Social Psychology Chapter 1 PDF

18 Chapter 1 Learning Objectives 1.1 Evaluate the diverse topics that social 1.4 Explain how theories play a key role in psychology seeks to understand social psychological research 1.2 Examine the major avenues that social...

18 Chapter 1 Learning Objectives 1.1 Evaluate the diverse topics that social 1.4 Explain how theories play a key role in psychology seeks to understand social psychological research 1.2 Examine the major avenues that social 1.5 Identify how the dilemma of deception is psychology is currently exploring addressed in social psychology 1.3 Understand the methods social 1.6 Outline the steps taken to make reading psychologists use to gain insight into the this book a pleasant and informative questions posed experience Consider, for a moment, what aspect of your life impacts your health and happiness most? Did your relationships with other people come to mind? What would your life be like without your family, friends, roommates, romantic partners, professors, coworkers, sports teammates—all the people you care about and with whom you in- teract? The truth is human beings are a truly social species. Each of us is connected to and influenced by other people, even if we’re not always consciously aware of all the ways we are affected by them. Indeed, a fundamental message of social psychology is that both the good and the bad in our lives involve other people. As evidenced in the following quotations, people from all cultures and walks of life agree that our connec- tions to others bring happiness and meaning to our lives. At the same time, we also know that other people—when they disagree with us, exclude us, or harm us—can be the source of our worst pain. The Dalai Lama: “Our prime purpose in this life is to help others.” John Lennon, former musician with the Beatles: “Count your age by friends, not years.” Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Life’s most persistent and urgent question is: What are you doing for others?” Bob Marley, famous reggae musician: “Truth is, everybody is going to hurt you: You just gotta find the ones worth suffering for.” David Byrne, musician formerly of the Talking Heads: “Sometimes it’s a form of love just to talk to somebody that you have nothing in common with and still be fascinated by their presence.” Robert Alan Silverstein, author and social change activist: “In our hectic, fast- paced, consumer-driven society, it’s common to feel overwhelmed, isolated and alone.... The sense of belonging we feel when we make the time to take an active role in our communities can give us a deeper sense of meaning and purpose.” Connecting with others—both as individuals and as part of social groups—is a ma- jor predictor not only of happiness and well-being but also of physical health. Robert Putnam summed up the importance of social connections based on extensive research reported in his book, Bowling Alone: “If you belong to no groups but decide to join one, you cut your risk of dying over the next year in half.” If you had any lingering doubts about the importance of the social side of life, perhaps you don’t anymore! We also know that solitary confinement is so bad for mental health that it is often considered “cruel and unusual punishment.” Try, for a moment, to imagine life in to- tal isolation from others, as shown in the movie Cast Away, the story of a person who finds himself stranded on an uninhabited island after his plane crashes in the Pacific Ocean. After a while, he craves human company so much that he paints a face on a  Social Psychology: The Science of the Social Side of Life 19 Figure 1.1 Would Life in Isolation Be Worth Living? Can you imagine what it would be like to live entirely alone, having no contact with other people? In the film Cast Away, a person who is stranded on an uninhabited island is so desperate for company that he “invents a person” by painting a volleyball to look like a human face. He wants to get back to his human connections so badly that he risks his life on the open seas to do so. volleyball, gives it a name (Wilson), and talks with it regularly because it is his only friend (Figure 1.1). In the end, the character, played by Tom Hanks, decides that his life alone is not worth living, and so he risks all in an attempt to return to civilization and connect with living people again. While we know that many people find the thought of a physically isolated exis- tence to be disturbing, let’s consider “disconnection from others” on a smaller, digital scale. Try to remember the last time you forgot your cell phone or lost access to Face- book, Twitter, or other social media outlets. How did it feel to be out of contact? Did it freak you out? Perhaps that’s why it won’t be surprising to learn that even these digital forms of connection to others help to satisfy our emotional needs. For example, research shows that among college students the number of Facebook friends predicts life satisfaction (Manago, Taylor, & Greenfield, 2012). It’s safe to say, then, that social contact is a central aspect of our lives. In a very basic sense, it helps define who we are and the quality of our existence. So, get ready for a fascinating journey, because the social side of life is the focus of this entire book. Social psychology is the branch of psychology that studies all aspects of our social existence—everything from love and helping people on the one hand, to prejudice, exclusion, and violence on the other. Social psychologists also investigate how groups influence us, how the social context we find ourselves in affects the way we make decisions, and how we explain ourselves and the ac- tions of other people. As you will see, how we think about ourselves at any given point in time—our identity—is shaped by our relationships with other people, which in turn guides our social behavior. We will be addressing some questions you’ve probably thought about already. After all, the nature of the social world is of interest to all of us. But we believe that some of the answers concerning human social behavior that has emerged from social psychological research will neverthe- less surprise and intrigue you. 20 Chapter 1 Social psychology covers a lot of territory—much of what’s central to human experi- ence. What differentiates social psychology from other social sciences is its focus on explaining influences on the individual’s thought and behavior. What differentiates social psychology from the informal observations of people that we all make is its sci- entific nature. What we mean by the science of social psychology is so crucial that we will explain it in this chapter, in terms of the different techniques that are used by social psychologists to go about answering fascinating questions about the social side of life. We begin with a formal definition of social psychology: what it is and what it seeks to accomplish. Next, we’ll describe several current trends in social psychology. These will be reflected throughout this book, so knowing about them at the start will help you understand why they are important. We’ll also examine the pros and cons of different methods used by social psychologists to answer questions about the social side of life. A working knowledge of these basic methods will help you understand how social psychologists add to our understanding of social thoughts and behavior, and will also be useful to you outside the context of this course to evaluate research findings you read about in major media outlets. In fact, social psychological research has uncovered so much useful information about human behavior that in September 2015, President Obama issued an ­executive order requiring federal government agencies to incorporate behavioral science ­insights—much of it based on social psychological research concerning factors that affect how people actually go about making decisions—into their programs (Sunstein, 2015). As you will see, social psychologists have accumulated an impressive body of knowledge about how people think, feel, and behave, along with the circumstances that influence those responses. Indeed, social psychological research has taught us much about the “human animal” that is being fruitfully applied in numerous do- mains. These include understanding how people make use of digital technology and social media and how people can best cope with adversity, to making it easier for low- income teens to attend college and adults to participate in retirement savings plans. Consistent with the White House’s Social and Behavioral Sciences Team Report, we believe that social psychological research informs us about how reforms can be made with the aim of improving people’s lives. Given the empirical and scientific approach used by social psychologists to uncover “what works and what doesn’t work,” we think you will see why this branch of psychology is well-placed to provide answers to many questions. 1.1: Social Psychology: What It Is and Is Not Objective Evaluate the diverse topics that social psychology seeks to understand Providing a definition of almost any field is a complex task. In the case of social psy- chology, this difficulty is increased by the field’s broad scope. As you will see in every chapter of this book, social psychologists truly have a wide range of interests. Yet, de- spite this variation, most focus mainly on the following task: understanding how and why individuals behave, think, and feel as they do in social situations—ones involv- ing the actual or symbolic presence of other people. How people define themselves and others in a given situation can alter how we behave. Accordingly, we define social psychology as the scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of in- dividual behavior, feelings, and thoughts in social situations. Another way to put this is to say that social psychology investigates the ways in which our thoughts, feelings, and actions are influenced by the social environments in which we find ourselves—by other people or our thoughts about them. We’ll now clarify this definition by taking a closer look at several of its key aspects.  Social Psychology: The Science of the Social Side of Life 21 1.1.1: Social Psychology Is Scientific in Nature Many people seem to believe that this term science applies only to fields such as chem- istry, physics, and biology—ones that use the kind of equipment shown in Figure 1.2 to investigate some aspect of the physical world. If you share that view, you may find our suggestion that social psychology is a scientific discipline perplexing. How can a field that seeks to study the nature of love, the causes of aggression, the influence of groups on conceptions of ourselves, and many other topics be scientific in the same sense as physics or chemistry? The answer is surprisingly simple. The term science does not refer to a special group of highly advanced fields. Rather, it refers to two things: (1) a set of values and (2) methods that can be used to study a wide range of topics. In deciding whether a given field is or is not scientific, therefore, the critical question is: Does it adopt these values and methods? To the extent the field does, it is scientific in nature. To the extent it does not, it falls outside the realm of science. We’ll examine the procedures used by social psychologists in their research in detail in a later section, so here we will focus on the core values that all fields must adopt to be considered scientific in nature. Four of these are most important: Accuracy: A commitment to gathering and evaluating information about the world (including social behavior) in as careful, precise, and error-free a manner as possible. This means that casual “people watching” that each of us might do at a crowded event will not meet this definition. Each of us may focus on different things so there is little precision, and the observations will lack rep- licability—the same “findings” when performed by someone else may not be obtained. Objectivity: A commitment to obtaining and evaluating such information in a manner that is as free from bias as possible. This means that with causal “people watching” we may evaluate what we see differently than others would, so our observations lack objectivity. Skepticism: A commitment to accepting findings as accurate only to the extent they have been verified over and over again. Here again you should notice the impor- tance of replication—where different investigators can re-produce the procedure used by others and arrive at the same conceptual conclusions. Figure 1.2 What Is Science? Many people believe that only fields that use equipment like that shown here (left photo) to study the physical world can be viewed as scientific. Others think that “people watching” as shown in the middle photo is a form of science. However, the term science actually refers to adherence to a set of basic values (e.g., accuracy, objectivity) and use of a set of methods to systematically examine almost any aspect of the world around us—including the social side of life. In contrast, other approaches that are not scientific in nature (right photo) do not accept these values or use these methods. 22 Chapter 1 Open-Mindedness: A commitment to changing one’s views—even those that are strongly held—if existing evidence suggests that these views are inaccurate. So- cial psychologists have produced plenty of surprises by conducting research, which has required us to reconsider the role of groups for our well-being, how many processes operate non-consciously, how the framing of issues can affect our attitudes and preferences, and why what actually makes people happy is often different than our expectations of what will do so. All of these have suggested revisions in assumptions about human nature. Social psychology, as a field, is committed to these values and applies them in its efforts to understand the nature of social behavior. In contrast, fields that are not scien- tific make assertions about the world, and about people, that are not put to the careful test and analysis required by the values that guide social psychology. In such fields— ones like astrology and aromatherapy—intuition, faith, and unobservable forces are considered to be sufficient (see Figure 1.2) for reaching conclusions—the opposite of what is true in social psychology. “But why adopt the scientific approach? Isn’t social psychology just common sense?” Having taught for many years, we can almost hear you asking this question. After all, we all spend much of our lives interacting with other people and thinking about them, so in a sense, we are all amateur social psychologists. So, why don’t we each just rely on our own experience and intuition as a basis for drawing conclusions about the social side of life? Our answer is straightforward: because such sources provide an inconsistent and unreliable guide to understanding social behavior. This is so because our own experi- ences are unique and may not provide a solid foundation for answering general ques- tions such as: “Why do people sometimes ‘go along with the group’ even when they might disagree with what it is doing?” and “How can we know what other people are thinking or feeling at any given time?” In addition, as we have learned from social psychological research, people are often unaware of what influences them. Individu- als may be able to generate “theories” about how they are or are not influenced by other people, but such common sense beliefs are often biased by wishful thinking. For example, as suggested by Figure 1.3, we might want to view ourselves as “indepen- dent” and fail to see how we are actually influenced by other people, or alternatively we might want to believe a certain kind of change is possible so we claim to have been influenced by others who share our views, perhaps more than we actually are. Figure 1.3 Being Influenced by the Actions of Other People We can be influenced by the behavior of other people—either by seeing and being with them via social media or by physically being immersed ourselves in such events. Such exposure to others, especially when we identify with them, often exerts powerful effects on our own behavior and thought.  Social Psychology: The Science of the Social Side of Life 23 It is also the case that there are widely endorsed ideas about various aspects of social life that are inconsistent with each other. Only objective research evidence can provide clear answers about which of such contradictory ideas are true. For instance, consider the following statement: “Absence makes the heart grow fonder.” When peo- ple are separated from those they love, they miss them and may experience increased longing for them. Many people would agree with this idea, in part because they can retrieve an instance like that from their own memory. But now consider the follow- ing statement: “Out of sight, out of mind.” Is this idea true? Did you, after leaving your high school sweetheart and swearing undying love, find a new romantic interest fairly quickly upon arriving at college? Many popular songs advocate just that—for instance, Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young’s song: “If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.” As you can see, these two views—both suggested by common sense and popular culture—are contradictory. The same is true for many other informal observations about human behavior—they each seem plausible, but often imply opposite conclusions. How about these: “Two heads are better than one,” and “Too many cooks spoil the broth.” One suggests that when people work together, they perform better (e.g., make better decisions). The other suggests that when people work together, they may act in ways that actually harm the product (e.g., that they make worse decisions). Much careful systematic research has revealed that whether groups show better or worse performance than individuals depends on a variety of factors: the nature of the task, whether the work can be effectively divided up, the expertise of the group members, and how well information is shared among them (Minson & Mueller, 2012; Stasser, Stewart, & Wittenbaum, 1995; van Ginkel & van Knippenberg, 2009). By now, our main point should be clear: Common sense often suggests a confus- ing and inconsistent picture of human behavior. Yet, it can offer intriguing hypoth- eses that can be tested in controlled research. What it doesn’t tell us is when various principles or generalizations hold—for instance, does “absence makes the heart grow fonder,” primarily among relationships that have already attained a certain level of commitment? Likewise, it doesn’t tell us for whom, or the sort of relationships, “out of sight, out of mind” is most likely to occur. Only a scientific approach that examines social thought and behavior in different contexts and populations (such as young ver- sus older people) can provide that kind of information, and this is one basic reason that social psychologists put their faith in the scientific method: It yields more conclu- sive evidence. In fact, as you’ll soon see, it is designed to help us determine not just which of the opposite sets of predictions mentioned earlier is correct, but also when, for whom, and why one or the other might apply. But this is not the only reason for not relying on common sense. As we’ll note over and over again (e.g., Chapters 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8), our thinking is subject to several types of biases that can lead us badly astray. Here’s one example: Think back over major projects on which you have worked in the past (writing term pa- pers, cooking a complicated dish, painting your room). Now, try to remember two things: (1) your initial estimates about how long it would take you to complete these jobs and (2) how long it actually took. Is there a gap between these two num- bers? In all likelihood because most of us fall victim to the planning fallacy, there is a strong tendency to believe that projects will take less time than they actually do or, alternatively, that we can accomplish more in a given period of time than is re- ally true (Halkjelsvik & Jorgensen, 2012). Moreover, we fall victim to this bias in our thoughts over and over again, despite repeated experiences that tell us “everything takes longer than we think it will.” Why are we subject to this kind of error? Research by social psychologists indicates that part of the answer involves a tendency to think about the future when we are estimating how long a job will take. This prevents us from remembering how long similar tasks took in the past, and that, in turn, leads us to underestimate 24 Chapter 1 the time we need now (Buehler, Griffin, & Ross, 1994). This is just one of the many ways in which we can—and often do—make errors in thinking about other people (and ourselves). Because we are prone to such errors in our thinking about the social world, we cannot rely on introspecting about the influences on us—or rely on common sense—to solve the mysteries of social behavior. Rather, we need scientific evidence about what most people do, whether they realize that they do so or not, and providing such evidence is, in essence, what social psychology is all about. 1.1.2: Social Psychology Focuses on the Behavior of Individuals Societies vary greatly in terms of their overall levels of violence; yet, social psychol- ogy focuses on explaining why individuals perform aggressive actions or refrain from doing so. Such acknowledgment of cultural differences applies to virtually all other aspects of social behavior, from conformity to helping, love as well as conflict, but social psychology aims to address the thought and emotional processes underlying those actions in individuals. This means that, as we noted earlier, because none of us are “islands” and all of us, instead, are strongly influenced by other people and the situations we find ourselves in, much research will systematically examine cultural and other contextual factors to illuminate just how those influences are exerted on the individual. Social psychologists examine how groups influence individual behavior, how cul- ture becomes internalized and affects individual preferences, and how emotions and moods affect the decisions made by the individual. Although our emphasis will be on how social factors affect the individual, as you will see throughout this book, many nonsocial factors (features of the environment; how the information we receive is framed) can exert powerful effects on us, often by influencing our emotions and social thoughts. The field’s major interest lies in understanding just how social situations shape the actions of individuals. Clearly, this does not mean the role that social and cultural factors play in shaping the individual is neglected. Far from it. For example, considerable research has begun to address how ethnicity and social class shape our “selves” (whether we construe it as independent from others or as interdependent with them) and, consequently, social behavior (Markus & Kitayama, 2010). This means that some institutional set- tings will be experienced as “friendly” or more congenial for one type of self rather than the other. For example, American universities tend to promote an independent model of self, which is more consistent with a middle-class standard of behavior than the self that is formed as a result of growing up in a working-class environ- ment (Stephens, Fryberg, & Markus, 2012). In part because of differences in material resources, students from middle-class homes are encouraged to leave home, develop their own distinct interests, and choose their own pathway in life. In contrast, those from working-class backgrounds are more likely to live in the same place most of their lives, be more strongly embedded in familial and local social networks, and feel a need to fit in by displaying concern for the interests of others. Because of the dif- ferent life experiences and selves that emerge among those whose social class origins differ, the norms prevalent in American university settings can be a good or rather poor cultural match. What this research reveals is how life experiences, which dif- fer systematically according to social class and other group memberships, affect the individual. Because “who we are”—our identities—affects our thought and ­behavior, social psychological understanding of the individual is enriched by close examina- tion of the following links. Social Contexts/Experiences 1 Self-Identities 1 Social Behavior  Social Psychology: The Science of the Social Side of Life 25 1.1.3: Social Psychology Seeks to Understand the Causes of Social Behavior Social psychologists are primarily interested in understanding the many factors and conditions that shape the social thought and behavior of individuals—their actions, feelings, beliefs, memories, and judgments. Obviously, a huge number of variables can play a role, although most fall under the five major headings described here. The Actions and Characteristics of Other Persons Consider the ­following events: You are at a party and you notice that a very attractive person is smiling at you. In fact, this person is looking at you in a way that leaves little room for inter- pretation: That person is sending a clear signal saying “Hey, you look good!” You return from class one day and as you approach the door to your dorm room you see a friend of yours is sitting on the floor looking very down. You stop to ask if she’s ok, and you see that she’s been crying. Will these actions of others have any effect on your own emotions, thoughts, and behavior? Very likely. If you too are interested in potential romance, you may be very pleased when you see someone looking at you in a “let’s get to know each other” kind of way, and you may then go over and say “Hi!” When you see that your friend has been crying, you are likely to ask “what happened?” and sit down to provide her with some comfort while you listen to her story. Instances like these, where we observe other people and respond to them, indicate that other people’s emotional expressions often have a powerful impact upon us (see Figure 1.4). Figure 1.4 When Other People Communicate Their Emotions, We Respond We are often affected by others people’s expression of emotions. Even though in one case the person is expressing positive emotion toward us and in the other the person is expressing negative feelings, in both these instances we may be motivated to approach the other person. 26 Chapter 1 In addition, we are also often affected by others’ appearance. Be honest: Don’t you behave differently toward highly attractive persons than toward less attractive ones? Toward very old people compared to young ones? Toward people who belong to your own ethnic group compared to ones different from your own? Your answer to these questions is probably “yes,” because we do often react to others’ visible characteris- tics, such as their appearance (McCall, 1997; Twenge & Manis, 1998). In fact, research findings (e.g., Hassin & Trope, 2000) indicate that we cannot ignore others’ appearance even when we consciously try to do so. So despite warnings to avoid “judging books by their covers,” we are often strongly affected by other people’s group memberships as indicated by appearance—even if we are unaware of such effects and might deny their existence (see Chapters 6 and 7). Interestingly, research findings indicate that rely- ing on others’ appearance as a guide to their characteristics is not always wrong; in fact, they can be relatively accurate, especially when we can observe others behaving spon- taneously, rather than in posed photos (Nauman, Vazire, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2009). Cognitive Processes Suppose that you have arranged to meet a friend, and this person is late. In fact, after 30 minutes you begin to suspect that your friend will never arrive. Finally, she or he does appear and says “Sorry... I forgot all about meeting you until a few minutes ago.” How will you react? Probably you will feel some annoyance. Imagine that instead, however, your friend says “I’m so sorry to be late.... There was a big accident, and the traffic was tied up for miles.” Now how will you react? Perhaps you’ll fell less annoyance—but not necessarily. If your friend is often late and has used this excuse before, you may be suspicious about whether this explanation is true. In contrast, if this is the first time your friend has been late, or if your friend has never used such an excuse in the past, you may accept it as true. In other words, your reac- tions in this situation will depend upon your memories of your friend’s past behavior and your inferences about whether her or his explanation is really true. Situations like this one call attention to the fact that cognitive processes play a crucial role in social be- havior. We try to make sense of people in our social world by attributing their actions to something about them (e.g., their traits) or something about the circumstances (e.g., unforeseeable traffic). This means we engage in lots of social cognition—thinking long and hard about other people—what they are like, why they do what they do, how they might react to our behavior, and so on (Shah, 2003). Social psychologists are well aware of the importance of such processes and social cognition is a very important area of research (Fiske, 2009). Environmental Variables: Impact of the Physical World Do we be- come more irritable and aggressive when the weather is hot and steamy than when it is cooler and more comfortable (Bell, Greene, Fisher, & Baum, 2001; Rotton & Cohn, 2000)? Does exposure to a pleasant smell in the air make people more helpful to others (Baron, 1997)? Does simply seeing money—such as a picture of a dollar bill—interfere with our ability to enjoy small pleasures in life like the taste of chocolate (Quoidbach, Dunn, Petrides, & Mikolajczak, 2010)? Research findings indicate that aspects of the physical environment can indeed influence our feelings, thoughts, and behavior, so these variables, too, certainly fall within the realm of modern social psychology. Biological Factors Is social behavior influenced by biological processes? In the past, most social psychologists might have answered no, and certainly not in any di- rect fashion. Now, however, some suggest that our preferences, emotions, and behav- iors may be linked, to some extent, to our biological inheritance (Buss, 2008; Schmitt, 2004)—although social experiences too have a powerful effect and may interact with genetic factors in generating the complex patterns of our social lives (Gillath, Shaver, Baek, & Chun, 2008). In fact, it is becoming clear that the operation of these two factors—biology and social experience—is not unidirectional. Experiences of stress, especially early in life but also in adulthood as a function of exposure to various forms of trauma i­ ncluding  Social Psychology: The Science of the Social Side of Life 27 ­ olitical violence, can induce neurobiological changes that affect psychological p well-being (Canetti & Lindner, 2015; Hertzman & Boyce, 2010; McInnis, McQuaid, Matheson, & Anisman, 2015). Indeed, there is now accumulating evidence that envi- ronmental factors and social experiences—through what is called epigenetic processes, where the operation of certain genes is turned on or off—can influence behavior, sometimes long after initial exposure (Spector, 2012). The view that biological factors play an important role in social behavior has been emphasized among those who take an evolutionary psychology perspective (e.g., Buss, 2004; Buss & Shackelford, 1997). This branch of psychology suggests that our species, like all others, has been subject to the process of biological evolution throughout its history and that, as a result, we now possess a large number of evolved ­psychological mechanisms that help (or once helped) us to deal with important problems relating to survival. Through the process of evolution, which involves the three basic components of variation, inheritance, and selection, such tendencies become part of our biological in- heritance. Variation refers to the fact that organisms belonging to a given species vary in many different ways; indeed, such variation is a basic part of life on our planet. Human beings, as you already know, vary on what sometimes seems to be an almost countless number of dimensions. Inheritance refers to the fact that some of these vari- ations can be passed from one generation to the next through complex mechanisms that we are beginning to understand only now. Selection refers to the fact that some variations give the individuals who possess them an “edge” in terms of reproduction: They are more likely to survive, find mates, and pass these variations on to succeed- ing generations. The result is that over time, more and more members of the species possess these variations. This change in the characteristics of a species over time—­ immensely long periods of time—is the concrete outcome of evolution. (See Figure 1.5 for a summary of this process.) Social psychologists who adopt the evolutionary perspective suggest that this process applies to at least some aspects of social behavior. For instance, consider the question of mate preference. Why do we find some people attractive? According to the evolutionary perspective because the characteristics they show—symmetrical f­ acial features; well-toned, shapely bodies; clear skin; lustrous hair—are associated with “good genes,” they are likely to indicate that the people who possess them are healthy and vigorous and therefore good mates (Schmitt & Buss, 2001; Tesser & Martin, 1996). For instance, these characteristics—the ones we find attractive—potentially indicate that the persons who show them have strong immune systems that protect them from many illnesses (Li & Kenrick, 2006). Pre- Figure 1.5 Evolutionary Psychology Perspective sumably, a preference for characteristics associated with good Evolution involves three major components: variation, health and vigor among our ancestors increased their chances inheritance, and selection. Social psychologists who are of successfully reproducing; this, in turn, could have contrib- guided by this perspective are particularly interested uted to our preference for people who possess these aspects of in features that might account for gendered behavior, especially those related to sexuality. appearance. Is there any reason to suppose that evolution might fa- Inheritance Variation vor different behaviors for men and women? When asked to Some of these Organisms vary variations are indicate the characteristics in potential romantic partners that in many ways heritable they find desirable, both genders—but especially women—rate a sense of humor high on the list (e.g., Buss, 2008). From an evolutionary point of view, a sense of humor might signal high intelligence, which would make humorous people attractive (Griskevicius et al., 2009). Another possibility is that a sense This is the Selection Variations that are of humor signals something else: interest in forming new re- crucial adaptive become lationships. Humor might signal that the person is available— outcome of increasingly common evolution and interested. Research by Li and colleagues (2009) found that in the population people are more likely to use humor and laugh when they find 28 Chapter 1 Figure 1.6 Humor: An Important “Plus” in Dating Research findings indicate that humor is viewed as a desirable characteristic in potential romantic partners, partly because it is perceived as a sign that the person is interested in forming a new relationship. Such effects occur in many situations, including dating. So, if you want romantic partners, keep on smiling and make jokes. another person attractive than when they do not; people who used humor during speed dating sessions were perceived as showing more romantic interest than ones who did not (see Figure 1.6). Other topics have been studied from the evolutionary perspective (e.g., help- ing others; aggression; preferences for various ways of attracting persons who are already in a relationship), and we’ll describe this research in other chapters. Here, we wish to emphasize the following fact: The evolutionary perspective does not suggest that we inherit specific patterns of social behavior; rather, it contends that we inherit tendencies or predispositions that may be apparent in our overt actions, depending on the environments in which we live. Similarly, this perspective does not suggest that we are “forced” or driven by our genes to act in specific ways. Rather, it merely suggests that because of our genetic inheritance, we have tendencies to behave in certain ways that, at least in the past, may have enhanced the chances that our an- cestors would survive and pass their genes on to us. These tendencies, can be—and often are—overridden by cognitive factors and the effects of experience (Pettijohn & Jungeberg, 2004). For instance, what is viewed as attractive changes over time and is often very different in diverse cultures. So yes, genetic factors play some role in our behavior and thought, but they are clearly only one factor among many that influ- ence how we think and act. 1.1.4: The Search for Basic Principles in a Changing Social World One key goal of science is the development of basic principles that are accurate re- gardless of when or where they are applied or tested. Social psychologists seek to un- cover the basic principles that govern social life. For instance, they’d like to determine what factors influence attraction, helping, obedience, the attitudes we form, and so on. The research they conduct is aimed to yield such knowledge—basic principles that will be true across time and in different cultures.  Social Psychology: The Science of the Social Side of Life 29 On the other hand, social psychologists recognize that cultures differ greatly and that the social world in which we live is constantly changing—in very im- portant ways. For instance, cultures vary greatly with respect to when and where people are expected to “dress up” rather than dress casually. While casual is accept- able in almost all contexts in the United States, more formal “dressy” attire is often expected in other cultures. This same point applies to more important aspects of social life, too: Should teenagers be allowed to date and meet without adult super- vision? Should you name your baby after a relative, or should you give your child a unique and, perhaps, unusual name? At what age should people retire, and how should they be treated after they do? Should we make choices that are the same as other people we know, or should we try to be “different” and stand out from others (see Figure 1.7)? Cultures differ tremendously in these and countless other ways, and this compli- cates the task of establishing general principles of social behavior and social thought. Should we try to compliment another person to make him or her like us? This is an ingratiation tactic that, as you will see in Chapter 8, has been found to be generally ef- fective in individualistic cultures. Yet, research has revealed that because people from some cultures value independence (being seen as unique and separate from others) while others value interdependence (being seen as similar to and connected to others), responses to such seemingly positive treatment depends on whether it implies the person is different or the same as other members of his or her group (Siy & Cheryan, 2013). So, for example, those who are Asian-born respond more negatively to treat- ment that implies they are different from other group members, whereas those who are U.S.-born respond more negatively to treatment that implies they are the same as other group members. In addition, within a culture, how we interact with each other can change across time. Because of social media, and digital technology more generally, people now meet potential romantic partners in different ways than in the past when, typically, they were introduced by friends or met at dances arranged by their schools, churches, or other social organizations. Does this mean that the foundations of attraction Figure 1.7 Cultures Differ in Many Ways—Including the Importance of Personal Uniqueness In some cultures, it is considered important to be different from others, while in others it is seen as important to fit in with those around us. 30 Chapter 1 are ­different today than in the past? Social psychologists believe that despite these changes, the same basic principles apply: Physical attractiveness is still a basic ingre- dient, even though what is deemed attractive may differ across time. Likewise, the basic principles of persuasion too remain much the same, even if messages aimed at influencing us are delivered in a different format (e.g., electronically) than in the past (e.g., print). In short, although the task of identifying basic, accurate principles of so- cial behavior and social thought is complicated by the existence of cultural differences and rapid changes in social life, the goals of social psychological research remain the same: uncovering basic, accurate knowledge about the social side of life that applies in a wide range of contexts and situations. In summary, social psychology focuses mainly on understanding the causes of so- cial behavior—on identifying factors that shape our feelings, behavior, and thought in social situations. It seeks to accomplish this goal through the use of scientific methods, and it takes careful note of the fact that social behavior is influenced by a wide range of social, cognitive, environmental, cultural, and biological factors. The remainder of this text is devoted to describing some of the key findings of social psychology. We’re certain that you will find it fascinating—after all, it is about us and the social side of our lives! We’re equally sure that you will find the outcomes of some research surpris- ing and that it may challenge many of your ideas about people and social relations. We predict that after reading this book, you’ll never think about the social side of life in quite the same way as before. Questions 1. Define social psychology. Explain the core values adopted 5. What do we know about the behavioral tendencies related by social psychology as a science. to mating and sexuality from an evolutionary perspec- 2. Why is it important to adopt a scientific approach in order tive? How do cognitive factors and experience affect such to draw conclusions in social psychology? Why can’t one tendencies? rely on common sense to understand the social world? 6. What is the role of culture with regard to social behav- 3. How does social class and group membership affect our ior and social thought? Compare the practices of your self-identity, and how does our self-identity influence our ­culture with another, and discuss how it complicates thought and behavior? the application of social principles to various cultural 4. What are the various factors and conditions that shape the contexts. social thought and behavior of individuals? Elaborate each factor by citing examples. 1.2: Social Psychology: Advances at the Boundaries Objective Examine the major avenues that social psychology is currently exploring Textbooks, like fine wine, don’t necessarily improve with age. So, to remain current, they must keep pace with changes in the fields they represent. Making certain that this book is current, in the best sense of this term, is one of our key goals. You can be sure that the research presented in the chapters that follow is a contemporary view of social psychological knowledge concerning the social side of life. Consistent with this goal, we will now describe several major trends in modern social psychology—themes and ideas that you will see throughout this text because they represent what is of central focus to social psychology.  Social Psychology: The Science of the Social Side of Life 31 1.2.1: Cognition and Behavior: Two Sides of the Same Social Coin In the past, social psychologists could be divided into two distinct groups: those who were primarily interested in social behavior—how people act in social situations, and those who were primarily interested in social thought—how people attempt to make sense of the social world and to understand themselves and others. In modern social psychology, behavior and cognition are seen as intimately, and continuously, linked. In other words, there is virtually universal agreement in the field that we cannot hope to understand how and why people behave in certain ways in social situations with- out considering their thoughts, memory, intentions, emotions, attitudes, and beliefs. Similarly, virtually all social psychologists agree that there is a complex interplay be- tween social thought and social behavior. What we think about others influences our actions toward them, and the consequences of these actions then affect our emotions and social thought. So, in trying to understand the social side of life, modern social psychology integrates both. That will be our approach throughout the book, and it will be present in virtually every chapter. 1.2.2: The Role of Emotion in the Social Side of Life Can you imagine life without emotions? Probably not, because life without feelings would be missing a lot and not reflect humans as we know them. Social psychologists have always been interested in emotions and moods, and with good reason: They play a key role in many aspects of social life. For instance, imagine that you want a favor from a friend or acquaintance—when would you ask for it, when this person is in a good mood or a bad one? Research findings indicate that you would do much better when that person is in a good mood, because positive moods (or affect as social psy- chologists term such feelings) do increase our tendency to offer help to others (e.g., Isen & Levin, 1972). Similarly, suppose you are meeting someone for the first time—do you think your current mood might influence your reactions to this person? If you an- swered “yes,” you are in agreement with the results of systematic research, which in- dicates our impressions of others (and our thoughts about them) are influenced by our current moods. More recently, social psychologists have been investigating the role of moods in a wide range of social behaviors (Forgas, Baumeister, & Tice, 2009), and overall, interest in this topic, including the impact of specific emotions, has increased. So, we include it here as another area in which rapid advances are being made at the boundaries of our current knowledge of social life. 1.2.3: Social Relationships: How Important They Are for Well-Being If the social side of life is as important as we suggested at the start of this chapter, then relationships with others are its building blocks. When they are successful and satis- fying, they add tremendously to our happiness, but when they go wrong, they can disrupt every other aspect of our lives and undermine our psychological health and well-being (Slotter, Gardner, & Finkel, 2010). Because our connections to others are so critical, social psychologists have sought to understand the nature of social relation- ships—how they begin and change over time, and why, gradually, some strengthen and deepen, while others weaken and end—often, causing tremendous pain to the people involved. We’ll consider relationships in detail in Chapter 7, but here, to give you the flavor of this growing body of knowledge, we’ll mention just a couple of lines of important and revealing research. One such topic relates to the following question: “Is it better, in terms of build- ing a strong relationship, to view one’s partner (boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse) 32 Chapter 1 Figure 1.8 The Warm Glow of Love When couples are in love, they often perceive each other in unrealistically favorable ways. Is that good or bad for their future relationship? The answer is complex, but research findings indicate that as long as they show some degree of reality or accuracy, it may be beneficial. r­ ealistically, or as we often do, through “rose-colored glasses”? Folklore suggests that “love is blind,” and when in love, many people do tend to see only good in their part- ners (see Figure 1.8). Is that tendency good or bad for their relationships? Research findings suggest that in general, it is good, but only if it is restrained by a healthy degree of reality (i.e., accuracy; Fletcher, Simpson, & Boyes, 2006). Positivity and per- ceived similarity between partners contributes to happiness, but accuracy does too. Many other types of social relationships are also important for people’s ­well-being. In fact, in the Western world, more people now spend a greater proportion of their lives living alone than ever before and people who choose to remain single are often just as happy as those who marry (DePaulo, 2008; Klinenberg, 2012). How can that be—if relationships are crucial to well-being? Research findings reveal that it is because single people often contribute more to their communities (by volunteering), they have more friends, and, crucially, they often belong to more groups. Belonging to multiple social groups that the individual values not only predicts better psychologi- cal well-being, but those who do so live longer than those who belong to few social groups (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010; Jetten et al., 2015; Putnam, 2000). Not only do the groups we belong to become an important part of “who we are,” but they provide important psychological resources such as social support, which, as you’ll see in Chapters 11 and 12, helps people to cope with adversity. When you came to college, did you join a sorority or fraternity, connect with others in your dorm, or perhaps even take part in your campus Psychology Club—Psi Chi? If you did, as shown in Figure 1.9, being part of such groups can help boost self-esteem.  Social Psychology: The Science of the Social Side of Life 33 Figure 1.9 Togetherness: Being Part of Groups Is Important for Well-Being Connections to others that are gained by being part of different social groups is not only emotionally stimulating when the interaction is occurring but research findings indicate that when internalized as part of ourselves—our identities—they have the potential to boost ­ self-esteem. 1.2.4: Social Neuroscience: The Intersection of Social Psychology and Brain Research In a basic sense, everything we do, feel, imagine, or create reflects activity within our brains. Reading and understanding the words on this page is the result of activity in your brain. Are you in a good mood? Whatever you are feeling also reflects activity in your brain and biological systems. How do you know who you are? Can you remem- ber your best friend in public school? How your first ride on a roller coaster felt? Do you have plans for the future—and do you believe you can actually achieve them? All of these memories and experiences are the result of activity in various areas of your brain. In the past 20 years, powerful new tools for measuring activity in our brains as they function have been developed. Although they were initially developed for medi- cal uses and have generated major advances in surgery by helping to illuminate ab- normalities, as shown in Figure 1.10, magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), PET scans, and other techniques have also allowed psychologists and other scientists to peer into the human brain as people engage in various activities, and so find out just what’s happening at any given time. The result is that we now know much more about the complex relationships between neural events and psychological ones—feelings, thoughts, and overt actions. Social psychologists, too, have begun to use these new tools to uncover the foun- dations of social thought and social behavior—to find out what portions of the brain and what complex systems within it are involved in key aspects of our social life—­ everything from prejudice and aggression, through under-performing on tasks due to “choking under pressure” (Mobbs et al., 2009), and empathy and helping (Van ­Berkum, Holleman, Nieuwland, Otten, & Murre, 2009). In conducting such research, social psychologists use the same basic tools as other scientists—they study events in the brain and even changes in the immune system (Taylor, Lerner, Sherman, Sage, & 34 Chapter 1 Figure 1.10 Peering Inside the Head with Magnetic Resonance Imaging As illustrated here, advances in technology have allowed social psychologists to view blood flow changes in different regions of the brain as people process different types of information. This can provide information about the interplay between types of thought and brain activity. McDowell, 2003) in order to determine how these events are related to important so- cial processes. The findings of this research have been truly fascinating. Here’s one example of what we mean. Attitudes and values are an important part of the social side of life; as you’ll see in Chapter 5, they often shape our overt behavior and underlie powerful emotional reactions to events and people. But how are they represented in the brain, and how do they exert their powerful effects on our behavior, thought, and emotions? Social neu- roscience research is providing intriguing answers. For example, consider a study by Van Berkum and colleagues (2009). This investigation was designed to determine what happens in the brain when people encounter statements that are consistent or inconsis- tent with their strongly held values and attitudes. To do this, they recruited two groups of participants known to hold opposite views on many social issues. One group (mem- bers of a strict Christian church) was known to be against euthanasia, growing equal- ity of women in society, abortion, and the use of drugs. Members of the other group, self-described as “nonreligious,” were known to hold opposite views on those issues. Both groups were then exposed to statements relating to these attitudes on a com- puter screen, and while viewing them, electrical activity in their brains was carefully recorded. A key question asked by the researchers was: How quickly do people r­ eact, in terms of brain activity, to statements that disagree with their own attitudes or v­ alues?  Social Psychology: The Science of the Social Side of Life 35 Do they react this way as soon as they encounter a single word that is ­inconsistent with their views (e.g., “acceptable” in the statement “I think euthanasia is acceptable... ” if they are against this action) or only after reading the entire statement and considering it carefully? Previous research indicated that certain patterns of activity (N400, one kind of event-related potential—a kind of activity in the brain) occur very quickly when individuals encounter words inconsistent with their values—only 250 milliseconds af- ter seeing them—and indicate that intensified processing of this word is occurring. Other patterns, in contrast, occur somewhat later and reflect negative reactions to the value-inconsistent statement. It was predicted that each group would show stronger N400 reactions to words that were inconsistent with their values, so that, for instance, the Christian group would show stronger reactions to the word ­acceptable in connec- tion with euthanasia, while the other group would express stronger reactions to the word unacceptable when linked to euthanasia. Results offered strong support for these predictions and suggest that we do indeed process information that disagrees with our attitudes very quickly—long before we can put such reactions into words. So yes, attitudes and values do indeed exert powerful and f­ ar-reaching effects on activity within our brains—and on our overt actions. Here’s another example of how social psychologists are using the tools of neuro- science to study important aspects of social thought and behavior. Have you heard of mirror neurons? They are neurons in our brains that are activated during the observa- tion and execution of actions, and it has been suggested that they play a key role in empathy—our capacity to experience, vicariously, the emotions and feelings of other persons (Gazzola, Aziz-Zadeh, & Keysers, 2006; Iacoboni, 2009). Mirror neurons are located in a portion of the brain known as the frontal operculum, and in an intrigu- ing study, Montgomery, Seeherman, and Haxby (2009) suggested that perhaps people who score high on a questionnaire measuring em- pathy would show more activity in this area of their brains when they viewed facial expressions of others. Figure 1.11 The Neural Basis of Empathy To test this prediction, the researchers exposed Individuals high or moderate on a measure of empathy (the capacity to two groups of individuals—ones who scored high or see the world through others’ eyes) showed more activity in a portion low on a measure of empathy (the capacity to take the of their brains (the frontal operculum) than persons low in empathy, when watching videos of other people displaying facial expressions. perspective of other persons)—to video clips of oth- In contrast, the groups did not differ in brain activity while watching ers’ facial expressions (e.g., smiling, frowning) or to videos showing nonsocial facial movements (i.e., ones unrelated to faces that showed nonsocial movements (i.e., move- emotions). ments not associated with particular emotions). Ac- Participants moderate or high in empathy tivity in the brains of both groups of participants was show greater brain activity in response to recorded through fMRI scans. Results were clear: As social than nonsocial facial expressions predicted, persons high or moderate in empathy did indeed show greater activity in the frontal operculum 1.2 (where mirror neurons are located) than persons low in empathy (see Figure 1.11). 1.0 Research in the rapidly expanding field of social neuroscience is at the forefront of advances in social 0.8 Brain Activity psychology, and we will represent it fully in this text. We should insert one warning, however. As noted 0.6 by several experts in this field (e.g., Cacioppo et al., 2003), social neuroscience cannot provide the answer 0.4 to every question we have about social thought or behavior. There are many aspects of social thought that cannot easily be related to activity in specific 0.2 Social areas of the brain—including attributions, group Nonsocial identities, and reciprocity (e.g., Willingham & Dunn, 0.0 Low Moderate High 2003). In principle, all of these components of social thought reflect activity in the brain, but this does not Empathy 36 Chapter 1 ­ ecessarily mean that it is best to try to study them in this way. In fact, the situation n may be similar to that existing between chemistry and physics. All chemists agree that ultimately, every chemical reaction can be explained in terms of physics. But the principles of chemistry are still so useful that chemists continue to use them in their research and do not all rush out and become physicists. The same may well be true for social psychology: It does not have to seek to understand all of its major topics in terms of activities in the brain or nervous system; other approaches that we will de- scribe in later chapters are more useful in terms of providing important new insights. Throughout this book, therefore, we will describe research that uses a wide range of methods, from brain scans on the one hand to direct observations of social behavior on the other. 1.2.5: The Role of Implicit (Nonconscious) Processes Have you ever had the experience of meeting someone for the first time and taking an immediate liking—or disliking—to that person? Afterward, you may have won- dered, “Why do I like (dislike) this person?” But probably, you didn’t wonder for long because we are all experts at finding good reasons to explain our own actions or feelings. This speed in no way implies that we really do understand why we behave or think in certain ways. And, as you will see in Chapters 2 and 4, a growing theme of recent research in social psychology has been just this: In many cases we really don’t know why we think or behave as we do in social contexts. And, partly because of er- rors in the way we process social information, and partly because we change greatly over time, we don’t even know—with clarity—what will make us happy (Gilbert, 2006). Indeed, our thoughts and actions are shaped by factors and processes of which we are only dimly aware, at best, and which often take place in an automatic manner, without any conscious thought or intention on our part. Consider for a minute whether you think men or women are more likely to be creative. Because this quality is deemed critical for many high-level positions, most people might be reluctant to overtly en- gage in gender stereotyping and state that, for example, “yes, I believe that men are more creative than women.” To get at this question then, another approach is needed. Proudfoot, Kay, and Koval (2015) presented their participants with ­information about a male or female working in a masculine domain—architecture. ­After viewing the per- son’s supposed work output—images of a building design—­participants were simply asked to indicate how creative, original, and ­“outside-the-box” the work appeared to be. Despite the design being identical, when the name was female, it was seen as less creative than when the name was male. In another study, these investigators presented participants with information about a male or female manager who made “risky” business decisions or not. The male manager was rated as more creative when he made risky business choices than the female manager who made the same risky choices. So, this is one reason that social psychologists are reluctant to simply ask people their beliefs—such as “are women or men more creative?” We may be quite unaware of holding those beliefs, or our gender stereotypes could possibly influence the judgments we make. Consider another example of the role of nonconscious processes, this time on first impressions. Research indicates that we form these incredibly quickly—often within mere seconds of meeting other people (Gray, 2008). Sometimes these first im- pressions are accurate, and sometimes they are very wrong (Carney, Colvin, & Hall, 2007). Do we know when our first impressions are likely to be accurate and when they are not? Evidence reported by Ames, Kammrath, Suppes, and Bolger (2010) in- dicates that we cannot intuit when these impressions are likely to be accurate and when they are not. So, nonconscious processes do influence our judgments and ac- tions, but this occurs in ways that we often are unable to control, and they can lead  Social Psychology: The Science of the Social Side of Life 37 us astray. Research on the role of implicit (nonconscious) processes in our social behavior and thought has examined many other topics, and we will examine them in several chapters since they represent an important focus of current research (see Chapters 2 and 6). 1.2.6: Taking Full Account of Social Diversity There can be no doubt that the United States—like many other countries—is un- dergoing a major social and cultural transformation. Recent figures indicate that 64 ­percent of the population identifies itself as white (of European heritage), while fully 36 ­percent identifies itself as belonging to another group (13 percent African American, 4.5 percent American Indian, 14 percent Hispanic, 4.5 percent Asian/­Pacific ­Islander, and 7 percent some other group). Indeed, by 2050, European Americans will lose their numerical majority status (U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, 2012). This represents a tremendous change from the 1960s, when approximately 90 percent of the population was of European descent. In response to these tremendous shifts, psychologists have increasingly rec- ognized the importance of taking cultural factors into account in everything they do—teaching, research, and therapy—and social psychologists are certainly no ex- ception to this rule. They have been increasingly sensitive to the fact that individu- als’ cultural, ethnic, and racial heritage often plays a key role in their conceptions of themselves (e.g., identity), and this, in turn, exerts important effects on social thought and behavior. As a result, social psychology has adopted a multicultural perspective—one that recognizes the potential importance of gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, social class, religious orientation, and many other so- cial group dimensions. This perspective has led to important changes in the focus of social psychological research, including how behavior changes depending on which of these category memberships is used to define the self at any given moment (see Chapter 4). Social diversity and its consequences for team performance, perceptions of inequality, and discrimination are major topics that we will cover in Chapters 2, 6, and 11. Consider for a moment how culture might modify what is considered beautiful. In a study conducted in 10 different countries around the world, people indicated what kind of body shape they find most attractive in women (Swami et al., 2010). Participants were shown drawings of different body shapes and were asked to choose the one they found most attractive. Results indicated that there were indeed cultural differences in the ratings provided by participants: Raters in Oceania, South and West Asia, and Southeast Asia preferred heavier body types than those in North America and East Asia. However, larger differences occurred within those cultures in terms of ­socioeconomic status: Higher SES persons (i.e., those higher in education and income) preferred slimmer body builds to those of lower SES status. This suggests that large differences ­exist with respect to this aspect of social perception within cultures as well as between them. Culture can also modify the extent to which aspects of physical appearance are related to life outcomes and psychological well-being. In many studies with urban American student samples, more attractive people report being treated better by oth- ers and more positive psychological well-being as a result than those who are less attractive (Langlois et al., 2000). However, this relationship where meeting standards of attractiveness in terms of slimness in particular enables social connections and posi- tive treatment from others is entirely absent among rural-residing Americans (Plaut, Adams, & Anderson, 2009) and residents of Ghana, Africa (Anderson, Adams, & Plaut, 2008). These cultural differences have been hypothesized as stemming from dif- fering ways that personal relationships are constructed—as stemming from personal volition and choice or from being embedded in particular social networks. Clearly, 38 Chapter 1 cultures, including different social classes within cultures, can both enable and en- courage people to experience the social world differently and increased recognition of this is a hallmark of modern social psychology. We will discuss research highlighting why and how culture matters for social thought and behavior at many points in this book. Questions 1. “Cognition and behavior are the two sides of the same 5. How does the field of social neuroscience help in social coin.” Comment on this statement. ­uncovering the foundations of social thought and 2. Why is it important to study emotions to understand the ­behavior? social side of life? How does our mood affect our behavior 6. What are mirror neurons, and what role do they play in in social situations? empathy? 3. People in intimate relationships have a tendency to ­perceive 7. Why is it important to adopt a multicultural perspective in their partner in unrealistically favorable terms. Is this tendency social psychological research? How does culture influence good or bad for their relationship in the long run? people’s experience of the social world? 4. What do research findings reveal about the happiness of people who are single vis-à-vis those in a relationship? What is your view on this, and why? 1.3: How Social Psychologists Answer the Questions They Ask: Research as the Route to Increased Knowledge Objective Understand the methods social psychologists use to gain insight into the questions posed Now that we’ve provided you with an overview of some of the current trends in social psychology, we can turn to the third major task mentioned at the start of this chapter: explaining how social psychologists attempt to answer questions about social behav- ior and social thought. Since social psychology is scientific in orientation, they usu- ally seek to accomplish this task through systematic research. To provide you with the basic information about the specific techniques they use, we’ll examine three related topics. First, we will describe basic methods of research in social psychology. Next we will consider the role of theory in such research. Finally, we’ll touch on some of the complex ethical issues relating to social psychological research. 1.3.1: Systematic Observation: Describing the World Around Us One basic technique for studying social behavior involves systematic observation— carefully observing behavior as it occurs. Such observation is not the kind of informal “people watching” we all practice from childhood onward; rather, in a scientific field such as social psychology it is observation accompanied by careful, accurate mea- surement of a particular behavior across people. Suppose that a social psychologist wanted to find out how frequently people touch each other in different settings. The researcher could study this topic by going to shopping malls, restaurants and bars, col- lege campuses, and many other locations and observe, in those settings, who touches whom, how they touch, and with what frequency. Such research (which has actually been conducted; see Chapter 3) would be employing what is known as n ­ aturalistic ­observation—observation of people’s behavior in natural settings (Linden, 1992).  Social Psychology: The Science of the Social Side of Life 39 Note that in such observation the researcher would simply record what is happening in each context; she or he would make no attempt to change the behavior of the per- sons being observed. In fact, such observation requires that the researcher take great pains to avoid influencing the people who are being observed in any way. Thus, the researchers would try to remain as inconspicuous as possible and might even try to hide behind natural barriers so as not to affect the behavior of the people they are watching. Another technique that entails a form of systematic observation is known as the survey method. Here, researchers ask large numbers of persons to respond to questions about their attitudes or behavior. Surveys are used for many purposes—to measure at- titudes toward specific issues such as marijuana use or abortion, to find out how voters feel about various political candidates, to determine how people feel about members of different social groups, and even to assess student reactions to professors (your college or university probably uses a form on which you rate your professor’s teaching each semester). Social psychologists often use this method to assess attitudes toward a vari- ety of social issues—for instance, gun control or affirmative action programs. Scientists and practitioners in other fields use the survey method to measure everything from life satisfaction around the globe to consumer reactions to new products. Surveys offer several advantages. Information can be gathered about thousands or even hundreds of thousands of persons with relative ease, and the responses of different categories of people can be compared—say, do men and women differ in the prejudice they express toward Muslims, public funding for day care centers, or their reported satisfaction with life? In fact, surveys are now often conducted ­online, through the Internet. Because, there are now more than 1.4 billion Facebook users worldwide, it is becoming an increasingly used platform for survey research. ­Respondents can click on the survey from within Facebook, and doing so allows the researchers to connect their survey self-reports with many types of personal attributes (e.g., gender, number of friends, demographic details, and personal interests such as movies and books) that are available for each user (Kosinski, Matz, Gosling, Popov, & ­Stillwell, 2015). Recent research on happiness is being conducted using researchers’ own sites (see Figure 1.12). To take a look at how it works, just visit authentichappiness.com for one example. The surveys presented there have been prepared by well-known psychologists, and your replies—which are entirely confidential—will become part of a huge data set that is being used to find out why people are happy or unhappy, and ways it can be increased. The site has been visited by millions of people and currently has over 750,000 registered users. (We’ll examine this topic in detail in ­Chapter 12.) In order to be useful as a research tool, though, surveys must meet certain require- ments. First, the persons who participate must be representative of the larger population about which conclusions are to be drawn—which raises the issue of sampling. If this condition is not met, serious errors can result. Suppose that the authentichappiness.com website is visited only by people who are already very happy—perhaps ­because unhappy people don’t want to report on their feelings. Or, conversely, ­suppose it is visited mostly by unhappy people who want to learn how to be happier. Any r­ esults obtained would be questionable for describing Americans’ average level of happiness, because they do not represent the entire range of happiness in the population as a whole. Yet another issue that must be carefully addressed with respect to surveys is this: The way in which the items are worded can exert strong effects on the outcomes ob- tained. Continuing with the happiness example we have been using, suppose a sur- vey asked people to rate, “How happy are you in your life right now?” (on a 7-point scale where 1 = very unhappy and 7 = very happy). Many people might well answer 4 or above because overall, most people do seem to be relatively happy much of the 40 Chapter 1 Figure 1.12 Using the Internet to Conduct Research Social psychologists sometimes collect survey data from sites they establish on the Internet. Many of these are set up for a specific study, but others, like the one shown here, remain open permanently and often provide data collected from hundreds of thousands of people. time. But suppose the question asked: “Compared to the happiest you have ever been, how happy are you in your life right now?” (1 = much less happy; 7 = just as happy). In the context of this comparison to your peak level of happiness, many people might provide numbers lower than 4, because they know they have been happier sometime in the past. Comparing the results from these questions could be misleading, if the dif- ference in wording between them were ignored. In sum, the survey method can be a useful approach for studying some aspects of social behavior. Surveys are especially useful for capturing large samples, the questions concern topics people can easily report on, and they concern behaviors that might otherwise be difficult to learn about. However, the results obtained are ­accurate only to the extent that issues relating to sampling and wording are carefully addressed. 1.3.2: Correlation: The Search for Relationships At various times, you have probably noticed that some events appear to be related to the occurrence of others: As one changes, the other changes, too. For example, perhaps you’ve noticed that people who drive new, expensive cars tend to be older than ­people who drive old, inexpensive ones or that people using social media such as Facebook tend to be relatively young (although this is now changing). When two  Social Psychology: The Science of the Social Side of Life 41 events or attributes (age of person and age of car) are related in this way, they are said to be correlated or that a correlation exists between them. The term correlation refers to a tendency for one event to be associated with changes in the other. Social psychologists refer to such changeable aspects of the natural world as variables, since they can take different values. From a scientific point of view, knowing that there is a correlation between two variables can be very useful, and it is the primary aim of many survey studies. When a correlation exists, it is possible to predict one variable from information about the other variable. The ability to make such predictions is one important goal of all branches of science, including social psychology. Being able to make accurate predic- tions can be very helpful. For instance, imagine that a correlation is observed between the amount of money people donate to charity (one variable) and how happy they are (another variable). Although there are many reasons why this correlation might exist, it could be very useful for organizations seeking volunteers to highlight this potential well-being benefit of helping others. In fact, we do know that in countries where there is a stronger norm of providing help to others, the well-being of the population is greater (Oarga, Stavrova, & Fetchenhauer, 2015). This might suggest that strengthen- ing this norm (i.e., “we’re the kind of people who help each other”) in communities will yield improvements in the happiness of members. Similarly, suppose that a cor- relation is observed between certain patterns of behavior in married couples (e.g., the tendency to criticize each other harshly) and the likelihood that they will later divorce. Again, this information might be helpful in counseling the persons involved and, per- haps, improving their relationships. The stronger the correlation between two variables, the more accurate the pre- diction can be made. Correlations can range from 0 to –1.00 or +1.00; the greater the departure from 0, the stronger the correlation. Positive numbers mean that as one vari- able increases the other increases too. For example, the more people perceive members of a prior enemy group (i.e., Muslims in Lebanon) as having changed (they are seen as different now than in the past), the more forgiveness is expressed (i.e., by ­Christians in Lebanon) for the harmful actions committed by the other group during the civil war (Licata, Klein, Saade, Azzi, & Branscombe, 2012). Negative numbers indicate that as one variable increases, the other decreases. For instance, the more groups with a history of conflict (i.e., Israel/Palestine; Protestants/Catholics in Northern Ireland) engage in “competitive victimhood” or claim their suffering was worse than that ex- perienced by the other group, the less forgiving they are of the other group (Noor, Brown, Gonzalez, Manzi, & Lewis, 2008). For researchers interested in ways these sorts of intergroup conflicts might be solved and achieving peaceful reconciliation, knowing that increases in some beliefs predict greater forgiveness while increases in other beliefs predict reduced forgiveness is very useful indeed. These basic facts underlie an important method of research sometimes used by social psychologists: the correlational method. In this approach, social psychologists ­attempt to determine whether, and to what extent, different variables are related to each other. This involves carefully measuring each variable and then performing a­ ppropriate statistical tests to determine whether and to what degree the variables are related. Imagine that a social psychologist wants to find out whether the information posted by users on Facebook is accurate—whether it portrays the users realistically, or presents them as they would like to be (an idealized self-image). Further, imagine that on the basis of previous studies, the researcher hypothesizes that the information people post on Facebook is indeed relatively accurate. How could this idea be tested? One very basic approach, using the correlational method of research, is as follows. First, posters on Facebook could complete measures of their personality (e.g., these could include extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience—ones found to be important in past research). Then, raters would read the profiles on Facebook and from this information rate the posters on the same personality dimensions. As 42 Chapter 1 a cross-check, other people who know the posters well could also rate them on the same personality dimensions. Next, these sets of information would be compared (i.e., correlated) to see how closely they align. The higher the correlation between these r­ atings—the ones provided by the posters themselves and people who know them very well (i.e., self and other personality ratings)—the more accurate users of ­Facebook would appear to be in their self-presentations. Because the ratings posted by people on Facebook agree with those provided by oth- ers who know them well, it suggests that there is accuracy. To test the alternative idea that posters try to present themselves in an idealized way, these individuals could be asked to describe their “ideal selves,” and this information, too, could be correlated with o ­ thers’ ratings of their Facebook postings. These basic methods were actually used by Back et al. (2010) in a study designed to find out whether, and to what extent, Facebook post- ings are accurate with respect to posters’ personality. Results offered clear support for the ­hypothesis that Facebook profiles are generally accurate: Posted profiles closely matched the posters’ actual personalities, as measured by personality scales they themselves com- pleted and ratings by friends and family members. There was little evidence for attempts at idealized self-presentation. On the basis of this research, we can tentatively conclude that Facebook information about posters’ personality is relatively accurate; their person- ality scores predict their postings, and their postings predict their personality scores. But we emphasize the word tentatively here, for two important reasons. First, the fact that two variables are correlated in no way guarantees that they are causally related—that changes in one cause changes in the other. On the contrary, the re- lationship between them may be due to the fact that both variables are caused by a third variable. For instance, in this case, it is possible that people who post on Facebook are simply good at self-presentation—presenting themselves to others so as to “look good.” To the extent that’s true, the correlation between their postings on Facebook and scores on personality tests could reflect this variable. Since they are high in self-presentation skills, their postings and their answers to personality tests both tend to put them in a good light. But, in fact, the two measures are unrelated to each in any direct or causal way. There is still another complication: It is also possible that posting on Facebook leads to changes in posters’ personalities, in the direction of becoming more like the information they posted. That may initially sound a little far-fetched, but we know that when people publicly make claims, they often convince themselves that it is true and, in fact, change to make it so (Higgins, 1999). Because this is a possible interpreta- tion that correlational research cannot definitely rule out, we can only conclude that such relationships exist. Correlational research cannot establish the direction of the relationships between variables, or whether either variable causes the other. Despite these major drawbacks, the correlational method of research is some- times very useful to social psychologists. It can be used in natural settings where ­experiments might be v