Social Interaction Psychology Course Book PDF

SOCIAL INTERACTION PSYCHOLOGY DLBPSPSI01_E SOCIAL INTERACTION PSYCHOLOGY MASTHEAD Publisher: IU Internationale Hochschule GmbH IU International University of Applied Sciences Juri-Gagarin-Ring 152 D-99084 Erfurt Mailing address: Albert-Proeller-Straße 15-19 D-86675 Buchdorf [email protected] www.iu....

SOCIAL INTERACTION PSYCHOLOGY DLBPSPSI01_E SOCIAL INTERACTION PSYCHOLOGY MASTHEAD Publisher: IU Internationale Hochschule GmbH IU International University of Applied Sciences Juri-Gagarin-Ring 152 D-99084 Erfurt Mailing address: Albert-Proeller-Straße 15-19 D-86675 Buchdorf [email protected] www.iu.de DLBPSPSI01_E Version No.: 001-2023-0728 Concept: IU Internationale Hochschule Author: Dr. Jessie de Witt Huberts © 2023 IU Internationale Hochschule GmbH This course book is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This course book may not be reproduced and/or electronically edited, duplicated, or distributed in any kind of form without written permission by the IU Internationale Hochschule GmbH (hereinafter referred to as IU). The authors/publishers have identified the authors and sources of all graphics to the best of their abilities. However, if any erroneous information has been provided, please notify us accordingly. 2 PROF. DR. JESSIE DE WITT HUBERTS Ms. de Witt Huberts is professor of psychology at IU International University. She obtained her Master’s degree in social psychology and clinical psychology at the University of Amsterdam. After a year of clinical work in an addiction clinic, she started her dissertation research at Utrecht University on the self-regulation of health behavior. Since then she has worked as a post-doc at Potsdam University and as a research fellow at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine where she consulted for various organizations and governments on the development of behavior change strategies and campaigns. Prior to starting her position as professor at IU she worked as a policy advisor for addiction prevention for the Senate Department for Health, Care and Equality of Berlin. Ms. de Witt Huberts’ research focuses on the social-psychological determinants of behavior and how these determinants can be leveraged to change behavior. She has studied these mechanisms in a wide range of behaviors, including eating behavior, addictive behaviors, pain perception and management, HIV prevention, hygiene behavior, and in a wide variety of settings, from laboratory experiments with students to field experiments in rural Vietnam. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS SOCIAL INTERACTION PSYCHOLOGY Module Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Introduction Signposts Throughout the Course Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Suggested Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Learning Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Unit 1 Introduction to Social Psychology 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 What is Social Psychology? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 The Origins of Modern Social Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 The Principle Characteristics of Social Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Differentiation From Other Social Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Unit 2 Selected Techniques of Social-Psychological Data Collection 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 4 37 Social Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Attribution Theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Social Perception and Social Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Cognitive Control Through Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Unit 4 The Self 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 21 Social Psychological Findings in Science Versus Everyday Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Methodological Diversity in Social-Psychological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Scientific Observation in the Field and in the Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Reactivity in Psychological Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Unit 3 Social Perception and Attribution 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 13 53 What is the Self? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 The Self as a Mental Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Sources of Self-Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Motivated Functions of the Self . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Self-Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Unit 5 Attitudes 69 5.1 What is Attitude? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 5.2 Why Are Attitudes Important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 5.3 The Function of Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Unit 6 Social Influence 79 6.1 Social Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 6.2 Mechanisms of Social Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 6.3 Types of Social Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Unit 7 Aggression 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 93 Definition and Measurement of Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Aggression as a Social Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Models of Aggression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Psychological Approaches to Prevention and Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Unit 8 Prosocial Behavior 111 8.1 What is Prosocial Behavior? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 8.2 Why Do People Act Prosocially? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 8.3 The Role of Situational Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Unit 9 Affiliation, Interpersonal Attraction, and Close Relationships 123 9.1 The Importance of Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 9.2 Interpersonal Attraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 9.3 Romantic Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Unit 10 Group Processes and Cultural Differences 137 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 138 141 143 146 Groups – Definitions and Key Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Group Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intergroup Processes – Prejudices and Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Culture and Cultural Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix List of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 List of Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 5 INTRODUCTION WELCOME SIGNPOSTS THROUGHOUT THE COURSE BOOK This course book contains the core content for this course. Additional learning materials can be found on the learning platform, but this course book should form the basis for your learning. The content of this course book is divided into units, which are divided further into sections. Each section contains only one new key concept to allow you to quickly and efficiently add new learning material to your existing knowledge. At the end of each section of the digital course book, you will find self-check questions. These questions are designed to help you check whether you have understood the concepts in each section. For all modules with a final exam, you must complete the knowledge tests on the learning platform. You will pass the knowledge test for each unit when you answer at least 80% of the questions correctly. When you have passed the knowledge tests for all the units, the course is considered finished and you will be able to register for the final assessment. Please ensure that you complete the evaluation prior to registering for the assessment. Good luck! 8 SUGGESTED READINGS GENERAL SUGGESTIONS Branscombe, N. R., & Baron, R. A. (2022). Social psychology (15th ed., global ed.). Pearson. h ttp://search.ebscohost.com.pxz.iubh.de:8080/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat05114a& AN=ihb.53298&lang=de&site=eds-live&scope=site Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2022). Social psychology (9th ed.). Pearson. http://search.ebs cohost.com.pxz.iubh.de:8080/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat05114a&AN=ihb.53080&l ang=de&site=eds-live&scope=site UNIT 2 Bless, H., & Burger, A. M. (2016). A closer look at social psychologists’ silver bullet: Inevitable and evitable side effects of the experimental approach. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(2), 296–308. http://search.ebscohost.com.pxz.iubh.de:8080/login.aspx? direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.26358614&site=eds-live&scope=site UNIT 3 Todorov, A., Olivola, C. Y., Dotsch, R., & Mende-Siedlecki, P. (2015). Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 519–545. http://search.ebscohost.com.pxz.iubh.de:8080/logi n.aspx?direct=true&db=edsoai&AN=edsoai.on1260806146&site=eds-live&scope=site UNIT 4 Heatherton, T. F. (2011). Neuroscience of self and self-regulation. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 363–390. UNIT 5 Albarracin, D., & Shavitt, S. (2018). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 299–327. UNIT 7 Krahé, B. (2020). Risk factors for the development of aggressive behavior from middle childhood to adolescence: The interaction of person and environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(4), 333–339. http://search.ebscohost.com.pxz.iubh.d e:8080/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=144916754&site=eds-live&scope=site 9 UNIT 8 Greitemeyer, T. (2022). Prosocial modeling: Person role models and the media. Current Opinion in Psychology, 55, 135–139. http://search.ebscohost.com.pxz.iubh.de:8080/log in.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.320D40C5&site=eds-live&scope=site UNIT 9 Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40(2), 218– 227. http://search.ebscohost.com.pxz.iubh.de:8080/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsba s&AN=edsbas.2E00F231&site=eds-live&scope=site UNIT 10 International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. (n.d.). Online readings in psychology and culture [Article database]. 10 LEARNING OBJECTIVES We spend the majority of our waking hours engaging with and being influenced by others. These “others” can include our friends, family, and classmates as well as those people who we encounter on television or interact with online. In fact, even those we merely think about, remember, or imagine can have a profound impact on the way we think, feel, and act. In our increasingly interconnected world, understanding the significance of the social context on our thoughts, behaviors, and overall experiences seems more important than ever. Social psychology, a prominent subfield of psychology, aims to understand the intricacies of human psychology in social settings. Your Social Interaction Psychology course book provides a comprehensive overview of the fundamental concepts and theories in social psychology. Throughout this course book, you will explore how the presence of others, whether real or imagined, shapes our thoughts and actions. By examining the fundamental mechanisms underlying social interactions, you will gain valuable insights into the intricate workings of human psychology. This course book will draw upon some classic and highly influential experiments that have expanded our understanding of human behavior in social settings. With a focus on the role of scientific research methods, you will come to understand the significance of empirical inquiry in testing social psychological hypotheses. By the end of this course book, you will have a solid grasp of the research and discussions that define social psychology. This knowledge will help you to navigate the complexities of social interactions and gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that govern human behavior. 11 UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY STUDY GOALS On completion of this unit, you will be able to ... – – – – define social psychology and identify its principal characteristics. describe the origins of modern social psychology. know about influential social-psychological experiments. understand how social psychology differs from other social sciences. 1. INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Introduction Imagine the following three scenarios: 1. You and a group of other people are asked to match the length of a line on a card to one of three lines on another card. You can clearly see which line is a match. However, the other people in the group insist that a line that is clearly shorter matches the one on the card. What would you do? Would you deviate from the rest of the group and choose the line that in your eyes matches the one on the card? Or would you join the rest of the group and choose the line that they agree matches the card? 2. You are participating in a study on memory and learning and are asked to administer electric shocks to another person every time that person gives an incorrect answer on a memory task. What would you do? Would you follow the instructions and administer the shocks even if the other person is crying out in pain? Or would you refuse to obey? 3. Finally, for a study, you and your fellow students are asked to simulate a prison environment and are randomly assigned the role of either prison guard or prisoner. Do you believe that as a “guard” you could become abusive to your fellow students who are assigned the role of prisoner? These are not games of truth or dare. Rather, they are real social-psychological experiments that have generated remarkable insights into human nature and the tremendous impact of the social environment on individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and behavior. In these famous studies by Solomon Asch (1951), Stanley Milgram (1963), and Zimbardo and his colleagues (Haney et al., 1973), the results were as follows: (1) The participants in the first study conformed to the majority opinion and choose the line that was clearly wrong, (2) the participants in the second study followed the orders from an authority figure and administered the shocks even when those orders conflicted their own moral values, and (3) the prison experiment by Zimbardo and his colleagues had to be terminated early because the behavior of the “guards” became too violent. By demonstrating the power of conformity, authority, and social roles, such studies made the importance of the social context on an individual undeniable and inspired a new way of explaining and studying the causes of human behavior. Since then, the relatively young field of social psychology has quickly become a well-established and large subfield of contemporary psychology. 14 1.1 What is Social Psychology? Humans are born with innate abilities that enable them to navigate and participate in the social world. As newborns, we recognize voices and respond to faces. As young children, we learn languages in order to communicate with others. Throughout our lives, we develop relationships with a wide variety of people: parents, friends, teachers, classmates, family members, neighbors, lovers, bosses, colleagues, and authorities. We are social beings through and through. The importance of this shows up in every aspect of our lives: Through other people, we learn what we should and shouldn’t do, like, or think; we are motivated to understand others; and we become concerned about what others think of us. Even when we are alone, we are influenced by people who are not physically present at that moment but nevertheless affect us through our memories, feelings, and thoughts about them. We stop before the stop sign on the road even when no one is watching, and we carefully curate our social media because of the imagined reactions of others. We are influenced by actual or imagined social situations every day. Understanding how human thought and behavior is influenced by the social context is the aim of the subfield of psychology named social psychology. Defining Social Psychology Gordon Allport (1897–1967), one of the most eminent social psychologists, defined social psychology as follows: “Social psychology is the attempt to understand and explain how the thought, feeling, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others” (Allport, 1954, p. 5). As such, social psychology covers a vast range of topics and plays a role in nearly all aspects of our daily lives. Social psychologists investigate the reasons behind why individuals exhibit helpful behavior towards others at some times and then become unfriendly or aggressive at other times. They study how social relationships and loneliness affect our well-being, how juries reach decisions, why we buy one product over another, and what makes some people behave in more environmentally friendly ways than others. The research interests of social psychologists can be broadly divided into the following three content domains: • social cognition: The study of social cognition focuses on how people process, store, and respond to social information – such as the characteristics, motives, intentions, and emotions of themselves and others – in order to explain and predict their own and other’s behavior. Subjects of interest include social perception, stereotypes and prejudice, the self-concept, and attitudes. • social influence: Social influence refers to the ways in which individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are affected by the presence and actions of others. It encompasses a wide range of processes, including persuasion, conformity, obedience, and social change. • social behavior: The study of social behavior focuses on behavior that is directed towards or takes place between people. This includes topics such as aggression, helpfulness, and relationships. 15 Figure 1: Content Domains and Research Areas of Social Psychology With Migrant Example Source: Jessie de Witt Huberts (2023), based on Heinzen & Goodfriend (2021, p. 4). Fundamental research This is a research methodology that seeks to expand knowledge in a particular field. Applied research This is a research methodology that seeks to create practical solutions for real-world problems. 16 As can be seen in the above figure, these content domains overlap, which is how social situations occur in real-life. This also reflects the two types of research conducted in social psychology. Typically, social psychologists conduct fundamental research to expand knowledge in a particular area, often within one of the three content domains. The knowledge created across the different domains is then applied to study and solve real-world problems that often span across all three domains. This is also known as applied research. In fact, it was this approach that established social psychology as a scientific discipline: Basic and applied research were used in tandem to understand the real-world events of World War II (WWII). 1.2 The Origins of Modern Social Psychology Social psychology as a scientific discipline was profoundly influenced by the events of WWII. This rapid expansion of social psychological research after WWII can be traced back to three main developments (Stroebe & Hewstone, 2020): 1. WWII stimulated research in typical social-psychological topics such as persuasion, mass communication, and attitude change, as the United States (US) army wanted to assess the impact of their propaganda on the morale of their soldiers and citizens. 2. The forced migration of (Jewish) academics from Germany, most notably Kurt Lewin (1890–1947), who is considered to be one of the founding fathers of modern social psychology, shaped the development of social psychology. As observers of the early stages of Nazism as well as being immigrants to a new country, these European researchers were profoundly aware of the powerful influence of the social environment on the thinking and behavior of individuals. Moreover, they embraced the experimental methods of behaviorism that dominated American psychology at the time and started to apply them to their study of social problems. 3. In the aftermath of the Holocaust, social psychologists wanted to understand what caused the extreme obedience and horrendous crimes witnessed under the Nazi regime. This led to a series of ground-breaking studies (see the introduction of this unit) that established social psychology as a scientific discipline. The studies on conformity by Muzafir Sheriff (1936) and Solomon Asch (1952) empirically demonstrated the influence of conformity pressures in groups. The study on obedience by Stanley Milgram (1963) showed how easily people in authority positions could create obedience, even leading people to cause severe harm to others. The famous prison experiment by Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues (Haney et al., 1973) demonstrated how easily people identify with their randomly ascribed roles of “guard” or “prisoner” as well as how easily the boundaries of civility can be crossed. 1.3 The Principle Characteristics of Social Psychology These experimental studies were among the first to document the remarkable influence of the social context on our behavior and laid out the basic tenets of modern social psychology: (1) the application of scientific methods and (2) the recognition of the influence of the environment on an individual’s behavior. Commitment to the Scientific Method Firstly, social psychology relies heavily on the application of rigorous scientific methods, often using experimental procedures in laboratory settings. The new generation of social psychologists emphasized the importance of quantifying variables and conducting laboratory experiments to rigorously test their hypotheses about behavior, thereby establishing 17 social psychology as a scientific discipline. Commitment to the scientific method, in which theories are tested against evidence, allowed for more objective and critical thinking about our everyday social interactions. While the experimental method remains a crucial research tool for social psychologists, other research methods have become equally accepted. In that time, however, the emphasis on using the experimental method was critical for establishing social psychology’s credibility as a scientific discipline. The Prominent Influence of the Environment on Behavior The second fundamental principle of social psychology is that while social psychologists believe that human behavior is determined by both a person’s characteristics and the social situation, they also believe that the social situation is frequently a stronger determinant of an individual’s behavior than personality. When social psychologists analyze events such as the Holocaust, they tend to focus on the situational factors of the event rather than on the characteristics of the perpetrators themselves. Importantly, people do not simply react to the objective aspects of a situation. Instead, they react to their subjective interpretation of it. By uncovering the remarkable extent to which our behavior is influenced by the social situation and using systematic methods to investigate social problems, social psychologists have made numerous real-world contributions. The results of social psychological research are influencing decisions in a wide range of areas, including public policy, education, business and management, and the justice system. For example, social psychologists have developed models of persuasion with the goal of understanding how governments, advertisers, and other people or groups could present their messages in the most effective way (e.g., Ooms et al., 2019). They have studied the factors that influence group behavior and performance (e.g., Baumeister et al., 2016) and developed strategies for improving teamwork and group dynamics that have been applied in fields such as management, education, and sports. Social psychologists have studied the dynamics of interpersonal relationships (Algoe, 2019) and developed strategies for improving communication, conflict resolution, and relationship satisfaction that have been integrated in couples and family therapy as well as mediation practices. Furthermore, they have also helped to identify the psychological factors that influence policy decisions and decision-making as well as provided insights into how these decisions can be made more effectively, thus influencing fields such as public health, environmental policy, and criminal justice (e.g., Anderson, 2011; Klein et al., 2015; Radburn & Stott, 2019). 1.4 Differentiation From Other Social Sciences Social psychologists are not the only scientists interested in understanding and predicting social behavior. Sociology, cultural anthropology, and subdisciplines of psychology such as cultural psychology, clinical psychology, and personality psychology are also interested 18 in the interplay between people and their social environment. So, what distinguishes social psychology from other academic fields? We will explore some important aspects here: • sociology: Sociologists usually explore the influence of the social context on people at a group level, using surveys and demographic data, whereas social psychologists focus on the influence of the social context on the “individual,” typically using experimental methods. • cultural anthropology: Anthropologists explore how culture and behavior change over time using extremely detailed and comprehensive “thick” observations, which are usually made from inside the culture. In contrast, social psychologists try to uncover concrete and specific determinants of social behavior, relying on falsifiable hypotheses that are tested. • cultural psychology: Whereas cultural psychology focuses on cross-cultural differences, history, and the long-term influences of culture on psychological processes, social psychology focuses on the influence of the social context on the individual in the here and now. • clinical psychology: When clinical psychologists study social interactions and relationships, they focus on mental illnesses or problematic thoughts or behaviors. Social psychologists are interested in “normal” everyday behaviors and interactions. • personality psychology: Personality psychologists study individual differences such as extraversion or conscientiousness. Although individual differences also interest social psychologists, they are more interested in individual differences in response to the social characteristics of the situation (e.g., “Are extraverted people less susceptible to conformity pressures than introverted people?”). Table 1: Social Psychology and Related Disciplines Field of study Main focus of the discipline Example of research question to study aggression Sociology Sociology focuses on the influence of the social context on people at a group level, whereas social psychology is interested in the individual. How does aggression vary as a function of socioeconomic class, gender, and age? Cultural anthropology Cultural anthropology focuses on how culture and behavior change over time, whereas social psychology focuses on specific determinants that are tested experimentally. How has aggressive behavior changed over time in inner-city schools? Cultural psychology Culural psychology focuses on the (long-term) cross-cultural differences in psychological processes, whereas social psychology focuses on the influence of the social context on the individual in the here and now. How do individualistic and collectivistic cultures differ in their expression of aggression? Clinical psychology Clinical psychology focuses on mental illnesses or problematic thoughts or behaviors, whereas social psychologists are interested in “normal” everyday behaviors and interactions Which clinical diagnosis is the observed aggressive behavior a symptom of? 19 Field of study Main focus of the discipline Example of research question to study aggression Personality psychology Personality psychology focuses on individual differences in general, whereas social psychologists are interested in individual differences in response to the social situation Are extraverted people more aggressive than people who are less extraverted? Source: Jessie de Witt Huberts (2023), based on Myers & DeWall (2018). SUMMARY Social psychology is the scientific study of the ways in which real or imagined social situations influence individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. The field of social psychology covers a wide range of topics, which can be divided into the following categories: social cognition, social influence, and social behavior. The origins of modern social psychology can be traced back to WWII. The field is characterized by its focus on the power of the social context over the individual and the use of scientific methods. In the decades since, social psychology has become an increasingly diverse and influential field, with researchers studying a wide range of topics such as social influence, group behavior, interpersonal relationships, attitudes, and how attitudes change. Today, the insights and findings of social psychology are applied in diverse fields, including education, business and management, health care, and public policy. 20 UNIT 2 SELECTED TECHNIQUES OF SOCIALPSYCHOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION STUDY GOALS On completion of this unit, you will be able to ... – understand why social psychologists conduct scientific research. – explain the difference between qualitative and quantitative research. – grasp the three most widely used research designs in social psychology and their strengths and limitations. – define the three types of validity. – know about reactivity in research and the different methods to minimize it. 2. SELECTED TECHNIQUES OF SOCIALPSYCHOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION Introduction Which of the following statements is correct? • • • • Strong temptations are more dangerous to your self-control than weak temptations. The more people witness an accident, the faster the victim will be helped. Persuasive messages lead to compliance. If you want to ask someone for a favor, it is better to not have made any other requests to that person before. Social-psychological research has demonstrated that, in fact, all of these statements are incorrect: People are more likely to fall for weak temptations, as they tend to underestimate them (Kroese et al., 2011); the more people are present in an emergency, the less responsible people will feel to help (Darley & Latane, 1968); persuasive messages can backfire and lead to reactance, which is when people do the opposite of what was asked of them (Brehm, 1966); and people are more likely to respond favorably to your request if they have either done you a small favor before (the “foot-in-the-door technique”; Freedman & Fraser, 1966) or if they turned down an earlier outrageous request you made (the “door-in-the-face technique”; Cialdini et al., 1975). Without scientific research, these counterintuitive findings are unlikely to have been uncovered. This is why social psychologists adopt a scientific approach that extends beyond the mere observation of human actions. They believe that a true understanding of behavior needs a systematic scientific approach, which is why they conduct empirical research. 2.1 Social Psychological Findings in Science Versus Everyday Life In daily life, we are all social psychologists. However, rather than approaching this knowledge scientifically, we tend to rely on our intuition. In order to navigate life effectively, it’s essential to have a well-developed understanding of why people behave as they do, what causes certain behaviors, and what effect our own behavior has on others. Often, our questions about human behavior can be answered through simple observation and the use of our own common sense, which is why many people think it is not necessary to study it empirically. These common-sense understandings are often quite accurate, but as you may have noticed from the examples in the introduction, this isn’t always the case. Plus, they can also be contradictory, which can leave us wondering if, for example, “birds of a feather” really do “flock together” or if opposites attract. 22 A particular reason for this is that our common-sense understanding often leads us to believe that we know why we engage in a particular behavior when, in fact, we don’t. Social-psychological research has demonstrated that individuals do not always comprehend the reasons behind their own actions. We tend to believe that our thoughts control our behavior when other factors may actually be at play (Pronin, 2009; Wegner & Wheatley, 1999). These findings and many others demonstrate that human beings are not reliable judges of the causes of their own behavior, let alone another person’s behavior (e.g., Pronin & Kugler, 2010). Moreover, social psychology is interested in “big” phenomena such as intergroup conflict, stereotypes, and prejudice. Therefore, the aim of a lot of social-psychological research is not just simply describing these big phenomena. Rather, it also seeks to explain and, hopefully, change them. This is why social psychologists believe that the study of social behavior should be scientific, meaning that theories are tested against evidence that is based on the systematic collection and analysis of observable data. Through commitment to the scientific method, social psychologists attempt to improve upon our natural ways of observing behavior. To this end they use a wide range of scientific data collection methods, including lab experiments, field experiments, surveys, and the observation and analysis of naturally occurring behavior. 2.2 Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Research Scientific research can be viewed as a process of formulating a question and then attempting to obtain valid answers to that question through a systematic process. Over the years, researchers have used a variety of methods to answer their research questions. These methods can be categorized as either quantitative or qualitative. The term “qualitative research” describes methods of collecting and analyzing data that is not reducible to numbers, focusing instead on the content and meaning of the language used to uncover how people think and act. Qualitative data are often collected using interviews, focus groups, and content analysis of naturally occurring data such as archival data, conversations, and observation. The term “quantitative research” refers to methods of collecting numerical or measurable data that is amenable to statistical analysis. Common quantitative data collection techniques are surveys and questionnaires and experiments. In social psychological research, qualitative research is considered to be “bottom-up” – that is, hypothesis-generating research where naturalistic observations are used to generate hypotheses and theories about events. For example, by observing children in a playground, one might develop a hypothesis about gender differences in cooperative play in toddlers. Quantitative research is a “top-down” approach, meaning that specific hypotheses are tested through data analysis to study and prove relationships between them. In social psychology, qualitative research is often used as a forerunner of quantitative research rather than as the main method of data collection. For example, this might be through generating hypotheses to be tested by quantitative research or by informing the 23 design of a quantitative study by conducting focus group discussions to develop a questionnaire. Such a questionnaire can then be used and analyzed through quantitative methods. While some important social psychological findings are based on qualitative research, quantitative research methods have dominated the field of psychology in the past decades. However, this is slowly changing (e.g., Stroebe & Hewstone, 2020). 2.3 Methodological Diversity in SocialPsychological Research There are several types of research questions. These include existence questions (e.g., “Are job applicants with minority backgrounds treated less favorably during the application process?”), questions regarding description or classification (e.g., “What are the most common types of cyberbullying, and how do they differ?”), relationship questions (e.g., “Is there a relationship between self-esteem and marital status?”), and causality questions (e.g., “Does exposure to violent media cause aggressive behavior in children?”). Different types of questions call for different approaches to seeking answers. Here, we will discuss the three most used research designs in social psychology: (1) observational research, (2) correlational research, and (3) experimental research. Observational Research The most basic research design – “observational research” – involves observing and systematically recording behavior. This method provides a snapshot of what is occurring within a specific group of individuals at a particular time and how they are reacting to the situation. Observational studies can either be quantitative or qualitative in nature. As an example of an observational approach using quantitative methods, researchers might survey the members of a given community to determine the percentage who suffer from various mental disorders. A new source of observational data for social-psychologists is what is referred to as “big data.” This means that algorithms can be used to capture and summarize huge amounts of online behavior. This behavior can then be analyzed. An example of an observational study not involving numbers (i.e., one using qualitative methods) is a study where researchers record how people with mental disorders spend their days. Observational research has several benefits. Firstly, it is often the only viable means of gathering data on certain subjects, such as the effects of divorce on children’s well-being or the social dynamics within a religious cult. Secondly, observational research captures behavior as it naturally occurs, making it a preferred method over others in certain situations. However, observational research also has some limitations, the most significant being that it provides mere descriptions of events without explaining the relationship between variables or causality, which are precisely the questions that correlational and experimental research are intended to address. 24 Correlational Research Many questions that social psychologists ask are about relationships between variables. While observational studies generally help us understand the basic nature of the variable, “correlational research” examines how two or more variables are related to one another. When both variables are assessed numerically, correlational designs can search for and test hypotheses about the relationships between the variables. To explore this relationship, researchers begin by stating their predictions in a “research hypothesis.” In a correlational study, a research hypothesis is the specific prediction about the association between two or more variables, and the direction of that relationship (i.e., the correlation). By formulating a research hypothesis up front, the research is said to be falsifiable. That is, the outcome of the research can empirically demonstrate that (1) there is support for the correlation hypothesis and a relationship between the variables of interest; (2) there is no relationship between the variables, meaning that the hypothesis is not empirically supported; or (3) there is an association but is not in the direction that was predicted. This is done by using a statistical method that – in addition to confirming whether there is a relationship between numerical variables – can make statements about the strength of that relationship. The outcome is summarized in the Pearson correlation coefficient. Falsifiable In science, a statement or theory is considered falsifiable if it can be shown to be incorrect through empirical evidence or observation. PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENT The Pearson correlation coefficient can range from +1 to -1. The plus or minus indicates the direction of the correlation, referring to either a positive or a negative correlation. A positive correlation is one in which an increase in one variable coincides with an increase in the other. For example, daily time spent watching TV is likely to be positively correlated with a set percentage of body fat. A negative correlation is one in which an increase in one of the variables coincides with a decrease in the other variable. For instance, time spent exercising is likely to be negatively correlated with percentage of body fat. The absolute value of the correlation coefficient, 0 to 1 irrespective of sign (so, 0 to +1 for a positive correlation and 0 to -1 for a negative correlation) indicates the strength of the relationship. The closer the correlation coefficient is to 1, the stronger the correlation between the two variables is. Stronger correlations allow one to predict the value of one variable by knowing the other. The capacity for prediction is an important advantage of correlational designs, as we can use our knowledge of a person’s score on one of the variables to predict their score on another variable. For example, high school grades are considered to be a good predictor of a prospective student’s academic success in college. Therefore, high school examination grades are often used in college admission procedures. Although these predictions will not be perfect, they allow us to make better estimations than we would be able to make if we had not known the person’s score on the first variable ahead of time. Another advantage 25 of correlational research is that, like observational research, it can often be used to study why people are doing the things they do every day, as the researcher is merely measuring the variable of interest created rather than creating artificial (i.e., laboratory) situations. While correlational designs have benefits, they also have a major limitation: They cannot be utilized to establish causality among the measured variables. The presence of a correlation between two variables does not mean that one variable caused the other. To illustrate, while many studies have found that exposure to violent video games is associated with increased aggressive behavior in children (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Anderson et al., 2003), this does not mean that the aggressive video games caused the aggressive behavior. Another possibility is that children who are already prone to aggressive behavior may be more likely to seek out and play violent video games. Yet another explanation for the observed correlation is that it may have been produced by the presence of a third variable that was not measured in the research. Such “third variables” are also known as “confounding variables.” These confounding variables are variables that are not measured in the research but cause both the predictor variable and the outcome variable. Thus, they cause the observed correlation between them. For instance, the relationship between violent video games and aggression in children may be caused by the family environment, as certain family environments may expose children to aggression in reality and are also more likely to allow children to play aggressive video games in the first place. In essence, researchers may be unaware of the presence and identity of confounding variables. Likewise, it is not always possible to measure every possible variable that could potentially be a confounding variable. Therefore, the possibility of confounding variables must always be taken into account when considering the results of correlational research designs. This leaves us with the basic limitation of correlational research: “Correlation does not imply causation.” To be able to make any claim of causality, researchers must employ experimental methods. Experimental Research The goal of much research in social psychology is to understand the causal relationships between variables, and the most appropriate research method is to conduct “experiments.” In an experiment, the research hypothesis that is tested is that the manipulated independent variable causes changes in the measured dependent variable. The “independent variable” refers to the situation that is created by the researcher through experimental manipulations, and the “dependent variable” refers to the variable that is measured after the manipulation has taken place. This latter variable is called the dependent variable because changes in this variable depend on the influence of the independent variable. In an experiment, the independent variable is systematically manipulated by the experimenter while all other aspects of the scenario are held constant. Experimentation is the primary research method in social psychology due to its unparalleled ability to test theories that predict causal relationships between variables. Experimental designs have two important elements. First, they manipulate – that is, systematically vary – the level of the independent variable before measuring the dependent variable. It is said that participants who are exposed to different manipulations are said to be in different “experimental conditions.” In a simple experiment with two conditions, 26 there is a group of people who are exposed to the manipulated independent variable (i.e., the “experimental condition”), and a group of people who are not exposed to the manipulated independent variable (i.e., the “control condition”). It is also possible to vary the levels of manipulation of the independent variable and, thus, have more than two conditions in an experiment. For example, in a study on the effects of music on learning, the researcher can decide to study the effect of different types of music on learning and create three conditions such that the effects of classical music, pop music, and no music can be compared. The second important element of experimental designs is that efforts are made to control or minimize variability in variables other than the independent variable and dependent variable, thereby ruling out the possibility of confounding or third variables that cause both the independent variable and dependent variable. This is done by creating equivalence among the participants in each of the conditions before the manipulation occurs. The most common method of creating equivalence between conditions is by “random allocation,” which is also called “randomization.” In random allocation, the process of allocating participants to the conditions is done in a way that ensures that each participant has an equal chance of being assigned to each condition. The idea behind experiments is that if researchers can create a situation where (1) the different conditions are equivalent before the experiment begins, (2) they manipulate the variable before they measure the dependent variable, and (3) only change the nature of the independent variable between the conditions, then they can confidently conclude that it is only the independent variable that caused any differences in the dependent variable. To be able to fulfill these requirements, experimental studies are often conducted in laboratory settings. A “lab study” is any study in which the participants are brought to a specially designated area that has been set up to facilitate the researcher’s ability to collect data and create uniform conditions. Despite the advantage of determining causation, experimental designs have important disadvantages. The first is that some of the most interesting and important social variables cannot be experimentally manipulated. If we want to determine the influence of traumatic events on health or the personality of people who run for president, we must use correlational designs because researchers can’t manipulate trauma or who runs for president. A second limitation of experimental research designs is that they are usually conducted in laboratory situations rather than in the everyday lives of people, since that allows the researcher to systematically manipulate certain variables while controlling others. Therefore, we do not know whether the findings we observe in lab settings will necessarily hold up under more natural conditions in everyday life. This brings us to an important issue of designing and interpreting research: validity. 27 Table 2: Advantages and Disadvantages of the Main Research Methods in Social Psychology Methods Method and goal Advantages Disadvantages Observational research Involves observing and systematically recording behavior to obtain a snapshot of what is occurring with a specific group of individuals at a particular time • Often the only possible means of gathering data on subjects that cannot be studied under other circumstances • Can capture behavior as it naturally occurs, increasing external validity • Cannot answer question about the relationship between variables or causality Correlational research Examines how two or more variables are related to one another by measuring two or more variables and using statistical methods to test this relationship • Enables prediction of unknown variables • Can study variables that are difficult or unethical to manipulate • Cannot establish causality Experimental research Can assess the causal impact of one or more variables on another variable by manipulating one variable, randomly allocating the participants to the different conditions, and holding all other variables constant • Allows conclusion about causal relationships between variables • Many variables difficult to manipulate experimentally • experimental studies often conducted in labs, limiting their external validity Source: Jessie de Witt Huberts (2023). 2.4 Scientific Observation in the Field and in the Laboratory “Validity” in research designs refers to the extent to which someone is justified in drawing conclusions from their findings. There are three main types of validity in research. Construct Validity Construct validity refers to the extent to which a measure or test adequately assesses a theoretical concept or construct. In social psychology, researchers often use measures or tests to assess theoretical constructs such as attitudes, personality traits, or cognitive processes. Construct validity is important because it helps to ensure that the measure or test is actually measuring what it is intended to measure. 28 Internal Validity Internal validity refers to the confidence one can have that the observed relationship is trustworthy and not influenced by other factors. Experiments are said to have high levels of internal validity because of the measures researchers take to rule out alternative explanations for the effects, such as randomization and manipulation. External Validity External validity refers to the extent to which a finding can be generalized beyond the specific conditions in which it was observed by the researcher. Experimental studies often take place in laboratory settings, where the starkness of the situation allows the researcher to manipulate certain variables and control other variables (thereby increasing internal validity). However, these laboratory experiments often lack the rich social context in which people normally interact. Observational and some correlational studies often tend to be “field studies.” These are conducted in a setting other than the lab and, therefore, high in external validity. Another threat to the external validity of experiments is the fact that many social-psychological experiments often use university students as participants, in part because they are easy to recruit at the university campuses where the studies are usually conducted. These students are often “WEIRD:” Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (Henrich et al., 2010). This raises questions about whether well-known findings are valid beyond students and similar populations. Many social psychologists are concerned about the degree to which the results of such experiments can be generalized to settings outside the laboratory and to people other than students. A common response to this concern is that the goal of social-psychological studies is to understand the processes underlying a phenomenon rather than to describe the general population. The assumption here is that the underlying processes are unlikely to differ in some fundamental way between students and non-students. This is likely to be true for basic or fundamental research. However, for applied research, generalizability outside the lab and in other populations is of key importance. Lab and field settings have complementary sets of benefits and drawbacks. The laboratory environment enables researchers to collect data in more uniform and controlled conditions than in the field. However, the artificial nature of the lab may produce behaviors in participants that can confound the study’s objectives. To counter issues with internal and external validity, researchers can use different experimental designs: 29 • true experiment: The “true randomized experiment” is one in which the researcher has complete control over key features of the setting, and participants are allocated to the different conditions on a random basis. However, as this is best done in laboratory settings this often involves a loss of realism. True experiments are thus high in internal validity but low in external validity. • field experiment: A “field experiment” is a true experiment in a field setting, which attempts to combine the control of a laboratory setting with the realism of the natural environment. Unfortunately, these are difficult to conduct because they often require a means to randomly assign people to conditions, and this is frequently not possible in natural settings. • quasi-experiment: A “quasi-experiment” is conducted in a natural everyday setting, but the participants are not randomly allocated to the different experimental conditions, instead relying on naturally occurring differences between participants. For example, in a study that studies the effects of depression on communication style, the researcher cannot induce depression in the study’s participants. To be able to study the effects of depression on communication he therefore purposely selects depressed participants for the “experimental” condition and non-depressed participants for the control condition. In social psychology, controlled lab experiments predominate because they are so wellsuited to establishing the causes of behavior. Human behavior is complicated, and the same is true for the social situations that people find themselves in. Because of this complexity, researchers often try to control variables in order to be able to make causal attributions. A significant drawback of this approach is that it misses the richness of the real world. In the end, the choice of a research strategy is often a compromise between what is optimal and what is practicable. As each and every strategy has its limitations, it is often argued that researchers should use “triangulation” to study a given topic. Triangulation refers to the combination of several research methods in the study of the same phenomenon. Because each method has its strengths and weaknesses, the use of different methods means that the strengths of one method can compensate for the weakness of another. This can provide a better basis for drawing conclusions than any single method could. Social psychologists also use a statistical technique called “meta-analysis” to combine the results of multiple research studies on a particular topic. Meta-analysis is particularly useful for synthesizing research on complex or controversial topics, wherein the results of individual studies may be inconsistent or conflicting. 2.5 Reactivity in Psychological Research Despite all efforts to systemize and objectively measure social behavior, social-psychological research will always involve humans and is, therefore, prone to human error. People do not participate in research studies as blank slates – they also bring their own histories, assumptions, and expectations to the situation. These assumptions and expectations impact how they respond to the study situation and can affect the outcomes of the study. For example, merely the awareness that one’s behavior is being observed or recorded is 30 likely to influence one’s responses. This phenomenon is known as “reactivity.” Reactivity can negatively impact the results of a study. As an example, if participants are aware that they are being observed, they may behave differently than they normally would in order to present themselves in a more favorable light. This can lead to biased or unreliable results, as the behavior being observed is not representative of the participant’s natural behavior. Reactivity often arises in experimental contexts, meaning that specific hypotheses are being tested rather than natural phenomena being recorded. In these situations, participants often react to subtle cues in the research environment, called demand characteristics. Demand characteristics can range from subtle cues given (often unconsciously) by the researcher about the nature of the study to the tasks or questions employed, which would help the subject guess the hypothesis to be tested in that study. Since participants typically try to be “good participants,” they do their best to confirm these hypotheses (Orne, 1962). In other word