Republic ofthe Philippines POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR BRANCHES AND CAMPUSES SANTA ROSA CAMPUS City of Santa Rosa, Laguna INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL FOR SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY (PSYC 30043) COMPILED BY: MINERA LAIZA C. ACOSTA FacultyTABLE OF CONTENTS UNIT I~ INTRODUCING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Lesson 1: What is Social Psychology? 1.1 Defining Social Psychology. 1.2 History of Social Psychology. zl 1.3 Conduting Research in Social Psychology... UNIT Il SOCIAL THINKING Lesson 2: Social Cognition 2.4 Social Cognition. 2.2 Social Affect...... 2.3 Social Behavior. Lesson 3: The Self 3.1 The Cognitive Set 3.2 The Feeling Se... 3.3 The Social Self Lesson 4: Attitudes and Behavior 4.1 How Psychologists Define Attitude..... leer 78 4.2 Cognitive Dissonance and Ways to Resolve tt. UNIT Ill - SOCIAL INFLUENCE Lesson 5: Perceiving Others 5.1 Person Perception. 5.2 Biases in Attribution Lesson 6: Influencing and Conforming 6.1 Social Influence... peers a) 6.2 Conformity... Sateen 39 6.3 Situational Determinants of Conformity..... AQ 6.4 Obedience, Power and Leadership. 43 Lesson 7: People in Groups 7.1 The Psychology of Group... a AT 7.2 Social Facilitation in Groups. . 50 7.3 Group Development. i 52 UNIT IV ~ SOCIAL RELATIONS Lesson 8: Liking and Loving 8.4 Initial Attraction........ one s5B 8.2 Affect. ee 61 8.3 What Is Love? «ees. — 62 Lesson 9: Helping and Altruism 9.1 Altruism, 879.2 Reciprocal Altruism 68 Lesson 10: Stereotypes, Prejudice and Discrimination 10.1 Types of Prejudice and Discrimination. at 215 10.2 Why do Prejudice and Discrimination Exist?. Lesson 11: Aggression 9.1 Aggression 9.2 Violence. ae 9.3 The Violence Around Us.UNIT | — INTRODUCING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OVERVIEW: The science of social psychology investigates the ways other people affect our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. It is an exciting field of study because it is so familiar and relevant to our day-to-day lives. Social psychology is very broad and can be found in just about everything that we do every day. This field of science is all about investigating the ways groups function, the costs and benefits of social status, the influences of cutture, and all the other psychological processes involving two or more people. Social psychology helps us understand why ‘we are often helpful to other people and why we may at other times be utifriendly or aggressive. Flirting, conforming, arguing, trusting, competing—these are all examples of topics that interest social psychology researchers. Social psychologists study what factors lead people to purchase one product rather than another, how men and women. behave differently in social settings, and what makes some people more likely to recycle and engage in other environmentally friendly behaviors than others. LEARNING OUTCOMES: After successful completion of this unit, you should be able to: 4. Expand the knowledge about Social Psychology, its historical background and human behavior. 2. Explain why social psychologists rely on empirical methods to study social behavior. 3. Provide examples of how sacial psychologists measure the variables they are interested in. 4, Review the types of research designs, and evaluate the strenaths and limitations of each type. 5. Consider the role of validity in research, and describe how research programs should be evaluated. COURSE MATERIALS: Lesson 1 - WHAT IS SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY? Defining social psychology: History and Principles Social psychology is a science that studies the influences of our situations, with special attention to how we view and affect one another. More precisely, it is the scientific study of how people think about, influence, and relate to one another. Social psychology lies at psychology's boundary with sociology. Compared with sociology (the study of people in groups and societies), social psychology focuses more on individuals and uses more experimentation, Compared with personality psychology, social psychology focuses less on individuals’ differences ‘and more on how individuals, in general, view and atfect one another. Social psychology is the scientific study of ‘Social thinking Social influence Social relations + How we perceive = Culture + Prejudice ‘ourselves and others '* Pressures to conform * Aggression ‘+ What we believe + Persuasion. "+ Attraction and intimacy Sma nares wnroee: ‘+ Groups of people ‘+ Helping + Our attitudesBrief History of Social Psychology Before 1900 * The earilest social psychology experiments on group behavior were conducted. 1908 * The first social psychology textbooks were published, Researches about Adolf Hitler 1936 and 1952 + The studies on conformity conducted by Muzafir Sherif (1936) and Solomon Asch (1952) 1974 * Studies on obedience conducted by Stanley Milgram. 1940s-50s_ + Kurt Lewin and Leon Festinger refined the experimental approach to studying behavior, creating social psychology as a rigorous scientific discipline, 1954 * Festinger edited an influential book called Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences, in which he and other social psychologists stressed the need to measure variables and to use laboratory experiments to systematically test research hypotheses about social behavior. 1968 + John Darley and Bibb Latane developed a model that helped explain when people do and do net help others in need. 1971 * Philip Zimbardo in his well-known ‘prison study" in Stanford University. 1972 *+ Other social psychologists, including ving Janis, focused on group behavior studying why ineligent People sometimes made decisions that led to disastrous results when they worked together. 1974 + _ Leonard Berkowitz pioneered the study of human aggression 1970s-80s * Social Psychology became even more cognitive in orientation as psychologists used advances in cognitive psychology. The focus of these researches was on social cognition- an understanding of how our knowledge about our social worlds develops through experience. 24st Century © The field of Social Psychology has been expanding into stil other areas. Includes interest in how social situations influence out health and happiness. the important roles of evolutionary experiences and cultures on our behavior, and the field of social neuroscience. Social Neuroscience — It is the study of how our social behavior both influences and is influenced by the activities of our brain The Person and the Social Situation * Our behavior is also profoundly influenced by the social situation — the people with whom we interact with everyday. + Oursocial situations create social influence ~ the process through which other people change our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and through which we change theirs. Evolutionary Adaptation and Human Characteristics * People have these particular characteristics because we have all been similarly shaped through human evolution. The genetic code that defines human beings has provided us with specialized social skills that are important to survival + The assumption that human nature, including much of our social behavior, is determined largely by our evolutionary past is known as evolutionary adaptation. In evolutionary theory, fitness refers to the extent to which having a given characteristic helps the individual organism to survive and to reproduce at a higher rate.2 Fundamental Motivations of Evolutionary Adaptation 1. Self-Concern ‘+ The most basic tendency ofall organisms, and the focus of the first human motivation, is the desire to protect and enhance our own life and the lives of the people who are close to us. * Human beings, like other animals, exhibit kin selection — strategies that favor the reproductive success of one’s relatives, sometimes even at a cost to the individual's own survival. ‘+ In addition to our kin, we desire to protect, improve, and enhance the well-being af our ingroup ~ those we View as being similar and important to us and with whom we share close social connections, even if those people do not actually share aur genes. 2. Other-Concern * We also desire to connect with and be accepted by other people more generally The Social Situation Creates Powerful Social Influence ‘= The importance of others shows up in every aspect of our lives — other people teach us what we should and shouldn't do, what we should and shouldn't think, and even what we shouldn't like and dislike. © We carry our own personal social situations — our experiences with our parents, teachers, leaders, authorities, and friends ~ around with us everyday. Social Influence Creates Social Norms ‘© Social influence occurs passively. ‘© One outcome of social influence is the development of social norms ~ the ways of thinking, feeling, or behaving that are shared by group members and perceived by them as appropriate. Different Cultures Have Different Norms ‘© Acculture represents a group of people, normally living within @ given geographical region, who share a common set of social norms, including religious and family values and moral beliefs. * Social psychologists have found that there is a fundamental difference in social norms between Wester cultures and East Asian cultures. ‘© Wester cultures are primarily oriented toward individualism — cultural norms, common in Wester societies that focus primarily on seff-enhancement and independence. ‘* Norms in the East Asian cultures are more focused on other-concem. These norms indicate that people should be more fundamentally connected with others and thus are more oriented toward interdependence, oF collectivism. Conducting Research in Social Psychology Social psychology research methods allow psychologists to get a better look at what causes people to engage in certain behaviors in social situations. In order to empirically study social behavior, psychologists rely on ‘a number of different scientific methods to conduct research on social psychology topics. These methods allow researchers to test hypotheses and theories and look for relationships between different variables. Why do people do the things they do? And why do they sometimes behave differently in groups? These questions are of interest not only to social psychologists, but to teachers, public policy-makers, healthcare administrators, or anyone who has ever watched a news story about a world event and wondered, “Why do people act that way? Which type of research is best? This depends largely on the subject the researcher is exploring, the resources available, and the theory or hypothesis being investigated. Why Do Psychologists Study Social Behavior? ‘Why study social behavior? Since so many "common sense" explanations exist for so many human actions, people sometimes fail to see the value in scientifically studying such behaviors. However, itis important to remember that folk wisdom can often be surprisingly inaccurate and that the scientific explanations behind a behavior can be quite shocking. Milgram's infamous obedience experiments are examples of how the results of an experiment can defy conventional wisdom Ifyou asked most people if they would obey an authority figure even if it meant going against their moral code or harming another individual, they would probably emphatically deny that they would ever do such a thing. 6Yet Milgram's results revealed that 65 percent of participants would hurt another person simply because they were told to do so by an authority figure. Itis important to utilize the scientific method to study psychological phenomena in an objective, empirical, ‘and analytical way. By employing the scientific method, researchers can see cause-and-effect relationships and generalize the results of their experiments to larger populations. While common sense might tell us that opposites attract, that birds of a feather flock together, or that absence makes the heart grow fonder, psychologists can put such ideas to the test using various research methods to determine if there is any real truth to such folk wisdom, Descriptive Research ‘The goal of descriptive research is to portray what already exists in a group or population One example of this type of research would be an opinion poll to find which political candidate people plan to vote for in an upcoming election. Unlike causal and relational studies, descriptive studies cannot determine if there is a relationship between two variables. They can only describe what exists within a given population. ‘An example of descriptive research would be conducting a survey to find out people's attitudes toward a particular social issue such as divorce, capital punishment, or gambling laws. ‘Common Types of Descriptive Research ‘Some of the most commonly used forms of descriptive research utilized by social psychologists include: Surveys Surveys are probably one of the most frequently used types of descriptive research. Such surveys usually rely on self-report inventories in which people fill out questionnaires about their own behaviors or opinions. The advantage of the survey method is that it allows social psychology researchers to gather a large amount of data relatively quickly, easily, and cheaply. ‘The Observational Method This involves watching people and describing their behavior. Sometimes referred to as field observation, this can involve creating a scenario in a lab and then watching how people respond or performing naturalistic observation in the subject's own environment Each type of observation has its own strengths and weaknesses. Researchers might prefer using observational methods in a lab in order to gain greater cantrol over possible extraneous variables, while they might prefer using naturalistic observation in order to obtain greater ecological validity. However, lab observations tend to be more costly and difficult to implement than naturalistic observations. Case Studies A case study involves the in-depth observation of a single individual or group. Case studies can allow researchers to gain insight into things that are Very rare or even impossible to reproduce in experimental settings. The case study of Genie, a young girl who was horrifically abused and deprived of learning language during the critical period, is one example of how a case study can allow social scientists to study phenomena that they otherwise could not reproduce in a lab. TYPES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH Correlational Research Social psychologists use correlational research to look for relationships between variables. For example, social psychologists might carry out a correlational study looking at the relationship between media violence and aggression. They might collect data on how many hours of aggressive or violent television programs children watch each week and then gather data how on aggressively the children act in lab situations or in naturalistic settings. Conducting surveys, directly observing behaviors, or compiling research from earrier studies are some of the methods used to gather data for correlational research. While this type of study can help determine if two variables have a relationship, it does not allow researchers to determine if one variable causes changes in another variable.While the researcher in the previous example on media aggression and violence can use the results of study to determine if there might be a relationship between the two variables, he cannot say definitively that watching television violence causes aggressive behavior. Ex. Do Children Leam Violence Through Observation? Experimental research is the key to uncovering causal relationships between variables. In experimental research, the experimenter randomly assigns participants to one of two groups: ‘The Control Group: The control group receives no treatment and serves as a baseline. The Experimental Group: Researchers manipulate the levels of some independent variable in the experimental group and then measure the effects. Because researchers are able to control the independent Variables, experimental research can be used to find causal relationships between variables. So if psychologists wanted to establish a causal relationship between media violence and aggressive behavior, they would want to design an experiment to test this hypothesis. If the hypothesis was that playing violent video games causes players to respond more aggressively in social situations, they would want to randomly assign parlicipants to two groups. The control group would play a non-violent video game for a predetermined period of time while the experimental group would play a violent game for the same period of time. Afterward, the participants would be placed in a situation where they would play a game against another ‘opponent. In this game, they could either respond aggressively or non-aggressively. The researchers would then collect data on how often people utilized aggressive responses in this situation and then compare this information with whether these individuals were in the control or experimental group. Why Social Research Methods Are Important The study of human behavior is as complex as the behaviors themselves, which is why itis so important for social scientists to utlize empirical methods of selecting participants, collecting data, analyzing their findings, and reporting their results. By using the scientific method, designing an experiment, collecting data, and analyzing the results, researchers can then determine if there is a causal relationship between media violence and violent behavior. WATCH: What is Social Psychology? httos://www. youtube. com/watch2v=IiTsx44-ieY Introduction to Social Psychology bhtips:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEw23EFudre Research Methods in Social Psychology https:/Avww. youtube.comiwatch?v=T527h0GQsME READ: Chapter 4 ~ Introducing Social Psychology Social Psychology by David Myers Chapter 1 ~ Introducing Social Psychology Principles of Social Psychology by Charles Stangor An Overview of Social Psychology by Kendra Cherry, updated on July 5, 2020, Retrieved from 1s:/Awww.verywellmind,com/social-psvchology-4157177 Conducting Research in Social Psychology by Kendra Cherry, updated on September 24, 2019, Retrieved from httos:/Avww. verywellmind. com/social-psychology-research-methods-2785902ACTIVITIES/ASSESSMENT: GUIDE QUESTION/s: 1. What do social psychologists study? Can you give some examples of interdisciplinary research? 2. Sometimes experiments are used in social psychological research. Why? 3. Consider a recent situation from your personal experience in which you focused on an individual and a cause of his or her behavior. Could you reinterpret their behavior using a situational explanation? Assignment 3 1. Read Lesson 2 and answer the Guide Questions. 2. Be ready for a Unit Quiz, Links of the quiz will be uploaded in Schoology/Zoom.UNIT Il— SOCIAL THINKING OVERVIEW: This unit examines the scientific study of how we think about one another (also called social cognition). Each lesson confronts some overriding questions: How reasonable are our social attitudes, explanations, and beliefs? ‘Are our impressions of ourselves and others generally accurate? How does our social thinking form? Hows it prone to bias and error, and how might we bring it closer to realty? This module also explores the interplay between our sense of self and our social worlds. How do our social surroundings shape our self-identities? How does self-interest color our social judgments and motivate our social behavior? This unit looks at the amazing and sometimes rather amusing ways we form beliefs about our social worlds. It also alerts us to some pitfalls of social thinking and suggests how to avoid them and think smarter. In this module, we explore the links between our thinking and our actions, between our attitudes and our behaviors: Do our attitudes determine our behaviors, or vice versa? Or does it work both ways? LEARNING OUTCOMES: After successful completion of this unit, you should be able to: 1. Define and differentiate affect, behavior, and cognition as considered by social psychologists. 2. Define and desoribe the self-concept, its influence on information processing, and its diversity across social groups. 3. Explore how we sometimes overestimate the accuracy with which other people view us. 4. Define seffesteem and explain how it is measured by social psychologists. 5. Describe the concept of the looking-glass self and how it affects our self-concept. 6. Examine social comparison, and summarize how people use it to define their self-concepts and self- esteem. 7. Delineate the concept of an attitude and explain why itis of such interest to social psychologists. 8. Review the variables that determine attitude strength. COURSE MATERIALS: Lesson 2 - SOCIAL COGNITION Social cognition is cognition that relates to social activitios and that helps us understand and predict the behavior of ourselves and others. People develop a set of social knowledge that contains information about the self, other people, social relationships and social groups. How exactly do psychologists define social cognition? While there is no single definition, there are some ‘common factors that many experts have identified as being important. Social Cognition involves: + The processes involved in perceiving other people and how we come to know about the people in the world around us. + Itinvolves the study of these mental processes that involved in perceiving, remembering, thinking about, and attending to the other people in our social world. ‘+ Psychologists are interested in why we attend to certain information about the social world. + Itis not simply a topic within social psychology - it is an approach to studying any subject with social psychology. Using a social-cognitive perspective, researchers can study a wide range of topics including attitudes, person-perception, prejudice, stereotypes, self-concept, discrimination, persuasion, decision- ‘making among others. Social Cognition: Thinking and Leaming about Others The human brain contains about 86 billion neurons, each of which can make contact with tens of thousands of other neurons. The distinguishing brain feature in’ mammals, including humans, is the more recently evolved cerebral cortex—the part of the brain that is involved in thinking. Humans are highly intelligent, and they use cognition in every part of their social lives. Psychologists refer to cognition as the mental activity of processing information and using that information in judgment.Over time, people develop a set of social knowledge that contains information about the self, other people, social relationships, and social groups. Two types of knowledge are particularly important in social psychology: schemas and attitudes. A schema is a knowledge representation that includes information about a person or group (e.9., out knowedge that Joe Is a friendly guy or that Italians are romantic). An attitude is a knowledge representation that includes primarily our liking or disliking of @ person, thing, or group (‘I really ike Julie"; "dislike my new apartment"). Once we have formed them, both schemas and attitudes allow us to judge ‘quickly and without much thought whether someone or something we encounter is good or bad, helpful or hurtful, to be sought out or avoided. Thus schemas and attitudes have an important influence on our social information processing and social behavior. Social cognition involves the active interpretation of events. As a result, different people may draw different conclusions about the same events. When Indira smiles at Robert, he might think that she is romantically attracted to him, whereas she might think that she’s just being friendly. When Mike tells a joke about Polish people, he might think it's funny, but Wanda might think he is being prejudiced. The 12 members of a jury who are deliberating about the outcome in a trial have all heard the same evidence, but each juror’s own schemas and attitudes may lead him or her to interpret the evidence differently. The fact that different people interpret the same events differently makes life interesting, but it can sometimes lead to disagreement and conflict. Social psychologists study how people interpret and understand their worlds and, particularly, how they make judgments about the causes of other people's behavior. Social Affect: Feelings about Ourselves and Others Affect refers to the feelings we experience as part of our everyday lives. As our day progresses, we may find ourselves feeling happy or sad, jealous or grateful, proud or embarrassed. Although affect can be harmful i is unregulated or unchecked, our affective experiences normally help us to function efficiently and in a way that increases our chances of survival. Affect signals us that things are going all right (e.g., because we are in a good mood or are experiencing joy or serenity) or that things are not going so well (we are in a bad mood, anxious, upset, or angry). Affect can also lead us to engage in behaviors that are appropriate to our perceptions of a given situation. When we are happy, we may seek out and socialize with others: when we are angry, we may attack; when we are fearful, we may run away. We experience affect in the form of mood and emotions. Mood refers to the positive or negative feelings that are in the background of our everyday experiences. Most of the time, we are in a relatively good mood, and positive mood has some positive consequences—it encourages us to do what needs to be done and to make the ‘most of the situations we are in (Isen, 2003). When we are in a good mood, our thought processes open up and we are more likely to approach others. We are more friendly and helpful to others when we are in a good mood than When we are in a bad mood, and we may think more creatively (De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, 2008). On the other hand, when we are in a bad mood, we are more likely to prefer to remain by ourselves rather than interact with others, and our creativity suffers. Emotions are brief, but often intense, mental and physiological feeling states. In comparison with moods, ‘emotions are shorter lived, stronger, and more specific forms of affect. Emotions are caused by specific events (things that make us, for instance, jealous or angry), and they are accompanied by high levels of arousal. Whereas we experience moods in normal, everyday situations, we experience emotions only when things are out of the ordinary or unusual. Emotions serve an adaptive role in helping us guide our social behaviors, Just as we run from a snake because the snake elicits fear, we may try to make amends with other people when we feel guilty. Social Behavior: Interacting with Others Because we interact with and influence each other every day, we have developed the ability to make these interactions proceed efficiently and effectively. We cooperate with other people to gain outcomes that we could not obtain on our own, and we exchange goods, services, and other benefits with other people. These behaviors are essential for survival in any society (Kameda, Takezawa, & Hastie, 2003; Kameda, Takezawa, Tindale, & Smith, 2002) The sharing of goods, services, emotions, and other social outcomes is known as social exchange. Social rewards (the positive outcomes that we give and receive when we interact with others) include such benefits 2s unattention, praise. affection, love, and financial support. Social costs (the negative outcomes that we give and receive when Wwe interact with others), on the other hand, include, for instance, the frustrations that accrue when disagreements with others develop, the guil that results if we perceive that we have acted inappropriately, and the effort involved in developing and maintaining harmonious interpersonal relationships. Imagine a first-year student at college or university who is trying to decide whether or not to join a student club. Joining the club has costs, in terms of the dues that have to be paid, the need to make friends with each of the other club members and to attend club meetings, and so forth. On the other hand, there are the potential benefits of group membership, including having a group of friends with similar interests and a social network to help find activities to participate in. To determine whether or not to join, the student has to weigh both the social and the material costs and benefits before coming to a conclusion (Moreland & Levine, 2006). People generally prefer to maximize their own outcomes by attempting to gain as many social rewards as, possible and by attempting to minimize their social costs. Such behavior is consistent with the goal of protecting and enhancing the self. But although people do behave according to the goals of seif-concem, these goals are tempered by other-concem: the goals of respecting, accepting, and cooperating with others. AS a result, social exchange is generally fair and equitable, at least in the long run. Imagine, for example, that someone asks you to do a favor for them, and you do it.I they were only concerned about their own self-enhancement, they might simply ‘accept the favor without any thought of paying you back. Yet both you and they would realize that you would most certainly expect them to be willing to do the same type of favor for you, should you ask them at some later time. One of the outcomes of humans living together in small groups over thousands of years is that people have leamed to cooperate by giving benefits to those who are in need, with the expectation of a retum of benefits at a future time. This mutual, and generally equitable, exchange of benefits is known as reciprocal altruism. An individual who is temporarily sick or injured will benefit from the help that he or she might get from others during this time. And according to the principle of reciprocal altruism, other group members will be wiling to give that help to the needy individual because they expect that similar help will be given to them should they need it. However, in order for reciprocal altruism to work, people have to keep track of how benefits are exchanged, to be sure that everyone plays by the rules. If one person starts to take benefits without paying them back, this violates the principle of reciprocity and should not be allowed to continue for very long. In fact, research has shown that people seem to be particularly good at detecting “cheaters’—those who do not live up to their obligations in reciprocal altruism— and that these individuals are judged extemely negatively (Mealey, Daood, & Krage, 1996; Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). WATCH: Social Cognition https:/Avww. youtube.comiwatch?v=QkOOiiwVFOk Social Cognition Jhwww.youtube.comw IY glZNVYK What is Social Cognition hhttos:/Avww,youtube,cormiwatch?v=p0pT{9Qx¥hY READ: Social Cognition by Yanine D. Hess and Cynthia L. Pickett. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://openy k.calint ntopsychi :ocial-cosnition-and-attitudes/ Social Cognition. (n.d.). Retrieved from htips://courses.iumenieaming, com/boundless-psychology/chapter/socisl-coanition/ 2ACTIVITIES/ASSESSMENT: GUIDE QUESTION/s: {. How do we interpret other people's feelings and emotions? How do we igure out what they are thinking or 2. Thiaboit when you lst engaged ina ease of reciprocal am and describe what tok lace Assignment 1. Read Lesson 3 and answer the Guide Questions. Lesson 3- THE SELF Sethconcpt seltetoo am? nse ot Whe: My ‘The self Sit lt se Myroles asa stent on an lin ane tet memos se edna? ‘edo gone THE COGNITIVE SELF: SELF-CONCEPT Some nonhuman animals, including chimpanzees, orangutans, and perhaps dolphins, have at least a primitive sense of self (Boysen & Himes, 1999). We know this because of same interesting experiments that have been done with animals. The child's knowledge about the self continues to develop as the child grows. By two years of age, the infant becomes aware of his or her gender as a boy or a girl At age four, the child's self-descriptions are likely to be based on physical features, such as hair color, and by about age six, the child is able to understand basic ‘emotions and the concepts of traits, being able to make statements such as “lam a nice person’ (Harter, 1998). Development and Characteristics of the Self-Concept Part of what is developing in children as they grow is the fundamental cognitive part of the self, known as the self-concept. The self-concept is @ knowledge representation thet contains knowledge about us, including our beliefs about our personality traits, physical characteristics, abilities, values, goals, and roles, as well as the knowledge that we exist as individuals. Throughout childhood and adolescence, the self-concept becomes more abstract and complex and is organized into a variety of different cognitive aspects of the self, known as self-schemas. Children have self-schemas about their progress in school, their appearance, their skills at sports and other activities, and many other aspects. In tum, these self-schemas direct and inform their processing of self-relevant information (Harter, 1999) Development and Characteristics of the Self-Concept These self-schemas can be studied using the methods that we would use to study any other schema. One approach is to use neuroimaging to directly study the self in the brain. The self-concept is the most important of all our schemas, it has an extraordinary degree of influence on our thoughts, feelings, and behavior. BOther research has found that information related to the self-schema is better remembered than information that is unrelated to it, and that information related to the self can also be processed very quickly (Lieberman, Jarcho, & Satpute, 2004), The finding that information that is processed in relationship to the self is particularly well remembered, known as the self-reference effect, is powerful evidence that the self-concept helps us organize and remember information. Development and Characteristics of the Self-Concept How can we measure that specific content? One way is by using self-report tests. One of these is a deceptively simple fil-in-the-blank measure that has been widely used by many scientists to get a picture of the self-concept, (Rees & Nicholson, 1994). All of the 20 items in the measure are exactly the samo, but the person is asked to fill in a different response for each statement. This self-report measure, known as the Twenty Statements Test (TST), can reveal a lot about @ person because it is designed to measure the most accessible—and thus the most important—parts of a person's self-concept. Physical characteristics are an important component of the self-concept, and they are mentioned by many people when they describe themselves. A second aspect of the self-concept relating to personal characteristics is made up of personality traits—the specific and stable personality characteristics that describe an individual Development and Characteristics of the Self-Concept ‘The remainder of the self-concept reflects its more extemal, social components. Group memberships form an important part of the self-concept because they provide us with our social identity—the sense of our self that involves our memberships in social groups. Although we all define ourselves in relation to these three broad categories of characteristics—physical, personality, and social - some interesting cultural differences in the relative importance of these categories have been shown in people's responses to the TST. Cultural differences in self-concept have even been found in people's self-descriptions on social networking sites. DeAndrea, Shaw, and Levine (2010) examined individuals’ free-text self-descriptions in the About Me section in their Facebook profiles. Consistent with the researchers’ hypotheses, and with previous research using the TST, African American participants had the most the most independently (intemally) described self-concepts, and Asian ‘Americans had the most interdependent (extemal) self-descriptions, with European Americans in the middle. Development and Characteristics of the Self-Concept ‘As well as indications of cultural diversity in the content of the self-concept, there is also evidence of parallel gender diversity between males and females from various cultures, with females, on average, giving more external and social responses to the TST than males (Kashima et al., 1995). Interestingly, these gender differences have been found to be more apparent in individualistic nations than in collectivistic nations (Watkins et al., 1998). Self-Complexity and Self-Concept Clarity The seif-concept also includes thoughts about our past self—our experiences, accomplishments, and fallures— and about our future self—our hopes, plans, goals, and possibilities (Oyserman, Bybee, Terry, & Hart-Johnson, 2004), Although every human being has a complex self-concept, there are nevertheless individual differences in self- complexity, the extent to which individuals have many different and relatively independent ways of thinking about themselves (Linville, 1987; Roccas & Brewer, 2002), Research has found that compared with people low in self-complexity, those higher in self-complexity tend to ‘experience more positive outcomes, including higher levels of self-esteem (Rafaeli-Mor& Steinberg, 2002), lower levels of stress and illness (Kalthoff & Neimeyer, 1993), and a greater tolerance for frustration (Gramzow, Sedikides, Panter, & Insko, 2000). Solf-Complexity and Self-Concept Clarity Even though having high self-complexity seems useful overall it does not seem to help everyone equally in their response to all events (Rafaeli-Moré& Steinberg, 2002). People with high self-complexity seem to react more positively to the good things that happen to them but not necessarily less negatively to the bad things. 4Self-concept clarity is the extent to which one’s self-concept is clearly and consistently defined (Campbell, 1990). Theoretically, the concepts of complexity and clarity are independent of each other—a person could have either a more or less complex self-concept that is either well defined and consistent, or ill defined and inconsistent. However, in reality, they each have similar relationships to many indices of well-being, Self-Complexity and Self-Concept Clarity Having a cleat and stable view of ourselves can help us in our relationships. Lewandowski, Nardine, and Raines (2010) found a positive correlation between clarity and relationship satisfaction, as well as a significant increase in reported satisfaction following an experimental manipulation of participants’ self-concept clarity. Greater clarity may promote relationship satisfaction in a number of ways. Solf-Awareness Self-awareness rofers to the extent to which we are currently fixing our attention on our own self-concept. When ‘our self-concept becomes highly accessible because of our concems about being observed and potentially judged by others, we experience the publicly induced self-awareness known as self-consciousness (Ouval & Wicklund, 1972; Rochat, 2008). Emotions such as anxiety and embarrassment ocour in large part because the self-concept becomes highly accessible, and they serve as a signal to monitor and perhaps change our behavior. In addition to variation in long-term accessibility, the self and its various components may also be made temporarily more accessible through priming. We become more self-aware when we are in front of a mirror, when a TV camera is focused on us, when we are speaking in front of an audience, or when we are listening to our own tape-recorded voice (Kemis&Grannemann, 1988). When the knowledge contained in the self-schema becomes more accessible, it also becomes more likely to be used in information processing and to influence our behavior. Social psychologists are interested in studying self-awareness because it has such an important influence on behavior. People become more likely to violate acceptable, mainstream social norms; And when people are in large ‘crowds, such as in a mass demonstration or a riot, they may become so much a part of the group that they experience deindividuation—the loss of individual set-awareness and individual accountabilly in groups (Festinger, Pepitone, & Newcomb, 1952; Zimbardo, 1969) and become more attuned to themselves as group members and to the specific social norms of the particular situation (Reicher & Stott, 2011). Social Psychology in the Public Interest Rioting occurs when civilians engage in violent public disturbances. The targets of these disturbances can be people in authority, other civilians, or property. The triggers for riots are varied, including everything from the aflermath of sporting events, to the kiling of a civilian by law enforcement officers, to commodity shortages, to political oppression. Both civilians and law enforcement personnel are frequently seriously injured or killed during riots, and the damage to public property can be considerable. One of the earliest and most influential perspectives on rioting was offered by French sociologist, Gustav Le Bon (1841-1931). In his book The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, Le Bon (1895) described the transformation of the individual in the crowd. According to Le Bon, the forces of anonymity, suggestibilty, and contagion combine to change a collection of individuals into a “psychological crowd." Under this view, the individuals then become submerged in the crowd, lose self-control, and engage in antisocial behaviors. Festinger et al. (1952), for instance, argued that members of large groups do not pay attention to other people as individuals and do not feel that their own behavior is being scrutinized. Under this view, being unidentified and thereby unaccountable has the psychological consequence of reducing inner restraints and increasing behavior that is usually repressed, such as that often seen in riots. Zimbardo (1969) argued that deincividuation involved feelings of reduced self-observation, which then bring about antinormative and disinhibited behavior. He also found out that participants engaged in more antisocial behavior when their identity was made anonymous by wearing Ku Klux Klan uniforms, 5Johnson and Downing (1979) found that when participants were able to mask their identities by wearing nurses’ Uniforms, their deindividuated state actually led them to show more prosocial behavior than when their identities were visible to others Social identity model of deindividuation effects (or SIDE model), developed by Reicher, Spears, and Postines (1995). This perspective argues that being in a deindividuated state can actually reinforce group salience and conformity to speci group norms in the current situation. According to this model, éeindivcuaton does not, then, leads to a loss of identity In support of the SIDE model, although crowd behavior during riots might seem mindless, antinormative, and disinhibited to the outside observer, to those taking part it is often perceived as rational, normative, and subject to well-defined limits (Reicher, 1987) Fogelson (1971) concluded in his analysis of rioting in the United States in the 1960s, restraint and selectivity, as opposed to mindless and indiscriminate violence, were among the most crucial features of the riots. Reicher and Stott (2011) describe it as being caused by a number of interlocking factors. including a sense of illegitimacy or grievance, a lack of alternatives to confrontation, the formation of a shared identity, and a sense of confidence in collective power. Important recommendations for controlling rioting mare effectively, including that: Labeling rioters as “mindless,” “thugs,” and so on will not address the underlying causes of riots. Indiscriminate or disproportionate use of force by police will often lead to an escalation of rioting behavior. Law enforcement personnel should allow legitimate and legal protest behaviors fo occur during riots, and only illegal and inappropriate behaviors should be targeted. Police officers should communicate their intentions to crowds before using force. 2 aspects of individual differences in self-awareness: (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975; Lalwani, Shrum, & Chiu, 2009) 1. Private setf-consciousness refers to the tendency to introspect about ourinner thoughts and feelings. People ‘who are high in private self-consciousness tend to think about themselves a lot and agree with statements such as “Im always trying to figure myseff out” and “I am generally attentive to my inner feelings.” 2. Public self-consciousness, in contrast, refers to the tendency to focus on our outer public image and to be particularly aware of the extent to which we are meeting the standards set by others. Those high in public self-consciousness agree with statements such as ‘lm concemed about what other people think of me," ‘Before | leave my house, | check how | look,” and “I care a lot about how I present myself to others.” Steve Heine and colleagues (2008) found that when college students from Canada (a Wester culture) completed questionnaires in front ofa large mirror, they subsequently became more self-critical and were less likely to cheat. However, the presence of the mirror had no effect on college students from Japan. This person-situation interaction is consistent with the idea that people from East Asian cultures are normally already high in public self- consciousness compared with people from Western cultures, and thus manipulations designed to increase public self-consciousness influence them less. According to self-awareness theory (Duval & Wicklund, 1972), when we focus our attention on ourselves, we tend to compare our current behavior against our internal standards. Self-discrepancy theory states that when we perceive a discrepancy between our actual and ideal selves, this is distressing to us (Higgins, Klein, & Sirauman, 1987). Philips and Silvia (2005) found that people felt significantly more distressed when exposed to self-discrepancies while sitting in front of a mirror Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort that occurs when we respond in ways that we see as inconsistent. ‘Moskalenko and Heine (2002) found that people who are given false negative feedback about their performance on an inteligence test, which presumably lead them to feel discrepant from their internal performance standards about such tasks, subsequently focused significantly more on a video playing in a roam than those given positive feedback, 16Selt-affirmation theory suggests that people will try to reduce the threat to their self-concept posed by feelings of self-discrepancy by focusing on and affirming their worth in another domain, unrelated to the issue at hand. Munro and Stansbury (2009) tested people's social cognitive responses to hypotheses that were either threatening or non-threatening to their self-concepts, following exposure to either a seif-affirming or non-affirming activity Gonzales and Hancock (2011) conducted an experiment showing that individuals became more self-aware after viewing and updating their Facebook profiles, and in turn reported higher self-esteem than participants assigned to an offne, control condition. The increased self-awareness that can come from Facebook activity may not always have beneficial effects. Chiou and Lee (20/3) conducted two experiments indicating that when individuals put personal photos and wall postings onto their Facebook accounts, they show increased self-awareness, but subsequently decreased ability 10 take other people's perspectives. Toma and Hancock (2013) investigated the role of self-affirmation in Facebook usage and found that users viewed their profiles in self-affrming ways, which enhanced their self-worth. Heine and Lehman (1997) tested participants from a more individualistic nation (Canada) and a more collectivistic one (Japan) in a situation where they took a personality test and then received bogus positive or negative feedback. Overestimating How Closely and Accurately Others View Us People do not generally focus on their self-concept any more than they focus on the other things and other people in their environments (Csikszentmihalyi & Figurski, 1982). Research by Thomas Gilovich and colleagues Gilovich, Medveo, & Savitsky, 2000) found that people who were interacting with others thought that other people were paying much more attention to them than those other people reported actually doing. Teenagers are particularly likely to be highly self-conscious, often believing that others are waiching them (Goossens, Beyers, Emmen, & Van Aken, 2002). Because teens think so much about themselves, they are particularly likely to believe that others must be thinking about them, too (Rycek, Stuhr, McDermott, Benker, & Swartz, 1998). Gilovich, Savitsky, and Medvec (1998) asked groups of five students to work together on a ‘lie detection” task ‘THE FEELING SELF: SELF-ESTEEM Self-Esteem % Refers the positive (high self-esteem) or negative (low self-esteem) feelings that we have about ourselves, % Determined by many factors, including how well we view our own performance and appearance, and how satisfied we are with our relationship with other people. ‘ Astate that varies day to day and even hour to hour. “Can be measured using both implicit and explicit measures, and both approaches find that most people tend to view themselves positively. Numerous studies have used the Rosenberg scale to assess people's self-esteem In many areas of the world. Many people, particularly in individualistic cultures, report having relatively high self-esteem, an interesting question is why this might be. A problem with measures such as the Rosenberg is that they can be influenced by the desire to portray the seff positively Implicit Association Test Participants worked a computer and were presented with a series of words, each of were categorize in one of two ways. One categorization decision involved whether the words are related to the self or to another person. A second categorization involved determining whether words were pleasant or unpleasant. Found that participants were significantly faster at categorizing positive words with the self words than they were categorizing negative words with self words, suggesting again that people did have positive self ~esteem. Individualistic cultures, report having relatively high self-esteem than in the cultures where having high-self worth is a less priority. According to Sprecher, Brooks and Avogo, across many countries, women have been found to report lower self-esteem than men. Ina large Intemet survey, Robins, Trzesniewski, Tracy, Gosling &Potter(2002) found that selfesteem tends to decrease from childhood to early adolescence, and then rises steadily from adolescence into adulthood, usually until people are well in their sixties , after which point it begins to decline. unMaintaining and Enhancing Self-Esteem ‘One reason that many of us have positive self-esteem is because we are generally successful at creating positive lives. ‘Another way we can boost our self-esteem is through building connections with others. Forming and maintaining satisfying relationships helps us to feel good about ourselves. Narcissism and the Limits of Self-Enhancement Narcissism is a personality trait characterized by overly high self-esteem, self-admiration, and self- centeredness, Narcissist tend to agree with statements such as the following: “I know that I am good because everybody keep telling me so” ‘Lean usually talk my way out of anything” “Like to be the center of attention” “I have natural talent for influencing people” Processing Information to Enhance Self (Sanitioso, Kunda, and Fong) KAR Does High Self-Esteem Cause Happiness or Other Positive Outcomes? Baumeister and his colleagues conducted an extensive review of the research literature to determine whethor having high self-esteem was a helpful as many people séem to think itis. They found that high self-esteem does correlate with many positive outcomes. Objective measures show that these beliefs are often distortions rather than facts. Furthermore, people with overly high self-esteem, particularly when it is accompanied with narcissism, defensiveness, conceit, and unwilingness to critically assess one’s potential negative qualities, have been found engage in a variety of negative behaviors. THE SOCIAL SELF Self is not created in isolation, thus social institution influences our self- concept and self- esteem. We are not bom with perceptions of ourselves as shy, interested in jazz, ar charitable to others, such beliefs are determined by our observations of and interactions with others, The Looking-Glass Self: Our Sense of Self is Influenced by Others’ Views of Us The concept of the looking-glass self, states that part of how we see ourselves comes from our perception of how others see us (Cooley, 1902). We might feel that we have a great sense of humor, for example, because others have told us, and often laugh (apparently sincerely) at our jokes. Mark Baldwin's work with his colleagues, demonstrate how we think we are being perceived by othars really can affect how we see ourselves, For example, Baldwin and Holmes (1987) conducted two experiments to test the hypothesis that our self-concepts derive partly from the way we imagine that we would be perceived by significant others. Their study proved that sometimes we end up evaluating ourselves as we imagine others would. Labeling bias occur when we are labeled, and others’ views and expectations of us are affected by that labeling. If we are repeatedly labeled and evaluated by others, then self-labeling may occur. This happens when we adopt others labels explicitly into our self-concept. The effects of this selflabeling on our self-esteem appear to depend very much on the nature of the labels. Intemalized prejudice, occurs when individuals tum prejudice directed toward them by others onto themselves. Intemalized prejudice has been found to predict more negative self-concept and poorer psychological adjustmentin members of various groups, including sexual minorities Social Comparison Theory: Our Sense of Self Is Influenced by Comparisons with Others Social comparison occurs when we leam about our abilities and skills, about the appropriateness and validity of our opinions, and about our relative social status by comparing our own altitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with those of others. 18Downward Social Comparisons ‘We attempt to create a positive image of ourselves through favorable comparisons with other who are worse off, than we are, In one study Morse and Gergen (1970) had students apply for a job, and they also presented the students with another individual who was supposedly applying for the same job. When the other candidate was made to appear to be less qualified for the job, the downward comparison with the less qualified applicant made the students feel better about their own qualifications. Upward Social Comparisons ‘We attempt to compare ourselves with others better than we are which results to lower self- esteem. Upward comparison may lower our self-esteem by reminding us that we are not as well off as others. In affiliation and social comparison, Stanley Schachter's experiments tested the hypothesis that people who were feeling anxious would prefer to affiliate with others rather than be alone because having others around would reduce their anxiety. He said that misery doesn't just love any kind of company, it loves only miserable company. Social Identity Theory: Our Sense of Self Is Influenced by the Groups We Belong To Social identity theory asserts thal we draw part of our sense of identity and self-esteem from the social groups that we belong to. We can gain self-esteem by perceiving ourselves as members of important and valued groups that make us feel good about ourselves. Kay Deaux and her colleagues (Deaux, Reid, Mizrahi, &Ethier, 1995) asked U.S. college students to list the {groups that they identified with the students reported belonging to a wide variety of groups and claimed that many of these groups provided them with social identities. The categories that they listed included ethnic and religious groups (Asian, Jewish), politcal affiliations (conservative, Democrat), occupations and hobbies (gardener, tennis player), personal relationships (husband, gitiriend), and marginalized groups ( gay, homeless). You can see that these identities were likely to provide a lot of positive feelings for the individuals. In particular, we use occasions when our social groups are successtul in meeting their goals to fuel our self- worth, Robert Cialdini and his colleagues (Cialdin’ et al., 1976) studied the idea that we can sometimes enhance our self-esteem by basking in the reflected glory of our ingroups, which occurs when we use: and advertise our ingroups’ positive achievements to boost our self-esteem. When people in our ingroups perform well, social identity theory suggests that we tend to make intergroup social comparisons, and by seeing our group as doing better than other groups, we come to fee! better about ourselves. However, this is not generally what happens when we make intragroup comparisons — those between ourselves and other ingroup members. In this case itis often not advantageous to bask in the glory of others in our ingroups, because in some cases the other person's successes may create an upward comparison and thus more negative emotions. Self-evaluation maintenance theory (Tesser, 1988) asserts that our self-esteem can be threatened when someone else outperforms us, particularty if that person is close to us and the performance domain is central to our self-concept. ‘When threats ocour, the theory states that we will typically try to rebuild our self-esteem using one of three main strategies: ‘+ Distancing, we redefine ourselves as less close to the person in question. + Redefine haw important the trait or skill realy is to your self-concept + Improve on the ability in question Self-Presentation: Our Sense of Self Is Influenced by the Audiences We Have 19Self-Presentation - The tendency to present a positive self-image to others, with the goal of increasing our social status, and it is a basic and natural part of everyday life Erving Goffman— a sociologist, developed an influential theory of seff-presentation and described it as a mainly honest process, where people need to present the parts of themselves required by the social role that they are playing in a given situation Self presentation is a transparent process, where we are trying to play the part required of us, and we trust that others are doing the same. Other theorists, though, have viewed self-presentation as a more strategic endeavor, which may involve not always portraying ourselves in genuine ways (e.g., Jones & Pittman, 1982). Edward Jones and Thane Pittman (1982)described five self-presentation strategies, each of which is expected to create a resulting emotion in the other person: The goal of ingratiation is to create liking by using fattery or charm: 2. The goal of intimidation is to create fear by showing that you can be aggressive. 3. The goal of exemplification is to create guilt by showing that you are a better person than the ather. 4 5. The goal of supplication is to create pity by indicating to athers that you are helpless and needy. The goal of self-promotion is to create respect by persuading others that you are competent. Self-presentation backfires. Example, People who overuse the ingratiation technique and who are seen as obviously and strategically trying to get others to lke them are often disliked because of ths. One concrete way to self-promote is to display our positive physical characteristics. Self-promotion can also be pursued in our online social behaviors. For example, a study in Taiwan conducted by Wang and Stefanone (2013) used survey methodology to investigate the relationship between personality traits, self-presentation and the use of check-ins on Facebook. Interestingly, narcissism was found to predict scores on a measure of exhibitionistic, self-promoting use of Facebook check-ins, which included items like "I check in so people know that | am with friends,” and ‘I expect friends to like or leave comments on my check- in status on Facebook.” Mehdizadeh found that narcissistic personality scores were positively correlated with the amount of daily logins ‘on Facebook and the duration of each login Bazarova, Taft, Chol, and Cosley (2013) explored solf-presentation through language styles used in status updates, wall posts, and private messages from 79 participants. The use of positive emotion words was correlated with self-reported self-presentation concem in status updates. This is consistent with the idea that people share positive experiences with Facebook friends parlly as a self-enhancement strategy. Mazur and Kozarian analyzed the content of adolescents’ blog entries and concluded that ac arefule oncern for self-presentation was more centtal to their blogging behavior than direct interaction with others. Marwick and Boyd (2011) found that self-presentational strategies were a consistent part of celebrity tweeting, often deployed by celebrities to maintain their popularity and image. Men & women use different approaches to self-presentation: Men — present themselves in an assertive way, by speaking and interrupting others, by visually focusing on the other person when they are speaking, and by leaning their bodies into the conversation Women - modest; they tend to create status by laughing and smiling, and by reacting more positively to the statements of others Konig, Haftseinsson, Jansen, & Stadelmann (2011) found that individuals from Iceland and Switzerland used less setf-presentational behaviour than people from the United States. Differences in self-presentation have also been found in job interviews involving individuals from Ghana, Turkey, Norway, and Germany, with the former two groups showing higher impression management scores than the latter two (Byeet al., 2011). 20Longer-term self-presentational projects ~ where we seek to build particular reputations with particular audiences. Emer & Reicher- describe the unique capacity humans have to know one another by repute and argue that, accordingly, we are often engaged in a process of reputation management, which is a form of long-term self presentation, where individuals Seek to build and sustain specific reputations with important audiences. Itis argued that a lot of teenage antisocial behaviour results from a desire to build a reputation for toughness and rebelliousness wit like-minded peer audiences (Emler&Reicher, 1995). Wiederhold (2012) found that, with some adolescents’ Facebook friends numbering in the hundreds or thousands, increasing numbers are moving to Twitter in order to reach a more selective audience. Self-nonitoring - the tendency to be both motivated and capable of regulating our behavior to meet the demands of social situations (Gangestad& Snyder, 2000). Cheng and Chartrand found an interaction effect: the students who had been classified as high self-monitors were more likely to mimic the behavior of the confederate when she was described as being the leader than when she was described as being the worker, indicating that they were “tuned in” to the social situation and modified their behaviour to appear more positively. WATCH: Self Perception and Social Comparison bittos:/hwww.voutube.comiwatch?v=OdVcezCXiDe Self Concept, Self-dentity and Social Identity hittos:/\www. voutube,com/Wwatch ?v=qBe TbiWKBOW The Self Concept how, e.comwatch ?v=LIL uGFO READ: Chapter 3 - Introducing Secial Psychology Principles of Social Psychology by Charles Stangor What is Self Concept Theory? A Psychologist Explains by Courtney E, Ackerman on April 15, 2020. Retrieved from https://positivepsychology.com/self-concept/ What is Self-Concept in Psychology? by Cynthia Viney, updated November 12, 2018. Retrieved from hitos:/www.thoughtco. com/self-concept-psycholoqy-4176368 21ACTIVITIES/ASSESSMENT: GUIDE QUESTION/s: 1. Do you have a /ooking-glass self? How and why might you present yourself differently in public and in private? 2. What are the usual ways that people try to enhance their sense of self-worth? 3. How could threats to your sense of self-worth damage your health? Assignment 1. Read Lesson 4 and answer the Guide Questions. 2. Write a one-page essay reflection paper answering the question, ‘Who am 1?" (to be submitted next session) Lesson 4 ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR Attitude refers to a set of emotions, beliefs, and behaviors toward a particular object, person, thing, or event, Attitudes are often the result of experience or upbringing, and they can have a powerful influence over behavior. While attitudes are enduring, they can also change. Attitude Object Might be a person, a product, or a social group. (Albarracin, Johnson, & Zana, 2005; Wood, 2000) rf Altitudes are evaluation - We mean that they involve a preference for or against the attitude object, as commonly expressed In terms such as prefer, like, dislike, hate, and love. How Psychologists Define Attitudes Psychologists define attitudes as a learned tendency to evaluate things in a certain way. This can include evaluations of people, issues, objects, or events. Such evaluations are often positive or negative, but they can also be uncertain at times. For example, you might have mixed feelings about a particular person or issue. Researchers also suggest that there are several different components that make up attitudes. The components of attitudes are sometimes referred to as ABC's of attitude. Affective Component: How the object, person, issue, or event makes you feel Behavioral Component: How attitude influences your behavior Cognitive Component: Your thoughts and beliefs about the subject, Attitudes can be: + Inherited + Direct and indirect experiences with the attitude objects + Via the media + Interactions with friends Our attitudes are made up of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Consider an environmentalist’ attitude toward recycling which is probably very positive: + Interms of affect: They feel happy when they recycle + Interms of behavior: They regularly recycle bottles and cans + _ In terms of cognition: They believe recyciing is the responsible thing to do, Thus, itis fair to say that the affective component of attitudes is generally the strongest and the most important. Atitudes can also be explicit and implicit. Explicit attitudes are those that we are consciously aware of and that clearly influence our behaviors and beliefs. Implicit attitudes are unconscious but stil have an effect on our beliefs and behaviors. Attitude Formation 2There are a number of factors that can influence how and why attitudes form. Here is a closer look at how attitudes form, Experience Attitudes form directly as a result of experience. They may emerge due to direct personal experience, or they may result from observation. Social Factors 5 ‘Social roles and social norms can have a strong influence on attitudes. Social roles relate to how people are expected to behave in a particular role or context. Social norms involve society's rules for what behaviors are considered appropriate. Lea 19 Attitudes can be leamed in a variety of ways. Consider how advertisers use classical conditioning to influence your attitude toward a particuler product. In a television commercial, you see young, beautiful people having fun on @ tropical beach while enjoying a sports drink. This attractive and appealing imagery causes you to develop a positive association with this particular beverage. Conditioning Operant conditioning can also be used to influence how attitudes develop. Imagine a young man who has just started smoking. Whenever he lights up a cigarette, people complain, chastise him, and ask him to leave their vicinity. This negative feedback from those around him eventually causes him to develop an unfavorable opinion of smoking and he decides to give up the habit. Observation Finally, people also leam attitudes by observing people around them. When someone you admire greatly espouses a particular attitude, you are more likely to develop the same beliefs. For example, children spend a great, deal of time observing the attitudes of their parents and usually begin to demonstrate similar outlooks. Attitudes and Behavior We tend to assume that people behave according to their altitudes. However, social psychologists have found that attitudes and actual behavior are not always perfectly aligned.’ After all, plenty of people support a particular candidate or political party and yet fail to go out and vole. People also are more likely to behave according to their attitudes under certain conditions. Attitude strength + Importance of an attitude as assessed by how quickly it goes to mind. itis important in the sense thal we find them important, hold them with confidence, do not change them very ‘much and use them frequently to guide our actions Strong attitudes are more cognitively accessible ~ they come to mind quickly regularly and easily ‘Changing to Match Behavior In some cases, people may actually alter their attitudes in order to better align them with their behavior. Cognitive dissonance is a phenomenon in which a person experiences psychological distress due to conflicting thoughts or beliefs. In order to reduce this tension, people may change their attitudes to reflect their other beliefs or actual behaviors. Cognitive Dissonance and Ways to Resolve It Using Cognitive Dissonance Imagine the following situation: You've always placed a high value on financial security, but you start dating someone who is very financially unstable. In order to reduce the tension caused by the conflicting beliefs and behavior, you have two options. 23You can end the relationship and seek out a partner who is more finan: fiscal stability importance. In order to minimize the dissonance between your conflicting attitude and behavior, you either have to change the attitude or change your actions. ly secure, or you can de-emphasize Why Attitudes Change While attudes can have a powerful effect on behavior, they are not set in stone. The same influences thet lead to attitude formation can also create attitude change.* Learning Theory Classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and observational learning can be used to bring about attitude change. Classical conditioning can be used to create positive emotional reactions to an object, person, or event by associating positive feelings with the target object. Operant conditioning can be used to strengthen desirable attitudes and weaken undesirable ones. People can also change their attitudes after observing the behavior of others. Elaboration Likelihood Theory This theory of persuasion suggests that people can alter their attitudes in two ways. First, they can be ‘motivated to listen and think about the message, thus leading to an attitude shif. Or, they might be influenced by the characteristics of the speaker, leading to a temporary or surface shift in attitude, Messages that are thought-provoking and that appeal to logic are more likely to lead to permanent changes in attitudes. Dissonance Theory ‘As mentioned earlier, people can also change their attitudes when they have conflicting beliefs about a topic. In order to reduce the tension created by these incompatible beliefs, peaple often shift their attitudes. Human beings hold attitudes because they are useful. Particularly, our attitudes enable us to determine often very quickly and effortlessly, which behaviors to engage in, which people to approach or avoid, and even which products to buy. You can imagine that making quick decisions about what to avoid or approach has had substantial value in our evolutionary experience. For example: Snake = Bad ? Runaway Blueberries = Good ? Eat Because attitudes are evaluation, they can be assessed using * Self report measures + Arousal and facial expressions + Neuro imaging techniques The principle of attitude consistency ‘The theory of planned behavior developed by Martin Fishben and Izec Ajzen outlines three key variables that affect the attitude-behavior relationship (a) The attitude toward behavior (the stronger the better) (b) Subjective norms (the support of those we value) (c) Perceived behavioral control (the extent to which we believe we can actually perform the behavior) These three factors jointly predict our intention to perform the behavior, which in tun predicts our actual behavior, That for any given attitude object the ABC's of affect, behavior and cognition are normally inline with each other. More generally, research has also discovered that attitudes predict behaviors well only under certain conditions and for some people. These include: + When the attitude and the behavior both occur in similar social situations + When the same components of the attitude (either affect or cognition) are accessible + When the attitude is assessed and when the behavior is performed + When the attitudes are measured at a specific, rather than a general level 24+ For low self-monitors (rather than for high self-monitors) WATCH: Attitudes influences Behavior https:/Awww.youtube,com/watch2v=XJdE7awhJa0 The Link between Attitudes and Behavior httos:/Awww.youtube.comiwatch ?v=tohd2AJ2bvt Social Psychology: Attitudes htlos:/Avww.voutube,comivatch?v=Ox _igOKi READ: Chapter 4 — Social Psychology ; Social Psychology by David Myers i P Attitudes and Behavior by Saul McLeod, updated on 2018. Retrieved from 3s:l/www.simplypsycholo. tml Attitudes and Behavior in Psychology by Kendra Cherry, updated on May 3, 2020. Retrieved from httos:/Avmw.verywellmind.com/attitudes-how-they-form-change-shape-behavioi-2795897 ACTIVITIES/ASSESSMENT: GUIDE QUESTION/s: 1. Describe a time when your attitudes changed on the basis of your observation of your behaviors. 2. Describe a time when you behaved in a way that was inconsistent with your self-concept and which led you to experience cognitive dissonance. How did you reduce the dissonance? Assignment 1. Read Lesson 5 and answer Guide Questions. 2. Be ready for a Unit Quiz. Links of the quiz will be uploaded in Schoology/Zoom. 25UNIT Ill — SOCIAL INFLUENCE OVERVIEW: So far in this module we have considered mostly how We think about one another. Now we consider how we influence and relate to one another. Therefore, in lessons 5 through 7 we probe social psychology's central concem: the powers of social influence. What are these unseen social forces that push and pull us? How powerful are they? Research on social influence helps illuminate the invisible strings by which our social worlds move us about. Seeing these influences, we may better understand why people feel and act as they do. And we may ourselves become less vulnerable to unwanted manipulation and more adept at pulling our own strings. LEARNING OUTCOMES: Atter successful completion of this unit, you should be able to: Describe how people use behaviors and traits to form perceptions of others. Cutline some important individual differences factors that influence people's causal attributions. Describe some of the active and passive ways that conformity occurs in our everyday lives. Compare and contrast informational social influence and normative social influence. Define the factors that create social groups. : Delineato the concept of social identity, and explain how it applies to soctal groups. Explain factors that can lead to process gain in group versus individual decision making, Expound how groupthink can harm effective group decision making, eNogaene COURSE MATERIALS: Lesson 5 PERCEIVING OTHERS Attribution + The process of assigning causes to behaviors. Person perception + The process of leaming about other people. Infants: look at faces of people more than they do other visual patterns Children: quickly lear to identify people and their emotional expressions. (Turati, Cassia, Simion, & Leo, 2006) Adults: able to identify and remember a potentially unlimited number of people as we navigate our social ‘environments (Haxby. Hoffman, & Gobbini, 2000) and we form impressions of those others quickly and without much effort (Cariston & Skowronski, 2005; Fletcher-Watson, Findlay, Leekam, & Benson, 2008) Learning about people is a lot like learning about any other object in our environment With an object: one-way process. With another person: two-way process ‘Two goals in social dynamics 1. We need to leam about them. 2. We want them to leam about us (and, we hope, like and respect us). (Our focus: how wa make sense of other people. Remember! Just as you are judging them, they are judging you. “The self” ‘When people are asked about themselves, they generally do so in terms of their: 4 Physical features (I am tall.) % Social Category Memberships (I am a woman.) Traits (I am friendly.) Nonverbal behavior - Any type of communication that does not involve speaking, including facial expressions, body language. touching, voice pattems, and interpersonal distance. - used to reinforce spoken word but also include such things as interpersonal distance (how far away from you to the other person stands), tone of voice, eye gaze, and hand gestures and body positions. 26“People are often not aware of their ability to make accurate judgments.” Social Norms The particular nonverbal behaviors that We Use, as well as their meanings, are determined by social norms, and these norms may vary across cultures. Detecting danger by focusing on negative information One of the things that we need to determine when we first perceive someone is whether that person poses any threat to our well-being. We may dislike or experience negative emotions about people because we feel that they are likely to harm us, just as we may like and feel positively about them if we feel that they can help us (Rozin & Royzman, 2001). Research has found that the threat and the trustworthiness of others are particularly quickly perceived, atleast by people who are not trying to hide their intentions (Bar,Neta,& Linz, 2006; Todorov, Said, Engel, & Oosterhof, 2008). Detecting Deception One important person perception task that we must all engage is to try to determine whether other people are lying to us. This task is particularly important for members of éourtroom juries who are ask to determine the truth and the falsehood of the testimony given by the witnesses. Judging people by their traits Traits - The basic language by which we understand and communicate about people. It is powerful and there are 18, 000 trait terms in the English language. Combining Traits: Information Integration We integrate traits to form judgments of people primarily by averaging them. The Importance of the Central Traits Warm and Cold ‘Although the averaging model is quite good at predicting final impressions, itis not perfect. This is because some traits are simply weighted more heavily than others. For one, negative information is more heavily weighted than is positive information (Rozin & Royzman, 2001). In addition to the heavy weight that we give to negative traits, we give a particular emphasis to the traits ‘warm’ and “cold. Central traits 2 Traits of warm and cold Characteristics that have a very strong influence on our impressions of athers (Asch, 1946). ‘The powerful influence of central traits is due to two things, 1. They lead us to make inferences about other traits that might not have been mentioned. 2. The important central traits also color our perceptions of the other traits that surround them. First Impressions Matter: The Primacy Effect Primacy effect -the tendency for information that we learn first to be weighted more heavily than is information that we leam later Recency effects -in which information that comes later is given more weight Halo effect -the influence of a global positive evaluation of a person on perceptions of their specific traits BIASES IN ATTRIBUTION The fundamental attribution error 2DWe are often too quick to attribute the behavior of people to something personal about them rather than to something about their situation. This is a classic example of the general human tendency of underestimating how important the social situation is in determining behavior. Fundamental Attribution Error —is a mistake when we tend to overestimate the role of person factors and overlook the impact of situations. Correspondence Bias — occurs when we attribute behaviors to people's internal characteristics, even in heavily constrained situations. : The actor-observer bias ‘We tend to make more personal attributions for the behavior of others than we do for ourselves and to make more situational attributions for our own behavior than for the behavior of others. Trait aseription bias Tendency for people to view their own personality, beliefs, and behaviors as more variable than those of others. Self-serving bias Tendency to attributions our successes to ourselves and our failures to others and the situation, Self-serving attributions — help us meet our desire to see ourselves positively. Group-serving biases Ultimate attribution error Tendency to make internal attributions about our ingroups’ successes, and external attributions about their setbacks, and to make the opposite pattem of attributions about our outgroups Group attribution error Tendency to make attributional generalizations about entire outgroups based on a very small number of observations of individual members. Victim-blaming biases Just word hypothesis Tendency to make attributions based on the belief that the world is fundamentally just. Defensive attribution - occurs when we make attributions which defend ourselves from the notion that we could be the victim of unfortunate outcome, and often also that we could be held responsible as the victi WATCH: The Elements of Social Perception hitips:/www. youtube. com/watch?v=8damcRCI9z4 &list=PLApmiahrmPkt2¥Q6ovQekaQhRskNhe-eY Perceiving is Believing https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=n46um¥A 44M READ: Chapter 5 ~ Perceiving Others Principles of Social Psychology by Charles Stangor ing Others. (n.4.). Retrieved from https://open.jib.umn.edu/communication/chaptet!2-2-perceiving-others/ 28Perceiving Others. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://saylordotorg github.io/text_principles-of-so« perceiving-others html ACTIVITIES/ASSESSMENT: GUIDE QUESTION/s: . 1. Consider a case where you formed an impression of someone quickly and on only a little information. How accurate do you think your judgment was and why? What information did you take into account? What information might you have missed? 2, Identify some examples of self-serving and group-serving attributions that you have seen in the media recently. What sorts of behaviors were involved and why do you think the individuals involved made those attributions? Assignment 1. Read Lesson 6 and answer Guide Questions. + You, like all people, are influenced by those around you. + Social influence is defined as the influence of other people on our everyday thoughts, feelings, and behavior, : + “Social influence leads individuals, .gainst their will, to adopt and adhere to the opinions of athers. + The outcome of social influence is) |, which refers to the change in beliefs, opinions, and behaviors 28.2 result of our perceptions about what people believe or do, are many types of conformity, ranging from the + Conformity and leadership is correlational . is the. + Conformity is determined by the person-situation interaction, and although the situation is extremely Powerful, diferent people are more ar less likely to conform + The typical outcome of social influence is that our beliefs and behaviors become more similar 10 those of 29+ Conformity comes in different forms, like how people are more likely to throw litter on the ground when they had just seen another person do the same thing, or how a person started to like jazz or rap music because his friend was playing a lot of it. * Influence also sometimes occurs because webelieve. that. other. people. have. valid. knowledge about.an Informational social influence leads to real, long-lasting changes in beliefs. The result of conformity due to infomaional socal inuence is normaly iat a6Gebtane’ real cnange in opnions on tre pat ot the individual, Saar en caseet terrors nenarennoteer toed eetieee irreamentn rest neteenl a eorae 1 + We fall prey to normative social influence when + We conform to sodial norms- socially accepted beliefs about what we do or should do in particular socia! contexts. + The outcome of normative social influence often represents BUblie|/eomiplianes rather! than pAValS + However, behaviors that are originally performed out of a desire to be accepted may frequently produce changes beliefs to match them, and the result becomes private acceptance, we can divide such influence into two types: : occurs when the beliefs held by the larger number of individuals in the current social occurs when liefs hek / group prevail + Inaseries of important stu: as the autokinetic effect to study the outcomes of conformity on the development of group norms. + Autokinetic effect is caused by rapid, small movements of our eyes as we View cbjecis and that allow us “f0 focus on stimuli in our environment. + However, when individuals are placed in a dark room that contains only a single smal, stationary pinpoint Of light, these eye movements produce an unusual effect for the perceiver- they make the point of light appear to move. + When Solomon Asch heard about Sheris studies, he responded in perhaps the same way that you might have (The right answer was very unclear). + Asch conducted studies in which, in complete contrast to the autokinetic effect experiments of Sherif, the correct answers to the judgments were entirely obvious. + In this experiment, the participants were male college students who were told that they were to be participating in a test of visual abilities ss on conformity, Muzafer Sherif (1936) used a perceptual phenomenon known 30Although more unusual, there are nevertheless cases in which a smaller number of individuals are able to influence the opinions or behaviors of the group- this is minonty influence. Itis @ good thing that minorities can be influential; otherwise, the world would be pretty boring. ‘The French social psychologist Serge Moscovici was particularly interested in the situations under which minority influence might occur. In fact, he argued that all members of the groups are able, at least in some degree, to influence others, regardless of whether they are in the majority or in the minority. To test whether minority members could indeed produce influence, he and his colleagues (Moscovici, Lage, and Naffrechoux, 1969) created the opposite of Asch’s line perception study, such that there was now a minority of confederates in the group and a majority of experimental participants. All six individuals viewed a series of slides depicting colors, supposedly as a study of color perception, and as in Asch’s research, each voiced out loud an opinion about the color of the slide. On the basis of this research, Moscovici ae a cee that} ubsequent research has found that In summary, we can conclude that minority influence although not as likely as majority influence, does sometimes ocour. Furthermore, although minority influence is difficult to achieve, itis indeed powerful Situational Determinants of Conformity + Size of the Majority - As the number of people in the majority increases relative to the number of persons in the minority, pressure on the minority to conform also increases. + Normative Social Influence - Conformity that occurs when we express opinions or behave in ways that help us to be accepted or that keep us from being isolated or rejected by others. + Informational Social Influence - The change in opinions or behavior that occurs when we conform to people who we believe have accurate information, + Social impact - The increase in the amount of conformity that is produced by adding new members to the majority group. Group size is an important variable that influences 8 wide variety of behaviors of the individuals in groups. + The Unanimity of the Majority - Consistency or Unanimity of the graup members is important. Conformity is reduced when there is any inconsistency among the members of the majority group. Why should unanimity be such an important determinant of conformity? One, when there is complete agreement among the majority members, the individual who is the target of fluence stands completely alone and must be the first to break ranks by giving a different opinion. Secondly, when there is complete agreement. The participant may become less sure of his or her own perceptions. Because everyone else is holding the exact same opinion, it seems that they must be correctly responding to the external reality. When such doubt occurs, the individual may be likely to conform due to informational social influence. Finally, when one or more of the other group members gives a different answer than the rest of the group (50 that the unanimity of the majority group is broken), that person is no longer part of the group that is doing the influencing and becomes (along with the participant) part of the group being influenced. OBEDIENCE, POWER AND LEADERSHIP Social Power can be defined as the ability of a person to create conformity even when the people being influenced may attempt to resist those changes (Fiske, 1993; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003) Power refers to the process of social influence itself—those who have power are those who are most able to influence others. MILGRAMS STUDIES ON OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY Stanley Milgram Milgram was interested in understanding the factors that lead people to obey the orders given by people in authority. He designed a study in which he could observe the extent to which a person who presented himself as an authority would be able to produce obedience, even to the extent of leading people to cause harm to others. 3AMilgram used newspaper ads to recruit men (and in one study, women) from a wide variety of backgrounds to patticipate in his research. In case you are thinking that such high levels of obedience would not be observed in today's modem culture, there is evidence that they would be. Recently, Milgram’s results were almost exactly replicated, using men and women from a wide variety of ethnic groups, in a study conducted by Jemy Burger at Santa Clara University. In this replication of the Milgram experiment, 65% of the men and 73% of the women agreed to administer increasingly painful electric shocks when they were ordered to by an authority figure (Burger. 2009). In the replication, however, the participants were not allowed to go beyond the 150 volt shock switch. Milgram's Obedience Experiment Experimenter PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS, By: Milgram 1. Authoritarianism -a tendency to prefer things to be simple rather than complex and to hold traditional values. 2. Conscientiousness -a tendency to be responsible, orderly, and dependable. 3. Agreeableness -a tendency to be good natured, cooperative, and trusting are all related to higher levels of obedience whereas higher. 4. Moral reasoning -the manner in which one makes ethical judgments, 5. Social intelligence -an ability to develop a clear perception of the situation using situational cues both predict, resistance to the demands of the authority figure, TYPES OF POWER One of the most influential theories of power was developed by Bertram Raven and John French. Reward power - The ability to distribute positive or negative rewards Coercive power-the ability to dispense punishments Legitimate power - Authority that comes from a belief on the part of those being influenced that the person has a legitimate right to demand obedience Referent Power Influence based on identification with, attraction to, or respect for the power-holder Expert power - Power that comes from others’ beliefs that the power-holder possesses superior skills and abilities 2Leaders - One type of person who has power over others, in the sense that the person is able to influence them, Leadership-is the ability to direct or inspire others to achieve goals; is a classic example of the combined effects of the person and the social situation. PERSONALITY AND LEADERSHIP Personality theories of leadership are explanations of leadership based on the idea that some people are simply “natural leaders" because they possess personality characteristics that make them effective (Zaccaro, 2007). One personality variable that is associated with effective leadership is intelligence. Being intelligent improves leadership, as long as the leader is able to communicate in a way that is easily understood by his or her followers (Simonton, 1994, 1995). Charismatic leaders are leaders who are enthusiastic, committed, and self-confident; who tend to talk about the importance of group goals at a broad level; and who make personal sacrifices for the group; use their referent power to motivate, uplift, and inspire others. Transactional leaders are the more regular leaders who work with their subordinates to help them Understand what is required of them and to get the job done. Transformational leaders, on the other hand, are more like charismatic leaders—they have a vision of where the group is going and attempt to stimulate and inspire their workers to move beyond their present status and to create a new and better future. i Contingency model of leadership effectiveness (Ayman, Chemers, & Fiedler, 1995). -is a model of leadership effectiveness that focuses on both person variables and situational variables. Fiedler thought that three aspects of the group situation were important: ‘The degree to which the leader already has a good relationship with the group and the support of the group members (leader-member relations) The extent fo which the task is structured and unambiguous (task structure) The leader's level of power or support in the organization (position power) WATCH: Conformity and Obedience httos:/Avww. voutube,com/watch?v=LoytzL kbuFO The Psychology of Conformity bttos://wmw. youtube,comMwatch?v=ARGczz0P A‘ Asch Conformity Experiment htt: /www. youtube.comlwatch ?v=TYIh4MkciJA READ: Chapter 5 - Conformity and Social Change Essentials of Social Psychology by Michael Hogg and Graham Vaughan Chapter 6 - Conformity and Obedience Social Psychology by David Myers Compliance, Conformity and Obedience. (n.d.). Retrieved from hitos://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/thescienceofhumanpotential/chapter/social-influence-and-obedience/ ACTIVITIES/ASSESSMENT: GUIDE QUESTION/s: 1. Describe a time when you conformed to the opinions or behaviors of others. Interpret the conformity in terms of informational and/or normative social influence. 332. Imagine you were serving on a jury in which you found yourself the only person who believed that the defendant was innocent. What strategies might you use to convince the majority? inment 1. Read Lesson 7 and answer the Guide Questions. 2. Reflection Paper: To what extent does camaraderie begin to feel like peer pressure? (to be submitted next session) LESSON 7 - PEOPLE IN GROUPS ‘Social psychologists consider a group to be composed of two ot more people who interact and depend on each other in some way. Examples of groups include a baseball team, an Intemet listserv, a college psychology class, and a cult. The Psychology of Group How many groups are you a part of on a daily basis? Whether i’s family, class, work, social, sports, church or other areas, we typically spend a good deal of our time and attention each day interacting with others in groups. Psychologists study groups because nearly all human activties—working, leaming, worshiping, relaxing, playing, and even sleeping—occur in groups. The lone individual who is cut off from all groups is a rarity. Most of Us live out our lives in groups, and these groups have a profound impact on our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Many psychologists focus their attention on single individuals, but social psychologists expand their analysis to include groups, organizations, communities, and even cultures. It begins with 2 basic question: What is the psychological significance of groups? People are, undeniably, ‘more often in groups rather than alone. What accounts for this marked gregariousness and what does it say about ur psychological makeup? The module then reviews some of the key findings from studies of groups. Researchers have asked many questions about people and groups: Do people work as hard as they can when they are in groups? ‘Are groups more cautious than individuals? Do groups make wiser decisions than single individuals? In many cases, the answers are not what common sense and folk wisdom might suggest. The Psychological Significance of Groups Many people loudly prociaim their autonomy and independence. Like Ralph Waldo Emerson, they avow, ‘I must be myseft. | will not hide my tastes or aversions . ... I will seek my own”. Even though people are capable of living separate and apart from others, they join with others because groups meet their psychological and social needs. The Need to Belong The need to belong is a strong psychological motivation. Across individuals, societies, and even eras, humans consistently seek inclusion over exclusion, membership over isolation, and acceptance over rejection. As Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary conclude, humans have a need to belong: “a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantty of lasting, positive, and impactul interpersonal relationships” (1995, p. 497). And most of us satisfy this need by joining groups. When surveyed, 87.3% of Americans reported that they lived with other people, including family members, partners, and roommates (Davis & Smith, 2007). The majorty, ranging from 50% to 80%, reported regularly doing things in groups, such as attending a sports event together, visiting one another for the evening, sharing a meal together, or going out as a group to see a movie (Putnam, 2000). People respond negatively when their need to belong is unfulfilled. For example, college students often feel homesick and lonely when they first start college, but not if they belong to a cohesive, socially satisfying group (Buote et al., 2007). People who are accepted members of a group tend to feel happier and more satisfied. But should they be rejected by a group, they feel unhappy, helpless, and depressed. Studies of ostracism—the deliberate exclusion from groups—indicate this experience is highly stressful and can lead to depression, confused thinking, and even aggression (Willams, 2007). When researchers used a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner to track neural responses to exclusion, they found that people who were left out of @ group activity displayed heightened cortical activity in two specific areas of the brain—the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior 34insula. These areas of the brain are associated with the experience of physical pain sensations (Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003). It hurts, quite literally, to be left out of a group. Affiliation in Groups Groups not only satisfy the need to belong, they also provide members with information, assistance, and social support. Leon Festinger's theory of social comparison (1950, 1954) suggested that in many cases people join with others to evaluate the accuracy of their personal beliefs and attitudes. Stanley Schachter (1959) explored this process by putting individuals in ambiguous, stressful situations and asking them If they wished to wait alone or with others. He found that people affiliate in such situations—they seek the company of others. Although any kind of companionship is appreciated, we prefer those who provide us with reassurance and support as well as accurate information. In some cases, we also prefer to join with others who are even worse off than we are. Imagine, for example, how you would respond when the teacher hands back the test and yours is marked 85%. Do you want to affiliate with a friend who got a 95% or a friend who got a 78%? To maintain a sense of self-worth, people seek out and compare themselves to the less fortunate. This process is known as downward social comparison. Identity and Membership ‘Groups are not only founts of information during tiries of ambiguity, they also help us answer the existentially significant question, “Who am I?" Common sense tells us that our sense of self is our private definition of who we are, a kind of archival record of our experiences, qualities, and capabilities. Yet, the self also includes all those {qualities that spring from memberships in groups. People are defined not only by their tits, preferences, interests, likes, and dislikes, but also by their friendships, social roles, family connections, and group memberships. The self is not just a "me," but also a “we.” Even demographic qualiies such as sex or age can influence us if we categorize ourselves based on these qualities. Social identity theory, for example, assumes that we don't just classify other people into such social categories as man, woman, Anglo, elderly, or college student, but we also categorize ourselves. Moreover, if we strongly identify with these categories, then we will ascribe the characteristics of the typical member of these groups. to ourselves, and so stereotype ourselves. If, for example, we believe that college students are intellectual, then we will assume we, too, are intellectual if we identity with that group (Hogg. 2001). Groups also provide a variety of means for maintaining and enhancing a sense of self-worth, as our assessment of the quality of groups we belong to influences our collective self-esteem (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990). If our self-esteem is shaken by a personal setback, we can focus on our group's success and prestige. In addition, by comparing our group to other groups, we frequently discover that we are members of the better group, and so can take pride in our superiority. By denigrating other groups, we elevate both our personal and our collective self-esteem (Crocker & Major, 1988). Mark Leary’s sociometer model goes so far as to suggest that “self-esteem is part of a sociometer that monitors peoples’ relational value in other people's eyes” (2007, p. 328). He maintains self-esteem is not just an index of one’s sense of personal value, but also an indicator of acceptance into groups. Like a gauge that indicates how much fuelis left in the tank, a dip in self-esteem indicates exclusion from our group is likely. Disquieting feelings of self-worth, then, prompt us to search for and correct characteristics and qualities that put us at risk of social exclusion. Self-esteem is not just high self-regard, but the self-approbation that we feel when included in groups (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). Evolutionary Advantages of Group Living Groups may be humans’ most useful invention, for they provide us with the means to reach goals that would elude us if we remained alone. Individuals in groups can secure advantages and avoid disadvantages that would plague the lone individuals. In his theory of social integration, Moreland concludes that groups tend to form Whenever “people become dependent on one another for the satisfaction of their needs” (1987, p. 104). The advantages of group life may be so great that humans are biologically prepared to seek membership and avoid isolation. From an evolutionary psychology perspective, because groups have increased humans’ overall fitness for ‘countless generations, individuals who carried genes that promoted solitude-seeking were less likely to survive and procreate compared to those with genes that prompted them to join groups (Darwin, 1859/1963). This process of natural selection culminated in the creation of a modem human who seeks out membership in groups instinctively, for most of us are descendants of joiners’ rather than “loners.” Motivation and Performance 35Groups usually exist for a reason. In groups, we solve problems, create products, create standards, ‘communicate knowledge, have fun, perform arts, create institutions, and even ensure our safety from attacks by other groups. But do groups always outperform individuals? Social Facilitation in Groups Do people perform more effectively when alone or when part of a group? Norman Triplett (1898) examined this issue in one of the first empirical studies in psychology. While watching bicycle races, Triplett noticed that cyclists were faster when they competed against other racers than when they raced alone against the clock. To determine ifthe presence of others leads to the psychological stimulation that enhances performance, he arranged for 40 children to play a game that involved turing a small reel as quickly as possible (see Figure 1). When he measured how quickly they tured the reel, he confirmed that children performed slightly better when they played the game in pairs compared to when they played alone (see Stroebe, 2012; Sirube, 2005). Social facilitation, then, depends on the task: other people facilitate performance when the task is so simple that it requires only dominant responses, but others interfere when the task requires nondominant responses. However, a number of psychological processes combine to influence when social facilitation, not social interference, occurs. Studies of the challenge-threat response and brain imaging, for example, confirm that we respond physiologically and neurologically to the presence of others (Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, & Salomon, 1999). Other people also can trigger evaluation apprehension, particularly when we fee! that our individual performance will be known to others and those others might judge it negatively (Bond, Atoum, & VanLeeuwen, 1996). The presence of other people can also cause perturbations in our capacity to concentrate on and process information (Harkins, 2006). Distractions due to the presence of other people have been shown to improve performance on certain tasks, such as the Stroop task, but undermine performance on more cognitively demanding tasks(Huguet, Galvaing, Montell, & Dumas, 1999). Social Loafing Groups usually outperform individuals. A single student, working alone on a paper, will get less done in an hour than will four students working on a group project. One person playing a tug-of-war game against a group will ose. A crew of movers can pack up and transport your household belongings faster than you can by yourself. As the saying goes, "Many hands make light the work” (Littepage, 1991; Steiner, 1972). Groups, though, tend to be underachievers. Studies of social facilitation confirmed the positive motivational benefits of working with other people on well-practiced tasks in which each member's contribution to the collective enterprise can be Identified and evaluated. But what happens when tasks require a truly collective effort? First, When people work together they must coordinate their individual activities and contributions to reach the maximum level of efficiency—but they rarely do (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). Three people in a tug-of-war competition, for example, invariably pull and pause at slightly different times, so their efforts are uncoordinated. The result is coordination Joss: the three-person group is stronger than a single person, but not three times as strong. Second, people just don't exert as much effort when working on a collective endeavor, nor do they expend as much cognitive effort trying to solve problems, as they do when working alone. They display social loafing (Latané, 1981), Bibb Latané, Kip Wiliams, and Stephen Harkins (1979) examined both coordination losses and social loafing by arranging for students to cheer or clap either alone or in groups of varying sizes. The students cheered alone or in 2- or 6-person groups, or they were lead to believe they were in 2- or 6-person groups (those in the "pseudo- groups” wore blindfolds and headsets that played masking sound). As Figure 2 indicates, groups generated more noise than solitary subjects, but the productivity draped as the groups became largerin size. In dyads, each subject worked at only 66% of capacity, and in 6-person groups at 36%. Productivity also dropped when subjects merely believed they were in groups. If subjects thought that one other person was shouting with them, they shouted 82% as intensely, and if they thought five other people were shouting, they reached only 74% of their capacity. These loses in productivity were not due to coordination problems; this decline in production could be attributed only to a reduction in effort—to social loafing (Latané et al., 1979, Experiment 2). Social Facilitation or Social Loafing? 36Social facilitation Others presence Social loafing Teamwork Social loafing can be a problem. One way to overcome itis by recognizing that each group member has an important part to play in the success of the group. Social loafing is no rare phenomenon. When sales personnel work in groups with shared goals, they tend to “take it easy’ if another salesperson is nearby who can do their work (George, 1992). People who are trying to generate new, creative ideas in group brainstorming sessions usually put in less effort and are thus less productive than people who are generating new ideas individually (Paulus & Brown, 2007). Students assigned group projects often complain of inequity in the quality and quantity of each member's contributions: Some people just don't work as much as they should to help the group reach its leaning goals (Neu, 2012). People carrying out all sorts of physical and mental tasks expend less effort when working in groups, and the larger the group, the more they loaf (Karau & Wiliams, 1993). Groups can, however, overcome this impediment to performance through teamwork. A group may include many talented individuals, but they must leam how to pool their individual abilities and energies to maximize the team's performance. Team goals must be set, work pattems structured, and a sense of group identity developed. Individual members must eam how to coordinate their actions, and any strains and stresses in interpersonal relations need to be identified and resolved (Salas, Rosen, Burke, & Goodwin, 2009). Researchers have identified two key ingredients to effective teamwork: a shared mental representation of the task and group unity. Teams improve their performance over time as they develop a shared understanding of the team and the tasks they are attempting. Some semblance of this shared mental model is present nearly from its inception, but as the team practices, differences among the members in terms of their understanding of their situation and their team diminish as a consensus becomes implicitly accepted (Tindale, Stawiski, & Jacobs, 2008). Effective teams are also, in most cases, cohesive groups (Dion, 2000). Group cohesion is the integrity, solidarity, social integration, or unity of @ group. In most cases, members of cohesive groups like each other and the group and they also are united in their pursuit of collective, group-level goals. Members tend to enjoy their groups more when they are cohesive, and cohesive groups usually ouiperform ones that lack cohesion. This cohesion-performance relationship, however, is a complex one. Meta-analytic studies suggest that cohesion improves teamwork among members, but that performance quality influences cohesion more than cohesion influences performance (Mullen & Copper, 1994; Mullen, Driskall, & Salas, 1998; see Figure 3). Cohesive groups also can be spectacularly unproductive if the group's norms stress low productivity rather than high productivity (Seashore, 1954). Group Development 37In most cases groups do not become smooth-functioning teams overnight. As Bruce Tuckman’'s (1965) theory of group development suggests, groups usually pass through several stages of development as they change from a newly formed group into an effective team. As noted in Focus Topic 1. in the forming phase, the members become oriented toward one another, In the storming phase, the group members find themselves in conflict, and some solution is sought to improve the group environment. In the norming, phase standards for behavior and roles, develop that regulate behavior. In the performing, phase the group has reached a point where it can work as a unit to achieve desired goals, and the adjourning phase ends the sequence of development; the group disbands. ‘Throughout these stages groups tend to oscillate between the task-oriented issues and the relationship issues, with members sometimes working hard but at other times strengthening their interpersonal bonds (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Focus Topic 1: Group Development Stages and Characteristics Stage 1 — “Forming’. Members expose information about themselves in polite but tentative interactions. They explore the purposes of the group and gather information about each other's interests, skills, and personal tendencies. Stage 2 ~ “Storming’. Disagreements about procedures and purposes surface, so criticism and conflict increase. Much of the conflict stems from challenges between members who are seeking to increase their status and control in the group. Stage 3 - ‘Norming’. Once the group agrees on its goals, procedures, and leadership, norms, roles, and social relationships develop that increase the group's stability and cohesiveness. Stage 4 — ‘Performing’. The group focuses its energies and attention on its goals, displaying higher rates of task- orientation, decision-making, and problem-solving. Stage 5 - “Adjouming’. The group prepares to disband by completing its tasks, reduces levels of dependency ‘among members, and dealing with any unresolved issues. Sources based on Tuckman (1965) and Tuckman & Jensen (1977) We also experience change as we pass through a group, for we don’t become fullledged members of a group in an instant. Instead, we gradually become a part of the group and remain in the group until we leave it Richard Moreland and John Levine's (1982) model of group socialization describes this process, beginning with initial entry into the group and ending when the member exits it. For example, when you are thinking of joining a new group—a social club, a professional society, a fraternity or sorority, or a sports team—you investigate what the group has to offer, but the group also investigates you. During this investigation stage you are still an outsider: interested in joining the group, but not yet committed to it in any way. But once the group accepts you and you accept the group, socialization begins: you learn the group's norms and take on different responsibilities depending ‘on your role. On a sports team, for example, you may initially hope to be a star who starts every game or plays a particular position, but the team may need something else from you. In time, though, the group will accept you as a fullfledged member and both sides in the process—you and the group itself—increase their commitment to one another. When that commitment wanes, however, your membership may come to an end as well. Making Decisions in Groups Groups are particularly useful when it comes to making a decision, for groups can draw on more resources than can a lone individual. A single individual may know a great deal about a problem and possible solutions, but his or her information is far surpassed by the combined knowledge of a group. Groups not only generate more ideas and possible solutions by discussing the problem, but they can also more objectively evaluate the options that they generate during discussion. Before accepting a solution, a group may require that a certain number of people favor {t, or that it meets come other standard of acceptability. People generally feel that a group's decision will be superior to an individual's decision. Groups, however, do not always make good decisions. Juries sometimes render verdicts that run counter to the evidence presented. Community groups take radical stances on issues before thinking through all the ramifications. Military strategists concoct plans that seem, in retrospect, ill-conceived and short-sighted. Why do groups sometimes make poor decisions? 38