|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
Student Publications
Author: Stefan Fokuhl
Title: Social Psychology
Area: Psychology
Country :
Profile:
Program:
Available for Download:
Yes
Sharing knowledge is a vital component in
the growth and advancement of our society
in a sustainable and responsible way. Through
Open Access, AIU and other leading institutions
through out the world are tearing down the
barriers to access and use research literature.
Our
organization is interested in the dissemination
of advances in scientific research fundamental
to the proper operation of a modern society,
in terms of community awareness, empowerment,
health and wellness, sustainable development,
economic advancement, and optimal functioning
of health, education and other vital services.
AIU’s mission
and vision is consistent with
the vision expressed in the Budapest Open
Access Initiative and Berlin Declaration
on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences
and Humanities. Do you have something you
would like to share, or just a question
or comment? We would be happy to hear from
you, please use the Request Info link below.
For more information on the AIU's Open Access
Initiative, click
here.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
1
Introduction
Social sciences are sociology,
psychology and pedagogy. Sociology
deals with the interaction
between groups. Sociologists studies
them as a unity, not the individuals
within the group. They
place the emphasis on the attitude
or esteem and behavior of a
particular group in the society.
Psychology instead studies the
individual within a group or between
groups or individuals. And it
looks deeper into a person and asks
why does a person do a particular
action or have distinguished
thoughts.
Social Psychology is the
intersection of Psychology
and Sociology. It studies the social
interaction from a
group to an individual person and
vice versa. Here is it
important how influences a group one
person or how a
chologysy
person adapt to his environment to
meet all
ociology
expectations. But the subject is
here not the group
S
ocial P
sychology
S
P
(important to sociology) but the
person (How react a
person to a given situation within a
group ?)
Figure 1: Intersection
2 Description
In this paper I try to provide a
rough overview about social
psychology. It is simply not
possible to
squeeze such an comprehensive and
not lesser interesting branch of
psychology to a paper of about
20 pages. Thus, I mentioned only
some important topics and they are
mentioned only by few words.
Therefore, it can only be a
superficial introduction.
First of all, some basics are
explained about how to perform
social psychology experiments in the
right manner. Some dangers of
misunderstandings are mentions.
The question how we see our own
environment is the next topic. In
order to exchange information
or just to observe we must perceive
the others and they us. How can we
do it and are there some
characters similar in all over the
world? How can get information that
the other don't want to tell
us?
When we have observed and gathered
our information about the other we
need to know the cause of
their action. The match between
cause and action, called
attribution, is one of the most
important
processes in social psychology. The
problem is just to find out what the
real attribution is. Some
tools, like covariation, are very useful.
The next topic concerns about who we
are. That is important to know for
as since our feelings,
attitude and behavior are based on
that knowledge. All "selfs" start
here, e.g. self-confidence. But
the definition of our self depends
on our cultural background.
Even though we know where we are, we
still change our attitudes and
behavior during our life time.
What let us change attitudes and
behavior? Can other groups or single
person influence us? And if,
how can they do it?
We we as human beings interact with
others daily. How can we get in
contact to others? Or, what
are some condition to make
friendships or relationships. Are
there factors that let us never
become
friends? or let us even predict who
is likely to become friends?
Some interesting and also important
topics are listed here. Social
psychology is a very interesting
branch and very useful for the daily
life.
3 Methodology
Social psychology is an empirical
science. It can be studied
empirically (Aronson, Wilson, &
Brewer, 1998; Judd & McClelland,
1998; Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998).
But one point is
dangerous: social psychology is
common to all of us. We are all
involved closely either by social
behavior or social influence. We
automatically match the result to
our own experience. The danger
is that we observe or interpret the
results not objective, but
subjective, or we try to predict
obvious
results. (Carli, 1999; Fischhoff,
1975; Hastie, Schkade, & Payne,
1999; Hertwig, Gigerenzer, &
Hoffrage, 1997)
There are three main methods how to
perform experiments: the
observational method, the
correlational method and the
experimental method.
Each method will be introduced and
the advantages and disadvantages
discussed now.
3.1 Observational method
As the name already tells to perform
such kind of method the researcher
observes a certain group
and notices typical behavior of
them. Hereby a group is joined or
attended, sometimes the
researcher even interact with the
members of that group. This is
called participant observation. But,
the researcher tries not to alter
the situation in any way. But here
raises already a danger. The
researcher must avoid any influence
that he might have. It's very
difficult to join but not to
influence.
Another difficulty is not to allow
the own preconceived ideas to get
stronger than the observed
point of views. Sometimes, we just
want to get an confirmation about
what we have thought or
predicted before. The researcher
rather just looks for behavior that
points into the same direction
like his conviction. To prevent such
a danger more researchers are needed
who observe independent
and write down their results. This
method is called inter judge
reliability. If the result are the
same
or rather very similar then the
objective observation is more likely
and the summation is reliable.
The observational method can also be
used for archival analysis, not
necessarily only real time
experiments. Thus, documents,
diaries, even advertisements can be
examinated. Advertisements
show the current trends because they
are adapted to people's wishes, and,
therefore, show how most
people think as a contemporary
document. One disadvantage is that
archival analysis is too general.
It is more useful for sociological
issues because a single person
cannot be tracked. Except diaries
and more personal documents or
documents that deal with certain
cases, they can show how a
single individual person or a
certain group thinks.
The observational method cannot be performed when the researched
situation occurs only seldom
or is coincident or not public. If
this is the case then archival
analysis fits more. But those
archives
might miss some important data or
are not written down useful for a
social psychology researcher.
So, there are still limits that can
even falsify the results.
3.2 Correlational method
The correlational method is used to
find out a correction or a
relationship. Once a relationship or
correlation is known the researchers
is able to predict whenever the same
or similar case occur
again. A relationship needs at least
two objects or facts. Those objects
or facts are called variables.
The relationship is measured by
carefully changing the variables in
a certain and systematically
way. After getting some results a
mathematical process is started and
the correlation coefficient is
calculated by the following formula.
Whereas X and Y are
the variables, � are the
expectations, are the standard
deviation, E is the
expected value and cov means
covariance. The result is in the
range from -1 to 1 and has the
following meanings: "1" mean full
positive correlation, "-1" means
full negative correlation and "0"
means no correlation which means
that the first variables does not
relate to the second one at all
and, therefore, cannot be predicted
by the first one.. The positive
correlation means that one
variable relates in the same way
like the other, the negative
correlation means that the second
variable relates to the first one,
but in different direction, but both
are predictable. Often the samples
are written down in a graph and the
positive and negative correlation
shows a line that indicate a
correlation.
positive
negative
no correlation
Fig. 2: Graphs of correlations
But there is one big danger when using this king of method. Often
correlation and causation are
mixed up. Correlation means only the
relationship, but says nothing about
what causes what. There
are three possibilities about
causation if there is a correlation.
Here, let us call the first variable
A
and the second one B, and a third
but unknown variable C. Three
possible causations are there: The
variable A causes variable B, or
variable B causes variable A, or the
third possible case is that both
depend on at least one unknown
variable C. So, the correlation just
says whether and how much the
two variables relates, nothing is
said about causation. This error is
often done.
This fact might be considered as a
disadvantage of the correlational
method.
3.3 Experimental method
The only method to figure out any
causal relationship is the
experimental method. The researcher
creates an experiment that is
repeatable and reproducible and
similar to the real environment.
During the often tries he changes
one variable in order to find out
the causalities. In this method one
variable is called the independent
variable. This is the variable that
the researcher changes. The
other variable, the dependent
variable, is not changed, but
measured. If there is a change on
that
dependent variable then it might be
caused by the independent variable.
That is why the dependent
variable is called so: the dependent
variable depends on the independent.
But if there is no change
then there is no causal
relationship. The researcher must
pay attention that he changes only
and only
the independent variable. This
keeping is called internal validity.
It is not easy to guarantee that
nothing else is changed since there
are many things that can influence
the dependent variable far
from getting in mind what it might
be. One example is the individual
background of each person.
Because everybody has a different
history and story everybody produces
a different variable. So, all
environment have to be checked
carefully. In order to decrease that
danger some techniques are
developed.
3.3.1 Random Assignment
Those differences among the
participants can be minimized by
choosing them randomly. Each
participant can be chosen in any
part of the experiment, thus, the
likelihood that the same
environment occur again is very low,
or, in other words, the probability
of a balanced and well
distributed background is high.
3.3.2 Probability Level
But still there is a possibility
that the distribution is not equal
enough, that one side is overloaded.
To prevent this the probability
level (p-value) is calculated into
the results. The p-value is a
statistical data that tell how likely a result occur by change, not by
the independent variable. So, the
amount of test is involved in the
experiment result. The p-value makes
the experiment even more
confident.
3.3.3 Internal Validity
As already mentioned the internal
validity makes sure that only the
independent variable influences
the dependent variable and nothing
else. If the internal validity is
high the experimenter can be sure
that the dependent variable depends
only from the independent variable
indeed. Sometimes, that is
not easy to ascertain whether really
the dependent variable only depends
on the independent
variable.
4 Social Perception
Social psychology concerns about the
interchange of an individual to a
group and vice versa. To
observe a group as individual we
have to perceive them. This is
called social perception. Like we
observe and perceive all things
around us we can and must observe
and perceive the people around
us. We can divide social perception
in two parts: nonverbal and verbal
perception. In order to find
out how people perceive each other
it is not helpful to use theoretical
or scientifically right methods
but the way how ordinary people
think. Therefore, a virtual naive
psychologist is introduced who
thinks as a normal person and knows
nothing about social psychology
theories. Thus, the result
seems to be more genuine. (Heider,
1944)
4.1 Non verbal perception
Non verbal perception includes all
information we can get from a person
without saying a word.
Since the non verbal perception is
lesser influence able and hence less
intentional, we can know
more about a persons actual
condition by observation of non
verbal information than by spoken
words.
4.1.1.1 Facial expression
One of the strongest way to tell
others how we feel is the facial
expression. It is hard to cover
therefore, it tells us right away
how the others think or feel, even
though we might use a mask it is
still not possible to hide them
completely. It is always said that
asian always smile even if they are
angry or fearful. But this is not
true, it is a western prejustice.
Interesting is that all human beings
use the same code to encode and
decode the feelings. So,
laughing never shows angry. The basic fix expressions are the same in
all over the world: anger,
disgust, fear, happiness, sadness,
and surprise (Buck, 1984; Ekman,
1993, 1994; Ekman, Friesen, &
Ellsworth, 1982). Together with body
movement and body language it
provides us a meaningful
information about how the other
feel, sometimes much more than the
other want to tell us.
4.1.1.2 Body language
But not only the face tells us
something about the other but also
the whole body. Either there are
typical movement like gestures that
accompany the verbal expression or
there are body attitude that
tells us about the inner attitude.
4.1.1.2.1 Gestures
Gestures are movements with the hang
or typical behavior that is match to
a certain meaning. But
interestingly, the meaning is not
always the same sometimes even just
the opposite. They depend on
the culture (Archer, 1991, 1997;
Gudykunst, Tind-Toomey, & Nishida,
1996; Knapp & Hall, 1997;
Leathers, 1997; Richmond &
McCroskey, 1995). Some examples are
given here:
Eye contact
When people looks directly into
their eyes it has different
meanings. In America and Europe like
eye contact, it is a sign of honesty
and interest. But japanese have much
less eye contact. For them it
is like investigating or looking
daggers at someone.
OK sign
The OK sign (a zero built by thumb
and index finger) means OK in
america, but in germany even
more, it means "excellent", but in
France just "zero", in Japan it
means "money, in Mexico "sex"
and in Ethiopia even
"homosexuality".
Nodding the head
Nodding the heads means in "yes" in
america and europe except in
bulgaria where it means
disagreement. Also in India and
Africa it is just the opposite,
nodding means "no", and shaking
means "yes". In Korea and Japan the
nodding to the side means "Let me
think" or "I don't know".
All these different meanings could
lead to the wrong interpretation of
what someone want to say. In
social perception we must pay
attention to the differences. People
who left their country and live
abroad can even suffer a culture
shock for they mix up everything and
feel unsure whether they
interpret right the people around
them.
4.1.1.2.2 Body attitude
Important is also how we stand or
how we sit. Do we turn the body or
head towards someone else?
If we turn one part of the body
toward someone else it means
interest and sympathy. If we turn us
away then it means no interest or
disagreement or even disliking. But
even when we sit alone
someone else can see how our current
feeling is. And together with the
gesture and face expression
we can make an imagine how the other
likely feel. (Argyle, 1967; Goffman,
1972; Lamb, 1965;
Pease, 1981)
All those signs we perceive and
process sometimes unconsciously in
order to find out whether and
how someone treats us additionally
to the verbal communication. But we
send them out as well,
also sometimes unaware.
4.2 Attribution
Until now we have spoken about how
and whether people acts with us or
to a third person or group.
But we still don't know why someone
acts how he acts. The match between
cause and effect is
called attribution. Each action is
caused by something. The attribution
is the link between cause and
that action or behavior and is
called causal attribution.
Heider (1958) has founded the
attribution theory which tries to
find the right cause to a given
action
or behavior. As already mentioned he
created a virtual naive psychologist
who thinks in an ordinary
way in order to find out how
ordinary people try to find a cause
of someones action or behavior.
He divided the attribution of an
action in two parts, the internal or
the external attribution.
4.2.1 Internal attribution
The internal attribution tries to
explain the cause of an action
internally, that is e. g. the
personality,
character, opinion or attitude. A
person has a certain opinion or
attitude toward a situation and acts
according to that regardless whether
there are important external
influences
4.2.2 External attribution
The other possibilities is to assign
an action or result to external
causes. Thus, the actor is
influenced by outer circumstances
that forced him to do so regardless
what he or she thinks if this
situation would not appear.
4.2.3 Consequences
Depending on which attribution we
apply it can lead us to a optimistic
or pessimistic reaction. If we
got a high score on a exam for
example then we can credit it to
ourself (internal). The causes were
a
good skill or a good preparation
then. Or we could credit it to
external circumstances such as easy
questions in the exam. In general,
if we have a good result or action
then the internal attribution
gives us a good feeling because it
was our own earning, whereas, if we
do a negative action we
could use the external attribution
as excuse. Or, if someone else does
something positive we could
use the external attribution to
devaluate his or her doing and as
opposite we could use the internal
attribution to blame someone who
made a mistake. If someone use
always the destructive way then
he can destroy any relationship.
(Bradbury & Fincham, 1991; Fincham,
1985; Fincham, Bradbury,
Arias, Byrne, & Karney, 1997; Karney
& Bradbury, 2000; Weiner, Frieze,
Kukla, Reed, Rest, &
Rosenbaum, 1971)
If we have a result that was
especially difficult to obtain, then
the bad circumstances (internal or
external) increase the efforts that
someone took to overcome the
obstacles. This principle is called
augmentation principle and is
completely subjective (Kelley,
1971).
4.2.4 Covariation model
Without any other information the
attribution can be very subjective
and deliberate. In order to get a
more objective attribution the
scientist collects more information
about how other would react in the
very same situation or how the same
person acted in the past. The
covariation model examines
different situation and different
times to find out why a action
occur. Three types of additional
information lead us to the right
attribution (Kelley, 1967)
4.2.4.1 Concensus
If there are more or many persons
available who are in the same
situation then it is important how
many person show the same reaction.
The more act similar the more it is
likely that the external
attribution shows the real cause of
that action. If it were an internal
cause all people would act
different according to their
internal attribution. A prejustice
would catch someones eye and would
not fit into the general consensus.
4.2.4.2 Distinctiveness
The actors is shown or investigated
in different situation. If there is
the same or very similar action
then it is not distinct. If he does
not differ it could be that he
generally shows that action. It is
different then it shows if and where
such differences come from.
4.2.4.3 Consistency
Consistency information shows how
someone acted in the past during the
same situation. If
someone acts first positive and next
time negative under the same
situation and even the third time
different again then his behavior is
not useful for investigation because
it could be that the forth
time he acts different again. It
cannot be predicted.
4.2.4.4 The covariation
The question is now how these three
information can be combined to a
meaningful statement about
what the real attribution is.
According to Kelley an internal
attribution is likely if the
consensus is
low, the distinctiveness is low,and
the consistency is high because the
high consensus shows more
the personal attitude, the lack of
distinctiveness shows a more general
behavior while the consistent
action shows the constant way of
action.
If all three information is high
that it leads to the assumption that
it is a external attitude, but if
the
consistency is low this conclusion
fails, because it cannot be said
what the actor would do the next
time.
The covariation model has some weak
points. First, if one information is
not available a conclusion
cannot be made (Fiedler, Walther, &
Nickel, 1999; Kelley, 1973). Second,
not all three information
are observed or noticed with the
same weight. Experiments have shown
that people tend to observe
or rely on consistency and
distinctiveness more than concensus.
(McArthur, 1972; Wright, Luus, &
Christie, 1990)
4.2.5 Fundamental attribution
error
Now, people lead to make a
fundamental attribution error.
People tend to prefer internal
causes
more than external causes. This
preferences are so strong that the
name "fundamental attribution
error" is given. Some examples
(Zimbardo, 1995) show that in our
daily life:
�
long time unemployed people is
accused to be lazy (=internal cause)
�
People living in bad and miserable
environment is accused to be "dirty"
(=their own fault)
�
Lonely people is justice d to be
"social lazy", that is they don't
care for social contacts
(=internal cause)
There are even more examples, but
not shown here due to the short size
of this paper.
5 Ourself
If we ask ourself or someone else
ask us who we are then we must think
about it or have already
thought it since we are little. This
question concerned also social
psychologists and a modern theory
divides the self in two parts.
The self-concept is what we know
about ourself. It is a knowledge or
a "book" about what we are.
The second part is the
self-awareness. All our thoughts of
ourself are called self-awareness.
These
two parts accompany the continuative
theories.
5.1 Functions of the self
The self has three different
functions in order to determine who
we are and why we are so.
5.1.1 Organizational function
The organizational function supports
us to interpret and remember
information about ourself and
the social environment (Dunning &
Hayes, 1996; Kihlstrom & Klein,
1994; Symons & Johnson,
1997). This function is used to
organize the self-concept like a
database.
5.1.2 Emotional function
The emotional function has the task
to determine and sort the own
emotional responses. According
to Higgins (1987) we have an actual
self (= thoughts about we really
are), an ideal self (= thoughts
about how we want to be) and an
ought self (= thoughts about what we
should be). Depending on
how each of them match we feel. If
the difference between ideal and
actual self is big then we feel
down and depressed. If the
difference between ought and actual
is small we feel excited. This
function supports the
self-awareness.
5.1.3 Executive function
The third function controls our
resulting behavior. It controls all
our executes hence the name
executive. But it control not only
the short term behavior as following
reaction but also the long
term plans we make for our life.
This includes self-control and
self-regulation as well. It is
interesting that self-control
depends in the sequence of
subsequent tasks. If someone
performs a
self-control task well he is lesser
able to do an subsequent, unrelated
to the first, task. The second
task is done even more lesser if
someone is completely unfamiliar
(Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister,
1998). This explains why people
often fail on self given
self-control intentions.
5.2 Cultural differences
People in western and eastern
cultures see the own self in a
different context. This explain why
eastern behavior seems to be strange
from the western point of view and
vice versa.
5.2.1 Independent
Western people is educated from
their cultural background to see
themselves as independent. The
way of thinking, feeling and
decision-making does not depend on
others but on the own self. Thus,
independence from others is more
important, uniqueness as well. The
individual attitude and state is
particular property of western
cultures. At the first view it
sounds selfish and egoistic.
5.2.2 Interdependent
In contrast, asian cultures define
their own self in another social
environment. The own self is
determined by other's thoughts,
feelings and decisions and the
relationship to others. The own
value, attitude and state depends on
how closed are the relationships to
others. One famous example
is the marriage of the well educated
japanese woman Masako Owada to the
crown prince Naruhito
what resulted in the end of her own
career (Sayle, 2000).
Western people criticized that
decision while eastern people
supported it. Many misunderstandings
are caused by the totally different
social thinking. (Fiske, Kitayama,
Markus, & Nisbett, 1998;
Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, &
Norasakkunkit, 1997).
6 Behavior
6.1 Attitude
According to most social
psychologists an attitude consists
of three parts: an affective part, a
cognitive component and a behavioral
part.All three parts are defined
now:
6.1.1 Affective reaction and
affective based attitude
The affective part consists of the
emotional reaction towards the
regarded object. It consists only of
feelings and spontaneous motions. If
an attitude only based on such
feelings it is called affective
based attitude. If we meet someone
the first time we get an first
impression, whether we like or
dislike this person without any
special reason. This is a affective
reaction. But if we keep this
attitude without thinking about
different later impression then our
attitude is affective based.
(Breckler & Wiggins,1989; Zanna &
Rempel, 1988). An affective attitude
can never be explained
by a logical conclusion or by a rational examination.
6.1.2 Cognitive reaction and
cognitive based attitude
The cognitive part might include not
only the affective but also the
thoughts about the object.
Ideally, those thought are logical
and comprehensible, Thus, is a
attitude concerned and based on
own investigations about the
object's facts then it is likely
that the further attitude is based
cognitively. It is called then
accordingly cognitive based
attitude. (Katz, 1960; Smith,
Bruner, &
Withe, 1956). Such an attitude can
always be reasoned by the owner.
6.1.3 Behavioral reaction and
behavioral based attitude
The behavioral component consists of
the obvious behavior towards an
object. It does not
necessarily match the cognitive
attitude. We can think about an
object different than we act later.
A
behavioral based attitude is build
up from the own observation of the
own behavior. There are two
reason why the behavior is different
to the affect or cognition: First, a
different attitude might gain a
benefit that let us behave
different. Second, some people don't
know hot to feel unless they behave
first. (Bem, 1972)
6.2 Interactions
Such an attitude might change. Who
can influence our attitude or later
our behavior? Social
psychology concerns with the
interaction of at least two objects;
might an object be a single person
or a group. This paper concerns only
with the interaction between a
single person and a group or
another person
6.2.1 Group Influences
Some phenomenon are introduced here
that have an influence from a group
to a single person.
6.2.1.1 Social facilitation
If someone has a task to perform
that it is interesting how the
simple presence of a group can
influence the individual. If the
task is simple then the group
facilitate the object. He/she can to
it
better, the group quickens someone's
performance. But if the task is
complex the presence of the
group let him/her feel more insecure
and the performance decreases.
(Schmitt, Gilovich, Goore, &
Joseph, 1986). Here, the interesting
point is, that the group even does
not have ti interact with the
single object, just the presence
already influences.
6.2.1.2 Social loafing
Now, if someone works among a group
and got a certain task the object
unconsciously tends to
work lesser and less concentrated.
It is not important whether the task
is interesting or not (Latane,
1981). But the object does not only
work lesser but even feels lesser
responsible for his work. The
bigger the group the lesser the
attendance and even the adaption of
their own behavior to the group's
norms (Carver & Scheier, 1981;
Mullen & Baumeister 1987). There is
also a gender difference:
female tends to lesser social
loafing than male objects (Hunt,
1985). But also a cultural
difference
appears: western peoples lead to
more social loafing than asian
people caused by their
interdependent self-definition (see
above) (Karau & Williams, 1993;
Aronson, 2000).
6.2.1.3 Deindividuation
Each individual person is unique and
the difference between the members
is called Individuation. If
these differences are broke down and
the group looks only as group then
this process is called
Deindividuation. Deindividuation
provides some negative and also
positive influences on a
member.
6.2.1.3.1 Violence and
Responsibility
Someone might use the size of a
group to hide himself. He feels
invisible or anonymous for others
from outside. This feeling leads to
a behavior that someone never would
do if he were alone. If it is
from outside not recognizable who
within the group did something then
he cannot be punished. So,
often bad behavior, violence or even
cruelties are done from within the
group by an individual
knowing that no one can judge him
later. But also positive behavior
can be done, e.g. crying in the
public.
6.2.1.4 Dehumanization
If someone has to do to others
something what he does not want to
do, then often this person
abnegate the other person as a human
being. This process is done in order
to protect himself. If a
subject must pain someone else then
the illusion that that person is not
a human being protects
himself against his own feelings or
guilty conscience. Some reason can
be:
6.2.1.4.1 Social imposed reason
People who work in services where a
lot of customers must be "processed"
the view for the
individual person gets lost. All
customers are "numbers" or a big
mass.
6.2.1.4.2 Self-defense
Doctors and nurses use
dehumanization to protect them self
against being too compassionate.
They
could not survive if they would
concern with each case. Therefore,
the individuals are just
"patience" or "examples" for
investigations. (Maslach, 1982)
6.2.1.4.3 Rationalization
Dehumanization is always used to
prepare a people to begin a war. The
"enemy" is not a group of
individuals with own feelings and
families but "just" an undefined
opposite. Just in this way it is
possible to create negative
attitudes towards an unknown group,
to create a concept of the enemy.
During the war each soldier use
dehumanization to protect himself
against each killing of an visible
person. After the war it is still an
useful instrument to explain the
necessity of a war. (Keen, 1986)
6.2.2 Interpersonal Attraction
Each person wish to have social
contacts, to a group and/or single
person. In surveys people of all
ages told the making and maintaining
friendships makes them happy at most
(Berscheid, 1985;
Berscheid & Peplau; 1983; Berscheid
& Reis, 1998) These contacts or
relationships to a single
person are called interpersonal
relationships. What happens if
someone starts a relationship. Which
factors promote the beginning of a
relationship.
6.2.2.1 Basic Factors
6.2.2.1.1 Propinquity
We only can make friendships with
someone who me meet. If we meet
someone more often and
start to interact with then
friendships can develop (Berscheid &
Reis, 1998; Moreland & Beach,
1992; Priest & Sawyer, 1967;
Rawlins, 1994; Segal, 1974). This
simple factor is called Propinquity
Effect.
6.2.2.1.2 Similarity
Of course, just being near to each
other does not make friendships. The
next important factor is
similarity. Some of them ate listed
now.
�
Demographic: people who have
the same demographically background
are more likely to
start a relationship. Either rural
or urban peer meet each other
(Newcomb, 1961)
�
Interpersonal style: Persons
who think similar about others. They
can easily exchange their
thoughts and ideas and find an even
peer.
�
Communication skill: Is is
hard to talk for an talk active to
an non talk active person. Such
talks soon ends frustrating,
whereas, two talk active persons can
talk endless and two non
talk active person can be together
silently (Burleson, 1994; Duck &
Pittman, 1994).
�
Chosen interests: People who
are interested in a certain topic
will meet each other
automatically while they go into the
same class or semester at university
or school. Also
later, people who have the same
profession are more likely to join
together.
6.2.2.1.3 Liking
If we know that someone likes us it
is far more likely that we like that
person, too. It can even
compensate non existing
similarities. We even don't need to
talk to that person, already a non
verbal
signal that we are liked let us like
that person as well. (Berscheid &
Walster, 1978; Hays, 1984;
Kenny, 1994)
And the opposite case confirms that.
If someone seems to dislike us we
don't like that person, too,
or we have difficulties to gain
sympathy. (Curtis & Miller, 1986)
7 Conclusion
The science of social psychology is
not just a theoretical science for
some scientists, but it is
directly useful for the daily life,
we can apply it right away in our
own environment.
Theories about our unconscious body
language let us know far more about
our counterpart than
he/she actually wants. Thus, this
knowledge is used during interviews
for applications and other
examinations where a person is
observed thoroughly.
The knowledge about attribution
theory helps us in daily life
because it provides us an
explanation
why someone acted how he acted
either in close relationships or in
loose relations. But even courts
or commissions of inquiries want to
know how to explain strange behavior
of the person needs to be
inquired.
The examination about cultural
differences let us become humble for
it shows us that other opinion,
attitudes, and behavior are not
lesser correct, sometimes they are
even better. At least they provide
us an idea that other ways of
thinking are possible and can enrich
us.
The study of interpersonal
relationship gives us a clue about
under which circumstances a
friendship is possible at all. But,
of course, exceptions are possible,
thus, we cannot use it as a cook
book to start a new friendship.
Nevertheless, social psychology is a
great, interesting, and multi sided
branch of psychology.
Table of figures
Intersection...........................................................................................................................................................................
3
Graphs of
correlations..........................................................................................................................................................
6
References
Archer, D. (1991). A world of
gestures: Culture and nonverbal
communication. University of
California: Berkeley, CA.
Archer, D. (1997). Unspoken
Diversity: Cultural differences in
gestures. Qualitative Sociology, 20,
79-105.
Argyle, M. (1967). The psychology of
interpersonal behavior. Penguin
Books: Harmondsworth.
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., &
Brewer, M. B. (1998). Experimental
Methods, The handbook of social
psychology.
McGraw-Hill: New York.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception
theory. Advances in experimental
social psychology. Academic Press:
New York.
Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal
attraction. The handbook of social
psychology. McGraw-Hills, New York.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1978).
Interpersonal attraction.
Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998).
Attraction and close relationships.
The handbook of social psychology.
McGraw-
Hills: New York.
Berscheid, E., Peplau, L. A. (1983).
The emerging science of
relationships. Close relationships,
1-19, Freeman: New
York.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D.
(1991). A contextual model for
advancing the study of marital
relationships.
Cognition in close relationships.
Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ
Breckler, S. J., & Wiggins, E. C.
(1989). On defining attitude and
attitude theory: Once more with
feeling.Attitude
structure and function. Erlbaum:
Hillsdale, NJ.
Buck, R. (1984). The communication
of emotion. Guilford Press: New
York.
Burleson, B. R. (1994). Friendship
and similarities in social-cognitive
and communicative abilities: Social
skill bases of
interpersonal attraction in
childhood. Personal relationships,
1, 371-389.
Carli, L. L. (1999). Cognitive
reconstruction, hindsight, and
reactions to victims and
perpetrators. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 25,
966-979.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F.
(1981). Attention and
self-regulation: A control-theory
approach to human behavior:
Springer Verlag: New York.
Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986).
Believing another likes or dislikes
you: Behavior making the beliefs
come true.
Journal of personality and social
psychology, 51, 284-290.
Duck, S. W., & Pittman, G. (1994).
Social and personal relationships.
Handbook of interpersonal
communication. Sage:
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dunning, D., & Hayes, A. F. (1996).
Evidence of egocentric comparison in
social judgment, Journal of
personality and
social psychology, 71, 213.229.
Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression
and emotion. American Psychologist,
48, 384-392.
Ekman, P. (1994). Strong evidence
for universals in facial
expressions: A reply to Russell's
mistaken critique.
Psychological Bulletin, 115,
268-287.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., &
Ellsworth, P. (1982a). Does the face
provide accurate information?
Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., &
Ellsworth, P. (1982b). What are the
similarities and differences in
facial behavior across
cultures? Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge.
Fiedler, K., Walther, E., & Nickel,
S. (1999). Covariation based
attribution: On the ability to
assess multiple covariation
s of an effect. Personality and
social psychology bulletin, 25,
607-622.
Fincham, F. D. (1985). Attribution
process in distressed and non
distressed couples: Responsibility
of marital problems.
Journal of abnormal psychology, 94,
183-190.
Fincham, F. D., Bradbury, T. N.,
Arias, I., Byrne, C. A, & Karney, B.
R. (1997). Marital violence, marital
distress, and
attributions. Journal of Family
Psychology, 11, 367-372.
Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight
foresight: The effect of outcome
knowledge on judgment under
uncertainty. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 1,
288-299.
Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus,
H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The
cultural matrix of social
psychology. McGraw-
Hill: New York.
Goffman, I. (1972). Interaction
Ritual. Allen Lane: London.
Gudykunst, W. B., Tind-Toomey, S., &
Nishida, T. (1996). Communication in
personal relationships across
cultures.
Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hastie, R., Schkade, D., & Payne, J.
W. (1999). Juror judgments in civil
cases: Hindsight effect on judgments
of
liability for punitive damages. Law
and Human Behavior, 23, 597-614.
Hays, R. B. (1984). The development and maintenance of friendship.
Journal of personal and social
psychology, 1, 75-
98.
Heider, F. (1944). Social perception
and phenomenal causality.
Psychological Review, 358-374.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of
interpersonal relation. Wiley: New
York.
Hertwig, R., Gigerenzer, G., &
Hoffrage, U. (1997). The reiteration
effect in hindsight bias.
Psychological Review, 104,
194-202.
Higgins, E. T. (1987).
Self-discrepancy: A theory relating
self and affect, Psychological
review, 94, 319-340.
Hunt, M. (1985). Profiles of social
research: The scientific study of
human interactions. Russell Sage
Foundation: New
York.
Judd, C. M. & McClelland, G. (1998).
Measurement, The handbook of social
psychology. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D.
(1993). Social loafing: A meta-
analytic review and theoretical
integration. Journal of
personality and social psychology,
65, 681-706.
Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N.
(2000). Attributions in marriage:
State or trait? A growth curve
analysis. Journal of
personality and social psychology,
78, 295-309.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional
approach to the study of attitudes.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 24,
163-204.
Keen, S. (1986). Faces of the enemy:
Reflections of the hostile
imagination. Harper & Row: New York.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution
theory in social psychology.
University of Nebraska Press:
Lincoln.
Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution.
Perceiving the causes of behavior.
General Learning Press: New York
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of
causal attribution. American
psychologist, 28, 107-128.
Kenny, D. A. (1994). Using the
social relations model to understand
relationships. Theoretical
frameworks for personal
relationships. Erlbaum: Hillsdale,
NJ.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., &
Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in
social psychology, The handbook of
social
psychology. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Klein, S. B.
(1994). The self as knowledge
structure. handbook of social
cognition. Erlbaum:
Hillsdale, NJ.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R.,
Matsumoto, H., & Norassakkunit, V.
(1997). Individual and collective
progress in the
construction of the self:
Self-enhancement in the Unites
States and self-criticism in Japan.
Journal of personality and
social psychology, 72, 1245-1267.
Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (1997).
Nonverbal communication in human
interaction. Harcourt Brace:
Orlando, FL.
Lamb. (1965). Posture and Gesture.
Duckworth, London.
Latan�, B. (1981). The psychology of
social impact. American
psychologist, 36, 343-356.
Leathers, D. G. (1997). Successful
nonverbal communication: Principles
and applications. Allyn & Bacon:
Needham
Heights, MA.
Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The
cost of caring. Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McArthur, L. Z. (1972). The how and
what of why: Some determinants and
consequences of causal attribution.
Journal
of personality and social
psychology, 22, 171-193.
Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R.
(1992). Exposure effects in the
classroom: The development of
affinity among
students. Journal of experimental
social psychology, 28, 255-276.
Mullen, B., & Baumeister, R. F.
(1987). Group effects on
self-attention and performance:
Social loafing, social
facilitation, and social impairment.
Review of personality and social
psychology. Sage: Beverly Hills, CA.
Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., &
Baumeister, R. F. (1998).
Self-control as limited resource:
Regulatory depletion patterns.
Journal of personality and social
science, 74, 774-789.
Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The
acquaintance process. Holt, Rinehart
and Winston: New York.
Pease, A. (1981). Body Language.
Sheldon Press: London.
Priest, R. F., & Sawyer, J. (1967).
Proximity and peer ship: Bases of
balance in interpersonal attraction.
American
Journal of sociology, 72, 633-649.
Rawlings, W. K. (1994). Being there
and growing apart: Sustaining
friendships through adulthood.
Communication and
relational maintenance. Academic
Press: San Diego, CA.
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C.
(1995). Nonverbal behavior in
interpersonal relations. Allyn &
Bacon: Needham
Heights, MA.
Sayle, M. (2000, June 12). Letter
from Japan: A dynasty falter. New
Yorker, pp. 84-91
Schmitt, B. H., Gilovich, T., Goore,
N., & Joseph, L. (1986). Mere
presence and social facilitation:
One more time.
Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 22, 228-241.
Segal, M. W. (1974). Alphabet and
attraction: An unobtrusive measure
of the effect of propinquity in the
field setting.
Journal of personality and social
psychology, 30, 654-657.
Smith, M. B., Bruner, J., & White,
R. W. (1956). Opinions and
personality. Wiley: New York.
Steinberg, R. J. (2000). Pathways to
psychology. Wadsworth: Thomson
Learning: Stamford, CT
Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T.
(1997). The self-reference effect in
memory: A meta-analysis.
Psychological bulletin,
121, 371-394.
Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A.,
Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R.
M. (1971). Perceiving the causes of
success and
failure. General Learning Press:
Morristown, NJ.
Wright, E. F., Luus, C. A. E., &
Christie, S. D. (1990). Does group
discussion facilitate the use of
consensus
information in making causal attributions? Journal of personality and
social psychology, 59, 261-269.
Zanna, M. P., & Rempel, J. K.
(1988). Attitudes: A new look at an
old concept. Cambridge University
Press: New
York.
Zimbardo, P. (1995). Psychologie.
Springer: Heidelberg, Germany
|
|
 |
dd |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
