.

a norm is an expected standard of behaviour – it is how our society or culture expects us to behave. it has to be noted from the start that obeying others, such as our parents when we are young, and acting in accordance with social norms is not essentially a bad thing. in fact we wouldn’t be socialised as human beings, for example, if we didn’t listen to our parents and teachers in the process of receiving an education. But there is a limit to how useful obedience is – clearly illustrated by the actions of hundreds of people who took part in a collective suicide in Jonestown following an appeal made by Reverend Jim Jones (see Section 1.1). The same can be said about violent acts that result from obedience to orders, which are aimed against not oneself but others, particularly members of minority groups. Think, in this case, about the atrocities committed against Jews by the Nazi regime during the Second World War. as painful as these historical facts are to remember, there are important ideas about human nature that can be derived or learned from them. For instance, the philosopher hannah arendt (1965) has reflected on the ‘banality of evil’ visible in the holocaust; that is, the idea that diabolical actions can be performed by ordinary individuals when they operate under extraordinary circumstances. in VlE resources 1 and 2, philip Zimbardo discusses the abu ghraib trials – as his TED talk contains graphic images of violence (VlE resource 1) an alternative text-only article (VlE resource 2) has been provided.

VlE resource 1: The psychology of evil by Philip Zimbardo (TED)

VlE resource 2: The psychology of evil by Philip Zimbardo (text only)When, how and why do people sometimes commit ‘evil’ acts?

http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html

http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_72.aspx


What makes people obey to such an extent that they are capable of fatally harming others? Moreover, is it something actually different about these people or is it the social situation that they find themselves in that leads to tragedies such as the holocaust? Such questions are also on the mind of social psychologists. here we will take obedience as a case study and reflect on how psychological research has been conducted in order to identify causes of obedience and the variables or factors that can influence the way it is demonstrated or expressed in real life situations. We will end this section with a consideration of research ethics, a very important topic in this field, but also in all other areas of psychology.

First let us focus on a fundamental characteristic of social psychology: the iterative cycle. This is a continually repeating process of gaining data, explaining the data, proposing a theory, gaining more data relevant to that proposal therefore going from data to explanation and theory, and back again. as such, we might ask, how do psychologists begin their research?

in most cases, studies are born out of a special interest that social psychologists have to understand a particular social phenomenon (what kind of phenomena are you curious about in your day-to-day life?). This interest and further reading of previous research leads psychologists to formulate more precise questions and hypotheses (assumptions or statements about how things happen). These questions need to be specific enough so that they can be tested empirically or experimentally. at this stage of the process, social psychologists design a study and invite respondents to participate. after collecting data and analysing their findings, they can conclude on whether their initial assumptions were correct or not and thus propose an explanation regarding the phenomenon under study. Such explanations help to build theory that, in its turn, will inspire the formulation of new questions, thus leading to a new cycle of research. let’s see how this applies to the case of obedience.

Choosing a method

The second step after deciding on a research question is choosing the most appropriate method for collecting data that will answer that question (or help put a hypothesis to the test). The field of social psychology is rich in methods of data collection from surveys and direct observation up to archival research and experiments. archival research uses publicly available documents and records as a source of data – it is one step removed from actual observation. So researchers are often faced with the dilemma of choosing their method. By far the most important criterion to be considered is the type of question one wants to answer. as aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) summarise in Table 2.1, there are three main kinds of research in social psychology:

� observational (asking descriptive questions)

� correlational (dealing with association and prediction)

� experimental (addressing causality – this is where the researcher is attempting to identify how one factor, the independent variable, affects another, the dependent variable).

let’s think about an example for each one in relation to obedience.

We can ask ‘how do people act when they give and receive orders?’. To answer such a question we need to employ observational methods. For instance, we can go to a military camp and observe interactions between soldiers and their superiors. We could also ask ‘is there a relation between obedience and people’s height?’, with the assumption that tall people are less likely to obey others. in this example, a survey asking participants how often they obey orders and how tall they are could be conducted, followed by an analysis of the data to see if there is an association (correlation) between these two variables. Finally, if we want to know what causes people to obey, we should perform an experiment. This requires us to manipulate or change certain elements of the situation and observe how people react each time (in other words observe their level of obedience).


Thinking like a social psychologist take another social psychological phenomenon of your choice and try to formulate questions that could be answered through observational, correlational and experimental research. can you think of any advantages and disadvantages for each?

The second thing to consider when choosing a method is that it will have both advantages and disadvantages. For instance, observational research of obedience can offer us plenty of details about particular situations and make us better understand individual cases. however, how easy is it to analyse these kinds of data and how can you apply the conclusions to other cases? in this regard, surveys have the advantage that they ask a large number of people for their opinion, so there is a chance that our findings will be more representative of a larger population; but how can we be sure that participants do not lie when taking the survey? For instance, how would we know that they have reported their height accurately? We would probably need to go back to direct observation for this.

and lastly, description and prediction are good in their own right but don’t really have explanatory power – they do not tell us why the individuals are behaving in the way that they do. conducting experiments can help us understand better the processes of obedience and what actually determines people to respect orders. on the other hand, experiments conducted in laboratory settings can seem artificial and oversimplify reality so, how certain are we that their findings hold also in the ‘real’ world? To familiarise yourself with each of these methodologies have a look at VlE resource 3. you will also find on the VlE a video that will guide your reading of VlE resource 3.

VlE resource 3: Research methods – the laboratoryWrite a one-paragraph summary of the methods presented, their strengths and their limitations.

For an inside view, you can become a research participant yourself via VlE resource 4.

VlE resource 4: Psychological research on the internetthe majority of studies display disclaimer notices and will ask you to accept certain terms and conditions before you can enrol in a study – please be sure to pay attention to any age restrictions and request permission to participate if appropriate.

If you decide to participate in any study, consider afterward its possible strengths and limitations.

Designing experiments in social psychology

Since experiments are the only method that can help us to reach causal conclusions (of the type ‘X causes y’), it is no surprise that social psychologists have been keen on performing such studies whenever possible. however, experiments are limited by the choice and measurement of variables (characteristics that can be changed) and also by ethical guidelines, as we will see shortly. The unique characteristic of experiments as a research method is the fact that they allow the social psychologist to control certain elements (called independent variables) in order to observe their effect on people’s behaviour (the dependent variable).

let us return to our obedience case study. imagine we are interested to know what it is in a social situation that makes ordinary individuals capable of obeying orders that can endanger the life

https://ifp.elearning.london.ac.uk/mod/book/view.php?id=81&chapterid=6

http://www.socialpsychology.org/expts.htm


of another human being. Stanley Milgram, one of the key figures in the social psychology of the twentieth century, asked himself this question and produced one of the best known (and also most controversial) studies in the discipline. you can read the details of his experiment in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) and also see VlE resource 5.

VlE resource 5: Milgram’s obedience studyWhat were the participants asked to do as part of this study?

Milgram (1963, 1974) manipulated different variables in his series of investigations but let us focus here on the instructions given by the experimenter to the participant administering electric shocks to a victim. Results have shown that the typical set of instructions (found in Figure 8.8 in aronson, Wilson and akert) were sufficient to make participants give electric shocks of up to 450 volts in 65 per cent of cases. in contrast, when teachers were asked to choose the voltage that they wanted to use to penalise mistakes made, only 2.5 per cent reached the highest level of punishment. What do we learn from this?

Point of reflection Notice the levels of the independent variable (instruction to continue/instruction to do as wanted) and those of the dependent variable (level of voltage) in Milgram’s studies. What other factors would you manipulate in this kind of experimental situation?

Milgram’s results astonished everyone because, up to then, psychologists, and indeed society, trusted that we had the capacity to oppose irrational orders; in this situation, the irrational orders were for participants to give others electric shocks for making a mistake on a memory test.

as we said before, experiments have explanatory power. What is the explanation for obedience resulting from the findings above? Well, we would have to conclude that the social situation has a determining role to play, in particular when participants receive clear instructions to continue directly from an authority figure (an experienced researcher from a prestigious university). in other words, participants shift the responsibility for their action from their own person to that of the researcher overseeing the study and become simple devices that apply almost unthinkingly the instructions received. Not a very complimentary conclusion about human nature and the effect of obedience.

however, to evaluate the strength of this explanation we need to consider if the experiment was ‘valid’. psychologists use the term ‘validity’ when they asks themselves the question ‘is the research actually measuring what it is intended to measure?’ Validity in social psychological studies is broadly speaking internal or external. internal validity is achieved in an experiment when we can be sure that nothing beside the independent variable affected the change in the dependent variable; external validity considers the extent to which the results of the study can be generalised across situations and people (see also the Further reading). Does Milgram’s study show external validity? Would the same thing happen outside the laboratory?

The ethics of research

Unfortunately, time and time again history has shown us that Milgram’s results do hold true and the holocaust is only one powerful example of how ‘ordinary’ people can become depersonalised or lose their sense of who they are and turn into instruments of evil by not questioning what they are told to do. But can we say that Nazi officials are to be excused because of this phenomenon? can we conclude that they had no choice in the situation? No. Just as it happened in Milgram’s study, some of the participants actually didn’t go through with the

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W147ybOdgpE


experiment despite receiving orders from an authority figure to do so. obviously, such questions make us think about deeper issues of responsibility and morality.

in fact, the moral aspect needs to also be considered when designing social psychological studies. how do you think Milgram’s participants felt after going through the experience of having to shock another person and to then hear their desperate pleas to stop? according to current ethical principles, endorsed by bodies such as the american psychological association (apa) (see Figure 2.3 in aronson, Wilson and akert, 2012), Milgram’s study would not be allowed today.

Point of reflection Which of the principles established by the apa does Milgram’s study contravene? Do you think it was worth performing such an experiment at the cost of exposing participants to obvious distress?

Further reading

To learn more about validity, which is a central concern for psychological research (in particular experimental studies), you can read about internal and external validity in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.32–35). They discuss these issues using the example of a famous experiment conducted by latané and Darley on intervening in an emergency.

Point of reflection can you make any parallels between latané and Darley’s study and the one performed by Milgram?

actIvItyBased on what you learned about Milgram’s experiment and its methodology, answer the following set of questions:

1. Would it be possible to study the role of instructions in obedience through observational and correlational methods? How would you do that?

2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of conducting an experiment to investigate obedience? comment with reference to Milgram’s results.

3. Is there any way to perform research on obedience that complies with ethical standards?

4. as stated at the start of this section, social psychological theory advances through iterative cycles in which past studies inspire future research. How would you propose to build on Milgram’s initial set of conclusions? What would you investigate next?

23U

nit 1

: Stu

dyin

g so

cial

psy

chol

ogy 23

Test your knowledge and understanding

Section 1.1Short-answer questions

1. What is social psychology and what does it study?

2. Social influence is everywhere around us. Discuss with the help of examples.

Essay questions

1. The way we interpret a situation is more important than the situation itself. Do you agree? Why or why not?

2. Social psychological knowledge can make a difference in the world. Why or why not?


1. list and exemplify (illustrate using examples) the three types of methods used in social psychology.

2. What are the characteristic features of experimental research?

Essay questions

1. The choice of method depends on the research question. Discuss.

2. We should change ethical principles to allow studies such as Milgram’s today. Do you agree?

24U

nit 1

: Stu

dyin

g so

cial

psy

chol

ogy 24

as you discovered in this unit, social psychology is a complex discipline that covers a wide range of topics at multiple levels, from individual and interpersonal to group and cultural/societal. as social beings, we are constantly trying to understand others, interpret their actions and we both experience and exert forms of social influence. Milgram’s obedience study was a good example of the use of experiments by social psychologists. it showed that, in experiments, researchers can control (independent) variables to study their effect (on dependent variables). There are many other methods available for social psychologists, including observational and correlational studies. The use of these methods needs to be considered in light of current ethical guidelines in the discipline.

A reminder of your learning outcomes

having completed this unit, and the Essential reading and activities, you should be able to:

� describe social psychology and its focus on social influence and social interpretation

� explain how social psychologists choose their research methods

� identify dependent and independent variables in an experiment

� list the main ethical guidelines followed in the discipline.

concluding comments

25



Uni

t 2: T

he s

elf i

n so

cial

con

text


aims 25

learning outcomes 25

Essential reading 25

Further reading 26

References cited 26

Unit 2: The self in social context 26


The human self is a complex psychological and social reality. in this unit, you will discover different aspects of this phenomenon studied by social psychologists: from self-concept, self-knowledge and self-esteem to the presentation of the self in interactions with others. We will cover a range of theories related to the self, including self-awareness, self-perception and social comparison theory. These will allow you to understand how the self emerges in social exchanges between people and how it is always connected to a particular social context. The unit ends with a discussion of impression formation and management, two key aspects of our day-to-day interactions.

Week Unit Section3 2: The self in social context 2.1: What is the self?

4 2.2: how do we get to know ourselves?

5 2.3: Why do we need self-esteem?

6 2.4: how do we present the self?

Aims


� the concept of self as used in social psychology

� the ways in which people gain knowledge about their own self

� the concept of self-esteem and social psychological research on this topic

� theories of impression formation and impression management.

Learning outcomes


� define the self concept, describe self-awareness theory and assess cultural differences in the expression of self

� describe self-perception and social comparison theory and compare them

� define self-esteem and discuss it in relation to narcissism and fixed/growth mindsets

� discuss and illustrate processes of impression formation and impression management.

Essential reading

Section 2.1aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.105-06, 109–12.

Section 2.2aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.115–17, 122–25.

Section 2.3aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.13–4, 122, 129–31.

Section 2.4aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp. 82–3, 126–29.


Further reading

Section 2.1aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), ‘Judging why we feel the way we do: telling more than we can know’ and ‘The consequences of introspecting about reasons’ , pp.112–14.

Section 2.2aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), ‘Resisting peer pressure’ , pp.182–83.


Section 2.4aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), ‘Self-fulfilling prophecies’ , pp.52–55.

References cited

Baumeister, R.F., l. Smart and J.M. Boden ‘Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem’, Psychological Review 103(1) 1996, pp.5–33.

Bem, D.J. ‘an experimental analysis of self-persuasion’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1 1965, pp.199–218.

Bem, D.J. ‘Self-perception theory’ in Berkowitz, l. (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology. (New york: academic press, 1972) volume 6 [iSBN 9780120152063].

cooley, c. h. Human nature and the social order. (New york: c. Scribner’s Sons, 1902).

Festinger, l. ‘a theory of social comparison processes’, Human Relations 7(2) 1954, pp.117–40.

goffman, E. ‘Embarrassment and social interaction’, The American Journal of Sociology 63(2) 1956, pp.264–71.

goffman, E. The presentation of self in everyday life. (New york: Doubleday, 1959).

harackiewicz, J.M., a.M. Durik and K.E. Barron (eds) Multiple goals, optimal motivation, and the development of interest. (New york: cambridge University press, 2005) [iSBN 9780521114134].

heine, S.J., T. Takemoto, J. lasaleta and J. henrich ‘Mirrors in the head: cultural variation in objective self-awareness’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34 2008, pp.879–87.

higgins, E.T. ‘Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect’, Psychological Review 94(3) 1987, pp.319–40.

James, W. The principles of psychology. (New york: henry holt, 1890).

Jones, E.E. and T.S. pittman ‘Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation’ in Suls, J. (ed.) Psychological perspectives of the self. (hillsdale: Eribaum, 1982) [iSBN 9780898591972].

leary, M.R. and R.F. Baumeister ‘The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory’ in Zanna, M. (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology. (San Diego: academic press, 2000) volume 32 [iSBN 9780120152322].

Mann, M., c.M.h. hosman, h.p. Schaalma and N.K. de Vries ‘Self-esteem in a broad-spectrum approach for mental health promotion’, Health Education Research 19(4) 2004, pp.357–72.

Markus, h.R. ‘Self-schemata and processing information about the self’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35(2) 1977, pp.63–78.


Mead, g.h. Mind, self and society. Edited by charles W. Morris. (chicago: chicago University press, 1934).

Schneider, D.J. ‘implicit personality theory: a review’, Psychological Bulletin 79(5) 1973, pp.294–309.

Twenge, J.M. and J.D. Foster ‘Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits among american college students’, Social Psychological and Personality Science 1 2010, pp.99–106.

Wilson, T.D. and E.W. Dunn ‘Self-knowledge: its limits, value, and potential for improvement’, Annual Review of Psychology 55 2004, pp.493–518.

Uni

t 2: T

he s

elf i

n so

cial

con

text 29

Section 2.1: What is the self?

introduction 30

Self-concept: who we are 31

Self-awareness: knowing who we are 32

cultural variations: differences in who we are 33

Further reading 33

Unit 2: The self in social context • Section 2.1: What is the self? 30

Introductory actIvItyaronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.105–06, 109–12.

read the sections ‘the origins of the self’ and ‘Knowing ourselves through introspection’ (the ‘Focusing on the self: self-awareness theory’ part).

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – self-concept, introspection and self-awareness theory – and write them down in your glossary.


1. Why is it important to learn about the self?

2. What kind of research is performed in social psychology to study the self?

3. What is the nature of introspection?

4. What are the key findings of research on self-awareness?

Introduction

When was the last time you thought about yourself, your actions, your beliefs and what makes you different from, or similar to, other people? how often do you think about what characterises yourself during a normal day? potentially not very often. however, you, like everyone else, have a distinctive feeling of the self, a sense that you are a person in your own right, unique in certain ways, and capable of thinking and acting in a conscious manner.

This ‘intuition’ of having a self has preoccupied philosophers for millennia. one assumed central characteristic of this self is its continuity in time. indeed, if we were to change every moment and become another being completely it would be pointless to talk about the self, and this would also raise a series of important questions regarding our autonomy and responsibility towards others (see VlE resource 1). autonomy is having the ability to be responsible for our own decisions. at the same time the self is a dynamic, evolving structure and we can observe this when we think about how we are now compared to how we were two or five years ago. What constitutes the self and how it develops in time are central questions for a social psychologist.

VlE resource 1: Philosopher Raymond Martin on the continuity of the selfWhy is continuity important for our sense of self?

Studying the self, just like trying to know it better, is nevertheless a difficult task. Social psychologists started by exploring the self in the same way that ordinary people would; namely, through the use of introspection. introspection refers to examining one’s own feelings, thoughts and reasons for doing things. Relying on personal accounts of the self has the advantage of obtaining first-hand information about one’s experience but it also has several limitations (Wilson and Dunn, 2004). For instance, people might want to place themselves in a positive light or, more importantly, might not be aware of certain key aspects of their own self. This difficulty of knowing the self stems from its double nature of being both ‘content’ (namely, what makes up the self – different physical, psychological, moral features of the person such as being tall, nice, liking music, being a citizen of a certain country, male or female, etc.) and ‘process’ (namely, the process of learning who we are, becoming aware of the ‘content’ of the self ). This distinction has been formulated early on in psychology by William James (1890) as the difference between what is ‘known’ (content) and the ‘knower’ who is thinking about the self (process).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=HJW09aZaJ4w&NR=1


These two inter-related aspects of the self will concern us here as they are situated at the heart or core of a psychological study of the self. Such a study is deeply social psychological because, as we shall see in this unit, the content of the self and the process of becoming a self cannot take place outside a context of social interaction.

Self-concept: who we are

one essential aspect of the self has to do with the knowledge we gain about who we are. We know for instance that we have certain physical characteristics, that we prefer certain things rather than others, that we aim to achieve a number of goals, and so on. The exact ways in which we get to build up this type of knowledge will be considered in the following section but for the moment it is important to remember that knowledge of the self represents what is called the self-concept (aronson, Wilson and akert, 2012). The self-concept represents the content aspect of the self, an important part of our sense of self that relates also to our identity. This part of the self can be considered a cognitive one as it is a representation of oneself that organises cognitions (thoughts) about the self and helps us to interpret events and our reactions to them in terms of who we (believe we) are. Sometimes psychologists who focus on cognition go into the details of the self-concept to study particular self-schemas. For Markus (1977), self-schemas are generalisations about the self, which evolve from past experience. as you can notice, great emphasis is placed in thinking about the self on the time or temporal dimension. Knowledge of the self is both built up in time and can relate to a certain developmental stage – we have a different self-concept depending on our age as different things become important to us when we grow older.

Point of reflection Think about what was important to you as a child. What did you do and what did you want to become later in life? Many aspects of the self are not stable in early childhood and the self-concept for instance becomes better structured and is very much reflected upon during adolescence. Why do you think this is an important age for the development of a self-concept?

children and adults think and talk differently about their own self. if you ask a young child who they are you will learn about very concrete or practical characteristics, references to observable features such as being a boy or a girl, having a certain favourite toy and living with a family. as children grow, the image of the self becomes more complex and starts to incorporate psychological dimensions, ideas about personal feelings and motivations, etc. For an example of how children describe themselves see VlE resource 2. an important question remains: when do children actually start to think about the self, to distinguish themselves from others and the surrounding environment or, more simply put, to recognise themselves? To answer these questions we need to consider the other facet of the self, the self as ‘knower’ referred to also by William James.

VlE resource 2: The development of the self-concept in early childhoodWhat is characteristic about the way in which children talk about themselves?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZdsCdx04to


Self-awareness: knowing who we are

We begin developing a self-concept from approximately 18 months of age, the moment when the human child starts recognising itself. how were psychologists able to discover the origins of this process? Through the use of a very simple experimental procedure based on children’s ability to identify themselves in the mirror (see aronson, Wilson and akert, 2012). Usually, a colour mark is made on the child’s forehead and the child is placed in front of a mirror. Researchers then observe the behaviour of the child to see if the child realises that the mirror image is not another person and identifies the colour mark on their own forehead. interesting evidence about the capacity of certain primates to recognise themselves in the mirror has emerged recently, using the same research design (see VlE resource 3). This raises the important question of whether chimpanzees and orangutans are aware of their own self in a similar way that humans are. if we return to the discussion of self as content and process we can conclude that while certain processes (like self-recognition) might be common for both humans and some of the great apes, the content of the self (the self-concept) is certainly a much more elaborate or complex construction in the case of humans.

VlE resource 3: Self-recognition in apesBased on this video, what can we conclude about the existence of a sense of self among the great apes?

For human beings, self-awareness is not limited to recognition but represents a life-long effort to understand oneself (and others) better, and to reflect on who we are and who we want to be. in our day-to-day life we are used to focusing our attention not only on the environment (something specific for most animals) but on our self and our actions, to consider whether these actions represent the self as we know and want it. This process is explained in detail by the Self-awareness Theory (SaT), based on the idea that humans often compare their behaviour to their own internal standards and values. in other words, we try to be consistent with ourselves and experience distress or inner tension whenever our actions don’t match our standards and representation of the self (namely, whenever we contradict elements of our self-concept). To reduce this tension we either change our behaviour or, if this is not possible, avoid being self-aware (see Figure 5.3. in aronson, Wilson and akert, 2012). Notably, SaT emphasises the fact that we are not always self-aware (something that would require too much mental energy) but become so whenever we come across a self-focusing cue in the environment. a classic example is again that of being able to watch our actions in the mirror.

Think like a social psychologist From the above it is clear that seeing oneself in the mirror is a key task in psychological experiments trying to determine the existence of self-recognition and manipulate self-awareness. can you think of other tasks you could administer to see whether participants: a) recognise themselves; b) change their behaviour following this sense of awareness?

in fact, the idea of a mirror image of the self has been important theoretically as well for the development of social psychology. one particular orientation called symbolic interactionism introduced the key notion of a ‘looking-glass self’ (cooley, 1902) derived from seeing oneself as others see us. This metaphorical image implies that all the people we interact with act as mirrors. These mirrors ‘reflect’ a certain image of who we are and, based on this image, we develop a self-concept. This observation is significant for two reasons. First, it gives us an idea of how exactly we come to construct knowledge of the self through awareness of self and others (something we

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFo3trMuD8


will be looking at in detail in the next section) and, second, it underlines the importance of the social world for the construction of the self. But if the social world influences how we think about ourselves then culture will also have an important role to play in this process.

Cultural variations: differences in who we are

psychologists have become more and more preoccupied, in the last decades, with the study of cultural differences and this interest is well documented in the literature on self. as we will see in Unit 5, one basic assumption is that Westerners hold an independent view of the self while people from East asian cultures in particular hold an interdependent view. This basically means that Westerners tend to think of themselves as distinct individuals while Easterners are more inclined to define themselves based on the relations that they have with others, such as their family. This distinction is important for SaT as self-awareness is presumed to increase, for instance, when we see ourselves in the mirror – psychologists expect this effect to be stronger in the West than the East. in the East, people tend to use others as ‘mirrors’ for the self (see the looking-glass theory above) and, therefore, they are in a more or less constant state of self-awareness. a study by heine and colleagues (2008) confirms this hypothesis and suggests that cultural differences exist not only at the level of the self-concept (independence versus interdependence) but equally at the level of self-awareness. This also gives support to the idea mentioned at the beginning that the ‘content’ and ‘processes’ of self are inter-connected and shaped to a great extent by social and cultural influences.

Further reading

To know more about the processes of knowing oneself you can continue reading the sections ‘Judging why we feel the way we do: Telling more than we can know’ and ‘The consequences of introspecting about reasons’ from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.112–14). These sections show that processes of self-awareness are more complex than they might appear on the surface. you can also measure your private self-consciousness by completing the ‘Try it!’ exercise from the textbook.

actIvItyto study the self, psychologists invented a simple task known as the ‘Who am I test’. this involves answering the question ‘Who am I?’ 20 times.

try completing this task on your own – remember not to repeat answers and not to think too much, just list ideas as they come to mind.

once you have completed the test, answer the following questions:

1. Is it difficult to answer this question 20 times? How easily did the first answers come compared to the last ones? Is there a difference between what you mention first and last?

2. What do your answers say about your self-concept? What dimension of your self do they emphasise? Why do you think that is?

3. How many of your answers include concrete attributes (like physical qualities, nationality, gender, etc.) and how many refer to psychological aspects (what you feel, think, want, etc.)?

4. do your answers talk about yourself alone or about your relationship with other people? What does it imply in terms of independence/interdependence of the self?

Uni

t 2: T

he s

elf i

n so

cial

con

text 34

Section 2.2: how do we get to know ourselves?

introduction 35

observing the self: self-perception theory 36

observing others: social comparison theory 37

Knowing ourselves: observing both self and others 38

Further reading 38

Unit 2: The self in social context • Section 2.2: How do we get to know ourselves? 35


read the sections ‘Self-perception theory’, ‘Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation’, ‘Knowing ourselves by comparing ourselves to others’ and ‘Knowing ourselves by adopting other people’s views’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – self-perception theory, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, overjustification effect, social comparison theory, downward and upward social comparison and social tuning – and write them down in your glossary.


1. How do people learn about the self by observing their own behaviour?

2. What is the relation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation?

3. How do people learn about the self by comparing themselves with others?

4. do we often adopt other people’s views?

Introduction

as mentioned in Section 2.1, whenever people think about their own self, they engage in a process of introspection. Through a close examination of personal thoughts, feelings and motives, they become aware of who they are or, in other words, they consolidate their self-concept. however, knowing people are capable of introspection doesn’t tell us much about the processes involved in building knowledge about oneself. By what means do we get to know ourselves; for instance, how do we know what we like and don’t like? in many instances the answer to this question will come quickly as we might have a strong opinion about certain things or people. But imagine that you are asked if you like something that you don’t know much about or that you don’t do very often – for instance listening to a certain type of music. What can help you to answer this? Most probably you will immediately think about the last time you listened to that music and about how often this happened in the past. This means that you would base your answer on the underlying assumption that if you listened to it a lot you probably like it (or at least don’t dislike it). But then again how would you know if listening to that particular music three times a week, let’s say, is ‘a lot’ or ‘very little’? you can compare your behaviour with that of other people to answer this. So based on this logic, you probably like the music if, in comparison to your friends, you tend to listen to it a lot.

The example above illustrates two standard ways in which we build knowledge about ourselves: by observing our own behaviour and by comparing our behaviour with that of other people. This section, and the Essential reading, will look more closely at each type of process and then consider how they interconnect in explaining the emergence of a self-concept. These issues are extremely important to understand because they have deep consequences for how we relate to our own self and how we feel about it (see also Section 2.3). For instance, it is crucial to have a sense of who we compare ourselves to in our daily life. if we tend to compare our performance with that of people who underperform we might get a misleading sense of our abilities while constantly comparing ourselves with overachievers can make us doubt our own capacities.


Observing the self: self-perception theory

Self-perception theory argues that when we are uncertain about our feelings or preferences we tend to conclude about these aspects of our self-concept by observing our own behaviour and the situation in which it occurs (Bem, 1965, 1972). The basic assumption advanced by this theory is as follows. if we are asked, for instance, to say whether another person possesses a certain psychological feature, like modesty, what we would probably do is observe the behaviour of that person or remember the moments when we saw how the person behaved in ways that reveal modesty or, on the contrary, indicate arrogance. This is more or less what we tend to do when we consider our own self and are uncertain about who we are or what we enjoy: we look back at our behaviour. By doing this we can discover aspects of the self that we like or dislike.

Take for instance the humorous example of george constanza from the popular comedy show Seinfeld (see VlE resource 1). This short clip shows george in an exercise of self-reflection, observing his own behaviour and being dissatisfied with it to such an extent that he decides from that moment on to do the exact opposite of what he was doing before. as extreme as this may seem, it is sometimes the case that, when we engage in self-perception (remember also the self-awareness theory discussed in the previous section), we discover aspects of our self that we are not particularly happy with. Does behaving in an opposite way change fundamentally who we are?

VlE resource 1: George Constanza does the oppositedo you sometimes feel the same as George? can you explain his behaviour in terms of self-perception theory?

Point of reflection in an exercise of self-perception, think about your past behaviour and assess, based on it, whether you are: modest, generous, aggressive, ambitious, tidy, friendly or disciplined. What kind of behaviours did you identify in the past that would suggest that you possess these features (or not)? how often did you engage in those types of behaviours? is this a useful exercise in order to know yourself better?

attributing, or attaching, a certain meaning to our actions is a frequent outcome of self-perception. When in doubt about why we do certain things and what this says about the self, we only need to consider our behaviour and its context to come to a conclusion. a typical example here is that of motivation. psychologists usually distinguish between two main types of motivation: intrinsic (doing things for their own sake, for the pleasure they give us) and extrinsic (doing things to receive a reward or avoid punishment). The relationship between receiving a reward to perform an action, making sense of that action through self-perception, and coming to a conclusion about the self has been intensely studied (see for instance harackiewicz, Durik and Barron, 2005).

The studies presented in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) demonstrate the fact that children who receive a reward attribute their behaviour not to a quality of the self, such as an interest or ability, but to their desire for incentive or reward (material or otherwise). have a look at Figure 5.4. in the textbook and observe the difference in the number of minutes spent playing a maths game in three conditions (no reward, reward and follow-up). What can we learn from this? in fact, it would seem that the overjustification effect interferes with how we understand ourselves in light of our actions: if we think we had an external reason to behave in a certain way, then that particular behaviour doesn’t really represent ‘who we are’.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUvKE3bQlY


Thinking like a social psychologist Remember the distinction between observational, correlational and experimental studies in social psychology presented in Section 1.2. Try to formulate a research question related to the relation between intrinsic motivation and knowledge of the self that can be answered with the help of the observational, correlational and experimental method respectively.

Observing others: social comparison theory

Self-perception theory emphasises the importance of observing oneself but, as we argued in Section 2.1, the self is a social phenomenon dependent on interaction with others. By talking to others, from family and friends to teachers and colleagues, we get to know something about our own self; we realise how others see us and this influences the way we think about ourselves (at this stage, you may want to revisit the idea of the ‘looking-glass self’ from Section 2.1). Taking the example of self-perception, let’s imagine a young boy who helps his parents with chores in the house three times a week. Does this make the child respectful of, and caring towards his family?

Well, it depends. any number of times a behaviour takes place doesn’t say anything in itself. it gains meaning only by comparison and the most common comparison term we use in our daily life is the behaviour of others. in our example, if friends of the boy in question help their parents much more often with the household tasks, then the child will probably see himself as being less respectful and caring. Notice that comparisons are always relative to what we compare things with. When we want to understand what our behaviour says about our self we look around us and compare it with the behaviour of people close to us or people who we know are in a similar situation. if we were to change this comparison term and use another group to compare with, the result of this self-evaluation might well be different!

Point of reflection Who do you usually compare yourself to in order to understand whether (in the classroom) you are a good student or (at home) you are a good child? are the people you use as reference different or not? What would happen if you were to compare your behaviour (at school/college or at home) with that of another group of people?

This in essence is the idea behind social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954). The exercise above should also make you consider the fact that several types of social comparison are possible. psychologists talk about downward social comparison when we compare ourselves to people who are worse than us and upward social comparison when we evaluate our capacities in light of those who achieve more. can you think of advantages and disadvantages for engaging in each of these types of comparison? also a fundamental question remains in relation to this theory: who are the people we usually compare ourselves with? are they friends and family or can they even be strangers? as aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) explain, research shows that we have the tendency to compare ourselves with people having a similar background or being in a similar situation.

This is why most often we refer to the views and behaviours of our friends and it is frequently the case that we end up adopting these as if they were our own. This is known as social tuning and it is a useful process that assists our interaction with others and enables us to participate in different groups. There is also a dark side to the phenomenon of always comparing ourselves with people from one particular group that we belong to or want to belong to, and that is peer pressure. During adolescence, for instance, we can often feel obliged to conform to the views and actions of our peers, sometimes with very negative consequences for the self (see VlE resource 2).


VlE resource 2: Peer pressure documentary testimonialHow can we explain peer pressure in terms of social comparison theory? How are relations with peers important for the self-concept?

Knowing ourselves: observing both self and others

This section presented two theories about how people gain knowledge of the self. Self-perception argues that, in ambiguous or confusing situations, we observe our actions to understand what is specific for us. Social comparison moves the focus from self to others and claims that our self-concept largely results from comparisons with others, for example, friends and family, but also immediate others within concrete, real situations. are these two explanations opposed?

First of all, let us notice that the two processes do not exclude each other and are actually complementary. as mentioned above, the ‘result’ of self-perception can be understood through social comparison and the latter is also made possible by the former – what would we compare if we didn’t reflect on our own behaviour? Moreover, we can go back to the ideas of symbolic interactionism mentioned in the previous section to understand this dynamic. For authors like george herbert Mead (1934), the fundamental capacity that allows the construction of a self is that of seeing oneself as an other, as an ‘object’ to be studied. Such an ability to reflect on oneself (to introspect) makes acts of self-perception possible (observing our behaviour as we would observe the behaviour of another person). however, for Mead, this doesn’t suffice: humans don’t only reflect on the self but can see it through the eyes of others, taking their perspective on our self. This basically means that we can think of the self in terms of how other people consider us, something that also involves processes of social comparison. To find out more about Mead’s social psychology see VlE resource 3.

VlE resource 3: Presentation of George Herbert Mead’s theoryIn Mead’s opinion, why is the self fundamentally social?

Further reading

To know more about peer pressure, and particularly how one can resist its influence, read the section on ‘Resisting peer pressure’ in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.182–83). how would you resist smoking if pressured to do so by friends? how would you be able to use what you have learned about self-perception and social comparison to resist pressure and build a positive self-concept?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NN6sQSLNWg

http://sociology.about.com/od/Profiles/p/George-Herbert-Mead.htm


actIvItyIf I were to ask you ‘are you a funny person?’ what would you reply based on: a) self-perception theory; b) social comparison theory?

think also about the case of a colleague or friend you know well. are they funny? By putting yourself in this friend’s place, apply both theories to reach an answer. then answer the following questions:

1. What kinds of behaviour did you consider when applying self-perception theory?

2. Who were the people you used as a comparison term in the social comparison?

3. are there differences in the conclusion that you reached about yourself and your sense of humour when you applied one theory or another? What about between you and your friend?

4. try to do this exercise in pairs with another classmate and compare your answers. did you reach a similar conclusion about yourself and about them? If not, why do you think that is?

Uni

t 2: T

he s

elf i

n so

cial

con

text

40

Section 2.3: Why do we need self-esteem?

introduction 41

protecting our self-esteem 42

Narcissism: the dark side of high self-esteem 43

how to build self-esteem 43

Further reading 44

Unit 2: The self in social context • Section 2.3: Why do we need self-esteem? 41

Introductory actIvItyaronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.13–14, 122, 129–31.

read the sections ‘the self-esteem approach: the need to feel good about ourselves’, ‘How should parents praise their children?’ and ‘Self-esteem: how we feel about ourselves’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – self-esteem, narcissism, fixed mindset and growth mindset – and write them down in your glossary.


1. What is self-esteem and how can we achieve a positive self-esteem?

2. How do we justify past behaviour in order to maintain a positive self-esteem?

3. When does self-esteem lead to narcissism?

4. Is there a right and a wrong way of praising children?

Introduction

as this unit demonstrates, there is a very rich and still evolving literature on the topic of self in the field of social psychology. So far, we have covered several key concepts from this literature – self-knowledge, self-concept, self-schemas, self-awareness – all of them concerned primarily with the cognitive dimension of who we are; that is, with what we know and believe about ourselves. however, we don’t only think about the self but also evaluate it and, as a result, develop certain feelings and attitudes in relation to it such as satisfaction, pride and, sometimes, shame. This self-evaluation process determines the level of what we call self-esteem, or an appreciation of our self-worth. What do we take into account when we evaluate ourselves? There are several factors that influence the way we feel about our own self, from physical appearance to perceived abilities and relationships with others. if we consider ourselves to be good, decent and competent, we most probably foster a higher level of self-esteem and, as this section will argue, we all have a natural tendency to want to feel good about ourselves and do whatever is necessary to achieve this aim.

Why do we need a positive self-esteem? Research has shown that positive self-evaluations can foster mental and social well-being; for instance, a higher level of self-esteem can contribute to better health while poor or low self-esteem is often associated with a range of mental disorders and social problems (Mann, hosman, Schaalma and de Vries, 2004). Moreover, self-esteem seems also to be associated with the extent to which one feels appreciated by others and socially included (leary and Baumeister, 2000). Under these circumstances, it would appear that a high self-esteem is all we need to succeed in life. however, more is not always better. in fact, having a very high image of oneself can be an indication of distorting reality and can lead to unpleasant social relations (how much would you enjoy the company of people who think that they are the greatest on earth?). While it is considered that individuals with a low self-esteem are prone to violence, the opposite is also true. Whenever contradicted by others or by existing circumstances, and in order to protect a high self-esteem (a situation that is called ‘threatened egotism’), people can resort to aggression and even crime (Baumeister, Smart and Boden, 1996). in the end, for most of us the way we consider ourselves is a dynamic reality, a reality that can change and will depend on age, gender, the social groups we belong to and the situation we are in. More and more often society’s norms, for instance norms related to beauty and physical appearance, impose standards that are hard to reach with devastating effects for our self-image and self-esteem (see VlE resource 1).


VlE resource 1: The Dove self-esteem fund commercialWhat do you think this commercial is trying to make us aware of? What are the standards of beauty, for both men and women, in your culture and how does attaining this standard (or not) potentially affect one’s self-esteem?

Protecting our self-esteem

We have already established that self-esteem is an important component of our self, related to a personal feeling of self-worth. as such, we would expect people to try to enhance their self-esteem and ‘protect’ it when threatened. But what can threaten our appreciation of ourselves? are there any situations and interactions that make us think we are less good or competent than expected by self or by others (remember also the social comparison theory from the previous section)? how do we react to such threats?

There are several ways in which we can respond to these situations in order to maintain our sense of self-worth. For instance, we can avoid interacting with people who make us feel bad about ourselves (or make us feel less capable, less attractive, less intelligent, etc.). a more ‘active’ approach would be to put some effort into improving that dimension or aspect of our self that seems to be lacking. if we see that we perform less well in school/college compared with colleagues, this can affect our sense of self-worth and decrease our overall self-esteem (of course the more importance that is attributed to academic achievement in a person’s self-concept, the more a bad academic performance would affect self-esteem). What can we do in this situation? avoiding school or classmates altogether is not a reasonable course of action. Working harder to improve performance is. But, of course, this implies some effort and takes time so we might prefer taking the easier road to enhanced self-esteem. That is, we might simply decide to readjust our thoughts and evaluations about school and school performance in order to justify low achievement and not feel bad about it.

Thinking like a social psychologist Now that you have been introduced to a number of theories about the self you can start making connections between them. For instance, it was argued above that self-esteem emerges out of evaluations of our own self. arguably, these evaluations are based on acts of self-perception. Think about self-perception theory and consider how: a) we know ourselves through our actions; b) we can change the meanings of these actions to increase self-esteem.

processes of self-justification are an important mechanism for maintaining and protecting self-esteem. Whenever we notice a discrepancy between our behaviour and its outcomes and our desired goals (goals that, once achieved, would be associated with a positive self-evaluation), we engage in processes of justifying that behaviour in ways that don’t damage our sense of self-worth.

Examples of this mechanism can be found in a discussion of hazing practices – various rituals that involve abuse or humiliation performed in order to join a group (for example, a college fraternity) – in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012). how can we explain to ourselves the fact that we are willing to go through these humiliating practices especially when the group doesn’t seem in the end to be worth being part of? Self-justification in this case means that the person would persuade themselves that the group is superior even in the face of contradictory evidence, something a person that didn’t go through hazing would not do. in other words, in order to protect our self-esteem, we are often ready to change our perception of reality or at least to be more selective regarding what we perceive from it. however, when practised with moderation, positive justifications of our behaviour can be valuable tools for preserving self-esteem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rSjh52fGTg


Narcissism: the dark side of high self-esteem

There are many reasons why people like to have a high self-esteem. aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) present some of them in their section on ‘Self-esteem: how we feel about ourselves’. For example, lower levels of self-esteem can be unpleasant and lead to depression and to feeling insecure. in contrast, a higher self-esteem protects us from anxiety and motivates us to persevere whenever we are confronted with difficulties. But, as mentioned at the start of this section, more is not always better and this case offers a perfect illustration of this. in fact, too ‘much’ self-esteem can lead to the development of a narcissistic attitude in relation to both self (excessive confidence in oneself and one’s own qualities) and others (lack of empathy or the capacity to understand and share the feelings of others). Narcissists are extremely self-centred and this offers cause for concern but also, sometimes, for amusement (see VlE resource 2 for an illustration).

VlE resource 2: Narcissism in cartoons and comicsHave a look at these comics and discuss them in terms of what they show about narcissistic people.

What is most worrying about narcissism is its growing incidence, at least in the West, particularly in US society. a study by Twenge and Foster (2010) indicates for example that there was a steady increase in students’ scores on the Narcissistic personality inventory (Npi) in the USa between 1982 and 2008 (see Figure 5.8 as well as examples of typical Npi items in aronson, Wilson and akert, 2012). how can we explain this? on the one hand we can remember the idea of the independent self introduced in Section 2.1 of this guide. From a cultural perspective or viewpoint, it is often assumed that the Western way of being focuses primarily on the individual and this can be the basis for developing some symptoms of narcissism. and yet we cannot simply assume that individualism and narcissism go together as not all people holding this view of the self actually become narcissistic and narcissism is not restricted to a certain geographical (and cultural) location. as social psychologists we need to think deeper about what elements of a social and cultural environment favour the development of excessive self-love and how young people are ‘affected’ by this environment. in the end, having a high level of self-esteem is not itself the problem. it only becomes a problem when you start thinking that the only person that truly matters in the world is yourself.

Point of reflection it is suggested here that an inclination towards narcissism might be stimulated by elements of one’s environment. What exactly seems to encourage narcissistic attitudes nowadays among young people? Think about the music they listen to, the films they see, the commercials they are exposed to, etc. can you identity any elements in these that promote self-focus and disregard for the feelings and thoughts of others?

How to build self-esteem

in the end it is important to remember that self-esteem has its roots in childhood, when our self-concept starts to develop. We gain a sense of self-worth by listening to what our parents and family say about us and the way they treat us. later on, when we enter school, a new system of rewards is set in place that tells us how well we are doing compared with our peers. our grades and relationships with teachers have a great impact on self-esteem at school age. how do we build self-esteem during childhood and later on? one direct way is through receiving praise from parents and teachers. it would seem that praise, very often used in a Western context, can

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/n/narcissism.asp


help the child form a positive self-evaluation; however, not all praise has a positive effect on the child’s self-image and intrinsic motivation to achieve.

aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.120–21) discuss praise in relation to certain types of mindset that the child has concerning their own capacities. For instance, we can believe that our abilities (for example, intellectual abilities) are largely fixed from birth and that there isn’t much we can do to enhance them or, on the contrary, we can think of these abilities as flexible, shaped by continuous effort and exercise. The former belief illustrates a ‘fixed mindset’, the latter a ‘growth mindset’. praise from others can activate a fixed mindset when focused solely on ability, while they can stimulate ‘growth’ by emphasising effort and determination. For more discussion of the difference between these distinct ways of praising children and their consequences see VlE resource 3.

VlE resource 3: Dr Dweck on praising childrenMake a summary of the arguments offered in this presentation and try to illustrate them using your own examples.

Further reading

We have covered in these three sections two important dimensions of the self: a cognitive/knowledge one (self-concept) and an affective emotional/evaluative one (self-esteem). however, the self has also an executive function expressed as self-control. This aspect talks about the choices made by the self and the way we build plans for the future. For more details see aronson, Wilson and akert (2010), pp.125–26.

actIvItyas children, you will sometimes have received praise or observed others being praised. this section discussed praise in relation to self-esteem and mindsets about abilities. It was argued that not all types of praise have a positive effect on our future development. In light of these remarks, consider the following questions:

1. What kind of praise do you remember receiving as a child or have you observed others receive? Where they stimulating a fixed or a growth mindset?

2. do you think receiving (or not receiving) praise affects the self-esteem of children? In what ways and why?

3. Give three different examples of praise that would stimulate a growth mindset based on the reading and vLE resource 3.

4. reflect on cultural differences in receiving and giving praises. How often is praise usually given in your country/culture? What kind of praise is usually formulated?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPmH2-1cNx0

Uni

t 2: T

he s

elf i

n so

cial

con

text 45

Section 2.4: how do we present the self?

introduction 46

Forming impressions: the role of implicit personality theories 47

Managing impression: goffman’s dramaturgical theory 48

an odd self-presentation strategy: self-handicapping 49

Further reading 49

Unit 2: The self in social context • Section 2.4: How do we present the self? 46


read the sections ‘Implicit personality theories: filling in the blanks’, ‘How should parents praise their children?’ and ‘Impression management: all the world’s a stage’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – implicit personality theory, impression management, ingratiation and self-handicapping – and write them down in your glossary.


1. How do we form impressions of others based on implicit personality theories?

2. does culture shape the implicit personality theories we hold?

3. How do we manage the impressions others form of us?

4. What impression management strategies can we use when interacting with others?

Introduction

it has often been argued in this unit that the self depends on social interaction. Why is this the case? To begin with, we wouldn’t be able to construct a human self outside of the social context of growing up in a family and a larger community. We depend on others not only to learn all the skills necessary to live in a human society (e.g. learning how to speak) but also to understand our own self by seeing how others understand us. The ‘looking-glass self’ theory emphasised the fact that others act like mirrors (see Section 2.1) and, through social tuning (see Section 2.2), we end up adopting their views on different aspects of our social environment. This means that, based on our expressions (the way we dress, communicate, behave, etc.), others create impressions of our self (that we are a certain kind of person, possess certain skills, etc.). as social beings, we are sensitive to the impressions others form of us and try to manipulate them in order to place ourselves in a positive light and appear to others exactly in the way we would like to be seen. in social psychology, the study of how we form impressions about others is known as ‘impression formation’ and the study of how we present ourselves to others is called ‘impression management’.

The issue of how we perceive another person’s self and the way we present our own self in different social contexts is of utmost importance. This is because impressions have consequences for how we decide to interact with others. if, based on our contact with a person, we conclude that they are kind, reliable and funny, it is likely that we will want to continue meeting them. getting the impression that the other is aggressive and moody will probably have the reverse effect. Similarly, if we think that the other sees us the way we would like to be seen then, our interaction will be pleasant and potentially long lasting. By contrast, we will experience distress and tension if we feel another person considers us to be something we are not.

This reality has been captured by higgins (1987) in his self-discrepancy theory. This theory distinguishes, essentially, between an actual and an ideal self. The actual self is represented by our existing self-concept – who we are – and the ideal self is an idealised version of our self-concept – who we would like to be. impression management is often used to present an idealised version of ourselves to others. Think about social website profiles and the kinds of photos and statements people upload about themselves. Do they present who they are or who they would like to be? Most probably a combination of both. Taking Facebook as an example, consider VlE resource 1.


VlE resource 1: Blog entry on The Presentation of Self in Facebook LifeIf you use Facebook or have seen other people’s profiles, reflect on what is usually uploaded as a profile picture and why.

Forming impressions: the role of implicit personality theories

Think about the saying: ‘you never get a second chance to make a first impression’. indeed, both popular and scientific knowledge (see VlE resource 2) indicate that the way we present ourselves to others during initial interactions has quite a long-lasting impact. Why is this the case? on the one hand, it is because we often don’t have enough time and energy to know the other better, something that would require repeated interaction. also, we need to know from the start how to behave towards them and we base our initial behaviour on first impressions. as self-perception theory argues (see Section 2.2) we might infer meaning from this behaviour (e.g. ‘i behaved in a certain way because i don’t really like the person’) and integrate this knowledge into our view of the other. This view is likely to last because we prefer to perceive the world as stable, it makes it easier to think about it and act within it. But there is also another reason why first impressions are often quite telling about another person. one would expect that, based on a few minute’s interaction, we wouldn’t be able to say a lot about what the other is like. however, social psychologists assume that we hold implicit personality theories that help us to ‘fill in the blanks’ in person perception (Schneider, 1973).

Point of reflection Think about the first time that you met someone. Do you remember your first impression of them? What do you think this first impression was based on? Did you come to change this impression in time? if yes, what made you change it? also what do you think is the first impression that you give to others (maybe you also know this type of information from your friends or colleagues)? Would you like to change this kind of first impression and if so how?

VlE resource 2: Science Daily – Why first impressions are so persistentMake a short summary of the study presented there. Include information about question, method and results.

implicit personality theories are schemas that we use to group personal attributes or qualities based on our assumptions that certain personality traits or characteristics ‘go together’. The notion of schema came up before when we referred to self-schemas (revisit Section 2.1). These were essential parts of our self-concept. in a way we can say that we also form other concepts, views of how other people are and especially how they should behave based on how they are. For instance, if someone is arrogant we might assume that they are also less friendly. This might or might not be true but the association between arrogance and unfriendliness can be part of an implicit theory about a certain type of person/personality. Such a theory is implicit because we are often not aware that we think in these terms and we would need to reflect long and hard in order to understand how we came up with detailed personality descriptions for people we barely know.

interestingly, there are also cultural variations in implicit personality theories. Typology is the study of personality types with a view to identifying shared and distinctive characteristics. as aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) argue, researchers found that the typologies made reference

http://jmw220.blogspot.ro/2010/10/presentation-of-self-in-facebook-life.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110118113445.htm


to in Western cultures (for example, when describing the artistic type) were different when compared to those in use in china (for example, the shi gú type). as you read the research presented in the section ‘culture and implicit personality theories’, consider the conclusion that the language people speak influences the way they think about self and others. if you speak more than one language think about what words you would use to describe one and the same person. are there any differences?

Managing impression: Goffman’s dramaturgical theory

The fact that we only need to know a few defining traits of a person to build a whole portrait of them is a capacity widely used in literature. Very good novelists are capable of building a character with just a few sentences. They assume that, based on the implicit theories of personality we hold, we will be able to add more traits to a sketchy personal portrait. in fact, the analogy between characters, actors and real-life people is often used by researchers dealing with self-presentation. Ervin goffman (1959) noticed these parallels and proposed a dramaturgical theory of the self based on the assertion that we are all actors playing our part on the stages set up by different social situations. Think about the ‘roles’ you are playing in your everyday life. you are a son or a daughter, a friend, a student, a member of a certain club or society, etc. in each instance your role is different since each context comes with its own demands (for instance we talk differently to our parents than we do with our friends, we behave in one way at home and in another at the university, and so on).

What is important from goffman’s perspective is the fact that role-playing in society is based on a working consensus between social actors: we all play a part and expect others to respond to it adequately. When we don’t play our part well or there is a break-up in communication, embarrassment happens (goffman, 1956) and efforts are made by all to ‘save face’ and recover self-esteem (see Section 2.3). This relation between actors and audiences, self and others, defines impression management. it also reminds us of the words of Shakespeare for whom the social world was a wide stage on which men play their seven ages (see VlE resource 3).

VlE resource 3: Shakespeare ‘All the world’s a stage’ (BBC)as you listen to this famous speech, reflect on the relation between our roles and our age. are there also gender differences?

Thinking like a social psychologist Do you agree with the assertion that the social world is a stage and we are all actors on it? What does this say about authenticity and spontaneity in everyday life? What does it say about our capacity to determine our own ‘role’ in society? Think about these issues in relation to culture and impression management (read the section ‘culture, impression management, and self-enhancement’ from aronson, Wilson and akert, 2012).

But how exactly do we manage the impressions others have of us? Jones and pittman (1982) proposed a classification of impression management strategies people commonly use in everyday interaction. This includes:

� self-promotion: happens when we highlight our accomplishments in order to seem more capable to outside observers

� ingratiation: occurs when we use flattery to seem more likeable or pleasant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPc2fcxOUxE


� exemplification: the strategy of doing more than is needed in order to appear as hardworking to outside observers

� intimidation: happens when we use our power to threaten others, making us look dangerous or powerful

� supplication: takes place when, on the contrary, we present our weaknesses in order to receive compassion or assistance from others.

Point of reflection These are only a few of the self-presentation strategies people use to achieve certain aims. look at the list above and think about when you or others made use of any of these strategies. What was the outcome? Do you see any particular advantages and disadvantages for each of them?

An odd self-presentation strategy: self-handicapping

From what we learned in this section and in the previous one, about self-esteem, we could imagine that people always want to put themselves in the best possible light. how can we explain then that a common self-presentation strategy includes creating obstacles or excuses for oneself? Surely nobody likes to fail and failing doesn’t really tell others something good about the self. and yet this is precisely what self-handicapping is concerned with – finding reasons for failure that are not related to one’s level of ability (reported self-handicapping). if i do poorly in one examination because i wasn’t feeling well then i have a good explanation for underachieving that doesn’t say to others i am less smart. More extreme (behavioural) forms of self-handicapping, as presented in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), involve creating actual obstacles for ourselves.

For instance, what if you throw a party the night before an important examination? if the result of the examination is not favourable then you will have something to attribute this failure to: not lack of personal ability but ‘adverse’ conditions. The fact that these adverse conditions didn’t happen by chance again ‘says’ something about the person (being irresponsible?). But this is better than the alternative (being seen as less smart) and might even be appreciated by peers. of course there is a price to pay even for reported self-handicapping and this price is making actual failure much more likely! if practised on a regular basis, this strategy can seriously damage the person’s chances to succeed in life and might bring about the disapproval of other people. What makes (constant) reported self-handicapping equally dangerous as its behavioural counterpart?

Further reading

Why does predicting failure (for self or for others) make it more likely? you can find an answer in the ‘Self-fulfilling prophecies’ section from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.52–55). look at Figure 3.3 and apply the example of not expecting to do well on the examination. how might this ‘prophecy’ affect your actual result? Why?


actIvIty

VlE resource 4: Meryl Streep’s Best Actress acceptance speech

there are moments in life when self-presentation is key, for instance when addressing a large audience. this is what actors do when they receive an award.

Watch Meryl Streep’s acceptance speech at the 84th academy awards (vLE resource 4), then answer the following questions:

1. What kind of impression do you form of Meryl Streep based on her speech? What kind of person is she? How do implicit personality theories help us ‘complete’ her portrait?

2. What kind of impression do you think Meryl Streep wants others to have of her? How does she want to come across as a person?

3. does she use any particular self-presentation strategies? More generally, what kind of self-presentation strategies can be successfully used during an acceptance speech?

4. dramaturgical theory asserts that we are all actors on the stage of life. do you think that professional actors are better skilled at self-presentation due to their occupation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTpaaiPKFw4

51U

nit 2

: The

sel

f in

soci

al c

onte

xt

51


1. What is the self and how is it studied in social psychology?

2. What is the difference between the self as content and the self as process?

Essay questions

1. can we say we are aware of our own self? Discuss with reference to Self-awareness Theory.

2. There are cultural differences in both the content and process of the self. Discuss.


1. What is self-perception theory and how does it relate to the issue of motivation?

2. What is social comparison theory and how does it explain social tuning?

Essay questions

1. compare and contrast self-perception and social comparison theory.

2. To know the self we need the other. Discuss.


1. What is self-esteem and what is its relation to the self-concept?

2. Why and how do people pursue self-esteem?

Essay questions

1. high self-esteem is not always beneficial for self and others. Do you agree? Why? Why not?

2. praises can enhance but also harm self-esteem. Discuss.


1. What is impression formation and how is it shaped by implicit personality theories?

2. What is impression management and what does it involve?

Essay questions

1. list and exemplify strategies of self-presentation. how successful do you think they are?

2. For goffman the social world is a stage. Do you agree?


52U

nit 2

: The

sel

f in

soci

al c

onte

xt

52

We discussed in this unit how the self is understood and studied by social psychologists. you were introduced to the self-concept (including cognitions or thoughts about the self ), self-esteem (referring to the evaluation of the self ) and self-presentation (dealing with how we present ourselves and try to manage the impressions others form of us). Self-awareness theory is concerned with self-recognition, while self-perception and social comparison theory are suitable for exploring how we gain knowledge about the self. The discussion about self-esteem and narcissism showed that, although we need to feel good about our own self, there are also risks associated with high self-esteem. goffman’s dramaturgical theory offers an excellent approach to self–other relations, a topic we will continue to explore in the next unit.



� define the self concept, describe self-awareness theory and assess cultural differences in the expression of self

� describe self-perception and social comparison theory and compare them

� define self-esteem and discuss it in relation to narcissism and fixed/growth mindsets

� discuss and illustrate processes of impression formation and impression management.

concluding comments

53



Uni

t 3: i

nter

pers

onal

rela

tions


aims 54



Further reading 55

References cited 55

Unit 3: Interpersonal relations 54


in this unit you will learn about interpersonal relations and the main theories formulated by social psychologists explaining how relationships are formed and maintained. The unit begins with a discussion of attachment and attachment styles and their importance for the development of relational patterns. Social exchange and equity theory are introduced as models of relationships based on a cost–benefit type of analysis. although these models apply widely, they can be questioned for missing sight of the emotional investment we bring to our relationships with others. interpersonal attraction and its factors are covered in order to unpack how we choose our friends and romantic partners. Finally, the unit closes with a discussion of nonverbal communication and, in particular, the encoding and decoding of facial expressions. Understanding the emotions of others plays an important part in communication and interpersonal contact.

Week Unit Section7 3: interpersonal relations 3.1: Why do we form relationships?

8 3.2: how are relationships maintained?

9 3.3: What are the ‘laws’ of attraction?

10 3.4: how well do we ‘read’ others?

Aims


� the theory of attachment and its application to the formation of relationships

� social exchange theories of relationships and the importance of investment in relationships

� theories of interpersonal attraction

� theories of nonverbal communication

� research on the facial expression of emotions.

Learning outcomes


� define attachment

� describe the three main attachment styles

� reflect on the methodologies used to study attachment and its role in relationships

� differentiate between exchange and communal relationships

� describe social exchange/equity theory

� assess the role of investment in relationships

� define interpersonal attraction

� discuss the role of propinquity, similarity and reciprocal liking in attraction

� define nonverbal communication

� discuss whether facial expressions of emotion are universal

� critically assess why sometimes we fail to understand others.


Essential reading




Section 3.4aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.39, 76–79.

Further reading

Section 3.1aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), ‘Defining love: companionship and passion’ , pp.280–82.



Section 3.4aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), ‘Two factor theory of emotion’ , pp.117–19.

References cited

adams, J.S. ‘inequity in social exchange’, Advances in experimental social psychology 2. (New york: academic press, 1966), pp.267–99.

ainsworth, M.D.S. and S.M. Bell ‘attachment, exploration, and separation: illustrated by the behaviour of one-year-olds in a strange situation’, Child Development 41 1970, pp.49–67.

amodio, D.M. and c.J. Showers ‘Similarity breeds liking’ revisited: The moderating role of commitment’, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22 2005, pp.817–36.

Bartholomew, K. and c.a. horowitz ‘attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four category model’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 1991, pp.226–44.

Blau, p.M. Exchange and power in social life. (New york: Wiley, 1964) [iSBN 9780887386282]; and (Transaction publishers, 1986) [iSBN 9780887386282].

Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss. Volume 1: attachment. (london: hogarth press, 1969) first edition; also (london: Basic Books, 1982) second edition [iSBN 9780465005437]; and (penguin, 1991) second revised edition [iSBN 9780140138375].

curtis, R.c. and K. Miller ‘Believing another likes or dislikes you: behaviors making the beliefs come true’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 1986, pp.284–90.

Darwin, c. The expression of the emotions in man and animals. (london: Murray, 1872).

Ekman, p. and W.V. Friesen ‘constants across cultures in the face and emotion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17 1971, pp.124–29.


Emerson, R.M. ‘Social exchange theory’, Annual Review of Sociology 2 1976, pp.335–62.

Festinger, l., S. Schachter and K. Back Social pressures in informal groups: a study of human factors in housing. (New york: harper, 1950).

galati, D., R. Miceli and B. Sini ‘Judging and coding facial expression of emotions in congenitally blind children’, International Journal of Behavioral Development 25(3) 2001, pp.268–78.

goffman, E. The presentation of self in everyday life. (New york: Doubleday, 1959); and (london: penguin, 1990) [iSBN 9780140135718].

harlow, h.F. and M.K. harlow ‘Social deprivation in monkeys’, Scientific American 207(5) 1962 pp.136–46.

Rusbult, c.E. ‘a longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 1983, pp.101–17.

Zajonc, R.B. ‘attitudinal effects of mere exposure’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9 Monograph supplement 2 part 2 1968, pp.1–27.

Uni

t 3: I

nter

pers

onal

rela

tions 57

Section 3.1: Why do we form relationships?

introduction 58

intimate relationships and styles of attachment 59

combining attachment styles 60

Reflections on the study of attachment 61

Further reading 61

Unit 3: Interpersonal relations • Section 3.1: Why do we form relationships? 58


read the section ‘attachment styles in intimate relationships’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – attachment styles, secure, avoidant and anxious/ambivalent attachment style – and write them down in your glossary.


1. What does attachment theory say about why we form relationships?

2. How do we develop an attachment style?

3. What characterises the three main attachment styles?

4. How is attachment studied in the laboratory?

Introduction

Unit 2 argued that there would be no human self outside of social relationships with other people. in this unit we will explore the domain of self–other relations: why we form these relations, how they are maintained, what makes other people attractive and how we can communicate more effectively. The sphere of interpersonal relationships is very broad. it covers social interactions between a mother and child, between friends, between colleagues at school, employer and employee at the workplace and so on. it deals with attachment, attraction and communication and explains the ‘laws’ or ‘regularities’ of interacting with others.

To understand how important relationships are in our lives create a propinquity map.

� Take a piece of paper and write your name in the middle.

� Then think about the people who are closest to you and write their names near yours.

� Draw arrows connecting you with all of them (you can make thicker arrows to indicate closeness, discontinuous ones to indicate a tense relationship, etc.) and also draw arrows between these people based on their relationships (if any).

The resulting web of inter-connections defines your closest/proximal social network. consider the nature of each relationship and the role it plays in your life. Did this network evolve over time and if so how?

Some of the people closest to you can make you happy; others might annoy you or be a source of anxiety. if some relationships are less rewarding than others why do we keep them? Ultimately, why do we need to form relationships with others to begin with? This question, fundamental for this section, is answered in quite a straightforward manner by social psychologists: the need to affiliate or connect, makes humans look for the company of others. To understand how crucial being close to others is for our psychological well-being we should consider for a moment the reverse of affiliation – loneliness. Feeling lonely can lead to anxiety and, in the long term, to depression. Notice that ‘loneliness’ differs from ‘being alone’: you don’t need others around you at all times to experience a connection with them.

however, at a very young age, there is little difference between being alone and experiencing frustration or loneliness due to lack of human contact. one of the most famous theories of relationship – the theory of attachment – explains how being alone as a baby and the way the child reacts to this state can have deep consequences for future relationships with others. We will consider this theory in detail in the following pages. For now it is important to note that the need for affiliation is not specific to humans. harry harlow’s experiments with baby rhesus monkeys


(harlow and harlow, 1962), for as distressing as they are to watch, raise the question of what animals look for in a parent – is it food or security and comfort? For an answer see VlE resource 1.

VlE resource 1: Food or security? Harlow’s study on monkeys’ attachmentas you watch this small clip consider the ethical issues involved in using animals in psychological research.

Intimate relationships and styles of attachment

attachment theory is a theory of intimacy and of how we respond to intimacy in relationships with others. and what can be a more ‘intimate’ relationship than the one developed between a baby and their caregiver? Emerging out of the work of John Bowlby (1969), this theory stems from the basic assumption that early childhood experiences of relationships are very influential later on in life. The way in which infants form bonds with others who take care of them (usually the mother/father) or, in other words, the ways in which they become attached emotionally to them, generates a certain attachment style that will leave its mark on subsequent close relationships. as we also argued above, the need for affiliation drives us towards others from early on. however, our caregivers react in different ways to our needs. They may offer us the comfort and security we want but they can also abandon us (or what the young child perceives as abandonment – the unavailability of the parent). The trust in the other and the desire for an intimate relationship is therefore either satisfied or frustrated by the actual interaction.

Bowlby and his collaborators closely examined these relationships between baby and caregiver to notice how children react to separation and loss and, following this, the reunion with the caregiver. Why do you think this reaction tells us something important about the attachment style of the child? To find out, watch a video about the ‘Strange Situation’ designed by Mary ainsworth (ainsworth and Bell, 1970) to determine children’s attachment patterns (VlE resource 2). This video shows different key stages of her experiment: child and mother play together, a stranger enters the room, the stranger tries to interact with the child, then the mother leaves the room. crucial moments to be observed are the child’s reaction when the mother leaves and when she returns.

VlE resource 2: The Strange SituationWhile you are watching the video, remember what you learned about the observational method (Section 1.2) and take notes about the behaviour of the child. these notes can then be interpreted as expressing a certain attachment style.

Thinking like a social psychologist ainsworth’s method was very effective to study the key elements of attachment with children. however, as people grow older, it becomes more difficult to observe attachment styles directly. This is why psychologists developed surveys asking respondents to agree or disagree with some basic statements about relationships. an example of this research can be found in Table 10.3 from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012). What are the advantages and disadvantages of studying attachment through the use of a questionnaire?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsA5Sec6dAI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTsewNrHUHU


The VlE video shows that the child presents a secure attachment style. on what was this assessment based? Well, while lisa showed clear signs of distress when left alone or in the company of a stranger, she quickly calmed down after her mother returned. From this we can infer that her relationship with the mother is based on trust. if lisa continues to cry, this would indicate an anxiety or fear that she might be left alone again and, if she didn’t cry at all, it would show that lisa is quite used to being alone and represses her natural desire for intimacy. The first case is associated with an anxious/ambivalent style, the second to an avoidant attachment style.

The characteristics of these three attachment styles – secure, anxious and avoidant – are described at length in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012). While you read their section on ‘attachment styles in intimate relationships’, make a summary of the main features – both in childhood and adulthood – of each style. Note also that this core typology has been developed over time. For instance, more recently, researchers like Bartholomew and horowitz (1991) have argued that we can distinguish two types of avoidant attachment depending on why the person avoids others: the fear of being hurt (fearful attachment) or a preference for freedom and independence (dismissing attachment).

Combining attachment styles

While attachment styles have their origin or beginnings in primary relationships (such as the one between a baby and their caregiver), they also find their expression in relationships later in life, especially in close relations based on love, affection and intimacy (the kind of relations that satisfy our deepest need for affiliation). But certainly we need to consider the fact that each one of the two partners brings their own attachment style to the relationship and therefore it becomes important to think about how different styles interact and ‘combine’. it would seem that partners described by secure attachment have a good start in their relationship but what about other combinations?

Upon reflection, we can hypothesise that the combination between the avoidant and anxious style can be surprisingly stable. This is because partners characterised by these styles respond to each other’s relational needs: anxious people expect the other not to invest in the relationship and avoidant people do exactly that and are generally less committed (remember also the self-fulfilling prophecy; Further reading for Section 2.4). Moreover, when women hold the anxious type and men the avoidant type this tends to correspond also to gender stereotypes, which makes such relationships seem all the more ‘typical’. however, as we will learn later about prejudice, stereotypical views can distort reality with harmful consequences for both self and other. They are in any case widely present in everyday conversation and in the media (for example, films and television series) where the ‘anxious feminine type’ is well represented. For an example have a look at phoebe’s reaction to a new relationship in the comedy series Friends (VlE resource 3).

VlE resource 3: Phoebe’s reaction to a new relationshipJust as in the case of Lisa in the ainsworth study, you can observe Phoebe’s behaviour and consider it in light of attachment theory.

Point of reflection Based on what you have learned here about attachment, what kind of attachment style describes you best? how did you reach your conclusion, based on what type of information? What kind of attachment style describes people around you, the ones you are very close to? is the relationship between you shaped by these styles and, if so, how? Finally, do you think you are best described by one or more attachment styles and can you change your relational style?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTDkho9mJnA


These questions are addressed by aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) in their section ‘attachment style is not destiny’. They emphasise the fact that a person might be described by more than one style (sometimes displaying different styles in different relationships!) and that attachment styles can and do sometimes change over the lifespan. it thus becomes important to understand why this is the case. We can hypothesise that each intimate relationship we have influences who we are and how we relate to others. of course primary relationships are very powerful in this regard but our psychology is more flexible than that. This can be connected also to the ‘looking-glass self’ theory discussed in Unit 2 and the idea that we enrich and develop our own self with each and every relationship we engage in.

Reflections on the study of attachment

in this section we considered the contribution of attachment theory to our understanding of why we form relationships and also, in light of the three main attachment styles, how certain relationships evolve and end. We also took note of the fact that attachment is not ‘destiny’ but a more flexible reality that adapts to each relational situation and is ultimately shaped by each one of our (close) relationships with others. Throughout the section we tried as well to point to some important methodological elements in the study of attachment. We saw for instance that we can use observation to study people’s reactions, both children and adults, to different situations (covered in VlE resources 2 and 3), and that we can use short questionnaires to measure attachment styles (as part of correlational studies). it is important in each case to reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of using different methodologies to study attachment.

one interesting way of understanding this phenomenon and its implications is offered by the experimental method. in their section on ‘attachment in the lab’, aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) discuss such a study by collins and colleagues. They staged a situation in which people with different attachment styles give a speech about the value of education and receive feedback (before and after) from their partners. considering what you know about experiments (revisit Section 1.2), what are the independent and the dependent variables in this study? What is being ‘manipulated’ and what reaction is actually observed? Most importantly, what kinds of conclusions are drawn from this experiment? Remember also the notions of internal and external validity. how sure are we that there weren’t other factors involved in the situation that could explain the results? Would the same reactions be found in similar situations outside the laboratory?

Further reading

This discussion of attachment and intimate relationships also requires an understanding of love whose nature has also been explored by social psychologists. To know more about their understanding of this phenomenon read the section ‘Defining love: companionship and passion’ from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.280–82. is the difference between companionate and passionate love important for our understanding of attachment?


actIvItyat the beginning of this section you were asked to draw a propinquity map that included you and the people closest to you (your proximal social network). you were also asked to think about the nature of the relationships represented there. considering what you learned about attachment styles, try to identify what kind of style you and other people from your map display in each of the relationships depicted. While doing this activity, answer the following questions:

1. How hard or easy is it to identify attachment styles for yourself and for other people? What do you base your appreciation on?

2. are you described by the same attachment style in all your relationships with people from your close social network?

3. are there people you get along with better depending on their attachment style? do you think this element matters for your relationship with them?

4. What do you learn from each of these relationships? do you feel that at least some of them have the potential to transform your way of relating to yourself and to other people?

Uni

t 3: I

nter

pers

onal

rela

tions

63

Section 3.2: how are relationships maintained?

introduction 64

Social exchange and equity 65

The role of investment in long-term relationships 66

Exchange and communal relationships 67

Further reading 67

Unit 3: Interpersonal relations • Section 3.2: How are relationships maintained? 64


read the section ‘theories of relationship satisfaction: Social exchange and equity’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – social exchange theory, comparison level, comparison level for alternatives, equity theory, investment model, exchange relationships and communal relationships – and write them down in your glossary.


1. What is the basic assumption of social exchange theory?

2. How is social exchange different from equity?

3. How can we incorporate investment in a social exchange model of relationships?

4. Is this model applicable to both exchange and communal relationships?

Introduction

in the previous section we learned about why we form relationships and why they are so vital for our lives as human beings. We covered an important theory, that of attachment, explaining how we form bonds with caregivers which develop into styles of attachment later in life. For attachment theory, the primary reason why we maintain relationships is emotional; other reasons are that they satisfy our needs for affiliation, intimacy and security. in other words, each relationship (between parents and children, between friends, between lovers, etc.) comes with certain ‘benefits’. however, relationships also have ‘costs’. if we want to be loved and appreciated by another person (a clear benefit for our self-esteem, see Section 2.3), we might need to pay attention to this other person and help whenever they are in need.

Think back to when we previously discussed different combinations of attachment styles and focused on the avoidant–anxious one (Section 3.1). it was mentioned there that, as strange as this association might be, both partners gain something from it (do you remember what exactly?). Such a view on how relationships are maintained is key for social exchange theories and we will deal with these theories in this section. They emphasise the benefits and costs associated with each social connection and use them to predict how successful the relationship is and how long it will last. if you are also studying economics, this might strike you as a very rational, marketplace way of thinking about relationships. is this all there is to them?

human relationships are certainly extremely complex and, beyond general psychological models, there are many specific elements associated with each social connection that we have. Moreover, relationships are also very much discussed in our societies and we hear about their nature and importance in the family, at school, in the media, and so on. Relationship difficulties are taken seriously but can also be a source of amusement; see for instance VlE resource 1. The issue of developing successful relationships is something we are all preoccupied with and there is plenty of advice out there on how to do this, from scholarly sources to more popular ‘Ten steps to...’ columns. The information presented next will not necessarily teach you how to find and keep the ‘best relationships’ with others (this would be a great spin-off, wouldn’t it?) but introduce you to interesting theories about why and how relationships succeed or fail. it will also encourage you to think critically and apply social psychological theory to real-life cases.


VlE resource 1: The relationship comics and cartoons pageconsider these comics in terms of what they tell us about relationships. How often do they reflect a cost–benefit logic?

Social exchange and equity

Social exchange views of relationships start from a very basic premise: the idea that relations basically depend on the costs and benefits associated with them. What do we gain and lose in relationships? Well, plenty of things from tangible rewards and penalties (e.g. money and goods we give or receive) to intangible ones like the feeling of being loved and cherished or, on the contrary, feeling bad about oneself. They all count towards how we feel about being in that particular relationship. From a social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1976), the basic equation of any relationship is given by rewards minus costs. if one gets a positive result after applying this ‘formula’, then the relationship is rewarding and will probably last in time; if not, the person is bound to feel exploited and will perhaps stop seeing their partner.

of course things are a bit more complicated in real life. Social exchange theory accounts for this by integrating other elements into its fundamental (basic) equation. For instance, as aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) mention, beside perceived costs and rewards, we also need to take into account:

� the comparison level – that is, how one views relationships in terms of the costs and rewards (some of us usually expect to get a lot out of social connections, others are prepared to give a lot and consider this to be the ‘normal’ state of affairs)

� the comparison level for alternatives – that is, the perceived likelihood of replacing an existing relationship with a better one.

in other words, we don’t only look at present circumstances but think about what is usual (often by making comparisons with past relationships) and also consider the future: would we be able to get a better ‘deal’ with someone else?

Point of reflection Try to apply social exchange theory to both some of your closest relationships and also less intimate or long-term connections. Where does it apply best? More importantly, how did you determine the costs and benefits associated with each relationship? how did you ‘calculate’ their value and how easy was it to compare? and if you found relationships where you constantly receive a lot and give little in return, does this mean that you are happy with this situation?

Social exchange theory is a powerful theoretical lens we can use to look at human relationships. it has been scientifically confirmed numerous times and it proposes a simple model that can be applied widely. however, it does have some shortcomings. The point of reflection above invited you to make use of this theory. although simple in principle, this operation is hard in practice. one crucial question you might ask yourself is how exactly do i compare things that are seemingly different: for instance, taking the rubbish out each evening (cost) has the same value as being kissed goodnight (benefit)? Moreover, social exchange leads us to the conclusion that we are happiest when we maximise our gains and reduce our costs in relationships. is this the case?

a development known as equity theory (adams, 1966) adds an important clarification (factor) to the above. in relationships we are not only preoccupied with getting the most but also with the idea of fairness (of a ‘fair exchange’ if you like). So relationships that are most happy and stable are the ones in which rewards and costs are relatively equal for both partners. otherwise

http://www.grinningplanet.com/funny-cartoons/relationship-cartoons-comics-com.htm


we feel that we are either over- or under-benefiting, both very unpleasant states. in a way, you may think of equity as a crucial ‘gain’ in a relationship and not reaching it a ‘cost’ that can destroy that particular social connection. For a summary of exchange and equity theories see VlE resource 2.

VlE resource 2: Social exchange and equity theorycan you think of more examples from your own experience that illustrate social exchange/equity theory?

The role of investment in long-term relationships

From the last point of reflection you may have noticed that social exchange theory applies differently to short- and long-term relationships. While it might be very fitting for instrumental (or active) and temporary connections with others (for instance, relations with acquaintances or colleagues at school or at work), it is less well equipped to explain the mechanisms involved in long-term, intimate relationships like those between very close friends or romantic partners. There is at least one additional factor characteristic for this kind of connection and that is the level of investment in the relationship.

close relationships are defined by the fact that costs and benefits are ‘exchanged’ over a long period of time which means that we keep on giving (and taking) more and more over the years and so leaving the relationship would mean giving away everything that we had invested in it. This is the premise of the investment model (Rusbult, 1983), which claims that we need to consider in our analysis of relationships not only perceived costs, rewards and comparison levels, but also the level of investment. can you think about what you invest in your long-term relationships and what you could ‘lose’ if they suddenly ended? it is also interesting to consider here whether perceptions of rewards change over time for both partners. Do you think we start adjusting our comparison level for costs and rewards once we build up a history of ‘investing’ in a certain relationship?

Thinking like a social psychologist as shown above, a basic model such as that of social exchange gradually became more complex by adding new relevant factors. This is common practice in social psychology which, as an empirical or scientific discipline, progresses by formulating a hypothesis (for example, a level of investment is important for commitment in a relationship) and testing it through research. can you think of any factors that in your opinion would be important for maintaining relationships? how would you conduct research to confirm if your intuitions are correct?

a comprehensive model of commitment in relationships (considered to predict the stability of the relation) is presented in Figure 10.3 by aronson, Wilson and akert (2012). as you will notice there, commitment is influenced by three main factors: the satisfaction with the relationship, the level of investment and the quality of alternatives. in its turn, satisfaction depends on rewards, cost and comparison levels. This model has been confirmed by research described in the textbook. it incorporates conclusions from both social exchange and equity theory and the investment model and, from this perspective, it offers us a better understanding particularly of long-term relationships between people. however, are equity and investment the same for all our relations?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZDmb9FaNy0


Exchange and communal relationships

one important conclusion coming out of the theories and research presented here is that relationships are varied and that the factors involved in the model of commitment mentioned above weigh differently depending on the kind of connection we have with others. a basic distinction made in this regard is between short- and long-term relations but the actual length of a relationship doesn’t say much about its nature and ‘level’ (we can experience a few months of romantic involvement that are more cherished and rewarding than years of distant friendships). This is why, in the end, it is important to introduce another classification that includes exchange and communal relationships.

The first factor, exchange, is governed by equity concerns (as described above) while the second factor, communal, focuses on the responsiveness to the needs of the other. a good description of this difference is offered in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) – see Figure 10.5. What we notice there is that in communal – very close and intimate – relationships, we are less concerned with equity or with what we give and take from the other. We actually enjoy helping the other person and don’t like to be repaid immediately for our favours. of course a general sense of equity needs to exist but keeping tabs and applying reciprocal strategies would go completely against the communal aspect of these relations. perhaps the fact that some people apply an ‘exchange’ framework to a communal relationship like marriage can end up destroying trust and commitment. What do you think helps married people stay together? Take the example of John and Virginia parker (VlE resource 3) and think about how they talk about their relationship and the ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’ associated with it.

VlE resource 3: John and Virginia Parker at 65 years of marriagecan you apply the investment model to what they say about their relationship? are there other factors to consider in this case?

Further reading

Social exchange theories of relationships try to explain why relationships succeed but also why and when they fail. if you want to know more about the break-up of relationships read pp.291–94 from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012). What are the steps in ending close relationships?

actIvItyIn this section you were introduced to a model of commitment in relationships – Figure 10.3 from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012). this model tries to combine different theoretical perspectives and predict the stability of a relationship. It is important therefore to both understand and think critically about this model, something helped by answering the following questions:

1. try to apply this model to one of your close relationships. How easy or difficult is it to use? How do you evaluate the level of each of the factors included?

2. do you think this model is useful in predicting the duration of a relationship? Why? are there any other factors missing from it that would be important in this case?

3. do you think satisfaction, investment and quality of alternatives are equally significant? does their ‘value’ vary depending on the type of relationship?

4. What does this model say about exchange and communal relationships? can you think of a ‘version’ of this model applicable for each of these two types?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqWfU1PmUqI

Uni

t 3: I

nter

pers

onal

rela

tions

68

Section 3.3: What are the ‘laws’ of attraction?

introduction 69

Do we get to like the person next door? 70

The role of similarity 71

other factors of attraction 72

Further reading 72

Unit 3: Interpersonal relations • Section 3.3: What are the ‘laws’ of attraction? 69


read the sections ‘the person next door: the propinquity effect’, ‘Similarity’ and ‘reciprocal liking’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – propinquity effect, mere exposure effect and try to find/formulate a definition for similarity and reciprocal liking – and write them down in your glossary.


1. does propinquity increase attraction? How is this effect demonstrated?

2. How can we explain the propinquity effect?

3. What kinds of similarity are important for interpersonal attraction?

4. Is reciprocal liking also important for attraction and friendship?

Introduction

We now know why relationships are important, how they are formed and maintained. another essential question is what brings people together in the first place. This section takes the case study of interpersonal attraction and considers several studies aiming to discover ‘laws’ or regularities in what makes people like each other. This can sound almost impossible as you might think that attraction follows no particular logic and that, similar to love, it just happens or it doesn’t – there is no way of predicting it or, even more, of ‘encouraging’ it. as the following studies will indicate, this is not really the case. in fact, there is surprising predictability when it comes to who we are attracted to and become friends with. popular wisdom supports this conclusion. Think about sayings such as ‘birds of a feather flock together’ or ‘a man is known by the company he keeps’. What do these tell us about who we tend to like? are there any other proverbs or sayings you can add to the above? What about proverbs or sayings about relationships and attraction from languages other than English? are they all pointing to the same factors of attraction or are there cultural differences that you can spot? it might be that one gets contradictory ‘advice’ from such sayings. Most importantly, we need to ask how can we use the scientific and popular knowledge about interpersonal attraction to understand our everyday experiences and contacts with others?

Social psychologists have been asking themselves these questions for a long time and there are several ‘classic’ studies of attraction. a considerable amount of empirical research is conducted in this area and there are many aspects that a researcher can manipulate or control to study what exactly increases attraction. But we don’t always need to perform experiments for this purpose (look back at Section 1.2 of this course on methodological choices). We can actually observe people’s behaviour and their friendships to conclude on whether there is a relational pattern involved. For instance, if you were to ask your classmates about their closest friends at school what would you discover? Think about things like the physical distance between friends, their views and personality and also their interests. are they physically close, similar to each other or different? Knowing these things has great practical value. it can help us understand better our own choices in relationships and even how to become more ‘attractive’ for others. consider for instance how attraction plays a part in the way we present ourselves and the profile pictures that people use on social networking or dating sites (see VlE resource 1). is there a way to become more ‘likeable’?


VlE resource 1: Profile pictures – Science of attractionremember what you also learned in Section 2.4 about self-presentation and impression management. discuss examples from this video in terms of expressions (we give)/impressions (other people form of us) and liking.

Do we get to like the person next door?

according to social psychological research, yes we do! one of the key findings that these studies show is (physical) proximity (or propinquity) significantly increases attraction and that the more we see and interact with another person the more we get to like them. This has been formulated as the propinquity effect and it seems to apply in a very narrow sense of the term: we tend to like people who live near to us. actually, the closer they physically are to us the greater the likelihood that we will form friendships with them. This has been confirmed in a well-known study conducted by Festinger, Schachter and Back (1950) who tracked the formation of friendships among couples in a housing complex – residents were assigned a place at random and they didn’t know each other when they moved in; however, after a while, friendships were formed between certain residents and not others. What do you think this depended on?

Well, consider one of the main results: 65 per cent of the friendships reported by participants emerged between people from the same building. Moreover, within the same building, physical distance ‘predicted’ the degree of attraction. of next-door neighbours, 41 per cent were close friends, while 22 per cent of the neighbours living two doors apart and only 10 per cent of the people who lived an opposite ends of the hallway reached this level of closeness. Besides, ‘functional distance’ also mattered. For an explanation of this see aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) and consider Figure 10.1 (the floorplan of one of the buildings in the study). What can we conclude about the relationship between space and patterns of mutual attraction?

Point of reflection aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) also propose an interesting activity, ‘Mapping the effect of propinquity in your life’, that you can find on p.269. Following their instructions, make your own propinquity map and conclude on whether this effect applies to you and your friendships. is it always the case that proximity increases the probability of developing a close relationship? can you find counter-examples? Why do you think proximity is so important? What is the impact of social networks such as Facebook on this effect?

in order to understand the role of propinquity we need to consider another effect known as mere exposure. This has been documented by researchers such as Zajonc (1968) who showed participants chinese symbols they didn’t know from one to 25 times and then asked them to guess their meaning. he concluded that the more participants saw a symbol the more they were inclined to give it a positive meaning (for more details about mere exposure see VlE resource 2).

VlE resource 2: The mere exposure theorythink about this research in terms of the independent and the dependent variable. What was manipulated and with what effect?

What this study demonstrates is that familiarity increases liking or, in other words, the more we see something (or someone!) the more we become familiar with it. in relations between people, the more we see another person, the more we are inclined to form a friendship with them. This means that the propinquity effect can potentially be explained by mere exposure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjdJKihDJ54

http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/mere_exposure.htm


however, can you think of any other explanations for it? Maybe people who live closer have to help each other (for instance in a shared apartment building many activities may be communal) and this could facilitate attraction. or maybe it is because we expect to interact with another person for a long time that we ‘convince’ ourselves we like them. in other words, there is more to attraction than proximity.

The role of similarity

proximity may increase the likelihood of becoming friends with someone else but it is not always enough to generate friendships (otherwise everyone living close to us would be our friend!). Similarity can also be needed to feel attracted to others. The saying mentioned at the beginning, ‘birds of a feather flock together’ points to this fact: those who are similar stick together. But what does it mean to be similar? There are different kinds of similarity we are concerned with here and aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) in their section on ‘Similarity’ discuss three important elements that we can share with the people we like: a) opinions and personality traits; b) interpersonal style and communication skills; and c) interests and experience. They briefly present research conducted to test whether these types of similarity generate more interpersonal attraction. as you read from the textbook, make a list of all these studies and their main findings.

What you will notice is the fact that social psychologists use a combination of experiments and surveys or tests to investigate friendship and attraction. They also rely quite frequently on self-reports, meaning they ask participants directly about their friends and social relations. can you think of any advantages and disadvantages for this kind of measure? another interesting aspect regarding this research has to do with theory. as you go through these studies, reflect also on their contribution to our understanding of attraction. For instance, what is the link between proximity and similarity? one way of thinking about how these aspects work together to increase the level of attraction could be the following: similar people tend to go to the same places or engage in the same type of activities and this also gets them closer together more often.

Point of reflection in Section 3.1 you were asked to draw a propinquity map. going back to this exercise, think about whether similarity also plays a role when it comes to your close relationships. What kind of similarity is important in your friendships? Do similarity and proximity work together to increase interpersonal attraction?

While analysing your propinquity map you might also discover among your friends or close relationships people who are quite dissimilar to you, at least in some regards. This raises the question of whether complementarity can be equally important, especially in romantic relationships. Spending a lot of time with people who are very similar to us could end up being quite boring and, in fact, folk wisdom tells us that sometimes ‘opposites attract’ (see VlE resource 3). however, research findings advise otherwise.

VlE resource 3: Jessica Rabbit – ‘Opposites attract’this is a humorous video arguing that opposites do attract. can you find any ‘evidence’ for this in your personal experience?

When it comes to close relationships it looks like similarity is more effective in drawing people together than complementarity. of course this depends on the kind of relationship we are talking about and amodio and Showers (2005) discovered that being different from one’s partner might be valued in less committed relations. also, we need to think that in real life we can be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNkM7MYug38


both similar and different from our friends or partners. What matters is to have the ‘right’ type of similarity.

Thinking like a social psychologist The previous observation invites you to consider what kinds of similarity are important for different relationships. Maybe sharing the same opinions is preferable among friends while converging interests is essential for couples. What type of research would you design to answer this question?

Other factors of attraction

We have considered a few ‘laws’ of attraction, primarily how liking others can be determined by factors such as proximity, familiarity and similarity (sometimes complementarity). however, this is not an exhaustive list. other factors or circumstances can be at play when it comes to attraction and close relationships. one of these factors is reciprocal liking. put simply, this means that we tend to like people who like us. The power of ‘norm of reciprocity’ in relations is discussed by aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, see section on ‘Reciprocal liking’). in a classic experiment performed by curtis and Miller (1986), college students in pairs were randomly led to believe that the other participant liked or disliked them. When they had to interact with the other person (who was unaware of the information given), they behaved in more agreeable ways when they thought they were liked. This actually made them more attractive to their peer, which comes to show that mutual liking, both when anticipated and expressed, can be a strong determinant of attraction. can you relate this to the idea of self-fulfilling prophecies (see Further reading for Section 2.4)?

and the list of factors can continue. For a review of classic studies in the field of interpersonal attraction, have a look at VlE resource 4; you will notice, for instance, that we tend to like even more people who initially didn’t like us but then changed their mind. There is also a short discussion offered about physical attractiveness and liking, a topic that is not covered here but one that you can discover on your own.

VlE resource 4: Top five classic studies in the psychology of attractionSummarise the studies presented in terms of:

� research question

� method

� main findings.

Further reading

if you are interested in how the physical aspect and, in particular, beauty influences interpersonal attraction you can have a look at aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.272–77. The three authors discuss how norms about physical attractiveness might vary across cultures, an interesting element to consider in relation to the ‘laws’ of attraction included in this section.

http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2012/5/17/top-5-classic-studies-in-the-psychology-of-attraction.html


actIvItythis section focused on the main factors that influence interpersonal attraction: proximity, familiarity, similarity and reciprocity. choose one of your favourite novels or movies and think about the close relationships (especially friendships and romances) depicted in them. Make a list of at least five relationships and answer the following questions regarding each of them:

1. are the factors of attraction you learned about able to explain the attraction between the characters? are they enough to explain the formation of such close relationships?

2. If yes, which of them seems to be the most important and why do you think that is? If no, what other factors are important in the context of the movie or novel you chose?

3. Is attraction also influenced by attachment styles or social exchange between characters?

4. Based on the examples you chose, can you think of a way to discuss relationships in terms of an interaction between attachment, social exchange/equity and the factors of attraction?

Uni

t 3: I

nter

pers

onal

rela

tions

74

Section 3.4: how well do we ‘read’ others?

introduction 73

Reading ‘body language’ 76

are facial expressions of emotion universal? 77

Misunderstanding others 78

Further reading 78

Unit 3: Interpersonal relations • Section 3.4: How well do we ‘read’ others? 75

Introductory actIvItyaronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.39, 76–79.

read the section ‘the evolutionary approach’, the introduction to ‘nonverbal communication’ and the section ‘Facial expressions of emotion’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – social perception, nonverbal communication, encode, decode and affect blend – and write them down in your glossary.


1. Why is nonverbal behaviour important in acts of communication?

2. are there any universal (cross-cultural) emotions and associated facial expressions?

3. How are we able to both encode and decode emotions?

4. What sometimes leads to an inaccurate understanding of emotional states?

Introduction

a unit on interpersonal relations would not be complete without addressing the issue of how we understand others in the process of communication. in the previous section we saw that attraction can be stimulated by proximity, similarity and reciprocal liking. however, to establish a close relationship with somebody else, we also need to know them and this implies being able, among other things, to ‘read’ emotions and nonverbal behaviour. Communication is essential for any relationship; in fact it is the foundation of all social connections.

in the process of communicating and interacting with others, we get to understand ourselves better (see Unit 2: The self in social context) and also to form impressions of people. This is the process referred to by aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) as ‘social perception’ and it designates our ability to interpret the behaviour of others and formulate inferences about who they are. We are constantly involved in acts of social perception and, to understand this, focus for a few minutes on an interaction between two people. What is it that you observe and what conclusions do you draw about their motivation, feelings and way of being? This ability we all possess (and cultivate throughout our lives), to make sense of the behaviour of others, is an evolved capacity that defines our species and allows us to exist as social beings.

But what is it exactly that we observe in processes of interpersonal communication? on the one hand the verbal aspects of any interaction (namely, what others tell us) but, simultaneously, we also pay attention to nonverbal elements, that is, the messages conveyed without words but with the help of facial expressions, gestures, posture, use of touch, etc. Remember from Section 2.4 the dramaturgical theory of goffman (1959). he considered that in acts of communication there are signals that we ‘give’ (intentionally) and signals that we ‘give off’ (unintentionally). Very often the latter refer to nonverbal aspects as they are harder to be aware of and control. Why is this the case?

Well, for one thing, what we tend to express nonverbally is our emotional reaction to either objects or people. Facial expressions are very useful in this regard and human beings are exceptionally skilled at displaying and understanding emotion (if in doubt, just remember a group of supporters coming together to watch a sports competition!). in this section we focus primarily on the nonverbal side of communication and, in particular, on facial expressions of emotion. as you will come to see, we are all capable of both showing and ‘reading’ emotions and this for many is a sign of how useful these skills have been for humans in evolutionary terms – for more details read the short segment ‘The evolutionary approach’ from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) – and, as a consequence, how emotions become ‘inescapable’ in our lives (for more details see VlE resource 1).


VlE resource 1: Paul Ekman on evolution and the inescapability of emotionsEkman is of the opinion that ‘you don’t choose to become emotional, it happens to you’. do you agree with this claim? Give at least three reasons for your answer.

Reading ‘body language’

as we established earlier, communication takes place through verbal and nonverbal means. in all instances, it requires a language or system of signs (oral, written, visual, etc.) and rules for using them (a grammar) that help us formulate messages for others. Therefore, the process of communication involves both encoding a message (expressing or emitting it) and decoding it (interpreting its meaning), processes that define the traditional roles of emitter and receiver (the person who communicates and the person who listens or watches and understands the message).

however, the act of communicating is much more complicated than simply putting a message into words or gestures, ‘sending’ it, and decoding its meaning. in fact, there are many other factors that come into play and interfere with this process in ways that leave room for miscommunication or misunderstanding (usually through a wrong or different interpretation of the message). can you think of causes for why miscommunication takes place? Normally we would assume that verbal messages are quite clear for anyone speaking the same language – although this is not always the case – but the problem is that they are accompanied by paralinguistic (tone, intonation, etc.) and bodily elements (gestures, posture, etc.). While these usually serve to clarify and reinforce a certain meaning, there can also be a mismatch between what we say verbally and nonverbally. To discover the multiple connections between these two sides of communication consider the exercise below.

Point of reflection aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) suggest an interesting activity – ‘Using your voice as a nonverbal cue’. it asks you to communicate the same verbal message (‘i don’t know her’) using a series of paralinguistic means that convey certain emotional states. Notice how the same words can end up ‘saying’ different things. in addition, pay attention to your facial expression when speaking. What is the role these nonverbal elements play in communication?

you might notice from this exercise that there is a strong link between nonverbal (paralinguistic and bodily) elements and the expression of emotion. in their absence we probably wouldn’t be able to say how the emitter feels about what they are saying. Nonverbal behaviour covers a broad range of aspects including facial expression, tone of voice, gestures and movements, body posture, touch and gaze. in regular, face-to-face interactions with others we are capable of integrating cues from all these channels into a unitary or single perception (impression) of the other. on some occasions, however, we might focus on one particular aspect of nonverbal behaviour that seems to us strange or out of place. This could be due to a violation of cultural norms of expression, something we will return to in Unit 5. For the moment, reflect on how important reading ‘body language’ is for understanding others. This is the reason why many scientists, from social psychologists to neuroscientists, are interested in this topic often working together to clarify the mechanisms of social perception. look for instance at a short video on the VlE (VlE resource 2) analysing the body language of Bill gates and charlie Rose during an interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpVOwng5PXA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpVOwng5PXA


VlE resource 2: Bill Gates interview with Charlie Rose: observing body languagedo you also employ ‘conversationalisation’ techniques in day-to-day communication?

Are facial expressions of emotion universal?

This is an important question because of its implications. if all humans at all times and in all geographical spaces used the same facial expression to communicate or encode a particular emotion this would make communication easier in terms of decoding or ‘reading’ how people feel. it would also represent a very interesting finding from a theoretical perspective suggesting the evolutionary origins of emotional expressions. This hypothesis was originally formulated by charles Darwin (1872) who believed that nonverbal signs of emotions evolved over time and are specific to all members of a certain species (and therefore not determined primarily by culture). What does this mean about how we understand our emotional reactions and the emotional reactions of others?

Much later, research by Ekman and his collaborators helped to establish six major emotions that seem to be associated with universal facial expressions: anger, happiness, surprise, fear, disgust and sadness. in a well-known study, Ekman and Friesen (1971) reported having told stories and shown photographs of these six emotional expressions to people from a preliterate tribe in papua New guinea who had no contact with Western civilisation. What they found is that not only were members of the tribe able to identify these emotions but they also displayed them through the same facial expressions. What does this say about the encoding and decoding of emotions across cultures?

Thinking like a social psychologist Ekman and Friesen used an ingenious methodology to study the universality of emotion and nonverbal behaviour. To find similar photographs depicting the six basic emotions see the images in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) on p.78. Try to replicate their study. First of all, identify yourself what emotion is depicted in each of the photos. Then try this with friends who don’t know about the study. ask them to either: a) name each emotion; or b) match each photo with an emotion from a list of basic emotions. Which one of the tasks is easier? also, in general, which of the six emotions are easier to identify?

From the exercise above you might have noticed that even among the six basic emotions some are easier to recognise than others. also there are plenty of other emotional states that do not fully pass this cross-cultural test. They tend to be more complex and often involve a combination of basic emotions. Think for instance about shame, contempt pride or embarrassment. For some of these there is evidence to suggest that their associated facial expressions might be ‘read’ the same way by people from different cultures.

Thinking like a social psychologist See the discussion about contempt and pride in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012). Now, have a look at the photo in the textbook depicting contempt: what are the characteristics of this facial expression?.

an even more interesting question would be why certain emotions are more ‘universal’ than others. perhaps it is because they serve more important purposes in our lives (for instance it is vital to detect anger quickly rather than pride) or because we experience them more often. interestingly, these six emotions are the ones that also tend to appear first in human

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfE7aVa_mSo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfE7aVa_mSo


development, being displayed sometimes as early as six months of age; and also in children who were born blind (galati, Miceli and Sini, 2001).

Misunderstanding others

one conclusion we can take from this section is that emotional expressions and nonverbal behaviour are not always easy to decode or interpret. This can create problems in the process of interpersonal communication and lead to misunderstanding the intentions or feelings of others. Thinking back to your own experiences of communication, how often is it that you couldn’t ‘figure out’ what other people were trying to communicate? Maybe this happened because the same nonverbal behaviour can be interpreted in different ways (for two humorous examples see VlE resource 3) or the person was sending you mixed messages in which the verbal and nonverbal aspects of communication are contradicting each other. or maybe it was because you couldn’t identify exactly the emotion being displayed.

VlE resource 3: AXE commercials: body languageHow much of the interpretation on body language in these commercials would you agree with?

in the research on emotions presented above participants are always shown ‘pure’ facial expressions that display a single (well-known) emotion. however, reality is more complicated than this and our emotional life much more complex. aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) discuss in this context the notion of affect blends. look at the two images on the top-right of p.80 in their textbook: what emotions are depicted in them? Finally, we can have difficulties with deciphering the behaviour of others because they are trying to lie or hide something from us. in light of what you learned here about communication, how much of an expert are you at ‘reading’ others?

Further reading

in this section we were concerned with how we understand the emotions of others but how exactly do we make sense of our own emotional states? Find an answer reading about the ‘two-factor theory of emotion’ from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) on pp.117–19.

actIvItyPlay a game with your friends! Write down on small pieces of paper the following 10 emotions: anger, happiness, surprise, fear, disgust, sadness, contempt, shame, pride and embarrassment. then each of you pick a piece of paper at random and ‘play’ – only nonverbally! – the emotions you picked. the others need to guess them as quickly as possible. after this brief game answer the following questions:

1. How easy is it to ‘encode’ emotions? are some harder to express than others? What characterises the facial expression for each of them?

2. How easy is it to ‘decode’ emotions? are some harder to interpret than others? What exactly from the facial expression of a person helps you decipher each emotion?

3. are there other nonverbal elements that help to depict a certain emotion? For instance certain gestures or the position of the body (shoulders, neck, back, etc.)?

4. compare the ‘results’ from your game with those by Ekman and Friesen. are they convergent? do you think ‘playing’ emotions is better as a methodology than using photos of faces?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IjgTyNmr8E

Uni

t 3: I

nter

pers

onal

rela

tions

79


1. Define attachment and explain its importance for interpersonal relations.

2. Describe and exemplify the three main attachment styles: secure, anxious and avoidant.

Essay questions

1. attachment in childhood leaves its mark on adult experiences. Discuss.

2. attachment can be studied using different types of methodologies. Discuss and exemplify.


1. Describe and illustrate using examples, the social exchange theory of relationships.

2. What does equity theory add to social exchange theories of relationships?

Essay questions

1. human relationships are based on the idea of rewards. Discuss.

2. critically assess social exchange theories and outline alternatives.


1. list and exemplify the main factors leading to attraction or liking.

2. propose a study confirming the propinquity or proximity effect.

Essay questions

1. What are the three main factors of attraction and how are they inter-related?

2. is there a link between the factors of attraction and social exchange theories of relationships?


1. What are the non-verbal elements of communication and why do they matter?

2. are there universal emotions? Discuss with reference to research by Ekman and Friesen.

Essay questions

1. The skills of encoding and decoding emotions are vital for interpersonal relations. Discuss.

2. Misunderstanding others is the rule rather the exception in communication. Do you agree?


Uni

t 3: I

nter

pers

onal

rela

tions

80

We have covered in this unit different theories of relationships. you are now able to discuss human relations in terms of attachment, attraction and social exchange theories. you are also more aware of how we communicate nonverbally and understand the emotions of others. This unit argued that there are different kinds of relationships and we distinguished here between exchange and communal connections. also, relationships may be formed due to initial attraction and this phenomenon is stimulated by a series of factors such as propinquity or physical proximity, similarity and reciprocal liking. These notions, as well as your knowledge of communication, can be applied further to unpacking the nature of relations between groups, the topic of our next unit.



� define attachment

� describe the three main attachment styles

� reflect on the methodologies used to study attachment and its role in relationships

� differentiate between exchange and communal relationships

� describe social exchange/equity theory

� assess the role of investment in relationships

� define interpersonal attraction

� discuss the role of propinquity, similarity and reciprocal liking in attraction

� define nonverbal communication

� discuss whether facial expressions of emotion are universal

� critically assess why sometimes we fail to understand others.

concluding comments

81



Uni

t 4: g

roup

and

inte

r-gr

oup

rela

tions


aims 82



Further reading 83

References cited 83

Unit 4: Group and inter-group relations 82


This unit is concerned with group and inter-group phenomena. it starts with the definition and distinctive characteristics of a group: interactions between members and the existence of norms and roles. although our social life is defined by our membership of various groups and communities, working together with others can have detrimental effects on productivity. phenomena, such as social loafing and social facilitation, are discussed. Moreover, groups can encourage an ‘us versus them’ attitude and foster prejudice towards out-group members. Despite the fact that we have a natural tendency to categorise ourselves and others, this doesn’t mean that prejudice is unavoidable in inter-group relations. The unit ends with a discussion of the jigsaw classroom, a practical method aimed at increasing collaboration between members of different groups.

Week Unit Section11 4: group and inter-group

relations4.1: What is a group?

12 4.2: are groups productive?

13 4.3: is prejudice unavoidable?

14 4.4: how can we help groups cooperate?

Aims


� the notion of ‘group’ in social psychology

� the effect of others on one’s productivity

� forms of social facilitation, social loafing and social labouring

� theories and research related to the expression of prejudice in inter-group relations

� the contact hypothesis and its application in the school context.

Learning outcomes


� define groups

� discuss groups in relation to norms and roles

� critically assess the existence and evolution of gender roles

� assess whether groups help us become more productive by referring to research on social facilitation and social loafing

� define prejudice

� discuss prejudice in relation to categorisation and its outcomes

� assess whether prejudice is or not avoidable in relations between groups

� discuss the contact hypothesis

� illustrate the contact hypothesis with the help of the jigsaw classroom

� assess the efficiency of the contact hypothesis in reducing prejudice and increasing inter-group cooperation.


Essential reading

Section 4.1aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.237–42, 379–80.


Section 4.3aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.362–63, 366–67, 372–73, 379, 380.


Further reading




Section 4.4aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), ‘pressures to conform: normative rules’ , pp.276–377; ‘Economic competition: realistic conflict theory’ , pp.384–86.

References cited

allport, g.W. The nature of prejudice. (Reading: addison-Wesley, 1954).

aronson, E. The jigsaw classroom. (Beverly hills: Sage, 1978) [iSBN 9780803909977].

Baumeister, R.F. and M.R. leary ‘The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachment as a fundamental human motivation’, Psychological Bulletin 117 1995, pp.497–529.

Bridgeman, D.l. ‘Enhanced role taking through cooperative interdependence: a field study’, Child Development 52 1981, pp.1231–38.

Ringelmann, M. ‘Reserches sur les moteurs animés: Travail de l’homme [Research on driving forces: human work ; alternative translation : Research on animal sources of power: the work of man]’, Annales de l’Institut National Agronomique, series 2 12 1913, pp.1–40.

Sherif, M., o.J. harvey, J. White, W. hood and c. Sherif Intergroup conflict and cooperation: the Robbers Cave Experiment. (Norman: institute of intergroup Relations, University of oklahoma, 1961); also The Robbers Cave Experiment: intergroup conflict and cooperation. (Wesleyan University press, 1988) [iSBN 9780819561947].

Tajfel, h. and J.c. Turner ‘an integrative theory of intergroup conflict’ in austin, W. g. and S. Worchel (eds) The social psychology of intergroup relations. (Monterey: Brooks/cole, 1979) [iSBN 9780818502781].


Tajfel, h. Social identity and intergroup relations. (cambridge: cambridge University press, 1982) [iSBN 9780521246163]; also (cambridge University press, 2010) reissue edition [iSBN 9780521153652].

Zajonc, R.B. ‘copresence’ in paulus, p.B. (ed.) Psychology of group influence. (hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980) [iSBN 9780805804454]; and (hillsdale; hove: l. Erlbaum, 1989) second edition [iSBN 0805805451].

Zajonc, R.B., a. heingartner and E.M. herman ‘Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 13 1969, pp.83–92.

Zimbardo, p.g. The Lucifer effect: understanding how good people turn evil. (New york: Random house, 2007) [iSBN 9780812974447]; and (london: Rider, 2009) [iSBN 9781846041037].

Uni

t 4: G

roup

and

inte

r-gr

oup

rela

tions

85

Section 4.1: What is a group?

introduction 86

What does it take to form a group? 87

Norms and roles: how we behave in groups 88

gender roles and societal change 89

Further reading 89

Unit 4: Group and inter-group relations • Section 4.1: What is a group? 86


read the sections ‘What is a group?’ and ‘In-group bias’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – group, social roles, group cohesiveness, and try to define a ‘minimal group’ – write them down in your glossary.


1. What is the social psychological definition of a group?

2. What are the main characteristics of social norms and social roles?

3. How can social roles explain anti-social acts committed against others?

4. What are gender roles and how are they changing over time?

Introduction

The fundamental reality of our social life is that we all exist as members of different groups. The families we are born into are the first social groups we inhabit and the nature of this primary experience is said to leave its long-lasting mark on us (see Section 3.1). During childhood and youth we become members of different groups at school and in our communities, such as classrooms, sports clubs or youth organisations. later in life we work for companies that are based on the existence of certain groups (for example, a management team working together to achieve its aims). as you might notice from the above, these groups are more than the result of being together with two other people or more. For instance, when we are waiting for a bus, we stand very close to others but we are not actually a group. Why is that?

The main reason is that we don’t really interact with them and we don’t have common goals that require us to act in an interdependent manner (see aronson, Wilson and akert, 2012). We thus can see that groups need to be distinguished from gatherings or crowds in which there might be a common goal but no proper coordination between members. in addition, if the number of people involved becomes too big – for instance all the students learning at your school – we can’t again talk about a group as big numbers don’t allow direct social interaction between members (how many of your classmates did you actually know and talk to regularly?). Following this logic, can we say that online communities are groups?

There is another distinctive characteristic about groups: members of a group are aware of their membership and internalise it as part of their identity. in other words, the fact that we belong to certain groups (and not others) defines who we are and this aspect is crucial for building an identity (and public image) for ourselves. Why is it so important for us and other people to know our group memberships? and, in the end, why is it important to join groups? Social psychologists argue that establishing bonds with others has been crucial for the survival of our species from the very beginning (Baumeister and leary, 1995). Keeping these relationships and helping our group to succeed is therefore a ‘natural’ tendency we have and this also makes us sensitive to group memberships for both self and others. imagine that you are about to leave your hometown and move to a different place. Most probably the first aim for you will be to ‘fit in’ and find people who will get to know and accept you in their group. consider in this case the educational clip made in the USa in the 1950s about ‘Belonging to the group’ (VlE resource 1). What do you notice about the advice that they give newcomers?


VlE resource 1: Belonging to the group: respect as a human value – 1953 social guidance/educational Is this type of advice as valid today as it was more than half a century ago?

What does it take to form a group?

if you think about this question you might consider real-life groups and how they are formed and maintained. in doing so you will probably need to start from an explanation for why people come together as groups in the first place: it might be for sharing personal experiences, for getting help from others, or simply because they are forced to join a certain community. But this doesn’t really get to the bottom of what it takes to form a group. To understand this we need to ask the question a bit differently: what are the least or minimal conditions for people to feel like they are part of a group (as opposed to simply put together with strangers)?

henri Tajfel and his collaborators (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel and Turner, 1979) had a very elegant way of answering this question. They designed a series of experiments in which complete strangers were randomly assigned to groups based on trivial criteria (such as the supposed preference for the paintings of the artist Klee rather than Kandinsky, a fellow artist). in their research, as well as subsequent studies by others, participants were asked after this assignment to express their degree of liking for members of their own group (called the in-group) by allocating some rewards for them and for members of the other group (or the out-group). What do you think was the outcome?

Surprisingly, although the participants’ fellow experimenters were strangers whom they had not even seen during the study, participants consistently liked them better and tried to allocate more resources to them compared to others. The most striking result was that, when they had the chance, they preferred to have fewer rewards for their own group, the in-group, if it meant that the other group, the out-group, got even less. in other words there was a strong in-group bias or preference at work and it was important in these games not only to win more but to maximise the difference between your group and other groups in your group’s favour .

Thinking like a social psychologist in social psychology this design is known as ‘minimal groups’ because groups are created through a process of arbitrary or random allocation and nothing else. and yet they still seem to function as groups since their members identify with them and try systematically to favour their members. as is often the case, however, there is an issue in experiments with ecological or external validity (see Section 1.2). Do you think minimal group conditions also work in real-life settings? look back at the definition of groups – are all of the elements present in the case of ‘minimal groups’?

What we need to understand from the studies of Tajfel is the explanation that he gave for these empirical findings. he suggested that by grouping people together you already create a kind of common identity and, therefore, the simple fact that a group has been formed will have an impact on the level of self-esteem of each participant. in order to protect their self-esteem (see Section 2.3), participants discriminate against members of the out-group. We will get back to these ‘dark’ tendencies of people in groups in the following paragraphs (and sections) but, before this, give some thought to the difference between minimal groups in experimental settings and real groups in everyday life. What sets them apart is the fact that, unlike minimal groups, the usual collectives that we belong to have a shared history, their members tend to be similar and strive towards clear goals. There is also a group structure emerging with time as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzeLakYuGbw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzeLakYuGbw


as cohesiveness among members. The ‘glue’ that sticks members together in most cases is the existence of a series of social norms and social roles regulating the life of the group.

Norms and roles: how we behave in groups

a significant characteristic of groups rests with the fact that they influence our behaviour. Because you are a member of a certain group, you are expected to behave in some set ways and this may involve a series of actions, from defending the group and displaying identity markers specific for it (wearing a badge or t-shirt for instance) to performing certain rituals and adopting particular attitudes (for example, the group might like X but not y, etc.). What this means is that groups develop norms concerning what is acceptable behaviour and what is unacceptable. For instance, some groups might encourage their members to smoke in order to ‘fit in’ and you can think here about the pressure of peer groups in high school. Very often, these norms are not explicit or obvious and the way new members learn them is by observing the reaction of others.

This is also a good way to identify social norms as an outside observer: when they are violated by some members there might be consequences for them, up to having to leave the group. Norms are very useful in defining also the role played by different individuals in a group context. a social role basically refers to the behaviour expected of you. So for instance, when you play sports in a team, your role is made up of what the game says you should be doing as a player. if you are a good ‘team player’ or, in other words, if you play your role well in your group (in line with existing group norms), you will probably earn the respect of all other members.

Point of reflection Think about a group that you are part of, one that makes you feel very good about your participation. What is your role in this group and what helps you to perform it well? What is the relation between the norms of the group and your role?

Unfortunately, the fact that we are ready to follow other group members almost blindly at times and try to play our part in the group as well as possible, can lead to unpleasant outcomes. When we conform to the demands of a certain social role we might become unreflective and do things that we would not normally do in other circumstances. Take the famous example of the prison study conducted by philip Zimbardo (2007) in the early 1970s, in which a mock prison was set up in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University. prisoner and guard roles were assigned randomly and the experiment was supposed to last for two weeks. however, it ended after only six days. What do you think happened?

in accordance with their social role, the ‘guards’ became more and more violent towards ‘prisoners’, systematically humiliating them. ‘prisoners’, on the other hand, reacted passively and some showed clear signs of depression. is this laboratory study relevant for real-life settings? Read ‘prison abuse at abu ghraib’ from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, p.240) and either watch VlE resource 1 (which contains graphic images of violence) or read VlE resource 2 (an alternative text-only article). What can we learn from these cases about the ‘dark side’ of behaviour in groups?

VlE resource 2: The Stanford Prison Experiment

VlE resource 3: The Stanford Prison Experiment (text only)Make a brief summary of this study outlining:

� its main question

� the method

� its main findings.

Why do you think this study, conducted in the 1970s, is still relevant today?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZwfNs1pqG0

http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/stanford-prison-experiment.htm


Gender roles and societal change

But it is not only small groups that can be blinded by the power of collectively established norms and roles. Entire societies sometimes embrace norms that actively discriminate and harm certain people while favouring others. The perfect example here is offered by gender roles. What does it mean to be a man or a woman in today’s world? What did it mean 50 years ago?

We can agree that, in most cultures, gender roles for most women included for a long time the expectation to be mother and wife/partner and excluded the possibility of building a career. Even nowadays women tend to experience more discrimination than men at work and a conflict between their assumed ‘duty’ to take care of a household and their job commitments. Social psychological research reported in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) depicts how periods of improvement or decline in women’s status relate to their level of assertiveness and image of the self. has the situation improved significantly nowadays? Well, in some respects more than others as a special report on ‘Women and work’ in The Economist shows (VlE resource 4).

VlE resource 4: Here’s to the next half-century (The Economist 2011; Special report ‘Women and work’)Why has progress been so slow in terms of women’s participation in the workplace?

Point of reflection To learn about how pervasive gender roles are in all societies you can have a look at, and even try out, the exercise proposed by aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, p.242). They invite you to think about what happens when gender roles are violated. Do you have examples of your own in this regard? What are the main gender norms in different groups that you are a member of?

in the end, however, it is important to understand that being part of groups is much more than just having a tendency to discriminate against out-group members or to conform blindly to roles that approve of prejudice and harm others. groups are first and foremost the social networks that we need in order to develop as human beings, function well in society and form an identity for ourselves. They serve several important or essential functions – from being a source of information to giving us the comfort and security that we depend on in our day-to-day life. Ultimately, it is groups again who promote positive social change. it is in being part of a group that we find the strength to successfully defend our rights and views even in the face of an overwhelming majority thinking otherwise.

Further reading

To know more about how groups, and especially minority groups, promote social change, read the section on minority influence from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.218–19. What are the conditions necessary for this type of influence to take place?

http://www.economist.com/node/21539930

http://www.economist.com/node/21539930


actIvItyIn order to apply your newly gained knowledge of group psychology think about five groups that you are a member of. you can include your family, different groups of friends, your classmates or work colleagues, the members of a club or society you joined, etc. In relation to each one of these groups, please answer the following questions:

1. How did you come to join these groups? For how long have you been a member? did you notice any changes in group structure or dynamics since then?

2. What are the main norms endorsed by each group? What is acceptable and what is unacceptable behaviour for group members? How can you tell?

3. What defines your role in each of these groups? What are your responsibilities and how well do you manage them? are the roles you play in different groups similar?

4. Why do you think you joined these groups in the first place (if it was a voluntary action)? What benefits do you have as a group member? What do other members gain?

Uni

t 4: G

roup

and

inte

r-gr

oup

rela

tions 91

Section 4.2: are groups productive?

introduction 92

in the presence of others: social facilitation 93

Working with others: social loafing 94

When groups make us work harder: social labouring 95

Further reading 95

Unit 4: Group and inter-group relations • Section 4.2: Are groups productive? 92


read the sections ‘Social facilitation: when the presence of others energizes us’, ‘Social loafing: when the presence of others relaxes us’ and ‘Gender and cultural differences in social loafing: who slacks off the most’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – group, social roles, group cohesiveness, and try to define a minimal group – and write them down in your glossary.


1. do we work better when others observe what we do?

2. do we work better when others join us in what we are doing?

3. How important is the level of difficulty of the task being assessed in social facilitation and social loafing?

4. does loafing in group contexts depend on gender and culture?

Introduction

asked in this manner, the title question seems easy to answer. of course, groups are productive; this is why teamwork is so widely used in all branches of human activity from schools and universities, industry and sports, up to companies and governments everywhere in the world. We come together to solve different tasks in groups not only because we enjoy the company of other people but also because we believe working with others will be effective. and indeed popular sayings seem to reinforce this type of thinking, for instance, ‘two heads are better than one’. and yet, as social psychologists, we cannot simply take folk wisdom at face value. a group has members who might be complementary in terms of skills and knowledge, so coming together and sharing these resources sounds like a good idea. But what we need to ask ourselves (and answer by performing empirical research) is whether individuals are more effective working in a group or working alone.

To test this we can think of simple designs where the same task is performed by a person either alone or with others. others can be watching the person work or be directly involved themselves. Moreover, we need to consider also the nature of the task and its level of difficulty. When we take all of these into account we will notice that groups are not always more productive or effective than individuals and that there are certain conditions under which group productivity tends to decrease.

of course, if we know these conditions we are better able to stimulate group work and enhance its performance. The search for perfect solutions in this regard has been constant and very often we encounter in our daily life lists of (usually 10 or 12) steps on how to achieve our goals as teams. consider one of these lists of group work tips on the VlE (VlE resource 1). Some of the advice it offers might sound sensible and some might not apply at all times but still, it gives us an idea of what is, for many, an ‘ideal group’ context.

VlE resource 1: Tips for better teamworkafter going through the material presented in this section, revisit this list of tips in light of research findings. Is their advice consistent with what you learned from social psychological studies?

http://humanresources.about.com/od/teambuilding/f/team_work.htm


This section will teach you to be aware of simplistic formulations and idealised visions of reality. it is widely believed that groups are more productive than individuals alone but this statement may well need to be refined. you will discover that, in fact, social psychologists are quite sceptical when it comes to the productivity of groups. groups can perform better than individuals or, in other words, individuals can perform better in groups, but this is not always the case. you will learn here about phenomena such as social facilitation, social loafing and social labouring and, by the end, get a better sense of how to answer the title question.

In the presence of others: social facilitation

Think about the daily routine of preparing a meal, even a simple sandwich. you may have done this many times and therefore it should be quite an easy type of activity. Now imagine about how it would be to have other people (let’s say strangers) observe you while preparing this meal. Do you think you would become more effective or, on the contrary, nervous and sloppy? This phenomenon of completing a task in the presence of others and its effect on our performance is referred to in psychology as social facilitation. This is because most of the times our action tends to be ‘facilitated’ or enhanced by the presence of others. We are stimulated when we see people looking at us and try to do our best. however, let’s go back to the example above. Would it be better for you personally to prepare a meal with an audience?

The answer is: it depends. Research has shown (see aronson, Wilson and akert, 2012, the ‘Social facilitation’ section) that, for simple and well-practised tasks, our performance tends to improve when other people are around but that the reverse happens for difficult activities. So, in your case, it would depend on how comfortable you feel cooking and what kind of dish you are making (probably preparing a sandwich will go faster with others watching than preparing beef Stroganoff ). interestingly, this kind of effect is also observed with non-human subjects. Zajonc, heingartner and herman (1969) confirmed it with cockroaches made to run for cover either alone or in the presence of other cockroaches. What does this say about social facilitation?

Thinking like a social psychologist Read from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, p.243) for more details about the cockroach experiment (see also Figure 9.3). Studies such as these are interesting because they highlight surprising similarities between humans and other animals. When psychologists use findings from animal studies to help us to understand our own behaviour, this is known as comparative research. however, they also raise the question of how much one can infer from comparative research and how relevant a detailed knowledge of cockroach or rat behaviour is for understanding human beings. What is your opinion on this? Discuss with reference to issues of validity (see Section 1.2).

perhaps more interesting for us here than what cockroaches do in a maze is how to explain the phenomenon of social facilitation. aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) list three possible explanations for why the presence of others causes either an enhanced or impaired performance, depending on the nature of the task, and they all revolve around the idea of arousal. Basically having other people around increases our level of arousal or excitation. While this is stimulating when we are engaged in a simple activity, it can have a blocking effect when this arousal interferes with our capacity to think clearly and act quickly in more complicated tasks. how do we come to feel this state of arousal? The three main explanations are: a) the presence of others makes us more alert; b) the fact that we feel our performance being evaluated (what is called ‘evaluation apprehension’) causes arousal and c) others are distracting and put us in a state of conflict because of divided attention between them and the task at hand. Which one of these three explanations is more likely? Do these explanations contradict each other or are they complementary?


Thinking like a social psychologist Whenever you are confronted with different plausible explanations for the same set of findings you need to carefully consider the evidence supporting each one. often it is the simplest theory that is most appealing to social psychologists because it usually represents the basis for other, more specific explanations, and it also applies more broadly. in this case consider Zajonc’s (1980) hypothesis about alertness – explanation a), compared with the other two. is simplicity a virtue or not when it comes to explaining social phenomena?

Working with others: social loafing

Strictly speaking, social facilitation is not a group effect because, as we discussed in the previous section about the definition of a group, people occupying the same space do not necessarily form a group unless there is ongoing social interaction between them to achieve a common goal. This is why we need to develop our question and think about whether an individual working alone on a task is better or not than the same individual working (together with others on the same task) in a group. Research has shown that working together can actually have some negative consequences and the best known of these is social loafing.

Social loafing has been documented for the first time in what is considered one of the oldest experiments in social psychology. in the 1880s, Max Ringelmann (1913) wanted to see whether pulling a rope together with others was better than pulling it alone. he measured the effort exerted in both conditions and found that actually participants become a bit ‘lazy’ when in a group and tend to conserve their effort. Think about seeing a performance at the theatre. at the end, you and everyone else would probably applaud the actors. Would you applaud louder if you were the only one in the room? probably so. The question is why.

aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) explain that, just as the presence of others energises us (causes arousal), working together with them makes us relax and want to save energy. This happens particularly when individual efforts cannot be separately measured and evaluated. Notice how this is a reversed effect compared with what we know from social facilitation (also look at Figure 9.4 in the textbook). in the case of facilitation, evaluation apprehension is assumed to increase our state of arousal as, when others are watching, we know that any result we have will reflect on us. But in groups we are often in a position to ‘hide’ behind other members and, just as in the rope experiment, contribute to the activity but not with all we can give. in fact, social loafing seems to increase with group size so, the bigger the group, the more easy it is to go unnoticed (see also VlE resource 2).

VlE resource 2: ‘The larger your team, the greater the loafing’ – a presentation of research by Sankara-Subramanian Srinivasan from University of ArkansasMake a summary of this study including:

� main questions

� most important variables

� main findings and their interpretation.

Pay attention to how psychological research is presented and the importance of knowing previous theories and research when formulating your own study.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrupcbi-7mo




in addition, we also need to keep in mind the fact that social loafing depends on gender and cultural characteristics. as aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, section on ‘gender and cultural difference in social loafing’) explain, women and people from Asian cultures tend to loaf less in groups (compared with men and people in Western cultures, respectively). Why is this? The argument is that, in both cases, a more interdependent view of the self makes members more committed to others and the aims of the group. We will return to the idea of independence in Unit 5.

Point of reflection When was the last time you experienced social loafing during group work? What were its causes? Do you think working together with others always makes us relax? is this typically the case or do we sometimes experience the reverse phenomenon and become more energetic and even more focused and productive?

When groups make us work harder: social labouring

From the above it might seem that group participation can be quite harmful for an individual’s performance and it would be better to have people working alone rather than together. This ‘verdict’ depends on the type of task and the characteristics of the group. if simple tasks (like pulling a rope) tend to decrease individual effort, complex and challenging tasks might motivate us to do even better in groups than we would on our own. participation in groups can be a source of motivation and, especially when common activities are interesting and our commitment to the group is high, a different phenomenon emerges: social labouring.

going back to the rope experiment, imagine participants are engaged in a tug-of-war game rather than simply a psychological investigation. also imagine that the group they are part of is very important to them and they are competing against strong rivals. how would individuals perform? and what does this tell us about how to design group tasks to help teams become more productive? in the end, working with or in the presence of others is a more complex phenomenon than we originally thought. Moreover, many teams nowadays are interdisciplinary, so the diversity of roles within the group is an additional factor to consider in our social psychological analysis. For an interesting video about effective team work and collaboration between disciplines see VlE resource 3.

VlE resource 3: Effective team work and collaborationWhat can we learn from this video at a practical level?

Further reading

another important risk faced by people working together is represented by ‘groupthink’. To know what this is and how it can be avoided read aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.250–53). you might be curious to know the answer to the question ‘Was the financial crisis of 2007 a result of groupthink?’ can you offer other illustrations of groupthink?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsndhCQ5hRY


actIvItythis section introduced you to some basic effects associated with working near and/or together with others: social facilitation, social loafing and social labouring. the knowledge that you gained about what causes each of these and the consequences they have on individual and group performance needs to be put to good use. Imagine that you are advising a group of students on how to work together on writing an essay for one of their courses. these are a few questions for you as a group advisor:

1. What kind of ‘effect’ would you like to see and stimulate in the group? What would you like to avoid? How would you know, for instance, if social loafing is taking place?

2. How would you use social facilitation to the advantage of the group?

3. What advice would you give students in order to stimulate social labouring on their part? How would you describe to them their task of writing an essay for instance?

4. think back about your own experiences of doing schoolwork together with others. How successful or unsuccessful were they and why? What would you do differently?

Uni

t 4: G

roup

and

inte

r-gr

oup

rela

tions 97

Section 4.3: is prejudice unavoidable?

introduction 98

‘it’s us against them’ and ‘They are all the same’ 99

people as ‘cognitive misers’ 100

So, is prejudice unavoidable? 101

Further reading 102

Unit 4: Group and inter-group relations • Section 4.3: Is prejudice unavoidable? 98

Introductory actIvItyaronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.362–63, 366–67, 372–73, 379, 380.

read the introduction to ‘What is prejudice’, the sections ‘Stereotypes: the cognitive component’, ‘Emotions: the affective component’, ‘automatic and controlled processing of stereotypes’ as well as the introduction to ‘Social categorization: us versus them’ and the section on ‘out-group homogeneity’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – prejudice, discrimination, out-group homogeneity, and try to define automatic and controlled processing of stereotypes – and write them down in your glossary.


1. Why is social categorisation often followed by out-group homogeneity?

2. Why are prejudiced attitudes based on an emotional type of reasoning?

3. How can you describe automatic and controlled processing of stereotypes?

4. can stereotypes change and how easy or hard is it to strop prejudice?

Introduction

What we established so far is the fact that our existence as human beings is inconceivable outside the context of groups and group membership. life in groups offers us plenty of benefits: we feel safe around others, we can share emotional bonds with them, collaborate to achieve greater aims, build an identity as well as secure a place in a common society. in order to have all these we rely on a very basic cognitive capacity called categorisation. That is, for groups to form, we must be able to ‘segment’ or divide the social world into different categories based on a number of criteria (gender, age, ethnicity, profession, and so on). This is how we learn about groupings of people around us and how we start distinguishing which of them we belong to (the in-groups) or don’t belong to (the out-groups). We touched upon this issue in Section 4.2 – remember minimal groups? – where we also referred to a ‘natural’ positive bias towards in-group members, a preference that helps us to increase our self-esteem. in this section we will focus on the unwanted consequences of categorising people and favouring certain groups over others: the phenomenon of prejudice in inter-group relations and its link to stereotypes and discrimination. The next section will consider ways of reducing prejudice and fostering collaboration between groups.

as defined by aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, p.362), prejudice refers to ‘a hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group of people, based solely on their group membership’. Two things are important here. one concerns the negative emotional dimension specific to prejudice (the fact that we don’t like people that we are prejudiced against). The second relates to the fact that we hold a prejudice toward entire groups and we don’t care about individual differences or specificities within the group. What we apply to all members is a stereotype or simplified schema telling us ‘how these people are’. Stereotypes are therefore beliefs about a certain group that are generalised to all members without exception. Unlike prejudice, stereotypes can be positive or negative.

if i were to ask you, for instance, to describe a typical teenage boy, lawyer, blonde woman, black person, football player and so on, what you will most likely rely on are stereotypes about each of these (rather than references to actual individuals). Stereotypes are not the product of individual cognition but are very often learned from early on by interacting with others and watching the media. See for instance VlE resource 1, showing stereotypical presentations of different


characters in children’s entertainment programmes. The serious danger with both stereotypes and prejudice is that they often lead to discrimination; that is, negative or harmful action against someone on the basis of their group membership.

VlE resource 1: Racial stereotypes in children’s entertainmentany other examples you can identify or remember? are there particular depictions associated with your national group?

‘It’s us against them’ and ‘They are all the same’

in Section 4.1, we mentioned Tajfel’s original way of answering the question ‘what are the minimal conditions for the formation of a group?’ he noticed in his studies that simple random allocation of strangers can be enough to trigger negative feelings for out-groups for as long as participants are told who is in their group and who is in another group. Most surprisingly, there we also saw that respondents are keen on maximising the benefits for members of their in-group and, more than this, are ready to lose some benefits if that means out-group members get even less. Where does this us versus them attitude come from? Moreover, if people in such artificial conditions are ready to defend their group interests and harm others, what happens in the real world where different communities might share a history of exploitation and discrimination and where some people are made to feel that their own group is superior to all others?

This question can be answered by another experiment, this time performed in school with third-grade children by a teacher, Jane Elliot, in the late 1960s. in order to teach children about prejudice and discrimination she grouped the blue-eyed and brown-eyed children and told the blue-eyed ones that they were better than the others and deserved to be treated differently. The day after, she did the reverse. What do you think happened next? To watch a short clip about this study, see VlE resource 2. pay particular attention to philip Zimbardo’s comments and explanations.

VlE resource 2: Jane Elliott – Brown Eyes versus Blue EyesSummarise this study in terms of:

� aim

� method

� results

� practical implications.

Point of reflection Elliott’s method might seem radical and raise ethical questions but it is effective in teaching us all about how easy it is to stimulate prejudice and discrimination and what it means to experience them. Especially at an early age, we are very sensitive to what others tell us about social groups, including our own group. Do you remember what kind of ‘messages’ you were exposed to in school? Did they make you appreciate your group or feel dissatisfied with it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS3e-n8Mj7I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqp6GnYqIjQ


as Zimbardo notices in the video, regrettably once the tables were turned and brown-eyed children became ‘superior’, they behaved in the same discriminatory way towards their peers instead of empathising with them. This phenomenon creates a vicious cycle that perpetuates prejudice among groups. in addition, the more people are exposed to negative views about their in-group, the more they start internalising these views and even believing them. This is how the victims of discrimination end up supporting stereotypes harmful for their self-concept and self-esteem.

if we return to Tajfel and his assumption that social identity and self-esteem are behind our need to promote the members of our in-group, we can notice as well another interesting effect known as out-group homogeneity. it basically indicates the fact that we tend to consider out-group representatives as being very similar to one another. Read about Quattrone and Jones’ (1980) study in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, the section ‘out-group homogeneity’). What did the rivalry between princeton and Rutgers generate in terms of beliefs about the other group? Were these beliefs different when it came to in-group members? Whenever we perceive out-group members to be more similar to each other than they really are, we are paving the way to stereotyping them – building generalisations that apply to the whole group and disregarding individual differences between members. What exactly is the cognitive mechanism behind this process?

People as ‘cognitive misers’

in our effort to understand the origins of prejudice and, based on this, conclude on whether it is unavoidable or not, we have so far considered social categorisation and in-group/out-group differences. it is important, however, to learn a bit more about human cognition or, in other words, the way in which we perceive and think about reality, in this case social reality. it has been assumed for instance that people behave like cognitive misers (Fiske and Depret, 1996), that is, that we use shortcuts and follow simple rules of thumb to understand other people. This way, we save cognitive energy that can be used elsewhere and reach very fast conclusions about the world we live in and the groups populating it.

This tendency supports the formation and use of stereotypes but, as stressed from the beginning, stereotypes are often not enough to lead to discrimination (to actual behaviour). They require the motivational and affective support generated by developing a prejudice and, when this happens, stereotypes become resistant to change. aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) describe a failure of logic in relation to prejudiced views of other groups and their members. They explain how, when we are prejudiced against a certain group, we process information about its members differently. in fact, we tend to pay attention mostly to all the information that is consistent with our stereotype, store it for a longer time and remember it faster.

Thinking like a social psychologist To help you to understand better how prejudice works, you might want to explore the resources under ‘Understanding prejudice’ on the Social psychology Network website (see VlE resource 3). Try for instance to ‘Test yourself for hidden biases’. Such implicit association tests aim to make you respond as quickly as possible in order to tap into automatic stereotype processing. how would you evaluate this methodology in terms of validity, both internal and external?

VlE resource 3: The Social Psychology Network websiteSee the ‘understanding prejudice’ section.

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/demos/


The distinction between automatic and controlled processing in the case of stereotypes is discussed in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, p.372–73). When applying this distinction, Devine (1989) focused on the level of control we have over our thoughts and in particular over the stereotypes we have learned. Think about examples of stereotypes in your society. Who are the ‘targets’ of stereotypical views and what is their image? For Devine, because you know such things (e.g. ‘african americans are aggressive’), they come to your mind automatically whenever you interact with or talk about members of that particular group. The difference in how we process this information is made by whether we also hold a prejudice against them. if we don’t, most probably we will control stereotypical images as soon as we think of them. Through conscious processing we can therefore ignore such information about the other, of course with a bit of cognitive effort on our part. however, prejudiced people rely less on this controlled type of thinking and, unfortunately, so do less prejudiced people whenever they are too busy or distracted to reflect on ‘gut’ reactions to members of other groups. See Figure 13.3 summarising this two-step model and read more about Devine’s research. can you offer other examples for the two-step model?

So, is prejudice unavoidable?

From what you have read above about categorisation and in-group biases as well as the existence of automatic and controlled processing in the case of stereotypes, how would you answer this question? Most probably it is safe to say that we have reasons to both worry and be hopeful. We should worry because many cognitive aspects supporting the formation and use of stereotypes seem to be automatic. We can’t refrain from dividing the world into groups or remembering stereotypical views about group members. also, stereotypes have a way of self-perpetuating and being internalised by their ‘victims’ (access VlE resource 4 to learn more). in addition, research shows that some stereotypes have a high degree of persistence over time. Think about examples of commonly held prejudices. Even if today’s ‘political correctness’ stops us from reproducing prejudiced views, does this mean that they are totally out of our mind and don’t influence our behaviour?

VlE resource 4: Women, math and stereotype threatSummarise the study mentioned in the video in terms of:


� method

� results

� practical implications.

Nevertheless, research has also shown that we can control our impulses to think about and act based on stereotypes. But can we really change the views of prejudiced people? presenting them with contradictory types of information doesn’t really work well and might even strengthen their original conception (ever heard of ‘an exception that confirms the rule’?); however, systematic presentation of counter-arguments could work. Moreover, as Michael Billig (1985) reminds us, categorisation as a cognitive process is matched by particularisation – looking at individual cases rather than grouping them together – and understanding the interchange between these two processes can make us think about human psychology in ways that don’t make prejudice unavoidable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjn6ZSU_zS0


Further reading

prejudice in today’s world has become more ‘subtle’ and people tend to be increasingly careful in relation to how they express their views about other groups. This is why new methodologies are needed in order to capture modern forms of prejudice; in particular, racism. These methodologies focus on capturing what is called ‘implicit prejudice’, activating and measuring it. To learn more on this topic read aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.369–72). While reading, think about how you could use this method to investigate other forms of prejudice. What kind of study would you design and how?

actIvItyIn this section, you were introduced to a series of ideas and models concerning stereotypes and prejudice. It is now time to put your knowledge to the test! choose a type of prejudice that you often observe in your daily life and one that has received a lot of attention historically and is widely discussed in the society in which you live (it can concern the same group of people or different groups). Make a presentation about them (potentially in PowerPoint), that you can show to your classmates. to help you to structure the presentation, follow these questions:

1. What is the content of the stereotype associated with the out-group in both cases?

2. Who are the members of the in-group or, in other words, who is holding the prejudiced view and what is the relation between in-group and out-group members?

3. How would you explain these cases of prejudice using your knowledge of categorisation, in-group bias and out-group homogenisation?

4. How would you discuss them using your knowledge of automatic and controlled processing? do you think that controlled processing is enough to stop acts of discrimination?

Uni

t 4: g

roup

and

inte

r-gr

oup

rela

tions 103

Section 4.4: how can we help groups cooperate?

introduction 104

What kind of inter-group contact fosters cooperation? 105

increasing collaboration in schools 106

Fighting prejudice: a task for individuals, groups and society 107

Further reading 107

Unit 4: Group and inter-group relations • Section 4.4: How can we help groups cooperate? 104


read the section ‘How can prejudice be reduced?’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – mutual interdependence, jigsaw classroom, and try to define the contact hypothesis – and write them down in your glossary.


1. What is the contact hypothesis and what assumptions is it based on?

2. What are the six conditions for reducing prejudice and why do they work?

3. Why did early desegregation in schools fail?

4. How can you use the jigsaw classroom method effectively?

Introduction

The previous section on prejudice might have painted a rather grim picture concerning inter-group relations. The fact that we constantly categorise people into in- and out-groups, that we tend to favour the former and discriminate against the latter, that we develop stereotypes about group members and apply them almost automatically (at least in the first instance), raises the important question of how people can overcome prejudice and come together in acts of collaboration. We are all concerned with reducing (if eliminating altogether is unlikely) prejudice and discrimination. See in this regard a call to fight against prejudiced attitudes about black people, Mexicans, asians, homosexuals and blonde women made by a group of teenagers (VlE resource 1). Their appeal to treat everyone equally and as unique individuals resonates widely in today’s world. But how can we achieve this aim?

VlE resource 1: A call to eliminate stereotypes of blacks, Mexicans, Asians, homosexuals and blondesWhat other stereotypes can you add to this list?

We will attempt to answer this question by focusing on an interesting method for prejudice reduction in schools: the jigsaw classroom. This is based on a famous proposition known as the ‘contact hypothesis’. as you will learn, social psychologists believe that interacting with others to achieve common goals leads to knowing them better, and can help to get rid of stereotypical images and fixed categorisation. as covered in Unit 3, proximity was also a key factor in liking others and building friendships (see Section 3.3).

however, we are still held back in many instances by a widespread ‘us versus them’ attitude that follows acts of social categorisation. can you think of reasons why we often tend to represent out-groups as competitors? Take examples from your own experience as a student. Who are the groups that receive most prejudice at school and why? What kind of ‘threat’ do they pose to the in-group? how would you feel if members of the out-group did very well while your own group struggled to perform? Now consider the following exercise: imagine that all of a sudden you and these other people are part of the same group because you have a common goal to achieve. how do you think this experience would change your perception of them?

as you will see below, working together has a clear potential to reduce inter-group prejudice and this can again be explained in terms of categorisation processes. When working with members

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOZd11Mcej4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOZd11Mcej4


of another group, you start recategorising them as part of a larger group, a group you are also a member of. in other words, the exact same mechanism that often leads to in-group bias and out-group homogeneity can work in favour of integration and collaboration. groups often have mobile boundaries and manipulating their limits of inclusion and exclusion can make a world of difference for self–other relations.

What kind of inter-group contact fosters cooperation?

Social psychologists have been preoccupied for a long time with the ways in which we can counter stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination. if these are based on false or imprecise information then, perhaps, making people more knowledgeable about other groups can be the solution? as mentioned in the previous section, this is not really the case considering how deeply rooted prejudice can be and how emotionally loaded it is (to the extent that we generally fail to reason logically about out-group members). Then, maybe putting people together is the key as this might give them the chance to learn about each other? again, as we will see from the desegregation in schools example, direct contact doesn’t necessarily help and can even backfire when there are inequalities set in place between different group members. What is there to be done?

The answer actually came about in the mid-1950s from the illustrious social psychologist gordon allport. he was of the opinion that ‘prejudice may be reduced by equal-status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals’ (allport, 1954, p.281). These two central requirements – equal status and common goals – are at the core of what is referred to as ‘the contact hypothesis’. in fact, calling it a ‘hypothesis’ might not be completely accurate since it has been tested and confirmed numerous times, most famously by a series of ingenious field experiments conducted in 1949, 1953 and 1954 by Muzafer Sherif and his collaborators at summer camps for young boys in the USa. Known as the Robbers Cave Experiment, it brought two groups of young boys (the Rattlers and the Eagles) together in a series of competitive activities leading to inter-group prejudice and conflict (remember also the Blue eyes–Brown eyes study, Section 4.3). Following this, researchers tried to help members of the two groups reconcile. putting them together was not enough. What do you think worked?

Point of reflection Read a short description of the Robbers cave Experiment on the VlE (VlE resource 2) and reflect on what is specific for the contact hypothesis.

VlE resource 2: War, peace and the role of power in Sherif’s Robbers Cave ExperimentWhat is the role of the experimenters in this study?

aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.388–89) offer an excellent summary of the conditions necessary for inter-group contact to decrease hostility:

� mutual independence

� a common goal

� equal status

� informal, interpersonal contact

� multiple contacts

� social norms of equality.

out of these, the first three are directly implied by the contact hypothesis.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/09/war-peace-and-role-of-power-in-sherifs.php

http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/09/war-peace-and-role-of-power-in-sherifs.php


Reflect for a moment on the idea of mutual interdependence. as covered in Section 4.1, a group distinguishes itself from other human collectives precisely because of this state of interdependence between members. Translating it at the level of inter-group relations, it basically means reuniting (at least during a certain activity) two groups into one. how is this possible? By giving them a common goal to work towards, a goal that could not be achieved by any of the groups in isolation. Equal status and an informal contact make sure that nobody feels inferior to others or exploited in the situation. Finally, if the two groups get to collaborate on more than one occasion and a social norm of equality is set in place, than chances are prejudice will decrease. Do you have any examples from your experience of seeing people come together successfully under the conditions above? how easy is it to achieve this without ‘external’ intervention?

Thinking like a social psychologist Why is it that collaborative activities, activities where to be successful people have to work together, manage to reduce tension and prejudice? Think about what you know concerning categorisation and in-group/out-group dynamics. What happened to the boys’ perception after working together to achieve common aims? how can one manipulate categorisation processes in experimental studies?

Increasing collaboration in schools

a very good case study to consider in relation to inter-group contact and its effects is represented by the desegregation of schools in the USa that began in the 1950s. children of different races were for the first time allowed to mix in the classroom and this filled social psychologists with the hope that, through contact, prejudice and discrimination would decrease and minority children would improve their self-esteem level and academic achievement. Sadly, this was not the case. Based on what you learned above, why do you think the anticipated effect did not take place? is mere contact between group members enough to reduce prejudice?

as we have repeatedly argued, no. in fact desegregation caused at first a worsening of the situation for many minority children. Being placed together with white, middle-class classmates, meant being at a disadvantage especially for groups of children coming from underprivileged communities. Unable to compete with their peers and forced often to work harder to catch up, these children experienced a further decrease in their self-esteem and felt unmotivated. This is how stereotypes of them being less smart or competent were reinforced, leading to further tension in the classroom and outside of it. What should teachers have done in this situation?

Point of reflection From your experience in school would you say that stereotypes and prejudice exist in relation to particular groups of children? What is their effect on the children’s performance and social relations in the classroom? how can the ‘contact hypothesis’ be applied in these cases?

Elliot aronson, a psychologist called upon to improve the situation of children in desegregated schools in Texas, came up with an ingenious method drawing inspiration from the ‘contact hypothesis’. he called his technique the jigsaw classroom (aronson, 1978) because, just like a jigsaw puzzle, it was based on the interdependence between its members, in our case, school children. Designed to reduce prejudice and raise self-esteem, the jigsaw method required participants to split tasks, work individually and then share their knowledge with the other members. importantly, it meant that the success of the group depended on each of its members since, without even one contribution, the ‘puzzle’ could not be completed. To know more about this method, read the ‘Setting up the jigsaw classroom’ section from aronson, Wilson and akert


(2012) and watch an original demonstration of this technique on the VlE (VlE resource 3). Did you ever adopt a jigsaw approach when studying? if so, how did it make you feel about the other participants? if not, have a look at the ‘Try it!’ task on p.392 of the textbook.

VlE resource 3: The Jigsaw Classroom (gummy bear style)What elements of the jigsaw classroom are clearly captured in this funny video?

Regardless of whether you tried or will try this exercise, remember that the jigsaw classroom was designed with a clear aim in mind and that it reveals its full power in particular circumstances. What makes it so effective when it comes to fighting prejudice and increasing collaboration? For one thing, it helps to develop empathy or the capacity to put ourselves in the position of other group members. Read about the experiment performed by Bridgeman (1981) with children who had been trained in jigsaw classes and children who had not. Which of the two groups do you think was better able to take the perspective of a cartoon character? Why is this quality important?

Fighting prejudice: A task for individuals, groups and society

as mentioned at the start of this section, genuine collaboration between groups can be achieved when prejudices are left aside and when a state of mutual interdependence is established between group members. This interdependence, as we have seen here, requires common goals, coordinated action and equality of status. The fight against discrimination and stereotypical views, therefore, calls for a joint effort by individuals, groups and the entire society.

What is the role of individuals in the process? Each person in a collaborative situation should be able to empathise with members of the out-group and consider them as unique human beings and not through the lenses of a generalised schema. in other words, instead of out-group homogeneity and in-group biases, people should try to respect differences and look at them as resources to be cherished and shared. on the other hand, groups as a whole need to be able to coordinate their action in order to achieve mutually established goals. Remember the basic principle of the jigsaw classroom: each member of the group has a part to play and distributing these roles can be done by other people (in this case, teachers) but also by group members themselves. however, such individual and group efforts need to also be supported by a society capable to state and reinforce norms of equality and actively fight against discrimination. This societal background is indispensable if we are to succeed in reducing prejudice. at the same time, however, this social context is not a given, but rather an ideal that we are all responsible for and can strenghten by welcoming the presence of ‘others’ into our day-to-day life.

Further reading

Ending this section, we mentioned the role of society in upholding or discouraging prejudiced attitudes. To know more about the societal nature of prejudice read ‘pressures to conform: Normative rules’ from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.276–377). also, to understand better the inter-group origins of prejudice and conflict (and not only their cognitive dynamic based on categorisation processes and stereotyping), read the section ‘Economic competition: Realistic conflict theory’ from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.384–86). in light of all these different explanations, write a one-page summary of what causes prejudice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpF9t-mr098


actIvItyStereotypes and prejudice exist not only in schools but also in the workplace. Imagine that you are the manager of a heterogeneous or varied collective of employees who don’t get along well with each other because of inter-group divisions and tensions. Write a one-page report answering these questions:

1. What do you think causes prejudice and discrimination among employees in the workplace? What kind of in-groups and out-groups exist and how do they function?

2. Is simple contact between different employees enough to reduce prejudice? What else is needed according to the ‘contact hypothesis’?

3. How can you draw inspiration from the jigsaw classroom and apply it to a working environment? do you see any similarities and any differences between the two settings?

4. What roles would individual employees, you as their manager and the organisation as a whole have to play in order to increase collaboration? How can all of these different actors join efforts?

Uni

t 4: G

roup

and

inte

r-gr

oup

rela

tions 109


1. how do norms and roles contribute to the existence of groups?

2. What do Tajfel’s minimal group studies tell us about why people join groups?

Essay questions

1. in groups people can end up following blindly social roles with terrible consequences. Discuss.

2. can social exchange theory be applied to the psychology of groups? how?


1. Describe and illustrate social facilitation.

2. Describe and illustrate social loafing.

Essay questions

1. Evaluate different explanations given for social facilitation. Which one is more convincing? Why?

2. Social loafing is not a universal phenomenon. Discuss.


1. how is social categorisation related to in-group bias and out-group homogeneity effects?

2. Describe and illustrate the automatic and controlled processing of stereotypes.

Essay questions

1. if people are ‘cognitive misers’ does this mean prejudice is unavoidable?

2. prejudice comes naturally and it cannot be avoided or stopped. Discuss.


1. can inter-group relations marked by prejudice be improved through contact? how?

2. What is the jigsaw classroom and what does it involve?

Essay questions

1. Mutual interdependence is the key for reducing prejudice. Do you agree?

2. Social categorisation can both create and reduce prejudice. Discuss.


Uni

t 4: G

roup

and

inte

r-gr

oup

rela

tions 110

This unit helped you to learn about groups and relations within and between groups. The distinction between in-group and out-group members is fundamental for this area of social psychology. groups are defined by an internal organisation including (explicit or implicit) norms and roles. as group members, we are expected to comply with these but should also be aware that sometimes they can trigger prejudice and discrimination (think for instance about gender roles). also, when working together with other group members, we should avoid the tendency towards social loafing by dividing tasks and evaluating each member according to their performance. organising contact between members of different groups (for example, as part of the jigsaw classroom technique) is key to reducing prejudice and increasing collaboration as well as increasing the general level of productivity.



� define groups

� discuss groups in relation to norms and roles

� critically assess the existence and evolution of gender roles

� assess whether groups help us become more productive by referring to research on social facilitation and social loafing

� define prejudice

� discuss prejudice in relation to categorisation and its outcomes

� assess whether prejudice is or not avoidable in relations between groups

� discuss the contact hypothesis

� illustrate the contact hypothesis with the help of the jigsaw classroom

� assess the efficiency of the contact hypothesis in reducing prejudice and increasing inter-group cooperation.

concluding comments

111



Uni

t 5: c

ultu

ral p

heno

men

a


aims 112



Further reading 113

References cited 113

Unit 5: Cultural phenomena 112


culture leaves its mark on our psychology and on every aspect of our social life. and yet, we don’t often come to realise what is specific for our cultural environment because we are immersed in it. This unit defines culture and opens with a discussion of the relation between culture and self, in particular the existence of an independent and interdependent self. although aggression and forms of prosocial or altruistic behaviour are believed to be determined, in part, by biological factors, we will discover here how culture plays a key part in their expression. another important area of social psychology, represented by attribution theories, is approached in order to outline cultural differences in what is known as the fundamental attribution error. Finally, the unit concludes with some practical considerations regarding the use of nonverbal communication across cultures.

Week Unit Section15 5: cultural phenomena 5.1: What is culture?

16 5.2: Why is culture important?

17 5.3: how do people attribute causes in different cultures?

18 5.4: how to facilitate intercultural communication?

Aims


� culture and its relation to the self, body image, and attitudes

� cultural variations in aggression and prosocial behaviour and the role of the media in influencing this behaviour

� attribution theory and its relation to culture

� cultural differences in communication.

Learning outcomes


� define culture

� critically assess the distinction between the independent and interdependent self

� discuss how culture shapes our body image and general attitudes

� define aggressive and prosocial behaviour and discuss their relation to culture

� assess whether watching violence in the media can influence the viewer

� define the fundamental attribution error

� critically assess this error’s universality and expression across cultures

� define the notion of intercultural communication

� critically assess differences in nonverbal behaviour across cultures.


Essential reading

Section 5.1aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.107–08, 180, 211–14.



Section 5.4aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.38, 79–82.

Further reading

Section 5.1aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), ‘Where do attitudes come from?’ , pp.166–69.

Section 5.2aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), ‘Does punishing aggression reduce aggression?’ , pp.348–49.

Section 5.3aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), ‘The role of perceptual salience in the fundamental attribution error’ , pp.90–91.

Section 5.4aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), ‘conflict and cooperation’ , pp.258–63.

References cited

archer, D. ‘Unspoken diversity: cultural differences in gestures’, Qualitative Sociology 20 1997, pp.79–105.

archer, D. and R.M. akert ‘The encoding of meaning: a test of three theories of social interaction’, Sociological Inquiry 50 1980, pp.393–419.

Buss, D. The handbook of evolutionary psychology. (hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2005) [iSBN 9780471264033].

conway, l.g., g. Ryder, R.g. Tweed and B.W. Sokol ‘intranational cultural variation: exploring further implications of collectivism within the United States’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32(6) 2001, pp.681–97.

hall, E.T. ‘a system for the notation of proxemic behaviour’, American Anthropologist 65 1963, pp.1003–26.

han, S. and S. Shavitt ‘persuasion and culture: advertising styles and relationship satisfaction in the development of close relationships’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 30 1994, pp.326–50.

heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. (New york: Wiley, 1958); also (lawrence Erlbaum associates, 1983) [iSBN 9780898592825].


hunt, g.T. The wars of the Iroquois. (Madison: University of Wisconsin press, 1940); also (Madison: University of Wisconsin press, 1989) [iSBN 9780299001643].

Jones, E.E. and V.a. harris ‘The attribution of attitudes’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3 1967, pp.1–24.

Markus, h.R. and S. Kitayama ‘culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation’, Psychological Review 98 1991, pp.224–53.

Masuda, T., Ellsworth, p. c. and B. Mesquita ‘placing the face in context: cultural differences in the perception of facial emotion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94 2008, pp.365–81.

Miller, J.g. ‘culture and the development of everyday social explanation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46 1984, pp.961–78.

Morris, M. W. and K. peng ‘culture and cause: american and chinese attributions for social and physical events’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 1994, pp.949–71.

Nisbett, R.E. ‘Violence and U.S. regional culture’, American Psychologist 48 1993, pp.441–49.

Ross, l. ‘The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process’ in Berkowitz, l. (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology. Volume 10. (New york: academic press, 1977) [iSBN 9780120152100].

Schlegel, S. Wisdom from a rainforest: the spiritual journey of an anthropologist. (athens: University of georgia press, 2003) [iSBN 9780820324913].

Singelis, T.M. ‘The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20 1994, pp.580–91.

Triandis, h.c. Individualism and collectivism. (Boulder, co: Westview press, 1995) [iSBN 9780813318509].

Uni

t 5: C

ultu

ral p

heno

men

a 115

Section 5.1: What is culture?

introduction 116

cultural experiences of the self 117

how do you feel about your own body? 118

culture and attitudes 119

Further reading 120

Unit 5: Cultural phenomena • Section 5.1: What is culture? 116

Introductory actIvItyaronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.107–08, 180, 211–14.

read the sections ‘cultural differences in defining the self’, ‘culture and different types of attitudes’ and ‘normative social influence in everyday life’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – independent view of the self, interdependent view of the self, and try to define attitudes and normative social influence – and write them down in your glossary.


1. What are the cultural differences in the way people construct their self-concept?

2. How do we measure independence and interdependence in the case of the self?

3. How is our body size image influenced by culture? does it differ for men and women?

4. are our attitudes shaped by the cultural context we live in?

Introduction

Think of an ordinary day in your life. Starting from the morning, remember what you usually do after waking up, what type of breakfast you have and how you prepare for the day. after leaving your home, what do you typically see on the street, how do people behave in public and what do they usually do for a living? at school, college or at work, consider the interactions you have with your colleagues. how do you address them and what kind of replies do you expect in return? For as common and ‘taken for granted’ as these experiences are for you, they are all defined by the cultural context in which you live. however, this context is most often invisible to its inhabitants in the same way that water is for the fish swimming in it. This is because it seems ‘natural’ to behave in a certain manner, to treat others in a particular way, to dress like other people dress, etc.

perhaps the best moments to realise that your ‘way of doing things’ is one among many is when you travel abroad or get to learn about other places in the world. The customs of others might strike us as different, even odd. and yet, it is precisely this difference, generating cultural diversity, that makes the experience of being human unique (for an illustration, see the photos in the people and culture gallery of National geographic, VlE resource 1). in the end, there is no ‘universal individual’ that we can talk about in psychology or any other social science, but one that is fundamentally shaped by particular geographical, historical and cultural locations.

VlE resource 1: People and Culture gallery on the National Geographic websiteHow would you define culture based on these photos? What is culture’s role in people’s lives?

This, of course, raises the important question of what culture is. There are many possible answers to this question, starting from lay understandings (see VlE resource 2) up to scientific formulations in anthropology or sociology. Social psychology generally defines culture as a system of norms and beliefs specific to a certain group at a certain moment in time. What is characteristic for this definition? First of all we need to note that culture is not ‘outside’ of us and

http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photogalleries/people-culture/

http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photogalleries/people-culture/


therefore having a distinct unit on cultural phenomena (like we do here) does not mean that these phenomena are separate from self, interpersonal relations and groups. in fact, as we got to notice on many occasions throughout the course, the issue of culture is raised in relation to all of these. it is now the moment to properly engage, in more detail, with this (uniquely human) phenomenon.

VlE resource 2: The ‘What is culture?’ videoWhich one of these understandings do you agree with most and why?

The definition above locates culture both at the level of cognition (what people believe and how they think) and action (the norms that regulate social life) and these two psychological categories are considered in relation to a social context (the group) and in its evolution over time. indeed, human collectives, for instance national groups, share common histories and their cultural systems are both stable and dynamic, allowing for transformation and renewal. Think about the current trends pushing towards globalisation, do you think that they pose a threat to cultural diversity or, on the contrary, can they be an opportunity for it? importantly, the social psychological approach to culture is concerned with its expression at an individual level and, in this section, we will consider the ways in which culture influences our sense of self, our view of the human body and our usual attitudes.

Cultural experiences of the self

We concluded in Unit 2 that an important part of who we are is represented by our self-concept. an essential question to ask now is whether knowledge of the self varies across cultures. This has been a central point of concern for cross-cultural psychologists such as Markus and Kitayama (1991) and Triandis (1995). Their research emphasises the fact that people living in different cultures tend to hold different views of the self. in the Western world (mainly associated with the USa and Western Europe as well as australia and canada), respondents seem to define themselves in independent terms. This means that they emphasise their own thoughts, feelings and actions and regard themselves as largely distinct from others. By contrast, an Eastern perspective on the self (found, for instance, in South and East asia) highlights the ways in which the self is shaped by the thoughts, feelings and actions of other people. in other words, we can talk in the former about belonging to a more individualistic culture and, in the latter, to a collectivistic one.

To understand the difference between these two, remember the ‘Who am I test‘ (Section 2.1). presumably if one holds an independent view of the self, more of one’s answers will refer to personal attributes (for example, body, intelligence, aspirations, etc.) while interdependence will be reflected in answers that focus on belonging to different groups (for example, family, community) and performing social roles (for example, being a son or daughter, an aunt or uncle, etc.). These differences are extremely significant for how we act in the world. To understand this, listen to a short talk on the VlE by Ethan Watters about illness and healing in different cultures (VlE resource 3).

VlE resource 3: Psychology across cultures – a short talk by Ethan WattersHow can knowledge about culture help us to explain health behaviours? How can we practically put this knowledge to use?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57KW6RO8Rcs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kysvXEBP-Fo


Point of reflection What kind of perspective on the self do you think you are holding? To answer this, you can also complete the short questionnaire from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) on p.108 (the ‘Try it!’ exercise). Does the result reflect what you think about yourself or what is specific for your culture? Do you think cultures are homogeneous in relation to the self-concept?

The measure of independence and interdependence mentioned above is taken from a popular scale developed by Singelis (1994), focused on the extent to which people describe themselves in more individualistic or collectivistic terms. What you might also notice is the fact that we can score relatively high on both independence and interdependence on scales like these. This suggests that the two dimensions are not mutually exclusive but complementary.

also look at the way in which items (questions) are formulated. For instance, they ask participants if, for them, ‘it is important to respect decisions made by the group’. however, the groups one belongs to are extremely diverse and we are often influenced even by groups of strangers around us (something we discussed in Unit 4). Under these circumstances, how easy or hard is it to answer a general question such as this one? What do you base your answer on?

aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) rightfully point to the fact that within cultures as well there are differences in self-concept and we cannot immediately assume that, simply because somebody lives in the USa or in asia, they will display a certain view and type of behaviour. although independence and interdependence are clearly stronger in some places compared to others, cultural realities are much more complicated than this and it is always good to be critical of clear-cut distinctions and how they apply to particular cases.

Thinking like a social psychologist completing a questionnaire can give us a good, but not perfect, indication of people’s self-concept. What other methods would you use to study independence and interdependence? Think particularly about observational studies and what they would focus on. how would you design such a study?

How do you feel about your own body?

culture has a great impact not only on the self-concept but also on our perception of events and social actors, including of ourselves. in particular, it guides our evaluations of ourselves and of others and this has a great impact on self-esteem (see Unit 2). We can think here about the influence of culture on how we dress, what we eat, which partners we choose and how we live as a family. all of these aspects are subjected to cultural norms, ways of thinking and behaving, which are collectively agreed upon.

let us focus, for instance, on body image and ideas of beauty. is the same body size preferred in all cultures? Does being thinner mean being more beautiful or, on the contrary, is it a rather unappealing feature? aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), in their section ‘Normative social influence in everyday life’, present considerable evidence concerning cultural variations in women’s body image across the globe. We live in an age when the fashion industry (at least in the West) promotes skinny models and thus imposes certain ideal standards regarding body size that are difficult to achieve by most people. Moreover, this ‘ideal’ makes sense for some but is contrary to what defines beauty and health in many other cultures. Take here the example on the VlE of a canadian family travelling to Uganda to encounter a different worldview concerning the female body (see VlE resource 4). What are the cultural norms specific for this context?


VlE resource 4: Am I Beautiful? Beauty across cultures (from the series – The Skinny on Fat)What do you notice about cultural understandings of beauty? How are they related to other cultural norms regarding family life and social interaction within the community?

This type of video and research forces us to think about the relativity of norms across societies and the fact that images of the body, greatly influenced by the media and by the fashion industry, are subject to both forms of normative social influence (for details see aronson, Wilson and akert, 2012, p.211; you can find this concept defined on p.206 of the textbook).

Furthermore, notions of beauty are not stable within one and the same culture. Figure 8.5. from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) depicts the varying bust-to-waist ratios of models in two popular magazines between 1901 and 1981. What kind of iconic female images can you think of within this period? Did people like Marilyn Monroe influence public perception or did she become an iconic figure because of already existing cultural norms? Does the trajectory reflected in Figure 8.5. apply equally well to non-Western cultures? Most importantly, is the ‘thin is beautiful’ belief a passing conception in the West or a trend on the verge of becoming global? all of these questions can be answered only through a careful analysis of the culture of different groups, their customs and the role of body size in each of them, as well as the relations between members of different cultures. and the same questions can be extended to male body images.

Point of reflection one good way to understand cultural norms and standards of beauty when it comes to male and female bodies is to look at advertisements, fashion magazines and children’s dolls. What would an analysis of this type reveal about your own cultural context?

Culture and attitudes

What this section has argued is that culture has a deep influence on the individual self, on the way it is both perceived and evaluated. But its role is not restricted to shaping who we are (or think we are); it also influences how we think about other people and social events in our environment. in other words, culture also has power over our attitudes and their stability over time.

Broadly speaking, attitudes refer to the way in which we evaluate persons, objects and ideas and they are therefore important for how we act towards them. For instance, if your attitude towards fast food is a negative one, then you will probably avoid eating it and could even try to convince others around you not to buy such food. in this case your attitude might reflect a cultural norm that associates beauty and health with a thin, muscular body. if fast food goes against this ideal, the resulting attitude could be one of disapproval. There are many examples relating culture and personal attitudes. han and Shavitt (1994) created, for instance, advertisements for shoes that either promote independence (focus on the individual buyer) or interdependence (focus on the buyer’s social group). What do you think the attitude of americans and Koreans was towards each of these commercials? What does this say about the ways in which norms, view of the self and attitudes reinforce each other in particular cultural contexts?

http://www.iambeautiful.ca/#8

http://www.iambeautiful.ca/#8


Further reading

if you want to learn more about attitudes read the section ‘Where do attitudes come from?’ in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.166–69). Think about how processes of classical and operant conditioning could explain, at a very basic level, the role of a cultural environment in shaping our behaviour.

actIvItythere are many domains of everyday life in which culture makes itself felt, a perfect example being for instance food and eating behaviours. In relation to these, consider the following questions:

1. What is considered edible and inedible in your culture? What are the most common dishes? Is there any food that is forbidden to eat and, if so, why is this the case?

2. When do people usually eat and how do they eat? What kind of eating utensils are used? Is it common to have meals together in the family or even in bigger groups?

3. What are the attitudes you developed in relation to certain types of food? What do you like and dislike? do you consider the effect of food on your body size? does this matter?

4. do you think eating together or apart is a sign of cultural individualism or collectivism respectively? can this information be used to determine independence/interdependence?

Uni

t 5: C

ultu

ral p

heno

men

a 121

Section 5.2: Why is culture important?

introduction 122

aggression and culture 123

prosocial behaviour and culture 124

The role of the media 125

Further reading 125

Unit 5: Cultural phenomena • Section 5.2: Why is culture important? 122


read the sections ‘cultural differences in prosocial behaviour’, ‘the cultural argument’ and ‘violence in the media’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – scripts, aggression and prosocial behaviour – and write them down in your glossary.


1. Is aggression inborn or learned through cultural experiences?

2. What describes cultures of honour and aggression?

3. What is it in our culture that could make us inclined to help others?

4. does violence in mass media automatically lead to an increase in aggressive behaviours?

Introduction

in the previous section, we argued that cultural contexts shape the ways in which people think about themselves and others and how they act in the world. This immediately makes culture a very important area of investigation for social psychologists. and yet, it becomes necessary as well to realise that not everything in our behaviour has a cultural origin and not every one of our actions is specific only for our cultural group. in fact, there are many similarities across cultures in the way people relate to one another. can you think of some examples?

This also raises the question of how cultural similarities and differences can be explained. in addressing this issue we are tapping into an old debate that existed in philosophy for centuries before being picked up by psychologists, that between nature and nurture. Basically, this debate asks whether our psychological and social existence is more the product of innate tendencies (residing in our genetic makeup and transmitted over the course of evolution) or whether it is the result of learning one’s culture and living in a particular human society. Very interesting studies are being conducted with young children and some of our closest relatives in the natural world to try and shed light on this dilemma (for examples see VlE resource 1). What we can conclude so far is that human behaviour is subjected to both innate and cultural influences and, moreover, that cultural practices build on universal human potentialities so that ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ actually collaborate in creating the diverse image of global and local societal structures that we inhabit today.

VlE resource 1: Footage from a BBC documentary – Bang goes the theorySummarise the studies presented in this video in terms of:


� method

� main findings.

The two best examples of how biology and culture shape our actions are probably aggression and prosocial behaviours. They are obviously situated at opposing ends of the spectrum of social interaction with the first denoting intentional behaviour aimed at harming others and the

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mvZ4EbPbME


second indicating acts performed for the benefit of the other (often with no benefit for the self – altruism – or even at a great personal cost – heroism).

Understanding how and why people engage in acts of aggression or self-sacrifice is of course of great practical relevance. Such knowledge could, for instance, help us to reduce instances of aggression and stimulate prosocial actions. This would be almost impossible, however, if both violence and altruism were completely innate and controlled only by our instincts. Still, because culture has a great part to play in these types of behaviour, we can hope, in time, to have a better chance of educating people and promoting positive social interactions. But first, we need to consider different explanations for why we tend sometimes to harm or help others and, towards the end, explore also the power of mass media in this context.

Aggression and culture

Most probably when you think about aggressive acts you tend to think of something committed on the spur of the moment, something quite instinctual in nature that does not involve a lot of reflection. in other words, aggression seems to be a good candidate for inborn tendencies with very little cultural influence (at the end of the day, it is a behaviour common for people around the globe and starts being displayed very early on in childhood).

however, such evolutionary arguments about aggressive behaviour need to be questioned. First of all, not all types of aggression have the same emotional component and we can think here about instrumental or active acts of violence where harming the other is a means to reaching another goal. Take the example of sports like boxing. What distinguishes fights in this context from fights taking place on the street? When we look as well at our evolution as a species and some of our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos (a particular type of ape), the picture is again quite complex since bonobos in particular avoid engaging in violence towards their peers and use sexual activities to diffuse conflicts in the group. also, if we consider gender differences, it has been repeatedly stated that males are genetically programmed to be more aggressive in order to establish dominance and attract females (Buss, 2005). however, even in this case, cultural practices have a great part to play in how gender identities are constructed and performed (Section 4.3).

Point of reflection in VlE resource 1 you saw how adults react differently to children based on their assumed gender (although in fact they are all interacting with the same child!). This suggests that many gender differences (including in level of aggression) might have a cultural origin. how are children raised in your culture? are boys expected to be more dynamic and aggressive than girls?

What we can conclude so far is that aggression has a biological basis but this doesn’t mean that we are all equally predisposed (in similar situations) to react in a violent manner or that we would use the same means to express our anger. in fact a quick cross-cultural investigation will show that, while European societies have histories that are often filled with war and violence against members of out-groups or even in-groups, this is not automatically a universal norm.

Schlegel (2003) brings as evidence the case of the Teduray, a hunter-gatherer culture from the philippines, and their special care for the feelings of others and for reducing the risk of intra-group aggression. hunt (1940) also makes the point that violence against others is not a direct consequence of inter-group contact but can become so under certain historical conditions. This is illustrated by the changing relations between two tribes living in North america, the iroquois and the hurons. Nisbett (1993) goes even further by making distinctions within cultures to show how, in the USa for instance, southern males are more prone to violence than their northern counterparts, being prompted by a ‘culture of honour’ that encourages them to


respond quickly to insults and threats. as you read about these types of research in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, the section ‘culture of honour and aggression’), try to think about what it is ‘in’ particular cultures, at particular times, that stimulates aggressive responses.

Thinking like a social psychologist you have been introduced to the hypothesis that a ‘culture of honour’ will favour aggressive behaviour as a response to an offence. Revisiting different types of methods presented in Section 1.2, how would you design an: a) observational; b) correlational; c) experimental study to test this assumption?

Prosocial behaviour and culture

Fortunately for our societies, humans don’t only possess an aggressive instinct, driving them towards destruction and death, but are also very much capable of helping others when in need. This category of behaviours is called prosocial and, again, while they are not uniquely human, it can be said that helping reaches new heights in some representatives of our species. We all know about acts of heroism performed by ordinary people (for instance, the passengers of the United airlines Flight 93 who fought the terrorists and, sacrificing themselves, avoided another great tragedy on September 11 2001) and of course they make us wonder what leads some of us to such selfless acts? is it something about our genetic makeup or the culture we belong to, or simply the situation in which we find ourselves in?

These kinds of questions are addressed by philip Zimbardo in his large-scale heroic imagination project (see VlE resource 2). aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) also consider this important aspect and point to different possible explanations, from individual differences to the influence or culture and religion. let’s reflect for a moment on their description of the ‘altruistic personality’ (p.308). This is a type of explanation that places prosocial behaviour in a series of (relatively stable) personal attributes. can you think of consistently altruistic individuals among the people you know? probably you will reach the conclusion that we are all endowed with a certain capacity for altruism but turning this potential into reality depends on situational and cultural factors. What exactly are these factors?

VlE resource 2: The Heroic Imagination ProjectExplore the website, in particular the segment dedicated to research. What can you learn from there about acts of heroism?

Thinking like a social psychologist Remember what you learned in the previous section about independence/interdependence. Which of these could be more associated with helping others?

Most probably you would expect people holding an interdependent view of the self to be more inclined to help others in need – they define their own self in terms of relationships and maintaining these relationships often involves acts of altruism. This is in essence correct but we need to also take into account the reality of in-group and out-group divisions. it is in fact members of the in-group (like family, friends, co-workers, etc.) that interdependent persons are very much inclined to help, as they are the ones who contribute to their sense of identity. in contrast, out-group representatives might even be discriminated against because of potentially conflictual inter-group relations. What research (conway, Ryder, Tweed and Sokol, 2001) shows is that actually, against common sense, collectivism as a cultural feature might lead to people being less inclined to assist out-group members than is the case for individualism.

http://heroicimagination.org/


The reason? group divisions don’t have the same importance for a person holding an independent view of the self who depends less on others for their sense of identity. But of course these conclusions are too general and need to be applied on a culture-by-culture basis. For instance, recently social psychologists have looked at the cultural value of ‘simpatía’, prominent in Spanish-speaking countries, to explain prosocial behaviour. Read about this research in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, the section ‘cultural differences in prosocial behaviour’) and have a look at Table 11.1 on p.310. is this particular value restricted to latin cultures or ‘distributed’ more widely?

Point of reflection consider your own culture and how often it is common for people to help each other? how would you explain altruism in relation to dominant cultural values in this case?

The role of the media

We have established in this section that both ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ have a part to play in aggressive and prosocial behaviour, something that opens the discussion about how cultures can influence the degree to which we sometimes harm or help others. More specifically, what exactly ‘mediates’ the relationship between the broader culture of a society and an individual’s action? What elements exist ‘in between’ these instances and connect macro and micro levels of the phenomenon?

one of them clearly is mass media, followed by more and more people worldwide and an excellent reflection of a society’s culture (its beliefs and norms as expressed in films, commercials, talk shows, soap operas, etc.). in fact the media is assumed to have such a great power over individual behaviour that the current over-saturation with violent images causes great concern for both psychologists and members of the wider public. aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) address this issue in detail (see the section ‘Violence in the media’), and report a number of studies indicating that violence watched on television is often replicated in real life (however, there are also contrary opinions, see VlE resource 3). The reason why this presumably happens is because media can change our perception of the world, including of aggression. on p.346 you will find a list of viewer’s reactions to television violence; with which one do you identify the most?

VlE resource 3: ‘Economists say movie violence might temper the real thing’, article published in 2008 in The New York TimesWhat is this argument based on?

Further reading

children’s aggressive behaviour represents a source of concern for parents and psychologists alike. if you want to know more about how violence can be reduced and whether punishment is effective in this regard, read the section ‘Does punishing aggression reduce aggression?’ from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.348–49). Should parents respond to violence with violence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/business/media/07violence.html?_r=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/business/media/07violence.html?_r=1


actIvItya useful exercise for understanding how behaviour and perceptions of both violence and altruism are culturally shaped is to look at the content of mass media, in particular news bulletins. Watch a news bulletin (or read today’s newspaper) and make a presentation (potentially in PowerPoint), answering the following questions:

1. How many acts of aggression are presented in the news? Who are the aggressors and who are the victims? Most importantly, what explanations are given for aggression in each case?

2. How many examples of prosocial behaviour are presented in the news? Who were the actors involved? again, what explanations are given for altruism in each case?

3. think about gender aspects in news about violence and prosocial behaviour. Is there an unequal distribution among the two sexes and what would this imply?

4. What elements from your cultural environment can help explain aggression and altruism? do you think news can influence people’s behaviour? can they inspire prosocial action?

Uni

t 5: C

ultu

ral p

heno

men

a 127

Section 5.3: how do people attribute causes in different cultures?

introduction 128

a ‘fundamental’ error 129

attribution and culture 130

is the fundamental attribution error really ‘fundamental’? 131

Further reading 132

Unit 5: Cultural phenomena • Section 5.3: How do people attribute causes in different cultures? 128


read the sections ‘the nature of the attribution process’, ‘the fundamental attribution error: People as personality psychologists’ (except ‘the role of perceptual salience in the fundamental attribution error’) and ‘cultural differences in social perception’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – attribution theory, internal and external attribution, fundamental attribution error, the two-step process of attribution – and write them down in your glossary.


1. What kind of attributions can people make according to attribution theory?

2. What is the fundamental attribution error and why is it considered an error?

3. Is the fundamental attribution error expressed universally?

4. How do Westerners and Easterners attribute causes for individual behaviour?

Introduction

in the previous section we discussed how important culture is in terms of shaping our behaviour and, particularly, our relations with other people. aggressiveness and altruism, two tendencies that might be thought of as ‘instincts’, are tendencies that are actually very much influenced by culture, which determines to a large extent how and when we become violent or, by contrast, who we tend to help and why. We will see in this section that culture also has an impact on how we explain the behaviour of others, including their aggressive or prosocial actions.

imagine that you see a man being verbally violent towards another person on the street. What are your first thoughts about him? Most probably you would think he is quite impolite and very impulsive. But what would happen if you took the whole situation into account? you might discover that the individual you are observing was provoked or maybe was very irritable because of rushing to deal with a personal emergency. This makes his aggressiveness less of a personality feature but something determined by the situation. and yet, how often do we have the time and energy to take contextual information into account? Making an attribution is essentially making a judgement about a situation or person. is attributing the causes of events to the person something that comes naturally or has culture anything to say about it?

as you will learn next, cultural influences are indeed very important for the types of attributions mentioned above. That being said, there is also a rather strong cross-cultural (universal) tendency to interpret the world in terms of intentions and personality traits. and this doesn’t apply only to social reality. Before you go on reading, log on to the VlE and look at VlE resource 1, a short video used by Fritz heider in his psychology classes more than half a century ago. Watch the whole clip and then describe what you saw in it. how would you explain it to another person? When you are done with the task, continue with this section.

VlE resource 1: Heider attributionHeider’s video reveals our tendency to attribute causes to what we see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbhV4mzczGs


if you are like most people, you probably offered an anthropomorphic description of the video, meaning you talked about the moving triangles and circles as if they were people engaged in some meaningful action (in this case actually a ‘violent’ situation). Notice how you perceived the movement of the bigger triangle in the video. Was it more or less acting like a ‘bully’ and being very ‘temperamental’ and ‘vengeful’? Well, these kinds of thoughts represent the basis for all attribution theories and something heider (1958) discussed extensively in his work: in everyday situations we are all acting like ‘naive’ psychologists or scientists, trying to understand what others think by observing their actions. in doing so, we are putting together information that will help us form an opinion about the other person. The crucial question here is: do people from different cultures pay attention to the same type of information and reach similar conclusions?

A ‘fundamental’ error

heider is often considered the founding father of modern attribution theories because he proposed a very basic distinction that is widely used in the field. he thought we can attribute the cause of events either to the person performing the action (their intentions, attitudes, character, etc.), and thus make an internal attribution or judgement, or to something belonging to the situation (the circumstances in which behaviour takes place) and therefore offer an external type of attribution. one would think that both ‘sources’ – person and situation – tend to play a part in each context and that sometimes personal attributes can explain behaviour better while, at other times, the situation holds the key to a more accurate understanding.

and yet systematically people tend to use internal attributions over external ones for explaining the conduct of others. in other words, we make judgements or attributions about an inner quality related to the person we are observing. We can see why this would be the case: internal attributions are easier to make and save us the effort of looking for additional information about the circumstances of action; they also tell us something about the person that we can remember for future interactions. Surprisingly, this tendency is so prevalent that even when we learn that an action was not performed willingly, we are still tempted to make internal attributions for it. For instance, imagine that you are asked to judge how much an essay reflects the attitude of its author, knowing that the author was told to write in favour or against a certain political figure. To find out how people evaluated such essays, read about this study in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, p.89).

Thinking like a social psychologist Summarise the study by Jones and harries (1967) in terms of:

� question

� method

� main finding.

also discuss it in relation to the internal and external validity of the experimental design (see Section 1.2). if you wanted to answer the same research question using an observational or correlational study, how would you do that?

This simple experiment by Jones and harris (1967) explains quite clearly why, even when knowing that the Fidel castro essay described a position imposed by someone else, respondents still believed to a great extent that it reflected the attitudes of its author. What does this mean? it means basically that participants in this study made a correspondence between the text and its content (pro or against castro) and an internal attribute about the person who wrote it (a pro or against castro attitude), ignoring contextual information (in this case the instructions


given to the authors before writing the essay). This is known as the ‘fundamental attribution error’ (Ross, 1977) and it is considered an error because it makes us biased towards person-centred explanations of behaviour or, in other words, inclined to use internal attributions.

This is such a strong tendency that many scholars, starting with heider, believed we are dealing with a ‘fundamental’ type of error. For instance, read about the case of people sitting on the front row of buses on Rosa parks Day in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012). What kinds of attributions are made based on this behaviour? are they reflecting the fundamental attribution error? Most importantly, does similar evidence from everyday life support the assertions that this type of error in attribution is actually ‘fundamental’ or ‘universal’? in other words, can we find it expressed by people in different contexts? To answer the last question, we would need to submit the fundamental attribution error to a cross-cultural test, something we go on to discuss next.

Attribution and culture

in order to understand whether culture might indeed have an effect on attributional biases, we need to go back to our knowledge about the independent and interdependent self from Section 5.1. These differences, we can argue, are historically shaped by the ways in which people live in their communities and interact with others. For instance, European and North american cultures tend to emphasise individual autonomy and this value is well embedded in inter-personal and institutional relations. They are also reflected in the system of law and religious beliefs specific for these regions (for example, the Judeo-christian emphasis on personal responsibility). on the contrary, Eastern cultures are founded on shared autonomy and group belonging, two values which also have a very long tradition in local systems of thought (we can think here about the confucian ethic and the role of the family).

The cultural context is therefore very important to reflect on because it can help us to understand psychological differences between people in different parts of the world. For example aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.92–94) point to the fact that cultural values have an impact on what people pay attention to in their environment. They distinguish between analytic and holistic thinking, the first one focusing mostly on the object or person and the second taking into account the object or person in their context. This section of the textbook goes on to describe an interesting experiment by Masuda and colleagues (2008) on decoding facial expressions. participants from the USa and Japan were presented with drawings of people in groups where the central figure had one type of facial expression while others in the background had either a similar or different expression. What cultural differences do you predict in identifying emotions?

Thinking like a social psychologist What do you also predict about cultural differences in terms of the fundamental attribution error? To read more about the relation between culture and cognition (how people think), have a look at VlE resource 2 and read the research presented there.

VlE resource 2: The culture – cognition connection‘the culture – cognition connection’ by Lea Winerman, Monitor, the american Psychological association.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/connection.aspx


as you would expect from reading about differences between cultures in how people process information from their environment, the fundamental attribution error is mostly found in people living in Western countries. on the contrary, research has shown that people living in South and East asia tend to formulate more external attributions. This is thought to be a feature of collectivistic cultures where children are raised to consider the individual in its social context and where interdependence is highly praised.

Joan Miller (1984) performed a study that clearly shows this difference between respondents from india and from the USa. When thinking about a friend’s behaviour, hindu participants offered more situational explanations while americans focused mostly on personal or internal factors. Even more interestingly, Morris and peng (1994) explored the ways in which chinese and English-language newspapers described a mass murder. Unsurprisingly, the US press was much more likely to describe the murderer in very negative terms and make assumptions about his personality, while chinese reporters speculated about his dysfunctional social relations. as we argued before, looking at mass media is a good way of understanding something about local culture because what is reported in the media, and especially how events are reported, clearly speaks about cultural values and explanations. in light of the above, we can ask ourselves if people from Eastern cultures don’t make internal attributions at all.

Is the fundamental attribution error really ‘fundamental’?

it is important to note at this point that people living outside the Western world don’t necessarily generate only external types of attributions about events. in fact, studies similar to that of Jones and harris (1967) (remember the Fidel castro essay discussed above), with participants from countries like china, Japan and Korea, showed comparable results to what was found with Western samples. in other words, the fundamental attribution error is not uncommon in these countries either although, by comparison, it might be employed less often. The important thing discovered in this type of research, however, is that East asian participants changed their attribution after going through the same experimental procedure as the authors of the essays. They started explaining behaviour in terms of the situation after having to write an essay supporting a certain view, an experience which didn’t affect the largely internal explanations of Western respondents.

So what can we learn from here? Well, it would seem that there is indeed an almost ‘universal’ or cross-cultural tendency to attribute causes internally but, in certain cultures, people are more capable or willing to revise their attributions in light of contextual information. have a look at Figure 4.7. from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, p.92), outlining a two-step process of attribution. how easy is it for you to move to Step 2 of this process? Does this remind you in any way of the distinction between automatic and controlled processing of information referred to in Section 4.3? in fact, think about how the existence of the fundamental attribution error can support the formation of stereotypes and prejudiced attitudes about other people. What is the role of internal attributions in stereotyping?

Point of reflection Knowing about attribution has practical relevance. For instance, attributing school grades internally can have consequences for subsequent performance. look at VlE resource 3 and note the attitude of each student. Which one is more effective in the long run?


VlE resource 3: Attribution theoryattribution theory illustrated by a discussion between two students about their performance on a maths test.

Further reading

if you want to discover more about reasons why there is a tendency to attribute causes internally rather than externally have a look also at the section ‘The role of perceptual salience in the fundamental attribution error’, in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.90–91). What can we conclude about the focus of attention and how it leads to a certain kind of attribution?

actIvItySince mass media reporting reveals aspects of a cultural context, please go back to the two pieces of news you found as part of the previous activity – one of a violent and another of a pro-social event – and answer the following questions about them:

1. How are violent and altruistic behaviours explained in the media (by the reporter, by specialists, by eyewitnesses, etc.)? What kinds of attributions are being made about the personality or context of the main actors?

2. are there any differences in types of attribution between aggressive and altruistic behaviours reported in the media?

3. do these attributions support the existence of the fundamental attribution error? If not, what does this tell us about the ‘universality’ of this error?

4. use the two-step model of attribution to discuss each of the two events. What can be included in Step 1 and Step 2 of the process? How do we get from Step 1 to Step 2?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAp5pmQqqDk

Uni

t 5: C

ultu

ral p

heno

men

a 133

Section 5.4: how to facilitate intercultural communication?

introduction 134

Nonverbal communication: where does culture come in? 135

So what are the differences? 136

how do we use this knowledge? 137

Further reading 138

Unit 5: Cultural phenomena • Section 5.4: How to facilitate intercultural communication? 134

Introductory actIvItyaronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.38, 79–82.

read the sections ‘culture and social psychology’ and ‘culture and channels of nonverbal communication’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – cross-cultural research, display rules, emblems, and try to define channels of nonverbal communication – and write them down in your glossary.


1. What is the relation between culture and display rules in communication?

2. How do we interpret the nonverbal behaviour of other people?

3. Is email communication more difficult than face-to-face interaction? Why?

4. What is the impact of culture on the use of eye contact, personal space and gestures?

Introduction

This unit has probably stimulated your thinking about the many ways in which culture matters for understanding human behaviour and also think about the variety of actions, thoughts and ways of being specific to different cultural contexts. also, it might have made you aware of the importance, but also the intrinsic difficulties, of conducting cross-cultural research (for more comments on this see the section ‘culture and social psychology’ in aronson, Wilson and akert, 2012). as we said in Section 5.1, living like fish in the water of culture, we are often unaware of its influence in our daily life. it is perhaps when we get to meet foreigners or go to visit a different country that we really start noticing and assessing the importance of cultural differences. Remember the last trip you took abroad or the last conversation you had with a foreigner. Was there anything that struck you during this experience? What aspects of culture became immediately obvious? What aspects are harder to observe at first?

For one thing, we can notice a different language (or accent) being used but also other elements of communication that might be confusing in the beginning. These are mainly nonverbal cues, something we discussed in Section 3.4. you learned there that communication has multiple channels and is expressed through gestures, eye contact and posture as much as it is through words. This section will focus on nonverbal aspects of everyday interactions and consider them in relation to culture since, as you can expect, culture does play an enormous part in communication.

The topic of contact between cultures or, at a more basic level, between members of different cultures, is very important today as we are all living in societies that tend to become more and more multicultural. how do we perceive foreigners and interpret their actions? how do we form an impression of those living abroad and try to make ourselves appear to them? can misunderstandings be eliminated from intercultural communication? For several of these questions we can already suggest an answer based on the material covered in the previous units of this guide. For instance, we can think about the risk of stereotyping others and developing prejudices against them while favouring members of our own cultural group.

But before even representing foreigners, we are faced with the very difficult challenge of understanding what they tell us in ways that are not affected by our own biases and cultural assumptions. This effort to communicate is illustrated very well by overseas students as they are often faced with the difficulty of adjusting to a new environment and to the behaviour of others towards them. have a look at VlE resource 1, a conversation with chinese and american students


at a US university. What are the main challenges mentioned when it comes to interacting with people from other cultures? Why is it so hard sometimes to understand one another? This section will try to answer such questions.

VlE resource 1: A conversation with Chinese and US students at Michigan State University

Nonverbal communication: where does culture come in?

Nonverbal communication, unlike its verbal counterpart, is very much continuous in the sense that we never (even when standing still) stop offering nonverbal cues that help other people reach a conclusion about our emotions or attitudes. The key, as we saw in the previous section on this topic, is to be able to decode nonverbal elements appropriately and we are helped in this regard by our accumulated experience of interacting with others and observing their ‘body language’. in fact, when these cues are missing from communication, this tends to make the reception and interpretation of a message much more difficult.

To stress the importance of nonverbal behaviour for our understanding of a situation, archer and akert (1980) developed the Social Interpretations Task (SiT), which includes 20 videotaped scenes of naturally occurring communication. When viewers are asked after each scene what the relationship between characters is (for example, ‘which woman is the mother of the baby?’) they consistently pay attention to nonverbal channels to find the correct answer (in the example above, one might consider the tone of voice or way of holding the baby in order to identify the mother). From each social interaction, what exactly helps us most, as social psychologists, in determining the nature of the relationships between people?

aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) point to the fact that it is the whole of nonverbal communication taken together that offers relevant clues. in other words, due to the multichannel nature of nonverbal behaviour, we are able to observe more than movements taking place in isolation – we can synthesise information coming from different ‘channels’ at once. This makes things problematic for online interaction where nonverbal elements are largely missing. Think about writing emails to other people or reading messages from others. Do you think this favours misunderstanding others by comparison to face-to-face communication? online interaction gives us few hints about the emotional state of the speaker (except when reflected clearly in the verbal content), and this is why emoticons (as in ‘smiley faces’) are widely used in writing electronic messages.

Point of reflection on the other hand, to realise how it is to convey a message using only nonverbal elements think about a game of mime or charades. if you played this before, you probably know that in order to win fast you, and the members of your group, need to share an understanding of what a certain sign or movement means. how exactly do you reach this common understanding?

in a way, when we live in a specific culture, we expect other people to be good ‘mime players’ and know how to read our nonverbal messages. This is what display rules are for, telling us when and how to exhibit a certain behaviour and how others might interpret it. For instance, it is probably not appropriate in most cultures to laugh at a funeral or to move around in a classroom while the teacher is talking. consider also what kinds of display rules are common in your culture concerning the behaviour of men and women – for example how is crying regarded depending on gender? (Revisit the notion of gender roles, Section 4.1).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_7NuOWYMk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_7NuOWYMk


however, perhaps the most striking differences between cultures have to do with the use of emblem gestures (archer, 1997) like the ‘oK sign’ (often depicted as a circle made by reuniting the thumb and forefinger with the rest of the fingers raised above the two). These emblematic nonverbal behaviours actually have different meanings across the globe and you can read about them in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, Figure 4.1). Do you use the oK sign in your culture and, if so, what is it meant to symbolise? Finally, it is to be noted in relation to email communication, that not only is the existence of emoticons supposed to compensate missing facial expressions, but there are cultural differences even in this regard, something you can read more about by accessing VlE resource 2). are you :-o or (*o*) about this?

VlE resource 2: Cultural differences: emoticonsHow do you think these differences get to be created and maintained?

So what are the differences?

We mentioned above the fact that one and the same nonverbal element can mean different things depending on cultural context, but what exactly should we look for? aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) offer us an overview of ‘cultural differences in nonverbal communication’ on p.81. you will notice that they discuss three types of behaviour:

� eye contact and gaze

� personal space and touching

� hand and head gestures.

let’s focus on the first two for the moment.

Eye contact plays a key role in nonverbal communication. To understand this, try to remember the last time you either found it strange that somebody you were talking to avoided looking you in the eyes (were they lying to you?); or, on the contrary, the last time you felt very uncomfortable for being literally scrutinised by the gaze of the other. actually, depending on your culture, you might be used to a lot of direct eye contact in communication and interpret its absence differently. Not looking at someone straight in the eye can well be a sign of respect and children, for instance, might be taught to avoid direct eye contact with their teachers (for example, in Nigeria, puerto Rico and Thailand). in Western classrooms, however, when a student’s gaze is always oriented elsewhere, it could be taken as a sign of not paying enough attention in class.

Similar differences are found in the use of personal space. actually, the study of how distance is used in communication is called proxemics (hall, 1963) and it focuses on the distinction between high-contact and low-contact cultures. To understand this aspect better try the task below.

Thinking like a social psychologist When you want to study nonverbal behaviour in a particular culture, the best way to do it is to look around in the street, in cafés and restaurants. how closely do people walk together, how close to each other are they when talking and how often do they touch their conversation partners? also, are there any gender differences in the use of space and touch that you can notice? What kind of research would you design to study these issues?

http://www.thehealthculture.com/2010/06/cultural-differences-emoticons/


another thing to look for is, of course, the use of gestures, especially hand gestures. These tend to be quite elaborate and ever-present in communication, including here the types of ‘emblem’ signs we mentioned above. as aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) tell us about the popular ‘oK sign’ (for Westerners), it means money in Japan, zero in France and sex in Mexico. This should make you think twice perhaps about employing certain familiar gestures in foreign countries. What about giving others the ‘thumbs up’? is it safe to use in order to signal agreement? Well, the same gesture in iran and Sardinia is considered obscene, so again there are important differences to consider before committing a cultural gaffe or mistake.

For more information about how to avoid these forms of miscommunication, have a look at VlE resource 3, explicitly addressing the issue of cultural gaffes and exemplifying them. Did you ever make similar involuntary mistakes and, if so, what did you learn from them? Sometimes these misunderstandings can lead to funny incidents. For instance, in many parts of the world, people move their head up and down to signal agreement and shake it from side to side to say ‘no’. While these gestures are quite widespread, they don’t apply to all places. For example, in Korea, the shaking of the head doesn’t mean ‘no’ but rather ‘i don’t know’. So are you a ‘nod if you agree’ kind of person or are rules in your culture different and, if so, how?

VlE resource 3: Cultural gaffes beyond your borderscan you add to this list?

How do we use this knowledge?

leaving aside the sometimes humorous aspects of inter-cultural miscommunication, what becomes clear from reading this section is that cultural differences do exist in terms of nonverbal behaviour and that not being sensitive to them can lead to unpleasant situations, including a break-down in communication. Think back about the experience of a ‘culture shock’ for some foreign students, mentioned in the introduction. a great part of this experience is in fact due to a constant uncertainty about what others are trying to tell them through nonverbal channels. is the fact that my personal space is intruded upon in communication a sign of disrespect? or is it just a cultural norm i have to be aware of when i am away from home? Remember what you learned about prejudice (Section 4.3) and about attribution (Section 5.3) and apply this knowledge to the case of foreign students.

it would be very easy to let these small (and yet constant) differences build up a negative image of others. We can all think here about the way we stereotype people from different cultures and many comedy shows exploit these stereotypical portrayals of different nationalities to the maximum (almost always including how others talk and act in interpersonal relations). This is why the most valuable lesson to take away from the culture unit is that, for successful interactions between members of different cultures to take place, mutual interest and respect are a prerequisite (a necessity). in the end, there is actually much similarity underlying cultural differences and this is brilliantly illustrated by the short clip ‘Differently similar’ available as VlE resource 4. after all, how many different ways are there to start our day in the morning?

VlE resource 4: Differently similara video about unity in (cross-cultural) diversity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haohj1sVnyk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3jpN3Zouko


Further reading

To read more on the general topics of conflict and conflict resolution (knowledge that can be applied to an intercultural context), have a look at the ‘conflict and cooperation’ section from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), on pp.258–63. how important is a good understanding of nonverbal behaviour in situations of negotiation and bargaining?

actIvItythis section explored cultural differences in nonverbal communication. your ‘homework’ on this topic is to choose one country (other than your own) and find out all the information you can about the use of ‘body language’ in that particular cultural context. Make a presentation (preferably in PowerPoint) that you can share with others. Focus on questions such as:

1. How do people use gaze, personal distance and gestures to communicate in that culture? are there any differences in this regard from how these are used in your own country?

2. are there gender differences in nonverbal communication? Why do you think this is?

3. does the degree of individualism or collectivism specific for that particular cultural context help you to explain the use of nonverbal elements in that country?

4. What kind of advice would you give someone who is about to visit that culture? How would you help them communicate successfully with others in everyday life situations?

Uni

t 5: C

ultu

ral p

heno

men

a 139


1. Describe the independent and interdependent view of the self.

2. Body size and ideals of female and male beauty are relative to culture. Discuss.

Essay questions

1. culture, social norms and attitudes are interrelated. Discuss.

2. There is no ‘universal’ human being in psychology. Do you agree?


1. aggressive behaviour is shaped by culture. Discuss with the help of an example.

2. There are cultural explanations for prosocial behaviour. illustrate two of them.

Essay questions

1. Violence in the media has the power to make people more aggressive. Do you agree?

2. aggression is the result of both ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’. Discuss.


1. What is attribution and what kind of attributions are usually made?

2. What is the fundamental attribution error? Discuss with the help of examples.

Essay questions

1. The fundamental attribution error is universal. Discuss.

2. people think in everyday situations like ‘naive scientists’. Do you agree?


1. are there differences in the use of eye contact and personal space across cultures? illustrate with two examples.

2. are there differences in the use of head and hand gestures across cultures? illustrate with two examples.

Essay questions

1. There are communication barriers between cultures. Do you agree?

2. cultural differences can also be seen as an opportunity for dialogue. Discuss.


Uni

t 5: C

ultu

ral p

heno

men

a 140

This unit covered the important topic of culture and its relevance for phenomena such as aggression, prosocial behaviour and attribution. The human self is, to a great extent, shaped by culture, and we had the chance to discuss and critically assess the distinction between the independent and the interdependent self in relation to people from the ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ parts of the world. culture has an impact on acts of aggression and prosocial behaviour and this influence is often discussed with reference to mass media. The notion of attribution was also covered and we questioned the universality of the fundamental attribution error. in the end, we need not only to be able to define and observe culture but also to be sensitive to cultural differences in our daily life, for instance in acts of communication with others. This is part of the applied side of social psychology that we reflect on more in the final unit.



� define culture

� critically assess the distinction between the independent and interdependent self

� discuss how culture shapes our body image and general attitudes

� define aggressive and prosocial behaviour and discuss their relation to culture

� assess whether watching violence in the media can influence the viewer

� define the fundamental attribution error

� critically assess this error’s universality and expression across cultures

� define the notion of intercultural communication

� critically assess differences in nonverbal behaviour across cultures.

concluding comments

141



Uni

t 6: a

pplic

atio

n an

d re

view

overview 142

aim 142



Further reading 142

References cited 142

Unit 6: Application and review 142

Overview

in this concluding unit we cover one area of application of social psychological knowledge. The court of law is an interesting case for a social psychologist because it represents a social context in which many of the phenomena discussed in this course play out. our focus is on eyewitness testimony and jury decision making processes as these are well-documented areas within forensic psychology. you can think of many more applications, however, based on your knowledge of the self, interpersonal, group and inter-group relations and cultural phenomena.

Week Unit Section19 6: application and review 6.1: applying social psychology

20 6.2: connecting themes in social psychology

Aim


� applications of social psychology in the field of law.

Learning outcomes


� assess the trustworthiness of eyewitness testimony

� explain how jury members reach a verdict.

Essential reading

aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.433–34, 436–38, 444–45, 446–47.

Further reading

aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) ‘applied research in social psychology’ , pp.399–402.

References cited

geiselman, R.E. and R.p. Fisher ‘The cognitive interview technique for victims and witnesses ofcrime’ in Raskin, D.c. (ed.) Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence. (New york: Springer-Verlag, 1989) [iSBN 9780826164506].

James, W. The principles of psychology. (New york: henry holt, c.1890); also (New york: Dover publications, 1950) authorised, unabridged edition; also (charleston, South carolina: Bibliolife, (2010)) two volumes [iSBN 9781140112006].

Jones, E.E. and V.a. harris ‘The attribution of attitudes’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3 1967, pp.1–24.

lewin, K. ‘problems of research in social psychology’ in cartwright, D. (ed.) Field theory in social science. (New york: harper, 1951) [iSBN 9780837172361].

loftus, E.F., D.g. Miller and h.J. Burns ‘Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 4(1) 1978, pp.19–31.

pennington, N. and R. hastie ‘Explanation-based decision making: effects of memory structure on judgment’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14(3) 1988, pp.521–33.

143

Section 6.1: applying social psychology

introduction 144

how trustworthy is eyewitness testimony? 145

how do jury members decide on a verdict? 146

lessons from applying social psychology 147

Further reading 147

Uni

t 6: a

pplic

atio

n an

d re

view

Unit 6: Application and review • Section 6.1: Applying social psychology 144

Introductory actIvItyaronson, Wilson and akert (2012), pp.433–34, 436–38, 444–45, 446–47.

read the first pages of the ‘Social Psychology and Law’ chapter and the sections ‘Storage’, ‘How jurors process information during the trial’ and ‘deliberations in the jury room’.

While you are reading, look for definitions of the following key terms – acquisition, storage, retrieval, reconstructive memory, source monitoring – and write them down in your glossary.


1. can we trust the eyewitness testimony completely in a court of law?

2. What are the problems associated with the storage of information in our memory?

3. How do jury members process information during a trial?

4. What is specific for deliberations in the jury room?

Introduction

Now that we are approaching the end of this course, it is important to ask ourselves what can be done with all the knowledge gained from studying social psychology. More specifically, how does social psychology apply to everyday life and how can it be used to improve our existence at an individual, group and societal level? Research in psychology is of two kinds: basic and applied. The first aims to advance theory and our understanding of the world; the second aims to address specific real-life problems. Most of the research presented here was of a basic type. how easy is it to put this type of research into practice? Maybe we should keep in mind the words of another renowned social psychologist of the twentieth century, Kurt lewin, who famously proposed that ‘there is nothing more practical than a good theory’. Do you agree with this statement?

Think about one theory introduced in this course and consider how you could put it to use in an everyday situation. This should not be too hard as many of the topics we covered reflect important issues faced by past and present societies: prejudice and prejudice reduction, the various channels of nonverbal communication, the reasons why people form and maintain relationships with others, the productivity of groups, the ways in which we try to manipulate the impressions others form of us, culture and multicultural communities, etc. There are plenty of areas in which theoretical models of the phenomena listed above would be very useful for providing practical solutions to concrete or real life problems. in this section we will consider only one of these areas, the application of psychology to the legal system.

The courtroom itself offers us a micro-social environment that reveals many of the topics studied in this course: the accused try to present a certain image of their own self and actions, attributions are being made by prosecutors, prejudiced beliefs and stereotypes potentially influence verdicts, the jury functions more or less successfully as a group, and so on. Furthermore, applying social psychology in this domain is of great importance as decisions made in a court of law have serious consequences for everyone involved. These are some of the reasons for the emergence, in the past decades, of forensic psychology, a special branch of study that draws heavily on social psychology as well as clinical research.

Forensic psychology is situated at the intersection between psychology and law, and professionals specialising in this sector are involved in a variety of activities from being an expert witness and studying other people’s testimonies to investigating how jury members are


picked and how well they work together. But perhaps our first thought about what a forensic psychologist does might come from popular depictions of these specialists in movies and the media. Take, for instance, the difficult and dangerous task faced by clarice Starling to understand the mind of a serial killer in The Silence of the Lambs (see VlE resource 1). however, what we will consider here are eyewitness testimony and the psychology of the jury as case studies of applied social psychological research.

VlE resource 1: The Silence of the Lambsthis clip shows the efforts made by FBI trainee clarice Starling to catch a serial killer. What kinds of challenge are faced by a forensic specialist in their work?

How trustworthy is eyewitness testimony?

Many legal systems, and this includes in the USa, rely heavily on eyewitness testimony in the process of reaching verdicts and most of the time the testimony of a person who witnessed the events can lead to a conviction. as aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) mention, citing the innocent project, there have been hundreds of cases of unjust sentences due to misleading testimonies and they include the story of Randall adams, sentenced to death for killing police officer Robert Wood in 1976. Read this story on pp.433–34 and consider the part played by eyewitnesses in the case. Why were they wrong and why, more generally, is eyewitness testimony less reliable than we would think and want it to be?

Forensic psychology studies can help us answer such questions. To understand the mechanisms involved, we need to consider for a moment the basic features of human memory. Remembering people and events, something that is crucial in a court of law, is actually the end point of a process that starts with the acquisition of certain information from the environment, then its storage and finally its retrieval, the mechanism by which we recall facts stored in our memory. We might mistakenly compare these stages with how a recording camera works but psychological research consistently shows that nothing could be further from the truth. There are potential problems and distortions that affect our memory in each of the three phases and here we will focus on what happens to the information stored in our mind about the events that we witness.

Point of reflection Try to remember what you did yesterday. Start from the morning and recall what happened each hour. Did you meet other people? Who? how were they dressed? What do you remember from the conversations that you had with them? Now consider the fact that witnessing a crime is a completely different type of event than what goes on in our daily lives. it typically happens very quickly and causes people great distress. To understand how much harder it is to memorise things while under stress, think about your latest argument with someone. how many details do you recall from that situation?

going back to the story of Randall adams, why do you think Emily and Robert Miller testified that, on the night of the crime, they had a good look at the killer and they saw him having blonde hair and a moustache? how sure do you think they were of this, especially considering it was dark outside? Research into memory shows that we can be quite certain even of false memories and, even more, that our memory can be manipulated either accidentally or deliberately. This is because human memory, unlike a video camera recording, has a reconstructive nature. See an illustration of this on the VlE (resource 2).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQKs169Sl0I


VlE resource 2: Manufacturing memories – memory expert Elizabeth Loftus argues that memories can be manipulatedPause during the video and answer the recognition test. Were you right or wrong?

The storage process doesn’t mean keeping specific information safe in our mind and separate from all other stimulations, both past and present. on the contrary, we can alter our memories and this is clearly demonstrated in Elizabeth loftus’s experiments (loftus, Miller and Burns, 1978), which aimed to explore this by showing different stages of an automobile accident. you can read about this research in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012), the ‘Storage’ section, and see the kinds of images participants were shown. What happens if you ask a person about a sign that was not in the picture (for instance, suggesting there was a yield (give way) sign instead of a stop sign)? The majority of the respondents change their memory of the event accordingly. What are the implications of this for the way witnesses are interrogated in the courtroom? is it possible to avoid such errors? Read also about source monitoring for an example of how the source of our memories can be wrongly attributed. can these explain Emily and Robert Miller’s misleading testimony?

How do jury members decide on a verdict?

another feature of some legal systems, particularly the English and US ones, is the existence of a jury usually made up of 12 people who are asked to reach a verdict after sitting through a trial and listening to all the statements (including by any eyewitnesses). of course, a legitimate social psychological question is how exactly does the jury function and how does it reach a decision? after all, jurors constitute a social group and, if you look back at Unit 4, you will see that they are indeed interdependent in achieving a common goal: reaching a fair verdict. But before wondering what happens in the jury room, where members of this group need to deliberate, let’s first consider how jurors process information during the trial.

For instance, one important issue for both lawyers and prosecutors is what order of presenting evidence works best with a jury? is it the story order (following the sequence of events) or the witness order (for example, saving the strongest witness for the last moment to end on a memorable note)? Studies have shown that the story order seems to be more effective (pennington and hastie, 1988). have a look at Table Spa-3.2 in aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) on p.445. What do research findings reveal about the percentage of people being convicted when prosecution and defence adopt any one of the two presentation strategies? how would you advise a lawyer to handle the situation in the court of law based on this type of information? Most importantly, why is the story order more successful?

Thinking like a social psychologist in light of the research mentioned above, try to find some explanations for why a story order of presentation in a trial tends to be more effective. Think about what you learned in this course about human cognition and memory. What is it in being presented with a full narrative that captures our attention and makes a case more convincing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcywPdORySA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcywPdORySA


Besides the courtroom, another major moment when social psychological processes come into play is when the jury gathers separately to deliberate. This situation has been portrayed in a popular 1957 film starring henry Fonda. a film about a trial in which a young man is accused of killing his father, 12 Angry Men focuses exclusively on the hours of deliberation in the jury room. although the voting starts with 11 of the jurors ready to convict the boy, it ends with all of them being convinced otherwise by the lone dissenter. a clip from this movie is available on the VlE (VlE resource 3).

VlE resource 3: Short clip from the movie 12 Angry MenHow can we effectively make others change their mind about something?

you can notice the tension between the jury members in the situation and also, in the end, the perfect illustration of how a minority (even a minority of one) can gradually convince the rest by using logical arguments and exposing the prejudices and personal biases on which other members were basing their decision. in other words, this is a case of how reason wins in a group situation. Do you think this is the common outcome of decision making processes in the jury room?

Unfortunately, not always. Remember what we learned in this course about groups, peer pressure and conformity. also, there is Further reading on the phenomenon of groupthink in Section 4.2. Social psychology has shown us that we might be tempted not to voice our true opinion sometimes because we fear rejection from our in-group. Would it be better then for jurors just to vote and avoid deliberation altogether? aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) explain why this is not actually such a good idea on p.447.

Lessons from applying social psychology

This section has offered you a brief illustration of how social psychological research can be directly relevant for addressing problems in the courtroom, either in relation to eyewitness testimonies or the deliberation process of a jury. as you can see, there is sometimes no clear and final answer for how things should be done but, based on research, we can think of possible improvements and test them first in the psychology laboratory or on a limited number of cases. For instance, if we want to make testimonies more accurate, perhaps we can use a technique called the cognitive interview (geiselman and Fischer, 1989), based on focusing the witnesses’ attention on the details and context of the situation that they are trying to remember.

it is now your turn to think about a social problem and consider first what psychological research tells us about the mechanisms involved and then what practical advice you can formulate based on this knowledge. Remember, research is a continuous process so whatever solution you find it will have to be subjected to further investigation before being applied in real life.

Further reading

There are many other possible applications of social psychology beyond the courtroom and they all share certain important characteristics. if you want to know more about this topic, read the section ‘applied research in social psychology’ from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012, pp.399–402). how can we assess the effectiveness of social interventions and what are their associated risks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ_nM5NkQzs


actIvItythink about the courtroom as a social situation. What you learned in this course can help you reflect on what is specific for this type of situation and how it can be made more efficient in reaching fair verdicts. read the questions below and consider how you can put your knowledge to practical use:

1. What you know from the self unit (Unit 2) about impression management can be applied to understand courtroom testimonies. How? What is the implication of this?

2. In the interpersonal relations unit (Unit 3) you learned about reading emotions and interpreting facial expressions. can knowledge about nonverbal communication help us spot liars?

3. the group unit (Unit 4) discussed prejudice and stereotypes. How does social categorisation come into play in court? What kind of information processing is activated in the case of jurors?

4. Finally, the culture unit (Unit 5) introduced you to attribution theory. What does the fundamental attribution error tell us about the verdicts we are likely to reach when analysing behaviour?

149

Section 6.2: connecting themes in social psychology

introduction 149

Mapping what you have learned 149

connecting ideas: a practical exercise 151

answering an essay question in social psychology 152

Uni

t 6: a

pplic

atio

n an

d re

view

Unit 6: Application and review • Section 6.2: Connecting themes in social psychology 150

Introduction

as this is the last section of the guide, it is now a good time to review some of the topics we covered from the broad field of social psychology. This course guide only represents an introduction to the discipline and, as such, we have focused on key theories and research. if you wish, you can go on and study further courses that will build upon this knowledge and help you to acquire more insights into the fascinating world of human social behaviour. after working your way through this guide, the first questions you are expected to be able to answer are: ‘What is social psychology?’ and ‘What do social psychologists study?’

This is not an easy task because, as you have seen, social psychology is concerned with many aspects of both individual psychology and of the social world. Take a look at VlE resource 1 which tries to offer an overview of the discipline. Based on the knowledge you have now gained, what else could you add to this presentation? is social psychology only about how we think or is it also very much about how we act in relation to other people, the wider society and, in the end, in relation to our own self? What is interesting about this video is also the use of a very simple visual depiction to reflect the nature and content of social psychology. Building this kind of schematic representation is something we will work on in this section for the purpose of both review and integration.

VlE resource 1: Overview of social psychology from About.comWhat can we add to this description? What is the part of social psychology you would like to know more about?

The first thing to consider when revising for the examination is the actual structure of the course. This will give you a clear indication of central themes and what is covered by them. as you remember, we have dealt with four key themes:

� the self in social context

� interpersonal relations

� group and inter-group relations

� cultural phenomena.

Notice how each unit adds a new layer of complexity to the previous one and thus necessarily refers back to preceding sections. Knowledge about the individual self is required when exploring relationships – relationships form the structure of groups and groups interact in generating societal and cultural phenomena. So there is a clear sense of interdependence between all areas of social psychology and, in this last section, we will emphasise precisely these connections in order to help you to develop a more comprehensive approach required for thinking like a social psychologist.

Mapping what you have learned

in this section we will discuss an easy technique that might be useful when preparing for the examination, one that draws inspiration from mind mapping procedures (for more details see VlE resource 2). Basically this is an invitation to summarise the knowledge gained in each section and to do so in a structured manner. ‘Mapping’ content also makes information easily available when revising the material or adding to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbZYjIGhoOw


VlE resource 2: ‘How to Make a Mind Map’a few helpful tips for revising course material.

This method is based on generating a visual depiction of key elements and connecting them through lines that indicate relationships (for example, an idea might follow from another one or a research topic might exemplify a broader concept, etc.); it can thus help you to think about what you’ve learned in relational terms. in other words, you have the chance, when using this technique, to make connections between ideas and between topics that are hard to observe otherwise. and do not worry if you are not a ‘visual’ type of person and prefer writing a summary of the content, this can be done as well using lists and bullet points. The important thing is to summarise information in a structured way so that you cover everything important but you do not overload yourself with too many details. let’s see how this can be done in practice.

at first write the topic you are planning to revise in the middle of a piece of paper. let’s take the example of Section 2.1, ‘What is the self?’. This question can be placed in the centre and around it you will draw lines to the key elements covered in the material. if you only follow the subtitles, you will already discover that two main issues have been addressed: the self-concept and self-awareness theory.

Point of reflection These two aspects actually reflect the basic distinction imposed by William James (1890) between the ‘self as known’ and the ‘self as knower’. Do you remember what the difference between the two is?

in the first instance, when you read about self-concept and self-awareness, pay attention to other key terms relevant to each (for example, the notions of self-knowledge or self-schema are related to that of self-concept; what are the relations between the three?) and write down their definition (you can use your glossary and also check the glossary included at the back of the aronson, Wilson and akert textbook). Then it is important to focus on any research presented in relation to these two aspects of the self. Remember that this course is based on readings from aronson, Wilson and akert (2012) and this is where you will find more details about empirical studies for each section.

one example of research about the self-concept involves the test of recognising oneself in the mirror. These types of studies are presented on pp.105–06 (‘The origins of the self’) of aronson, Wilson and akert (2012). To summarise a study you should note down at least four important elements about it:

� what the research question is

� who took part in the research

� what method was used

� what the results were.

as you will notice from reading about ‘The origins of the self’, you cannot always find information about all these elements – sometimes you need to go beyond the aronson, Wilson and akert (2012); you can look at cited references and locate the original source whenever interested – but it is good practice to try to remember a study in this structured way (a type of summary that you were actually asked to write on many occasions in relation to VlE resources). Finally, the most important question to ask yourself about every piece of research is: what do these results tell us about the topic under investigation? in our example, what do self-recognition studies involving chimpanzees, orangutans and small children tell us about the self in the animal world?

http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Mind-Map


To summarise, in order to make a visual map of any topic from this course (or any other course for this matter), you need to:

1. place the topic or question in the middle of a piece of paper.

2. link it with arrows to the key elements it covers (you can decide on their number based on what is presented in this subject guide and in the textbook).

3. Write down definitions of the key elements so that you are clear on what they mean.

4. link them through arrows to relevant research (remember details such as author of the study, questions, participants, method and main findings).

5. and, most importantly, write down what the findings tell us about the topic of interest.

Point of reflection What do you think are the main benefits of making a schema for the sections you would like to revise? What are the benefits but also the limitations of depicting the content of any section or unit with the help of arrows and bullet points?

The downside of using schemas rests in the fact that, well, they are quite schematic. They provide a framework or outline for what you have learned; you should not write down every detail of a theory or a study but try to summarise it and capture what is essential. This is a skill that you will develop in time and with the help of some practice. it might be useful to work together with colleagues and share summaries of key ideas. Working in pairs or groups could help you to realise different aspects you were not aware of before (for instance, your notes about a study might be incomplete or the results not accurately described). however, the main benefit of using arrows as part of mapping a certain content has to do with the possibility of seeing more connections between ideas either within sections and units or, most importantly, across them.

Connecting ideas: a practical exercise

going through the course you probably discovered many links between topics and often such connections were explicitly brought to your attention. Why is it important to notice and remember such links? To begin with, it is an exercise that can offer you a more complete picture of a phenomenon and help you to understand it from different perspectives. Moreover, many times you cannot actually fully understand one topic before considering it from multiple angles. To continue with our self example, we discussed the self in Unit 2 but referred back to it throughout the course and came back to this topic in more detail in Section 5.1 (‘What is culture?’). What did we gain by reflecting on the cultural dimensions of our sense of self? More generally, what do you think we gain from applying diverse theoretical lenses to one particular area?

you will gain the same thing from linking pieces of information coming from different types of research: a better grasp of an area of study and a mastery over its content specific for thinking like a social psychologist. in this regard, arrows can be drawn in your mapping exercise between different ideas from within each section (for instance, does self-awareness play a part in the emergence of a self-concept? how would you discuss the relation between the two?) as well as between ideas from different sections or units (again in our example you can notice how the self-concept actually invites a discussion of cultural differences in the sense of self and you also learned about different views of self in the culture module; how would you explain this connection?).


Thinking like a social psychologist Whenever you discover a relationship within or across topics you need to consider what the nature of this interconnection is. For instance, you might conclude that self-awareness is a prerequisite for developing a self-concept but this also needs supporting arguments, particularly from theories or research presented in the course. What kind of studies would you cite to demonstrate the link between these two aspects of the self?

Think about all of the topics that we have covered in this course. What immediate connections do you see between them? let’s take another example. in the group and inter-group relations unit (Unit 4), we discussed at length the notion of prejudice in Section 4.3. it was mentioned there that prejudice refers to a usually negative preconception people hold about members of other groups. The existence of stereotypes and prejudices can affect greatly the interaction between individuals, especially when they come from different cultures (possible link to make here with what we discussed in Section 5.4 about intercultural communication and its obstacles). in addition, at a deeper level, prejudice leaves its mark on the individual self; this can be related to the notion of self-esteem (see Section 2.3).

Thinking like a social psychologist how do you predict the experience of prejudice would affect the level of self-esteem? Why would this be the case?

you have to consider in this regard that self-esteem refers to how we evaluate our own sense of worth. Experiencing prejudice means being aware of negative attitudes that question precisely our sense of worth. and, as we know from Unit 2, the views of others can be internalised by the person (revisit theories such as symbolic interactionism). This can lead us to a further question: how are stereotypical views formed and maintained? an interesting connection can be made in this regard between attribution theory and prejudice. in the section ‘how do people attribute causes in different cultures?’, you learned that basically we are all inclined to formulate internal attributions about the behaviour of others (revisit the fundamental attribution error and the study by Jones and harris, 1967). is there a link between attributions and prejudice? can the mechanisms of internal attribution contribute to the emergence of prejudice? are prejudices facilitating, in turn, processes of attributing causes internally? Take some practical examples to think about this dynamic.

Finally, it is important to note that, for the examination, you will have to answer an essay question (see the Sample examination paper in appendix 1) that asks you to discuss a certain topic or phenomenon by drawing on knowledge gained in more than one unit. So, when you revise, consider answering some of the essay questions presented at the end of each section by making reference to ideas from different units. More examples of essay questions are included at the end of this section. however, in order to answer them, you also need to understand a few things about essay writing.

Answering an essay question in social psychology

as you will have noticed by reading the Test your knowledge and understanding sections, the assessment of your knowledge is based on writing different types of answers (look back at the Examination advice in the introduction to the course and revisit VlE reasource 1 from that section). Besides short-answer questions, you will also be asked to write one essay. This raises the challenge of transferring the information from mind maps or any other types of summary you make into an actual essay format.


This might be a bit difficult at first but again practice makes perfect so try to answer a few of the sample questions in this guide in a kind of mock examination. you can do this exercise with friends and share your answers with them to see what they wrote and how they approached the topic. Essay writing is rightfully compared to an art and there is no exact ‘formula’ for writing answers. you can use whatever information you want (as long as it is accurate and relevant) and in the way you want (as long as it is logically organised).

i would like to leave you with a few general pieces of advice about answering social psychological examination questions:

� always read the question you are offered very carefully as you might sometimes misinterpret what it actually asks of you.

� Formulate a short plan before starting to write your answer (here is where mapping the content of different sections/units comes in useful!) and make sure that you stick to it.

� have a clear thesis or argument and state it from the beginning of the essay. For more on what a ‘thesis’ statement is, watch VlE resource 3.

� Write clear paragraphs presenting one main idea only. Be sure to make links between paragraphs/ideas so that the whole essay looks coherent (again mind maps are useful here).

� Finally, in the concluding paragraph, give a brief summary of the points made and then restate your thesis. if the essay is well written, the thesis will emerge as the only logical conclusion.

VlE resource 3: Thesis statementHow to write a strong thesis sentence for your essay.

Remember that, in preparing for the examinations and for answering questions, you actually now have a whole new type of knowledge to help you to achieve your aims: you understand social psychology. So you are well aware of the importance of having a ‘growth mindset’ in relation to learning and school performance; you are familiar with the reasons why working in groups can lead sometimes to ‘social loafing’ (how can we prevent this from happening?); and you know that memory is ‘reconstructive’ and not photographic so repetition is key when we want to remember something well. armed with information such as this you are surely ready to do very well in your examinations and beyond.

good luck!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e2EthZC0aU

155


Applying social psychology

Short-answer questions

1. is eyewitness testimony reliable? What can make it more accurate?

2. What are the factors that influence a jury’s decision in a court of law?

Essay questions

1. Social psychology has numerous applications in the legal system. Discuss.

2. ‘There is nothing more practical than a good theory’. Discuss.

Connecting themes in social psychology

1. The self is both an individual – and a social and cultural – construct. Discuss with reference to the self unit (Unit 2) and the culture unit (Unit 5).

2. in communication we often misunderstand the other. Discuss with reference to the interpersonal relations unit (Unit 3) and the culture unit (Unit 5).

3. interpersonal attraction depends on how we categorise people. Discuss with reference to the interpersonal relations unit (Unit 3) and the group/inter-group unit (Unit 4).

4. groups are often less productive than individuals working alone. Discuss with reference to the group/inter-group unit (Unit 4) and the application and review unit.

Uni

t 6: a

pplic

atio

n an

d re

view

156

© University of London 2013Minor amend March 2014

Important note: This Sample examination paper reflects the examination and assessment arrangements for this course in the academic year 2013–2014. The format and structure of the examination may have changed since the publication of this subject guide. You can find the most recent examination papers on the VLE where all changes to the format of the examination are posted.

Time allowed: two hours

Candidates should answer NINE of the following THIRTEEN questions: ALL FIVE from Section A (six marks each), ALL THREE from Section B (10 marks, 5 marks and 5 marks) and ONE (out of five) from Section C (50 marks each).

Section AAnswer all of the following five questions [6 marks each].

1. In experiments we can identify two types of variables. Define them and give one example.

2. The outcome of self-perception depends on the nature of our motivation. Why is it important to distinguish in this case between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation?

3. Relationships not characterised by equity do not last. Do you agree? Give two arguments in support of your answer.

4. The jigsaw classroom is effective in reducing prejudice in schools. Why is this the case? Explain with reference to relevant research.

5. Culture can shape the expression of what seem to be instinctual acts. Discuss with reference either to aggression or to prosocial behaviour.

Section BRead the text below, look at the graph and answer the three questions following it [10 marks, 5 marks and 5 marks].

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 Choice

No choice

Pro-Castro Anti-Castro

This graph presents the main findings from the Jones and Harris (1967) experiment. They asked participants to read an essay and, following this, evaluate the attitude of the author. Some of these essays were pro-Castro, some were anti-Castro. Moreover, participants knew that they were either written freely by their author (the choice condition) or the position expressed in the essay was imposed on them (no choice). The graph depicts how much participants believed, under these circumstances, that the essays express the attitude of the author.

App

endi

x 1:

Sam

ple

exam

inat

ion

pape

r

Appendix 1: Sample examination paper

Appendix 1: Sample examination paper 157

Based on the graph, answer these three questions.

6. What did Jones and Harris find about how participants attributed a certain attitude to the author in each one of the four conditions?

7. What does this tell us about the phenomenon of attributing causes to behaviour?

8. Does this data offer support for the existence of the fundamental attribution error?

Section CAnswer one essay question out of the following five questions [50 marks each].

9. Self-presentation strategies are influenced by cultural norms. Illustrate this with reference to the self unit (Unit 2) and the culture unit (Unit 5).

10. Attachment in early childhood can be studied with a wide range of methods. Outline and discuss at least three such methods making reference to the social psychology/methodology unit (Unit 1) and the interpersonal relations unit (Unit 3).

11. Understanding correctly facial expressions can be very useful in a court of law. Discuss with reference to the interpersonal relations unit (Unit 3) and the application/review unit (Unit 6).

12. Social loafing depends on the nature of the task but also on the culture that group members belong to. Critically assess this statement with reference to the group/inter-group unit (Unit 4) and the culture unit (Unit 5).

13. Social exchange theory can also be applied to inter-group relations. Illustrate this with reference to the interpersonal relations unit (Unit 3) and the group/inter-group unit (Unit 4).

Documents

Social psychology - Library Management System · 2017-08-22 · What is social psychology? Social psychology is a discipline concerned with individuals as social beings. This means