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, µ 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.
Latané, 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
Home | Spanish | Portugese | Chinese | French | Online Courses | Available Courses | View Course Demo | Career Center | Available Positions | Ask Career Coach | The Job Interview | Writing Resume | Accreditation | Areas of Study | Bachelor Degree Programs | Masters Degree Programs | Doctoral Degree Programs | Course and Curriculum | Human Rights | Online Library | Links Exchange | 54 Million Records | Press Room | New Look | Representations | Student Publications | Share with Us | Alumni | Graduates | Sponsors | General Information | Mission & Vision | School of Business and Economics | School of Science and Engineering | School of Social and Human Studies | Download Center | Admission Requirements | Tuition | Apply Online | Faculty & Staff | Distance Learning Overview | Student Testimonials | Frequently Asked Questions | Distance Learning Request Information | Register for Program | Admission Application Form

Copyright ® 1979 - 2006, 2007 Atlantic International University . All rights reserved.
Google