UNIT 1

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM
What is social constructionism?
 Social constructionism, a theoretical framework within sociology and communication
studies, delves into the joint construction of understanding about the world.
 Defined by Kenneth Gergen, it asserts that human life is significantly shaped by social
and interpersonal influences, emphasizing the role of societal factors in conjunction
with genetic inheritance.
 Focusing on cultural and societal dimensions, social constructionism challenges
assumptions about the nature of mind and causality, stressing the intricate
interconnectedness of individual facets within communities.
 This perspective involves a radical shift in our understanding of social and
psychological life, requiring a transformation of existing frameworks rather than mere
adjustments.
 In terms of child development, social constructionism posits that individuals construct
their understanding of the world through interaction with their environment.
 Critically, social constructionists reject positivistic approaches, take a critical stance
towards assumed social norms, and highlight the historical negotiation process in
shaping our understanding of the world.
 Society is viewed as both a subjective and objective reality, with meaning derived
from prevailing cultural practices. Reciprocal interactions within a social system lead
to the institutionalization of roles, contributing to social constructions.
 Social constructionism contends that our consciousness and relational modes are
culturally and socially taught, challenging the assumption of metaphysical quantities
as inherent.
 Language, in this perspective, is not just a communication tool but a medium through
which people exist, emphasizing the centrality of social interaction.
 It further challenges the notion of 'real' external entities, suggesting that facts and
ideas are social constructions rather than objective truths.
 In essence, social constructionism advocates for a contextual understanding of
knowledge, emphasizing the influence of culture, history, and social context on
meaning and criteria for identifying behaviours or entities.
 It redefines objectivity in the human sciences, asserting that true objectivity is absent
due to the inherent subjectivity of human methods.
 Beyond theoretical implications, social constructionism has practical applications in
therapy, organizational management, education, and research methods in the social
sciences.
 Overall, it offers an alternative perspective on individual psychological processes and
knowledge generation practices.
 According to McLeod (1997), there are several features of social constructionism.
o Social constructionists reject the traditional positivistic approaches to
knowledge that are basically non-reflexive in nature.
o Social constructionists take a critical stance in relation to taken-for-granted
assumptions about the social world, which are seen as reinforcing the interests
of dominant social groups.
 o Social constructionists uphold the belief that the way we understand the world
is a product of a historical process of interaction and negotiation between
groups of people.
o Social constructionists maintain that the goal of research and scholarship is not
to produce knowledge that is fixed and universally valid, but to open up an
appreciation of what is possible.
o Social constructionism represents a movement toward redefining
psychological constructs such as the “mind,” “self,” and “emotion” as social
constructed processes that are not intrinsic to the individual but produced by
social discourse.

Historical Background

 Postmodern Influence: Social constructionism emerged as a response to and was

heavily influenced by postmodernist thought. Postmodernism questioned grand
narratives and the idea of an objective truth, paving the way for perspectives that
focused on the fluid and contingent nature of reality.
 Influential Works: Key works that contributed to the development of social
constructionism include "The Social Construction of Reality" by Peter Berger and
Thomas Luckmann, which explored how individuals collectively create and maintain
social realities. Michel Foucault's "The Archaeology of Knowledge" also played a
significant role by examining the historical and discursive construction of knowledge.

Social Constructionist Assumptions

Social constructionism cannot be reduced to a fixed set of principles but is more properly
considered a continuously unfolding conversation about the nature of knowledge and our
understanding of the world. However, several themes are typically located in writings that
identify themselves as constructionist.
 At the outset, it is typically assumed that our accounts of the world—scientific and
otherwise—are not dictated or determined in any principled way by what there is. Rather,
the terms in which the world is understood are generally held to be social artefacts,
products of historically situated interchanges among people.
 Thus, the extent to which a given form of understanding prevails within a culture is not
fundamentally dependent on the empirical validity of the perspective in question but
rather on the vicissitudes of social process (e.g., communication, negotiation, communal
conflict, rhetoric).
 People's constructions of the world and self are essential to the broader practices of a
culture—justifying, sustaining, and transforming various forms of conduct. In addition,
different communities of meaning making may contribute differentially to the resources
available to humankind—whether it be “medical cures,” “moral intelligibilities,”
institutions of law, or “reasons to live.”
 Constructionism does challenge the warrant of any group—science included—to
proclaim “truth” beyond its perimeters. What is true, real, and good within one tradition
may not be within another, and there are no criteria for judging among traditions that are
themselves free of traditions, their values, goals, and way of life.

Propositions of social constructionism

Kenneth Gergen, a prominent social psychologist and one of the key figures in the
development of social constructionism, has outlined three main propositions that encapsulate
the core ideas of social constructionism. These propositions are central to Gergen's
conceptualization of the social constructionist perspective:
1. Mutual Shaping of Individual and Society: Gergen emphasizes the reciprocal
relationship between individuals and society. According to this proposition,
individuals are not isolated entities but are actively engaged in a continual process of
mutual shaping with the social environment. This mutual influence underscores the
idea that our identities, beliefs, and experiences are co-constructed through social
interactions.
2. Language as a Constitutive Element: Language plays a central role in Gergen's social
constructionist framework. This proposition posits that language is not merely a tool
for expressing pre-existing thoughts but is constitutive of reality. Language is seen as
actively participating in the creation and maintenance of social meaning, shaping our
understanding of the world and influencing our perceptions.
3. The Relational Process of Knowledge Construction: Gergen's social constructionism
emphasizes that knowledge is not an individual endeavour but a relational and social
process. This proposition highlights the idea that knowledge is co-constructed through
interpersonal interactions, shared meanings, and collaborative sense-making within
social communities. It challenges the traditional notion of knowledge as an objective
and individual pursuit.

Social Construction and Social Science

 Constructionist ideas place a strong emphasis on theoretical creativity; rather than
“mapping the world as it is,” the invitation is to create intelligibilities that may help us to
build new futures.
 Constructionism has stimulated much work in cultural study, the critical and illuminating
examination of everyday life practices and artefacts.
 Constructionist ideas have helped to generate a range of new practices in therapy,
organizational change, and education in particular. Many scholars also find that in
challenging disciplinary boundaries to knowledge, constructionist ideas invite broad-
ranging dialogue. Thus, new areas of interest have been spawned, linking for example,
theology and constructionism, literary theory and social movements, and personality
study and ethical theory.

Criticisms

 Relativism: One common criticism is that social constructionism can be accused of

promoting relativism, suggesting that all perspectives are equally valid. Critics argue that
some aspects of reality are objective and not purely the result of social construction.
 Overemphasis on Language: Some critics argue that social constructionism places too
much emphasis on language and symbols, potentially neglecting material or biological
factors that contribute to certain phenomena. There may be aspects of reality that are not
solely products of linguistic construction.
 Political Implications: Critics also point out that social constructionism, by emphasizing
the contingent nature of reality, may undermine efforts to address social issues.
Questioning the legitimacy of certain categories or identities could be seen as obstructing
social progress.
 The constructionist turn has been controversial. It has met with resistance and contested
by those who, like physical scientists, subscribe to an essentialist view of reality and
claim legitimacy for the scientifically produced and represented ‘objective’ knowledge.
Positioned in such a scenario, Ken has indefatigably tried to demystify the conceptual,
 theoretical, and methodological implications of such knowledge claims by critiquing and
offering empowering reconstructions.
 Constructionism respects the plurality and diversity in our social world. Instead of a
singular or hegemonic view of reality, constructionism entertains multiple realities which
emerge and therefore offers innovative ways of appreciating and shaping reality (Gergen
et al. 1996). Recognizing ‘others’ on their terms builds trust and encourages dialogue.
The move from the notion of objective reality to reality as construction opens the scope of
interchange, collaboration, and sharing.
 Social constructionism reconfigures human discourses in a non-foundationist and non-
reductionist ways.

Social constructionism, with its roots in postmodern thought, has become a foundational
perspective in the social sciences. It encourages a critical examination of the ways in which
reality is shaped by language, symbols, and social interactions. While facing criticisms,
particularly related to relativism, social constructionism continues to be a powerful tool for
understanding and analyzing the complexities of social reality. Its applications in various
fields contribute to ongoing discussions about identity, power, and societal norms.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

Symbolic Interaction, a social psychological viewpoint with roots dating back to the mid-
1700s, explores fundamental aspects of human nature. Originating as a reaction against
pessimistic and individualistic perspectives, Symbolic Interaction has evolved, offering
insights into human conduct, communication, and the interconnectedness of society.

Symbolic Interactionism (SI) stands as a foundational sociological perspective that elucidates

the intricacies of human interaction. Originating in the early 20th century, this theory has
evolved through historical and intellectual currents, shaping our understanding of the self,
society, and interpersonal relationships. This comprehensive exploration delves into the
historical roots, assumptions, core themes, criticism, and contemporary relevance of
Symbolic Interactionism.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

 Precursors to Symbolic Interactionism: The roots of SI trace back to European

philosophers and sociologists, but it found its fertile ground in the works of American
pragmatists. Charles Horton Cooley's concept of the "looking-glass self" and George
Herbert Mead's emphasis on symbolic communication laid the groundwork for what
would later become SI.
 Chicago School and Emergence: The Chicago School of Sociology, particularly through
the works of George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer, was instrumental in shaping
Symbolic Interactionism. Mead's lectures and posthumously published works influenced
the Chicago sociologists, who synthesized these ideas into a coherent framework.
 Blumer's Formulation: Herbert Blumer, a student of Mead, formalized Symbolic
Interactionism as a sociological perspective. In his influential book "Symbolic
Interactionism: Perspective and Method" (1969), Blumer delineated the principles that
define SI, emphasizing the role of symbols and their interpretation in shaping human
behavior.
ASSUMPTIONS

 Subjective Meaning: At the core of Symbolic Interactionism is the assumption that human
behavior is not determined solely by external stimuli but is profoundly influenced by the
subjective meanings individuals attach to symbols. These symbols can be words, gestures,
or objects that carry shared meanings within a given social context.
 Social Interaction: SI assumes that meaning is created and negotiated through social
interaction. People engage in a continuous process of interpreting symbols, adjusting their
behavior based on these interpretations, and creating shared meanings within their social
groups.
 Construction of Reality: Reality, according to Symbolic Interactionism, is socially
constructed. Individuals actively participate in defining their reality through ongoing
social interactions. The concept of the "looking-glass self" illustrates how people perceive
themselves based on the reflected judgments of others.

CORE THEMES

 Symbols and Meaning: Symbols play a central role in SI. The theory posits that
individuals attribute meanings to symbols, creating a shared understanding within a
society. These symbols facilitate communication and contribute to the construction of
social reality.
 Socialization: Symbolic Interactionism explores how individuals undergo the process of
socialization. It examines how people learn societal norms, values, and roles through
interactions with significant others and social institutions, influencing their self-concept
and identity.
 Self and Identity: The self, as understood in SI, is not a static entity but a dynamic,
evolving concept. The looking-glass self, emphasizing the role of others in shaping one's
self-concept, illustrates how individuals develop a sense of identity through social
interactions.
 Role Theory: SI incorporates role theory, emphasizing that individuals enact various roles
in different social contexts. Roles provide a framework for understanding behavior, and
individuals engage in role-taking, assuming the perspectives of others to anticipate and
respond to social expectations.
 Dramaturgical Approach: Erving Goffman expanded on SI with his dramaturgical
approach, viewing social interactions as theatrical performances. Individuals, according to
Goffman, engage in impression management, strategically presenting themselves to
others to control the impressions they make.
 Social Construction of Reality: Symbolic Interactionism places a strong emphasis on the
social construction of reality. The theory contends that individuals collectively create the
shared meanings that define their reality. This process occurs through ongoing social
interactions wherein individuals negotiate and validate their interpretations of symbols,
shaping their understanding of the world.
 Language and Communication: Language and communication hold a central position in
Symbolic Interactionism. The theory delves into how individuals use language not just as
a tool for conveying information but as a mechanism for constructing and sharing
meaning. Sociolinguistics, a subfield that emerged within SI, explores the nuances of
language in society, recognizing that the practical uses of language establish contextual
meanings beyond mere semantics.
 Ethno-Methodological Approach: Within SI, an ethno-methodological approach has
evolved to understand the methods individuals employ in speech communities to produce
and recognize social actions in various situations. Harold Garfinkel, a key figure in ethno-
methodology, emphasized the importance of uncovering the implicit rules and practices
that govern social interactions, shedding light on the intricacies of everyday life.
 Psycholinguistics and Role Taking: The integration of psycholinguistics into Symbolic
Interactionism has enriched the exploration of language's connection with individuals.
Studies on lost linguistic capacities, shifts in child language usage, and the regulation of
actions through language contribute to the understanding of how language shapes social
interactions. The concept of role-taking, central to SI, undergoes empirical testing,
examining the ability to assume the role of another and the reciprocal influence of self
and other.
 Proactive View of Individuals: The classical period of Symbolic Interactionism witnessed
a shift towards a more proactive view of individuals. While initially focusing on how
appearances are judged, the theory expanded to explore how individuals actively
influence how they appear to others. The dramaturgical approach introduced by Erving
Goffman underscores the performative nature of social interactions, where individuals
strategically present themselves, leading to a greater emphasis on negotiation and the
process of role-making.
 Tripartite Structure of Self: A significant development during the classical period was the
conceptualization of the self as having a tripartite structure – the "I," the "Me," and the
self as a negotiated social object. This perspective, articulated by Goffman and others,
challenges simplistic notions of the self as a purely personal entity, recognizing the social
negotiation involved in shaping one's identity.

CRITICISM

 Overemphasis on Micro-level Analysis: One criticism of SI is its predominant focus on

micro-level interactions, potentially neglecting broader social structures and systemic
issues. Critics argue that a sole emphasis on individual interactions may oversimplify
complex societal dynamics.
 Limited Attention to Power Dynamics : Some scholars contend that Symbolic
Interactionism does not adequately address power dynamics within social interactions.
Issues related to inequality, coercion, and institutional power may receive less attention
within the framework of SI.
 Deterministic Nature of Symbols: Critics argue that the theory's emphasis on symbols and
their meanings can be deterministic, overlooking the influence of structural forces and
external factors on individual behavior. The assumption that meaning is solely
constructed through symbols is debated.

CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE

 Integration with Other Perspectives: Symbolic Interactionism continues to be relevant in

contemporary sociology, often integrated with other perspectives to provide a
comprehensive understanding of social phenomena. Its insights into communication,
identity, and socialization contribute to diverse research areas.
 Digital Communication and Symbolic Interaction : In the digital age, SI's focus on
symbols and communication finds new relevance. Online interactions, social media, and
 the creation of digital identities align with the theory's emphasis on symbolic meaning
and its impact on human behavior.
 Application in Various Fields: SI has transcended its origins in sociology and found
applications in fields such as psychology, communication studies, and organizational
behavior. Its principles are utilized to analyze interpersonal dynamics, communication
patterns, and identity formation in diverse settings.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

 Expansion Across Specializations: Since the classical period, Symbolic Interactionism has
experienced expansion across various sociological specializations. Its influence extends
into the study of deviance, urban sociology, organizations, occupations, and the sociology
of knowledge. This diversification has led to specialized publication outlets such as the
journal Symbolic Interaction and the annual Studies in Symbolic Interaction, highlighting
the theory's adaptability to different research domains.
 Encounter with Postmodernism: During the late 20th century, Symbolic Interactionism,
particularly its interpretivist adherents, engaged in a dialogue with postmodernism. The
exploration of multiple perspectives, fluid identities, and the deconstruction of grand
narratives aligned with the postmodern sensibilities, offering a nuanced understanding of
symbolic meanings in a complex, rapidly changing world.
 Challenges to Looking-Glass Self: A notable challenge to SI emerged through empirical
studies questioning the accuracy of the looking-glass self. The findings, often focused on
quantitative ratings and rankings, raised concerns about the reflective nature of self-
appraisals and the potential biases introduced by self-images. Despite these challenges,
proponents argue that the proactive nature of SI had already anticipated such patterns,
highlighting the theory's resilience in the face of empirical scrutiny.
 Persistence of Traditional SI: Despite challenges and adaptations, traditional Symbolic
Interactionism persists into the 21st century. The Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism
(Reynolds and Herman-Kinney, 2003), a thousand-page compendium, signifies the
enduring relevance and scholarly engagement with SI. The theory continues to evolve,
absorbing contemporary influences while maintaining its foundational principles.

CONCLUSION

Symbolic Interactionism, a dynamic and evolving sociological perspective, has traversed

through historical currents, theoretical developments, and empirical challenges. From its
roots in the Chicago School to contemporary adaptations, SI remains a lens through which
scholars comprehend the intricate dynamics of human interaction. As society continues to
transform, and communication mediums evolve, the enduring principles of Symbolic
Interactionism provide valuable insights into the nuanced world of symbols, meanings, and
social constructions. Whether scrutinizing micro-level interactions or engaging with broader
societal structures, SI continues to contribute to our understanding of the complex interplay
between individuals and their social environments. In navigating the multifaceted landscape
of human interaction, Symbolic Interactionism stands as a testament to the enduring quest to
unravel the intricacies of human behavior and societal processes.

SOCIAL REPRESENTATION
In our quest to comprehend and navigate our environment, the process of simplification and
reconstruction becomes imperative. From an early age, various societal agents such as
schools, families, institutions, and the media instil specific ways of perceiving the world,
offering pre-constructed visions, values, categories, and principles. As we engage with
diverse social groups, our perceptions of the environment are shaped through exchanges and
communications, contributing to the construction of a shared reality. Social representations,
therefore, emerge as socially elaborated frameworks, molded by individual characteristics
and embraced by groups sharing similar traits.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATION
 Organization: Social representations possess a structured nature, involving interactive
relationships between cognitive elements. Opinions, beliefs, and information are
interconnected, reflecting a cooperative process in their formation.
 Shared Consensus: Primarily shared within specific social groups, the consensual nature
of representations depends on group homogeneity and individual positions toward the
object. Consensus tends to be partial and localized to certain elements of the
representation.
 Collective Production: Social representations are collectively produced through
communication processes. Interactions between individuals and exposure to mass
communication facilitate the sharing of elements, leading to consensus and conferring
social validity on diverse opinions, information, and beliefs.
 Social Utility: Functioning as systems for understanding and interpreting the social
environment, representations play a crucial role in interactions between groups. They
provide criteria for evaluating the social environment, influencing the determination,
justification, or legitimization of certain behaviors.
THE LIVELINESS OF THE SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS THEORY (SRT)
Situated at the social and psychological interface, the concept of social representations holds
relevance across various social sciences, including sociology, anthropology, history,
geography, and economics. Its interdisciplinary nature serves as a dynamic bridge between
different fields of research. The flexibility of its conceptual framework allows the SRT to
adapt to diverse research areas, such as communication, social practice, and intergroup
relations, leading to numerous theoretical and methodological developments.
The success of the SRT can be attributed to its transversal status, connecting different
research domains. As a "socially built and shared knowledge theory," it offers insights into
the social bonds that connect individuals to the world and each other. Beyond being a theory,
it serves as a comprehensive understanding of the social individual, potentially integrating
various paradigms and fields of social psychology. The scientific vitality of the SRT is
evident in the continuous stream of research developments since Serge Moscovici's
foundational work, highlighting its enduring impact and relevance in the realm of social
representations.
A BRIEF EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS THEORY

The concept of collective representations, pioneered by Emile Durkheim in the late 19th
century, experienced a revival in the 1960s, thanks to the efforts of Serge Moscovici and a
group of social psychologists. This resurgence marked a departure from the traditional focus
of sociology and anthropology and led to the evolution of the concept into what is now
known as social representations. This concise overview traces the historical trajectory of the
theory, highlighting key shifts in its conceptualization and application.

 Historical Background: Emile Durkheim, the originator of collective representations,

laid the groundwork by distinguishing them from individual representations. Durkheim
posited that collective representations, shared by society, serve to preserve social
cohesion and guide uniform actions. While initially embraced by early sociologists, the
concept faded into obscurity for over 50 years until the 1960s. Moscovici, inspired by
Durkheim's ideas, rekindled interest in collective representations but introduced a shift in
terminology, opting for the more focused term "social representations."
 From Collective Representations to Social Representations: Durkheim's legacy was
evident in the early 20th-century works of sociologists like Simmel and Weber, who
explored the symbolic nature of human interactions and the role of representations in
shaping social dynamics. Durkheim, however, remained the true architect of the concept,
defining collective representations as impersonal, shared, and acting as cognitive
constraints. In the 1960s, Moscovici proposed the term "social representations" to
modernize the concept and bridge the gap between individual and societal perspectives.
This evolution introduced two fundamental changes: attributing representations to
specific social groups and emphasizing the role of communication processes in their
emergence.
 Overcoming Epistemological Obstacles: Despite Moscovici's efforts, the theory faced a
period of latency due to obstacles such as the dominance of behaviorism, which dismissed
mental processes. The paradigm shift in psychology during the 1970s and 1980s, marked
by the decline of behaviorism and the rise of cognitivism, provided fertile ground for the
expansion of the social representations theory. This shift acknowledged the active role of
internal cognitive processes in shaping behavior, challenging the traditional stimulus-
response paradigm.
 Three Lines of Development: The subsequent development of social representations
theory unfolded along three main lines, each exploring different facets of the concept.
First, researchers examined the regulatory role of social representations in real social
interactions. Second, studies delved into the impact of social relationships on the
formulation of social representations. Lastly, researchers analyzed the dynamics and
structural characteristics of representations, particularly in relation to social conduct.
 Flexibility in Definitions: Moscovici's flexibility in defining social representations
allowed researchers to approach the concept from diverse perspectives. This flexibility
liberated research from rigid theoretical frameworks and facilitated a paradigmatic
understanding of social representations. The evolving definitions accommodated various
aspects, including emergence, regulation of social interactions, internal structure, and
their interconnectedness with social relations.

The journey of social representations theory, from Durkheim's collective representations to

Moscovici's social representations, reflects a dynamic evolution shaped by societal changes
and paradigm shifts in psychology. This theory, with its versatile definitions and multifaceted
applications, continues to offer insights into the intricate interplay between individual
cognition and shared societal meanings. As researchers explore its regulatory functions,
impact on social relationships, and structural dynamics, the theory remains a valuable lens for
understanding the complex tapestry of human thought and interaction.
ORIENTATIONS OF SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS THEORY (SRT)
Socio-genetic Model
SRT, introduced by Moscovici in 1961, delves into the genesis and development of social
representations. These representations emerge in response to novel situations, unknown
phenomena, or unusual events. Moscovici identifies key phenomena—dispersion of
information, focalization, and inference pressure—that contribute to the gradual formation of
social representations. The socio-genetic model includes two foundational processes:
objectification and anchoring.
 Objectification: Rapid simplification, imaging, and diagramming of a new object occur
through communication. Cultural and normative criteria shape the selection of object
characteristics, forming a figurative core. This core, a coherent visualization, replaces the
object's reality and becomes an "obvious" representation, influencing judgments and
behavior.
 Anchoring: The new object assimilates into pre-existing thought systems through an
analogy principle. It identifies with familiar categories, forming a meaning network
within different social groups. Integrating the new object into existing norms and values
involves a dynamic mix of innovation and persistence. Anchoring establishes the
enduring and changing aspects of social representations.
Structural Model
Developed by Abric and Flament, the structural model introduces the "central core theory."
This theory distinguishes between central and peripheral elements within social
representations.
 Central Core: Central elements, stable and consensus-driven, provide meaning generation
and organizational functions. This core ensures representation permanence, consensus,
and contributes to social identity. It structures cognitive elements and maintains the
representation's enduring aspects.
 Peripheral System: This system adapts representations to various contexts, allowing for
personalized interpretations. It prescribes behavior, permits personalization, and protects
the central core. Transformation of a social representation often occurs through
modifications in peripheral elements.
The structural model shifts the focus from content to structure, providing a framework for
studying stabilized representations and their socio-cognitive adaptation.
Socio-dynamic Model
Proposed by Willem Doise, the socio-dynamic model aims to reconcile the complexity of
social representations with their insertion in plural social and ideological contexts.
 Social Dynamics: Representations are embedded in social dynamics, influencing position-
taking through communication. Position-taking depends on social memberships and
situational contexts. Social interactions, with symbolic characteristics, contribute to
defining individual and group identity.
 Organizing Principles: Representations function as principles for generating positions
and organizing individual differences. They provide shared reference points, defining the
 object of debate and structuring social interactions. Consensus, in this model, arises from
common organizational principles rather than shared beliefs.
The socio-dynamic model emphasizes the symbolic nature of social interactions and the role
of representations in defining identity and organizing debates.

Expansion of the Theory

Originally developed by French and Swiss researchers, SRT gained international prominence,
notably in Latin America, the UK, Austria, Italy, and beyond.
 UK Contributions: Gerard Duveen, Sandra Jovchelovitch, Caroline Howarth, and Ivana
Markova contributed to the expansion, exploring microgenetic socialization processes,
the space between individual and society, links between SRT and social identity, and
connections between dialogicity and social representations.
 Latin America: In Latin American countries, SRT found fertile ground, addressing
political, economic, and social crises. Researchers actively engaged with the theory,
linking it with issues like social memory and social change.
 US Discrepancy: Despite efforts, SRT struggled to gain ground in the US, partly due to
language barriers and differences in the types of analysis. While social cognition in the
US mainly focuses on intra-individual processes, SRT historically addresses inter-
individual phenomena and consciousness.
In this global context, SRT remains a versatile and influential theory, continually evolving
through contributions from diverse cultural and academic perspectives. The challenge lies in
bridging gaps between different analytical approaches within social psychology. The future
promises exciting scientific exploration at the intersection of social cognition and social
representations.
THE SRT’S APPLICABILITY TO SOCIAL ISSUES

The Social Representations Theory (SRT) stands out as a flexible, adaptable, and versatile
psychosocial theory with broad applicability across diverse disciplines. Despite criticisms of
imprecision, its adaptability has led to its successful integration into fields beyond
psychology.

Flexibility and Adaptability

Critics have raised concerns about the imprecision of SRT's concepts, but it is precisely this
flexibility that contributes to its wide applicability. SRT addresses societal logics,
encompassing social relations, actions, and regulations operating across various cognitive
levels, including language. This broad scope allows researchers from disciplines like history,
geography, and linguistics to employ SRT concepts effectively.

Historians, focusing on forms of thought and beliefs, find resonance in SRT's notion of
"mentality," contributing to the emergence of a "history of mentalities." In geography, the
concept of "mental maps" and subjectivity in spatial perception gives rise to a "geography of
representations," emphasizing the role of representations in determining spatial practices.
Linguists, particularly in language didactics, explore "linguistic representations" influenced
directly by SRT, examining beliefs regarding languages, their usages, and associated social
groups.

The theory's applicative success in social sciences, especially outside psychology, is

attributed to its conceptual latitude, allowing researchers to address a variety of cognitive
determinants of behavior.

Everyday Knowledge Theory

SRT, as a theory of "common sense," illuminates the formation, structure, and integration of
common sense into people's lives. Its primary application lies in communication, where
groups with different representations may experience confusion. For instance, in the context
of a hospital's computer security system, differences between doctors and nurses'
representations prompted insights into effective personnel training.

The theory's impact extends to understanding the link between representations and behavior.
Everyday behavior is often guided by common sense, making the study of social
representations valuable in deciphering decision-making processes. Examining
representations of speed among French drivers revealed distinct groups with varying driving
practices, highlighting the correlation between representations and behavior. This
understanding opens avenues for modifying behavior, although challenges persist in
achieving lasting changes.

Researchers now explore using representation contents to influence decisions rather than
modifying the representations themselves. In the context of organ donation, a study applied
the "foot-in-the-door" technique based on central and peripheral elements of representations,
revealing a potential strategy for encouraging individuals to become donors.

Methodological Diversity

The SRT has spurred a remarkable diversity of methodologies since the late 1980s,
responding to its broad applicability to various problems and contexts. Methodological
advancements focus on content collection techniques, employing verbal association methods
and innovative approaches like the "Basic Cognitive Schema" and "Associative Network
Method." Questionnaire techniques have shifted from measuring opinions to highlighting the
description of studied objects and identifying structuring elements. The rise of multivariate
techniques, their computerization, and increased accessibility contribute to a diverse
methodological toolkit for researchers.

CONCLUSION
In essence, the Social Representations Theory (SRT) offers a versatile and adaptable
framework, transcending disciplinary boundaries. From its historical evolution to its diverse
orientations, the theory navigates the complex interplay between individual cognition and
shared societal meanings. Its applicability to social issues, methodological diversity, and
global influence underscore its enduring impact. As we explore the intricate tapestry of
human thought and behavior, SRT remains a dynamic lens, promising continual exploration
at the intersection of social cognition and representations.

SOCIAL EXCHANGE
Social exchange, rooted in early anthropological insights, conceptualizes various interactions
as benefit exchanges, encompassing neighbors, colleagues, and even politicians. Evolving
from classical theories of economic exchange, the contemporary perspective emphasizes
relations' length and endurances, departing from one-shot transactions. The late 1950s
marked the emergence of social exchange theories by Homans, Thibaut, Kelley, and Blau.
Emerson's power-dependence theory in the 1970s initiated sustained research, leading to its
establishment in social psychology.

CORE CONCEPTS AND ASSUMPTIONS

 Actors in social exchange can be individual persons or corporate groups, specific entities,
or interchangeable occupants of structural positions. The assumption of self-interest is
central, with actors seeking to increase positive outcomes and decrease negative ones.
Theories vary in adopting a rational actor model, based on microeconomics, or a learning
model, derived from behavioral psychology.
 Resources in social exchange, refer to possessions or behavioral capabilities valued by
others. These include tangible goods, services, or capacities to provide socially valued
outcomes like approval or status. Exchanges involve either the transfer of physical goods
or actions that produce value for another, incurring costs for the actor performing the
action. Exchange outcomes can have positive or negative value, with rewards or
punishments influencing future behavior.
 Exchange Structures distinguish classical and contemporary theories. Contemporary
theories emphasize structure, focusing on the form of relations between actors rather than
the actors themselves. Exchange structures include direct exchange, generalized
exchange, and productive exchange. Direct exchange involves two actors reciprocating
benefits, generalized exchange extends to three or more actors with indirect reciprocation,
and productive exchange involves joint efforts to produce a shared benefit.
 Process of Exchange describes how interactions occur within exchange structures. Actors
initiate exchange opportunities, and reciprocated initiations lead to transactions. The
process varies between negotiated and reciprocal transactions. Negotiated transactions
involve joint-decision processes, explicit bargaining, and agreed-upon terms, while
reciprocal transactions entail actors individually initiating beneficial acts without explicit
negotiation.
 Networks play a crucial role in contemporary exchange theories, bridging dyadic
interactions and larger social structures. Networks are defined as opportunity structures
comprising three or more actors providing transaction opportunities. Positive and
negative network connections are based on how exchange in one relation affects another,
considering domains of resources. Exclusionary and inclusionary networks introduce
further distinctions, influencing the flow of benefits and power dynamics.
 The assumption of contingency between benefits provided and received is fundamental to
exchange theories. Theories differ in how they explain this contingency in direct
exchange relations. Reciprocal transactions involve a series of sequentially contingent
individual acts, forming enduring relations between actors over time.
 Despite sharing basic concepts, theories of social exchange exhibit diversity. While
contemporary theories emphasize structure and networks, classical theories focused on
reciprocal transactions. The social exchange perspective has evolved, incorporating
insights from different disciplines and addressing power, trust, and commitment within
social interactions.
 The success of social exchange as a theoretical framework lies in its ability to capture the
complexity of human social interactions, offering valuable insights into the dynamics of
 social relations. From its origins in early anthropological observations to its
interdisciplinary applications in contemporary social psychology, the concept of social
exchange continues to contribute significantly to our understanding of human behavior
and societal dynamics.

Historical background
The historical background of social exchange theory draws from diverse influences such as
utilitarian economics, early anthropological studies, and behavioral psychology. The 1960s
and 1970s saw the maturation of this framework, with notable contributions from key
theorists like George Homans, John Thibaut, Harold Kelley, and Peter Blau.
 George Homans, in his 1958 essay and later work, conceptualized social behavior as an
exchange of tangible or intangible activities between individuals. Contrary to
collectivistic traditions, Homans emphasized individual self-interest as the driving force
for social exchange. His focus on direct exchanges between individuals, influenced by
behavioral psychology, aimed to explain fundamental processes in dyads and small
groups. Despite criticism, Homans's insights into the ubiquity of exchange processes in
social life paved the way for further theoretical development.
 Thibaut and Kelley, psychologists in the same period, developed a theory of group
behavior based on behavioral assumptions. Their contributions included an analysis of
power and dependence, which influenced subsequent developments by Richard Emerson.
Thibaut and Kelley introduced concepts like the comparison level (CL) and comparison
level for alternatives (CLalt), laying the foundation for later exchange network theories.
 Peter Blau, in 1964, extended the analysis of exchange relations to more complex systems
at the organizational and institutional levels. Blau recognized emergent properties in
social structures and aimed to bridge the gap between elementary exchange processes and
these emergent structures. His eclectic approach incorporated concepts from various
theories, making his theory the most diverse among classical exchange theories.

 The 1970s marked a significant shift with Richard Emerson's theory, known as power-
dependence theory. Emerson departed from narrative styles, introducing rigorously
derived propositions that encouraged empirical testing. His focus on the dynamics of
power made it a central theme in exchange theory for the next three decades. By
integrating behavioral psychology with social network analysis, Emerson shifted the
focus from individual actors to the structure of relations.
 Emerson's theory introduced the concept of exchange networks and collective actors,
linking exchange theory with social network analysis. This move transformed the nature
of exchange research, allowing for a more successful bridging of micro and macro levels
of analysis. Power-dependence theory explained the emergence and change of social
structures, including network dynamics, the effects of power, and various forms of social
organization.
 Emerson's collaboration with Karen Cook initiated systematic research programs on
exchange relations and networks. The emphasis on testing and constructing theory led to
experimental methods in standardized laboratory settings. This research often involved
computer-mediated interactions, where subjects engaged in repeated exchanges to explore
power dynamics.
 One specific setting designed by Emerson, Cook, and their students focused on the study
of power in negatively connected networks. This setting involved subjects negotiating the
terms of exchange, reaching binding agreements about profit division. The experimental
design aimed to test the theory's assertion that power leads to power use, regardless of
 actors' knowledge or intentions. The setting introduced an economic flavor to the theory,
emphasizing rational actors, comparison of alternatives, and outcome maximization.
 Despite this emphasis on economic aspects, Cook introduced concerns with commitment
and equity, adding complexity to actors' motivations. Overall, this historical overview
highlights the evolution of social exchange theory from its roots in diverse disciplines to
the development of power-dependence theory and the rise of systematic research
programs.

Contemporary development of the social exchange framework

In the 1980s, the social exchange framework saw accelerated development, largely
influenced by Cook and Emerson's research. This led to theories focusing on specific
exchange outcomes, such as power, inequality, trust, commitment, and affective ties.

 Theories of Network Exchange and Power: Cook, Emerson, and others linked power-
dependence theory with social network research. New theories, including network
exchange theory, expected value theory, and game theory, emerged to predict power
distribution in exchange networks. They competed, yet agreed on the importance of
alternative partners' availability in determining structural power.
 Other Theories of Power: Edward Lawler and Linda Molm developed theories focusing
on dyadic relations within exchange networks. Lawler integrated power-dependence
theory with bargaining theories, emphasizing tactical power and actors' perceptions.
Molm introduced coercion theory, considering punishment and strategic use of coercive
power within power-dependence framework.
 Theories of Affect, Commitment, and Trust : The shift from power to integrative outcomes
included the study of trust, commitment, and affective ties. Commitment, defined
behaviorally and affectively, was linked to power, with low-power actors more likely to
make commitments. Trust development was tied to risk and uncertainty, with risk
creating opportunities for trust-building. Trust and commitment were seen as closely
linked, evolving through repeated interactions and long-term relations.

Conclusion
In conclusion, social exchange theory has traversed a rich historical journey, drawing from
diverse influences such as early anthropological insights, utilitarian economics, and
behavioral psychology. The framework, rooted in individual self-interest, conceptualizes
social interactions as benefit exchanges across various contexts. The contributions of key
theorists like Homans, Thibaut, Kelley, Blau, and Emerson have shaped the evolution of this
theoretical perspective. The core concepts and assumptions, including the centrality of self-
interest, the role of resources, and the diverse exchange structures and processes, reflect the
complexity of human interactions. The success of social exchange theory lies in its ability to
capture the dynamics of social relations, from direct exchanges to intricate network
dynamics. The contemporary development in the 1980s introduced new theories focusing on
power, trust, commitment, and affective ties, further enriching our understanding of the
intricacies within social exchanges. Overall, social exchange theory continues to contribute
significantly to the interdisciplinary landscape of social psychology, offering valuable
insights into the nuanced nature of human behavior and societal dynamics.

SOCIAL COMPARISON
Social Comparison Theory, developed by social psychologist Leon Festinger in the 1950s,
explores how individuals evaluate their abilities, opinions, and social status by comparing
themselves to others. The theory posits that people engage in social comparison as a means of
gaining information, enhancing their self-concept, and reducing uncertainty about themselves
and their world.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The roots of Social Comparison Theory can be traced back to Festinger's seminal work, "A
Theory of Social Comparison Processes," published in 1954. Festinger proposed that
individuals engage in social comparison to assess their own abilities and opinions. The theory
was further refined and extended by subsequent researchers, including Festinger himself,
bringing insights into the diverse ways people engage in social comparison across various
contexts.

ASSUMPTIONS
 Drive for Evaluation: Social Comparison Theory assumes that individuals have an innate
drive to evaluate themselves accurately. This drive stems from a need for self-
enhancement, self-improvement, and a desire to reduce uncertainty about their own
abilities and opinions.
 Standards of Comparison: The theory posits that people compare themselves with others
who are similar, relevant, or accessible, depending on the context. The choice of
comparison targets is influenced by the specific dimension under consideration, such as
abilities, opinions, or social status.

CORE THEMES
 Upward and Downward Social Comparison: Social Comparison Theory introduces the
concepts of upward and downward social comparison. Upward comparison involves
comparing oneself to someone perceived as superior, leading to motivation for self-
improvement. Downward comparison involves comparing oneself to someone perceived
as inferior, often resulting in enhanced self-esteem and positive affect.
 Assessment of Abilities and Opinions: Individuals engage in social comparison to assess
their own abilities, opinions, and performance in comparison to others. This process is
particularly prominent in situations where objective standards are lacking, ambiguous, or
uncertain.
 Impact on Self-Esteem: The theory suggests that the outcomes of social comparison can
influence an individual's self-esteem. Positive social comparison often leads to enhanced
self-esteem, while negative social comparison may result in decreased self-esteem.

CRITICISM
 Limited Cultural Variability: Critics argue that Social Comparison Theory may not
adequately account for cultural variations in the propensity and consequences of social
comparison. Cultural norms and values may shape the ways individuals engage in social
comparison, and the theory's applicability across diverse cultural contexts is questioned.
 Emphasis on Negative Outcomes: Some critics highlight that the theory tends to
emphasize negative outcomes of social comparison, such as envy or decreased self-
esteem, while downplaying potential positive outcomes, such as motivation for self-
improvement.

CONCLUSION
Social Comparison Theory remains a foundational concept in social psychology, offering
valuable insights into how individuals navigate the complex landscape of self-evaluation in
social contexts. Despite criticisms, the theory has paved the way for extensive research,
contributing to our understanding of the psychological mechanisms underlying social
comparison processes. As a dynamic and evolving framework, Social Comparison Theory
continues to inspire research on self-perception, motivation, and interpersonal dynamics.

UNIT 2
SELF AND IDENTITY
- Culture and Self Construal (ARONSON CH 5 – 5.1)
- Perceived self-control and self-regulation (SANJU’S NOTES)
- Self-esteem (5.7)
- Self-serving bias (ChatGPT)
- Social identity

CULTURAL INFLUENCES ON THE SELF-CONCEPT

An important influence on our self-concepts is the culture in which we grew up. Consider
Masako Owada, the crown princess of Japan. When she married Crown Prince Naruhito in
June 1993, at age 29, she was a brilliant career diplomat in the Foreign Ministry, educated at
Harvard and Oxford. She spoke five languages and was on the fast track to a prestigious job
as a diplomat. Her decision to marry the prince surprised many observers because it meant
she would have to give up her career. Indeed, she gave up any semblance of an independent
life, becoming subservient to the prince and the rest of the royal family and spending much of
her time participating in rigid royal ceremonies. Although some people hoped that she would
modernize the monarchy, “the princess has not changed the imperial family as much as it has
changed her” (“Girl Born to Japan’s Princess,” 2001).
How do you feel about Masako’s decision to marry the prince? Your answer may say
something about the nature of your self-concept and the culture in which you grew up. In
many Western cultures, people have an independent view of the self, which is a way of
defining oneself in terms of one’s own internal thoughts, feelings, and actions and not in
terms of the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others (Kitayama & Uchida, 2005; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991, 2010; Nisbett, 2003; Oyserman & Lee, 2008; Triandis, 1995).
Consequently, many Western observers were mystified by Masako’s decision to marry the
crown prince. They assumed that she was coerced into the marriage by a backward, sexist
society that did not properly value her worth as an individual with an independent life of her
own.
In contrast, many Asian and other non-Western cultures have an interdependent view of the
self, which is a way of defining oneself in terms of one’s relationships to other people and
recognizing that one’s behavior is often determined by the thoughts, feelings, and actions of
others. Here, connectedness and interdependence between people are valued, whereas
independence and uniqueness are frowned on. For example, when asked to complete
sentences beginning with “I am,” people from Asian cultures are more likely to refer to social
groups, such as their family or religious group, than people from Western cultures are
(Bochner, 1994; Triandis, 1989). To many Japanese and other Asians, Masako’s decision to
give up her career was not at all surprising and was a natural consequence of her view of
herself as connected and obligated to others, such as her parents and the royal family. What is
viewed as positive and normal behavior by one culture may be viewed very differently by
another.
Ted Singelis (1994) developed a questionnaire that measures the extent to which people view
themselves as interdependent or independent. Sample items from this scale are given in the
Try It! given below. Studies generally show that people who live in East Asian countries
agree more with the interdependence items, whereas those who live in Western countries
agree more with the independence items (Taras et al., 2014).
We do not mean to imply, however, that every member of a Western culture has an
independent view of the self and that every member of an Asian culture has an
interdependent view of the self. In the United States, for example, people who live in states
that were settled more recently by European Americans, such as Oklahoma and Utah, tend to
have more of an independent view of the self than do people who live in more “settled” East
Coast states, such as Massachusetts and Connecticut. One sign of this, according to a recent
study, is that babies born in recently settled states have more unusual names than babies born
in other states. That is, one sign of an independent self-construal is giving your baby an
unusual name, and parents are more likely to do that in states such as Oklahoma than they are
in states such as Connecticut (see Figure 5.2). The same difference was found in recently
settled versus older areas of Canada (Varnum & Kitayama, 2011).
Nonetheless, the difference between the Western and Eastern sense of self is real and has
interesting consequences for communication between the cultures. Indeed, the differences in
the sense of self are so fundamental that it is very difficult for people with independent selves
to appreciate what it is like to have an interdependent self and vice versa. After giving a
lecture on the Western view of the self to a group of Japanese students, one psychologist
reported that the students “sighed deeply and said at the end, ‘Could this really be true?’”
(Kitayama & Markus, 1994, p. 18). To paraphrase William Shakespeare, in Western society
the self is the measure of all things. But however natural we consider this conception of the
self to be, it is important to remember that it is socially constructed and therefore may differ
from culture to culture.

SELF-ESTEEM
As part of its “Real Beauty Sketches” campaign, the Dove soap company released a video
designed to boost women’s self-esteem. In the video, a sketch artist draws two pictures of the
same woman without seeing her—based on the woman’s descriptions of herself and the other
based on a friend’s description of her. Invariably, to the women’s surprise, the portrait based
on her friend’s description is more attractive than the portrait based on her own description,
leading to the tagline “You are more beautiful than you think.” This prompted an Internet
spoof about what would happen if men were the participants. In this video, the drawings
based on men’s descriptions of themselves looked like George Clooney or Brad Pitt, whereas
the drawings based on their friends’ descriptions looked like deformed creatures from a
Disney movie— leading to the tagline “You might not be as good looking as you think”
(www.snotr .com/video/10987/Dove_Commercial_Parody__Guy_Version).
The Dove company says it made its video because it is committed to “building positive self-
esteem and inspiring all women and girls to reach their full potential”
(http://realbeautysketches.dove.us). But is it true that women need such a boost in self-
esteem, defined as people’s evaluation of their own self-worth—that is, the extent to which
they view themselves as good, competent, and decent? Probably not because when it comes
to feeling good about ourselves, most of us are doing just fine. True, a recent meta-analysis
did find that men have more positive views of their physical appearance than women do, but
this same study found that women have higher self-esteem in some areas (e.g., their
perception of their moral and ethical qualities) and that women and men have equally high
self-esteem in other areas, such as academics and social acceptance (Gentile et al., 2009).
Putting gender differences aside, we might ask a more basic question: Should everyone strive
to achieve as much self-esteem as possible, showering themselves with praise as much as
they can? Well, it is certainly true that we should try to avoid low self-esteem, which is a very
unpleasant state that is associated with depression and the feelings that we are ineffective and
not in control of our lives (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). What’s more,
high self-esteem protects us against thoughts about our own mortality. This is the basic tenet
of terror management theory, which holds that self-esteem serves as a buffer, protecting
people from terrifying thoughts about death (Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997;
Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Arndt, & Schimel, 2004; Schimel & Greenberg, 2013).
That is, in order to protect themselves from the anxiety caused by thoughts of their own
deaths, people embrace cultural worldviews that make them feel like they are effective actors
in a meaningful, purposeful world. People with high self-esteem are thus less troubled by
thoughts about their own mortality than people with low self-esteem are (Schmeichel et al.,
2009).
Another advantage of evaluating ourselves positively is that it motivates us to persevere when
the going gets rough. In fact, it may even make us exaggerate how good we are at things and
be overly optimistic about our futures, motivating us to try harder when we encounter
obstacles in our path (Taylor & Brown, 1988). To illustrate this, consider two students who
are thinking about their postgraduation job prospects. “I don’t know,” the first one thinks.
“The economy isn’t doing so well, and I don’t think I have what it takes to compete with all
those talented young people entering the job market. I’d say that there is only a 20% chance
that I’ll get my dream job right out of school.” The second student thinks, “Yes, it’s a tough
market, but I think my prospects are great if I work hard and do well in school. I’m good
enough to get my dream job.” Now, for the sake of the argument, let’s suppose that Student 1
is more correct than Student 2; it is a tough economy, after all, and few students land their
first choice of job right away. But which student will work harder to achieve that goal? And
which one is more likely to achieve it? Research shows that people who are optimistic—even
unreasonably so—try harder, persevere more in the face of failure, and set higher goals than
do people who are not (Nes & Segerstrom, 2006; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 2001;
Shepperd, Klein, Waters, & Weinstein, 2013). Obviously, Student 2 shouldn’t exaggerate his
or her prospects too much; people who believe that they will be the next winner of The Voice
when they can’t carry a tune are destined for failure and heartbreak. But a dose of optimism
and confidence is a good thing to the extent that it makes people work harder to achieve their
goals.
What happens when that dose is too large? There is a form of high self-esteem that is
unhealthy, namely, narcissism, which is the combination of excessive self-love and a lack of
empathy toward others (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013; Schriber & Robins, 2012;
Twenge & Campbell, 2009). Narcissists are extremely self-centered, concerned much more
with themselves than with other people. On the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, a
commonly used questionnaire measure, narcissists endorse such items as “I wish somebody
would someday write my biography” and “I find it easy to manipulate people” (Raskin &
Terry, 1988). That is, narcissists go far beyond optimists in their high opinions of themselves.
If you were born after 1980, you might want not want to hear this, but narcissism has been
increasing among college students in recent years. Jean Twenge and her colleagues (Twenge,
Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman, 2008; Twenge & Foster, 2010) tracked down studies
that administered the Narcissistic Personality Inventory to college students in the United
States between the years 1982 and 2008. As seen in Figure 5.8, there has been a steady
increase in scores on this test since the mid-1980s. And there is some evidence that
narcissism is more prevalent in America than in other cultures (Campbell, Miller, & Buffardi,
2010; Foster, Campbell, & Twenge, 2003).
Why the increase in narcissism? Nobody knows, though Twenge and colleagues (2008)
speculate that American culture at large has become increasingly self-focused. To illustrate
this, researchers coded the lyrics of the 10 most popular songs of the year between 1980 and
2007. They counted the number of first-person singular pronouns in the lyrics (e.g., “I,”
“me”) and found a steady increase over time (see Figure 5.8; DeWall, Pond, Campbell, &
Twenge, 2011). True, the Beatles released a song called “I, Me, Mine” in 1970, but such self-
references have become even more common, such as John Legend’s “All of Me” or Avicii’s
“Wake Me Up.” This trend has spawned many spoofs, such as the song “Selfie” by the
Chainsmokers, in which the singer keeps interrupting her monologue to take another picture
of herself, and MadTV’s parody of a Coldplay music video called The Narcissist. This
pattern toward self-reference is also true in books. Using the Google Books ngram database,
researchers searched books published between the years 1960 and 2008 and found that first-
person singular pronouns (“I,” “me”) increased by 42% over that time period (Twenge,
Campbell, & Gentile, 2013). Although the reasons are not entirely clear, Americans seem to
become more focused on themselves. (Perhaps we should pause for a moment here so that we
can all take selfies.)
Well, you might ask, why is it a problem to be so self-focused? Won’t that increase the
chances of getting what we want in life? Actually, no. Narcissists do less well academically
than others, are less successful in business, are more violent and aggressive, and are disliked
by others, especially once people get to know them (Bushman & Baumeister, 2002; Twenge
& Campbell, 2009).
Many young people are not so self-focused, of course, and devote countless hours to helping
others through volunteer work. Ironically, in so doing they may have hit upon a way to
become happier than by taking the narcissistic route. Imagine that you were in a study
conducted by Dunn, Aknin, and Norton (2008). You are walking across campus one morning
when a researcher approaches you and gives you an envelope with $20 in it. She asks you to
spend it on yourself by 5:00 p.m. that day, such as by buying yourself a gift or paying off a
bill. Sounds pretty nice, doesn’t it? Now imagine that you were randomly assigned to another
condition. Here you also get $20, but the researcher asks you to spend it on someone else by
5:00 p.m., such as by taking a friend out for lunch or donating it to a charity. How would that
make you feel? It turns out that when the researchers contacted people that evening and asked
how happy they were, those assigned to the “spend it on others” condition were happier than
those asked to spend the money on themselves. A little less self-focus and a little more
concern with others can actually make us happier.
To recap, having high self-esteem is generally a good thing to the extent that it makes people
optimistic about their futures and work harder for what they want in life. There is a form of
high self-esteem, however, that is quite problematic—namely, narcissism—which, as we
have seen, is extreme high self-regard combined with a lack of empathy toward others. The
best combination is to feel good about ourselves but also to look out for and care about
others.

SELF-SERVING BIAS

Self-serving bias is a pervasive cognitive pattern observed in individuals' explanations and

interpretations of events in their lives. It involves a systematic tendency to attribute positive
outcomes and successes to internal factors while attributing negative outcomes and failures to
external factors. This bias plays a crucial role in shaping individuals' perceptions of
themselves, influencing their self-esteem, and contributing to the maintenance of a positive
self-image.

Historical Background
The concept of self-serving bias has roots in social psychology and attribution theory.
Researchers have long been interested in understanding how individuals explain the causes of
their own behavior and outcomes. Fritz Heider's work in the 1950s laid the foundation for
attribution theory, and subsequent studies, especially in the realm of social cognition,
expanded our understanding of how people attribute causality to events in their lives.

Assumptions
The primary assumption underlying self-serving bias is that individuals engage in a cognitive
process that serves to enhance and protect their self-esteem. This bias is not necessarily a
conscious or deliberate strategy but rather a cognitive tendency that operates at an automatic
or implicit level.

Core Themes of Self-Serving Bias

 Attribution of Positive Outcomes: Individuals tend to attribute success, achievements, and
positive outcomes to internal factors such as personal abilities, effort, or intelligence. For
example, if someone receives a promotion at work, they might attribute it to their hard
work, skills, or leadership qualities.
 Attribution of Negative Outcomes: Conversely, individuals attribute failure, setbacks, and
negative outcomes to external factors, such as bad luck, situational influences, or the
actions of others. For instance, if someone fails to secure a job position, they might
attribute it to the tough job market or the competition rather than considering their own
shortcomings.
 Enhancement of Self-Esteem: Self-serving bias functions as a mechanism for individuals
to maintain and enhance their self-esteem. By attributing positive outcomes to internal
factors, they bolster their sense of competence and worth. At the same time, attributing
negative outcomes externally helps protect their self-esteem by avoiding feelings of
incompetence or failure.
 Cultural Variations: Research suggests that the prevalence and degree of self-serving bias
may vary across cultures. Some cultures may place more emphasis on collective success
and failure, influencing the way individuals attribute positive and negative events.

Criticism of Self-Serving Bias

 Overemphasis on Positivity: Critics argue that self-serving bias can lead to an overly
positive self-image, preventing individuals from acknowledging and addressing areas for
improvement.
 Impact on Relationships: In interpersonal relationships, self-serving bias may contribute
to conflict, as individuals may be less inclined to take responsibility for negative
outcomes.
 Limitations in Cross-Cultural Contexts: The cultural variability of self-serving bias raises
questions about the universality of this phenomenon. Some cultures may prioritize self-
effacement or group success over individual achievement.

CONCLUSION
Self-serving bias is a fundamental aspect of human cognition, shaping how individuals
perceive and explain the events in their lives. While it serves the adaptive function of
preserving self-esteem, its impact on interpersonal dynamics and potential limitations should
be considered in understanding human behavior and social interactions. Researchers continue
to explore the nuanced aspects of self-serving bias and its implications across diverse cultural
contexts.

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY

Social identity theory, developed in the early 1970s by Henri Tajfel in Britain, explores the
role of self-conception in group membership, intergroup relations, and group processes.
Tajfel's personal experiences during World War II fueled his interest in understanding large-
scale phenomena like prejudice and discrimination.
According to social identity theory, a group exists psychologically when three or more
individuals define themselves based on shared attributes that differentiate them collectively.
This approach addresses various phenomena, including prejudice, discrimination, intergroup
conflict, and normative behavior.
Social identity theory integrates concepts like social influence, self-categorization,
motivation, cohesion, and intergroup relations under a single umbrella. This comprehensive
approach, emphasizing the interconnection of various aspects, emerged as a significant
paradigm shift in social psychology.

ORIGION AND DEVELOPMENT

Initially a European analysis, social identity theory gained global acceptance as a

fundamental theory in social psychology. Over the last three decades, it has evolved
conceptually, motivated extensive research, and expanded beyond its initial focus on
intergroup relations.
In response to the rise of American social cognition, self-categorization theory emerged as a
cognitive dimension within the social identity approach. It elucidates how the categorization
of self and others influences social identification and group phenomena.
The mid-1980s saw a need for integrative focus in the burgeoning field. Hogg and Abrams
proposed an integrated social identity approach, incorporating various concepts and theories
dealing with different facets of social identity processes and phenomena.
Since the late 1980s, social identity research has flourished, taking center stage in the study
of group processes and intergroup relations. The approach has found applications beyond
mainstream social psychology, influencing fields such as sociology and organizational
science. Substantial conceptual developments include areas like stereotyping, motivation,
collective behavior, and intragroup phenomena. Ongoing research continues to shape our
understanding of social identity theory.

META-THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
The social identity approach is guided by a meta-theoretical commitment that defines its
explanatory scope and level. Originating in post-war European social psychology, it emerged
as a distinctive response to the broader social context and aimed to develop a more socially
oriented psychology.
European social psychology, in contrast to mainstream American perspectives, emphasized
the social dimension. The focus was on the social and interactive aspects of human behavior,
with a particular concern for the relationship between psychological functioning and large-
scale social processes. This emphasis led to a more social orientation in European social
psychology.
European social psychology closely attended to levels of explanation, avoiding reductionism.
The interactionist metatheory stressed developing concepts and theories appropriate to
specific explanatory levels and integrating them within a broader framework. This
metatheory prioritized group processes, especially intergroup relations within large-scale
social categories.
The European study of intergroup relations reflects a unique perspective, viewing individuals
not merely as unique individuals but as members of social groups. This perspective
underscores the importance of understanding people's interactions within social groups.
Systematically developed within this intellectual milieu, social identity theory, until the late
1980s, epitomized the European approach to social psychology. It, along with research on
minority influence and social representations, played a pivotal role in promoting a European
metatheory. While the metatheory remains significant, the social identity approach has
become more inclusive and diverse over time.

CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURE OF SOCIAL IDENTITY APPROACH

Social Identity, Collective Self, and Group Membership

 Social Identity and Personal Identity: Groups are defined by shared attributes, fostering
collective self-construal. Personal identity, on the other hand, involves idiosyncratic traits
and individual relationships.
 Varieties and Dimensions of Selves and Identities : Multiple social and personal identities
exist, varying in subjective importance and situational accessibility. Different
conceptualizations, such as centrality, in-group affect, and in-group ties, contribute to a
nuanced understanding of social identity.
 Dyads, Aggregates, and Groups: Groups, distinct from dyads, require at least three people
to establish group norms and facilitate various group processes. The relational self's status
depends on the cultural context, influencing the perception of personal or social identity.

Social Categorization, Prototypes, and Depersonalization

 Prototypes and Metacontrast: Social categorization forms prototypes, fuzzy sets of
attributes emphasizing intergroup differences. Metacontrast principles maximize the ratio
of intergroup to intragroup differences, guiding perceptions and behaviors.
 Categorization and Depersonalization: Depersonalization occurs through categorization,
leading to stereotyping of both in-group and out-group members. Self-categorization
fosters conformity and in-group solidarity.
 Psychological Salience: Social categorization's impact on behavior relies on
psychological salience. Accessible categories, valued aspects of the self-concept,
contribute to the cognitive-perceptual process of making sense of the social context.

Social Identity Motivations

 Self-Enhancement and Positive Distinctiveness : Groups strive for positive distinctiveness,
believing they are superior to others. Positive social identity is linked to fundamental
human motives like self-enhancement and self-esteem. Research reveals nuanced
relationships between self-esteem, group identification, and behavior.
 Uncertainty Reduction: Social identity is motivated by reducing uncertainty about oneself
and the social world. Social categorization provides prototypes, making behavior
predictable and facilitating a sense of belonging. Uncertainty reduction and self-
enhancement motivations can interact in complex ways.
 Optimal Distinctiveness: Optimal distinctiveness theory suggests a balance between
inclusion and distinctiveness. People seek satisfaction in group membership while also
valuing uniqueness. Satisfaction may be maximized in midsize groups, avoiding extremes
of very large or very small groups.

Depersonalized Attraction and Group Cohesion

 Prototype-Based Depersonalized Social Attraction: Group membership transforms
personal attraction to prototype-based depersonalized social attraction. Evaluation and
 feelings for group members are influenced by their prototypicality. Depersonalized
attraction contributes to group cohesiveness and positive regard among members.

Intergroup Relations
 Valence-Sensitive Social Comparisons: Intergroup comparisons focus on distinctiveness
and positive evaluation of one's own group. Ethnocentrism and in-group favoritism arise
from a desire for positive intergroup distinctiveness.
 Social Belief Structures: Tajfel's analysis integrates intergroup social comparisons with
social belief structures. Beliefs about group status, stability, legitimacy, permeability, and
alternatives influence intergroup behaviors. Ideological belief systems may be associated
with social uncertainty and stability.

Conflict and Harmony

 Challenges in Forming Superordinate Identities: Creating a superordinate common in-
group identity can be challenging. Deep cultural divides and strong attachments to
original groups may hinder successful integration. Subgroups may resist assimilation into
a larger collective identity.

Influence, Conformity, and Norms

 Role of Norms and Prototypes: Norms, as group prototypes, guide behavior based on
social identity. Conformity is a deeper process aligning behavior with the self-defining
group prototype. Prototypical members are more influential, and depersonalized social
attraction affects group cohesiveness.

Leadership and Influence within Groups

 Social Identity Theory of Leadership: Prototypical members are more influential in
groups due to depersonalization and conformity. Leaders perceived as highly prototypical
gain trust and have more latitude for innovation. Less prototypical members may face
marginalization, being perceived as deviants.

Deviance and Marginalization

 Deviance, Trust, and Influence: Less prototypical members may be disliked, not trusted,
and labeled as deviants. Group reactions to deviants depend on factors like threat to group
valence and distinctiveness. Marginal members may play constructive roles, acting as in-
group critics or challenging majority views.

OUTSTANDING ISSUES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Some Misunderstandings and Unresolved Issues

 Social identity approach extends beyond intergroup relations to intragroup processes and
small interactive groups.
 The approach emphasizes the psychological reality of a group only if people identify with
it, highlighting the importance of interaction, communication, and interdependence.
 The distinction between identification as a generative process and identification as a
cognitive structure is crucial for understanding context-dependent behavior.

Unresolved Conceptual Issues

 Operationalizing salience remains a challenge despite the conceptual clarity of the
accessibility fit formulation.
 The status of relational identity and the relational self raises questions about whether it is
a personal or social identity.
 The hydraulic relationship between identities, where the dominance of one diminishes
others, and the simultaneous salience of multiple identities in the same context are
significant conceptual issues.

Future Directions
 Examining the possibility of simultaneous identification with a subgroup and a
superordinate group in intergroup contexts.
 Understanding how dual identification may contribute to defusing intergroup conflict and
fostering diversity celebration.
 Exploring the relationship between social identity processes and ideological belief
systems, particularly in the context of uncertainty and extreme ideologies.
 Investigating the role of cultural forms of self-construal, including the relational self, and
how culture configures social identity and group membership.
 Emphasizing the importance of language and communication as integral aspects of social
identity dynamics, calling for an integrated approach that bridges language scholars and
social identity theorists.

Unit 3
Social relations
- Attraction and intimacy (Delmateur – till new direction of research)
o Attachment types
o Sternberg’s theory
o Types of relationship
o Sustaining relationships
- Pro-social behaviour
- Aggression and violence

Unit 4
Group processes (forsythe – group dynamics)
- (Group) Decision making and Performance
- ODDI model
- Shared memory bias, cross cuing
- Planning fallacy
- Group shift, risky group shift
- Polarization (what is it, causes and how can it be utilized)
- Obedience, compliance and conformity
- Social facilitation
- Social inhibition
- Social loafing
- Brainstorming
- Ringleman effect
- Groupthink
- Intergroup conflict