Week 1 IA Social Psychology Paper Star

Running head: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 1

Social Psychology Paper

Evangeline Catungal

Psych 555

August 08, 2011

Dr. Anthony Casas

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 2

Social Psychology Paper

From a broader view, social psychology is about people influencing other people. This

simplistic definition of social psychology is exemplified by the recent Vancouver riot.

On June 16, 2011, hours after a crushing Stanley Cup defeat of Vancouver Canucks at

the hands of the Boston Bruins, Canucks fans went on a rampage in downtown Vancouver. Cars

were upturned and set ablaze, banks, stores, and other establishments were looted, and fists flew

in anger and frustration. All of these behaviors reflected not only the deep disappointment of

Vancouver sports fans, but also triggered the eruption of devastating large- scale riots. This

post-game incident put Canada to shame, as global news report. A newspaper sports reporter,

Schwartz (2011), says that riots following big sporting events have become predictable but they

are usually celebratory sports riots. The genesis of riots interests social scientists. Generally, they

believe that the onset of riots also follows the stimulus-response model. A sociologist, Lewis

(2007), using the Smelser Theory of Collective Behavior, explains that the determinant of riots

such as structural conduciveness, structural strain, growth of generalized belief, mobilization for

action, and social control (p. 9) give rise to a precipitating collective behavior that is instigated

by an active human core. The observers of this provocation, in turn, create an arena of public

disorder.

While sociologists focus on the levels of social groups in relation to social activity, e.g.,

riot instigator group, social psychologists draw on their knowledge about social influence,

conformity, and obedience in relation to social contexts. To understand how individuals are

influenced by other people, social psychologists emphasize on the power of situational variables

that are influencing behaviors to enable them to explore issues such as riot outbreaks and other

forms of social responses to social situations.


The discussion in this paper centers on the conceptual foundations of social psychology.

The purposes of this paper are: to analyze the components of social psychology and to explain

the impact of the interactions between social group and social situation have on social behaviors

and social responses. Pertinent to the main topic are the discussions of the following: the

definition of social psychology, the four characteristics of psychology, the concept and role of

situationism in social psychology, and the five core social motives and their impact in social

psychology.

Definition of Social Psychology

According to Fiske (2010), social psychology is “the scientific attempt to explain how the

thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or

implied presence of other human beings” (p. 4). This definition which was derived from an

American psychologist, Gordon Allport (1954a, p. 5) (Fiske, 2010, p. 4), puts forward the study

on wide-ranging circumstances of social influence on another individual’s or social group’s

behavior. In its effort to study social influence in various social contexts, social psychology

involves three key elements: people influencing other people, degrees of perceived human

presence, and operational levels of human cognition, affect, and behavior.

People Influencing Other People

On the individual level, many professors will avow the phenomenon of the first-day-of-

class-experience. As he or she enters the classroom, the din from the students’ fades into

reverential dead-silence. Every one sits still with eyes straight at the professor as they await his

or her first course orientation speech. On the group level, the stillness and attentiveness of the

church guests as the bridal entourage enters the bridal path is less compared to the total silence

when the bride enters the aisle.


Degrees of Perceived Human Presence

Actual presence. The two situational examples about people influencing other people

given above depict the actual presence of the stimulus, or the source of the influence. Fiske

(2010) asserts that other people’s actual presence is very powerful to sway other people (p. 4).

This thought also applies perfectly to variety of peer-pressure situations.

Imagined presence. On the other hand, the imagined presence of others also influences

other people. Picture the anxiety of a newly hired but brilliant advertising designer in his work

room moments before he presents his ads design for Microsoft Company before Bill Gates and

other Microsoft branch vice-presidents. This ads designer is very nervous as he imagines the

reactions of Bill Gates and by those people with him. He asked himself, “Am I professionally

presentable?” “What if I voice falters during my presentation?” “What if my hands shake?”

“What if they think that my ads design is just a ‘heap of garbage’”? According to Fiske (2010),

people are influenced by their imagination and they monitor their own behavior against the

imagined reactions of other people (p. 5).

Implied presence. The influence of the implied presence of others to other people

involves not only the presence of a person but also social artifacts that imply the interests and

presence of a specific person (Fiske, 2010, p. 5). A note pad, pen, and coffee mug on a

conference table imply that someone had already occupied that spot and the seat in front of these

social artifacts regardless of who it is. In seeing these set on the table directs one’s decision to

find another place around the conference table.

Levels of Human Cognition, Affect, and Behavior

The actual presence, imagined presence, and implied presence of people (and social

artifacts) and their influence on other people process the levels of human cognition, feeling, and


behavior of those experiencing these presences (Fiske, 2010, p. 5). Cognition assesses the

situation that in turn affects and produces specific feelings and corresponding behaviors. This

interaction of social group or individual to a given social situation and the impact it produces

intertwine social science, psychology, and neuroscience. As Santrock (2010) puts it, the

biological, cognitive, and socioemotional processes are inextricably intertwined. Those human

responses (students’ tension, wedding guests’ silence, anxiety of the ad designer) depend on

biological processes (physiological arousal), cognitive processes (ability to recognize and

understand situations), and socioemotional processes (feeling toward social stimuli) (p. 15).

Four Key Characteristics of Social Psychology

Social psychology confronts vast sources of social thinking, social influence, and social

relations to derive knowledge regarding the interaction of people and social situations. This

challenge illustrates the four key characteristics of social psychology: social psychology is broad

in scope, constitutes a culturally mandated source of knowledge, follows scientific methods, and

reflects an ongoing search for wisdom (Fiske, 2010, p. 31).

Broad Scope

As social science, social psychology studies various social groups in different social

contexts. The main goal of these studies centers on the influence of individual, groups of people,

and also social artifacts, on other individual and social group. Because people are cognitively and

behaviorally complex, social groups are diverse, and social contexts involve numerous situations,

the topics in social psychology are practically inexhaustible. The major areas under which these

topics are included are social thinking, social influence, and social relations (Myers, 2003).

Cultural Mandate


According to Fiske (2010), social psychology is “[A] culturally mandated translation of

our understanding of human behavior from an older language into a newer one” (p. 33). This

assertion points to the changing explanations given to the motives of influence of social groups

to other social groups. These changes in motives are culturally based. Basically, culture dictates

how an individual or group reacts to a specific social stimulus. A culture whose total way of life

was well-ordered its religious beliefs prohibits pre-marital relationship has succumbed to the

changing views of its people regarding this proscription. People began to live together prior to

marriage. This new form social relationship that, in the long run, influenced other members of

the culture created a new social norm. No longer would social psychology categorize this new

marital relationship as immoral but a “way of life.” Similarly, because of the imperative of

culture change, changes in gender roles in the family that influence other family members’ roles

will have to be explained in terms of family social structure and gender roles.

Scientific Methods

The Sherif experiments on social influence using the autokinetic effect approach

(Fiske, 2010, p. 30) exemplify the scientific aspect of social psychology. Similar to other social

sciences, social psychology involves scientific methods in studying social influence. These are:

development of systematic theories to predict causality, construction of hypotheses, and use of

research design, techniques, and procedures.

Search for Wisdom

The goal of social sciences is to obtain wisdom from social phenomena in an effort to

understand these for the purpose of solving social issues and improving human conditions

regarding relationships (Fiske, 2010, p. 34). The scientific nature of social psychology serves this

purpose. Specifically, social psychologists gather empirical data from various social contexts and


study diverse social relationships and the motives of these relationships to sort out various social

influences that create relationships, negative or positive. The general knowledge that is derived

from a micro-level social relation adds up to wisdom that in turn benefits the macro-level of

human relations. Questions that address small group culture-based conflicts can lead to answers

to those questions concerning large-scale national or global conflicts. In the same manner,

solutions that resolve problems at the grassroots level might also help to determine the solutions

to problems at the upper-level of social groups.

Finally, these four key characteristics of social psychology are tied up in the review

article of Magnusson (2011) on “human diversity in new ways.” In her discourse, the author

gives specific regard to those psychological theory and research that intend to undertake study on

human diversity in new ways and relates these with her observation and suggestion. Her

observation on today’s human diversity, which she describes as intersectionality, (centrality of

the mutual interrelatedness of central categorization such as gender, ethnicity and race, social

class and sexualities) is the focus of current psychological theory and research. In the midst of

this current view on human diversity, Magnusson (2011) argues

[That] for psychological research to be able to usefully theorize and study

diversity in everyday lives, it needs to find new ways to incorporate the impact on

individual lives of both large and small sociocultural, and sometimes political,

contexts into research. Gender studies within psychology, as well as cross-

disciplinary gender studies, have developed bodies of theory and empirical

research about many diversity issues that can give helpful contributions to such

developments of psychological theory and research (para. 1).

Concept and Role of Situationism in Social Psychology


Empirically, situationism is a premise that behavior is mainly a response to immediate

situations or contexts. On the social level, Fiske (2010) says that the thoughtfulness given to the

role played by social situations on social response is overshadowed by the attention given to

personality theories as bases for individual or social responses (p. 7). Instead, social

psychologists such as Lewin (1951) and later on, Ross and Nisbett (1991), assert that social

situation influences social response and social behavior (Fiske, 2010, p. 7). Social psychologists

emphasize situations as opposed to personalities for four reasons: First, ordinary people rely too

much on personality in explaining behavior. Second, ordinary people underestimate or overlook

the power of situations. Third, while scientists think that personality is complex enough to

require its own separate subfield and its own methods, the nonscientists think personality is easy

to assess and routinely use it to predict and explain behavior. Fourth, the common people reliant

on personality instead of the power of situations in explaining behaviors can be right but is

incomplete (pp. 9-10).

The examples for actual, imagined, and implied situations discussed earlier in paper

illustrate the power of social situations. The explanations for the phenomenon of the power of

social situations on social response and social behavior are attended by two phases toward social

integration. First, the social group is reduced to democratic level. People experiencing the same

social situation are brought to the same level regardless of their socioeconomic class and

personality distinctions. Second, added to the adaptive direction of group conformity for survival

(Fiske, 2010, p. 11), the development of the sense of belongingness to and being one with the

group. A related study on the sense of belongingness is that of Cremer (2004). Cremer examined

whether or not the extent to which people include other group members in the self, influences

depersonalized self-perception (i.e., perceiving self and others as similar in terms of group


characteristics). The result of this study showed that self-other merging positively influenced

feelings of belongingness and identification with the in-group (Cremer, 2004).

Five Core Social Motives and their Impact in Social Psychology

Fiske (2010) explains that the idea that we need other people for our basic survival

underlies the development of some core social motives that interact with the social situations to

help people survive in groups (p. 14). The psychological adaptive mechanisms of core social

motives are thinking, feeling, and behaving in situations involving other people. These core

social motives mediate between the interplay of social group and social situations (p. 15). As to

the core social motives impact on social psychology, Fiske (2010) also explains that these

motives characterize a social psychological analysis because the result of social situation in

relation to social response and behavior can be described as based on their unique combination

(p. 15). Situationism, the premise that behavior is mainly a response to immediate situations or

contexts requires explanations based on core social motives in which these determine the nature

of the situation that was interpreted by the person. In studying the influence of social contexts on

social groups or individual, social psychologists focus on the relevance of the core social motives

into the premises involved in situationism.

The five core social motives are: belonging, understanding, controlling, enhancing

self, and trusting.

Belonging

People are motivated to associate and establish a more stable relationship with

each other. The basic motive of affiliating with other individual or group is to survive, to have a

sense of identity, security and safely, and sense of belongingness, among other. The motive to

belong benefits the group’s tasks and activities that are intended for common survival. Thus, the


motive to belong helps individuals to survive psychologically and physically (Fiske, 2010, p.

18). In this system, belonging is the root need, the essential core social motive. With the system

of all these motives, to belong is the core (p. 18) and the rest facilitates the functioning of the

social group.

Understanding

The problems uncertainties motivate people to understand their environment and

to predict events and what decisions they will make to make sense of the predicted events (Fiske,

2010, p. 18). Surrounded by common predicaments, people prefer to develop interpretations that

are shared with another people and to develop upon these their common decision for actions.

Also called as social representation (Moscovici, 1988) (Fiske, 2010, p. 19). Shared

understanding is adaptive for survival as a group member and for the survival of the group.

Controlling

People are motivated to feel competitive and effective in confronting their physical and

social environments and themselves (Fiske, 2010, p. 21). This is the motivation to control. Friske

explains that control involves a relationship between what people do and what they get (a

contingency between behavior and outcomes) (p. 21) and in doing so, people want to be

effective, to have some sense of control and competence. The inability to control triggers

continued search for reasons and actions in an effort to restore or gain control (Gleicher &

Weary, 1995; Pittman, 1998) (Fiske, 2010, p. 21).

Enhancing Self

The motive of self-enhancement involves either maintaining self-esteem or being

motivated by the possibility of self-improvement. Self-enhancement, in turn, is an effort to fit as

a member of a specific group. The motive of self-enhancement underlies the fear of rejection by


the group one belongs and assurance that membership to the group is maintained (Fiske, 2010, p.

23).

Trusting

Viewing the world as benevolent enables people to participate in many group activities

with confidence and devoid of doubt or apprehension. People’s pervading cognitive, emotional,

and behavioral outlook is attended by trust. The motive of trust toward others is driven by the

need of others to depend on especially in difficult circumstances and situations, according to

Boon, 1995) (Fiske, 2010, p. 24). Among the advantages of trusting is that it facilitates group

cohesion because it is rewarding and efficient. According to Fiske (2010), “Trusting facilitates

the attachment and interdependence found in close relationships.” (p. 25).

Conclusion

Social psychology is the scientific attempt to explain how the thoughts, feelings, and

behaviors of individuals arising from the actual, imagined, or implied presence of other human

beings. Situationism or the belief in the power of social contexts, and the five core social

motives, both contribute major intellectual bases for social psychology. As social science that

confronts gamut information for scientific research, analyses, and humanistic application, social

psychology is characterized by its broad scope, culturally mandated source of knowledge,

scientific methods, pursuit for wisdom.



References

Cremer, D. D. (2004). The closer we are the more we are alike: The effect of self-other merging

on depersonalized self-perception. Current Psychology, 22(4), 316-325. Retrieved from

https://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/detail?vid=2&hid=102&sid=8e9fa06d-9b33-4566-

9fdsb39c429d9948%40sessionmgr111&bdata=JnNpdGU9zWRzLWxpdmU

%3d#db=f5h&AN=14268686

Fiske, S. T. (2010). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lewis, J. (2007). Sports fan violence in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield

Publishers, Inc..

Magnusson, E. (2011). Women, men, and all categories: Psychologies for theorizing human

diversity. Nordic Psychology, 63(2), 88-114. Retrieved from https://

Myers, D. (2003). Exploring psychology in modules (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

Santrock, J. W. (2010). A topical approach to life-span development (5th ed.). New York, NY:

McGraw-Hill.

Schwartz, D. (2011). Vancouver riots. CBS News. Retrieved from

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201106/16/f-vancouver-riot-effect.html

Documents

Week 1 IA Social Psychology Paper Star