Social Psychology PSY2003 Lecture 10.1 Discursive Psychology PDF

1 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY PSY2003 Lecture 10.1 Discursive Psychology  2 Lecture Summary In this lecture, I will be introducing and illustrating the Discursive Psychology perspective. After an...

1 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY PSY2003 Lecture 10.1 Discursive Psychology  2 Lecture Summary In this lecture, I will be introducing and illustrating the Discursive Psychology perspective. After an introduction to the approach, I will compare its perspective on social psychology to the sort of cognitive approach you are more used to. We will then look at two examples of work in Discursive Psychology. Take home message: Discursive Psychology unpacks what occurs in “social interaction”, showing that when we are talking/writing we are doing something social. You may want to get onto PollEv.com/dravah xxxxxx ready for taking part in the polls during the class.  3 Lecture Outline Introduction(s) Building on Social Constructionism Talk as social action DP & Psychology Example of DP: Script Formulations Conclusion  4 Introduction 1: Building on Social Constructionism  5 Social Categorisation Block Lecture 8.1 Graded Structure Lecture 8.2 Social Schemas Social Lecture 9.1 Social Representations Lecture 9.2 Social Constructionism Lecture 10.1 Discursive Psychology Lecture 10.2 Comparing Categorisation Approaches  6 From Social Constructionism Our representation of/access to the world is Socially Constructed Two (of the various) assumptions of SC Language is important Social Construction = through language exchange Knowledge & Action go together Ways of constructing world involve particular actions (and not others)  7 Discursive Psychology Explores precisely HOW things get socially constructed i.e. through discourse Ties the two conclusions together Language (talk & writing) AS social action  8 Introduction 2: Talk as Social Action  9 Ape social action Let’s look at some social action https://youtu.be/silOMIgI6Lo?t=1m 1.00 – 1.40 Cuddling & playing Communicate Intimacy Security (no playfulness in face of danger) Etc.  10 How do humans do it? Through talk & writing as well as action Example Coach Trip (Channel 4) Contestant & Brendan (tour guide) Mud bath incident https://youtu.be/v7LI31LcjDc?t=213 3.32 - end 11  12 Extract 1: Coach Trip 1 A: Whoa:::w ::: = extended vowel sound 2 B: agh ha- there’s a very heavy weight ((laughing)) (.) = tiny pause 3 A: no you’re alright. come on (.)((double bracket)) = direction 4 a bit more ((continues faded)) 5 B: he went grab my ha:nd 6 and it was like- he was helping me to live 7 and I’m- I’m tryin’ to grab his hand 8 and he’s tryin’ to grab (single bracket) = unclear 9 my ha [nd 10 C: [oh (god [cu- me) ((laughing)) 11 B: [and he was pulling me 12 Bless ‘im. 13 So Brendan saved my life.  13 Talk as social action Mud incident also … Communicates Intimacy A  B “no you’re alright. come on (.) a bit more” C  B supportive talk & laughter B  A “Bless ‘im” Security A  B “no you’re alright” = no danger C  B supportive talk & laughter = no danger (despite “he was helping me to live”)  14 What most psychology misses “Everyday conversation is considered to be full of errors, hesitations, false starts, and other ‘performance’ factors that only obscure the orderly, rule-governed workings of grammar. So language is approached as a system of rules and categories, not as how people talk, or how talk serves as a medium of social interaction.” (Edwards, 1997, p. 3)  15 What is Discursive Psychology? Edwards and Potter (1992): Renamed Discursive Psychology (DP) Original Name: Discourse Analysis (DA) Misleading: too many perspectives similar name N.B. Some texts still use name DA Loughborough University = pioneers Builds on Speech Act Theory (Austin, 1962) Conversation Analysis (Sacks, 1992) Ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967) Social Constructionism (Shotter, 1992)  16 Focus of DP Analysis Devices in Discourse Topics of Interest Psychology (especially Social Psychology) Data Naturally occurring conversation Unstructured interviews Printed material  17 Analytic interest Focus on rhetoric i.e. persuading & arguing People always persuading Content of what they say Good person Honest Sincere Normal etc.  18 Participation Point Which of these would DP NOT use as data? A. Interviews with B. A family chatting at student nurses the dinner table C. The validated ECR- D. The University of SF scale of adult Lincoln Student attachment Charter  19 Description as action Edwards (1997, p. 8) “One of the most important features of descriptions is their could-have-been-otherwise quality. …” “… It is not only that descriptions could have been otherwise; usually there is a fairly specific ‘otherwise’ that is at issue. …” “… [Descriptions] have a rhetorical, argumentative quality with regard to what somebody else might say”  20 E.g. Back to Extract 1 coach trip … “I wor- I used to work in a sewage works and its l- exactly the same” https://youtu.be/v7LI31LcjDc?t=3m27s 3.31 Presents self Jokey ‘Expert’ Argues against (implicit) description of mud bath as Lovely, healthy, luxury, holiday-activity, etc.  21 Another example Written text this time Mail Online Report 8th December 2022 TV & Showbiz section https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11516067/ABBA-chose -London-successful-Voyage-stick-UK-wake-Brexit.html Extract 2: 22 ABBA chose London for their successful Voyage show as the band 'love' the capital city and wanted to stick by the UK in the wake of Brexit ABBA are said to have chosen London for their 'ABBA Voyage' concert to show their support for the UK after Brexit. According to the avatar show's producer Svana Gisla, the Swedish pop icons wanted to show their loyalty to the country that has brought them much success following its withdrawal from the European Union in 2020. Gisla told the Daily Mirror newspaper: “There were a lot of companies leaving, there was a lot of uncertainty about the UK at the time and it was ABBA themselves that decided, 'No, we want to come in. They might be leaving, but we want to come in', because ABBA has been incredibly much-loved in the UK.”  23 Description as action NOT a dispassionate description of their choice NOT just giving ‘information’ from one brain to another INSTEAD … AC T I ON NO ED Loaded with morality & Q UI R RE evaluations! “show their support” “loyalty to the country that has brought them much success” “incredibly much-loved in the UK ”  24 Action & communication Why did the show’s producer describe ABBA’s choice of venue like this? Casts the UK very positively Casts ABBA as fans of the UK In contrast to lots of “companies leaving” “'No, we want to come in” Casts the UK as fans of ABBA “incredibly much-loved in the UK” All of which is helpful in promoting ABBA The avatar show We know there’s an agenda Psychology should be able to capture that: … DP!  25 DP: Three main tasks Highlight variability of descriptions Show how variable versions used to accomplish rhetorical business Examine how this process brings about, sustains & legitimates social practices  26 Participation Point Understanding check From a DP perspective, it would be useful to analyse variability in people’s descriptions of things. True or False?  27 DP & Psychology  28 Discursive vs. Cognitive Psychology Traditional Social Cognition Approach People as information processors Discursive Psychology “anti-cognitivist” People’s discursive practices Cognitivism: 1 Internal mental entities determine social action 2 Examples are attitudes, thoughts, emotions, attributions, stereotypes 3 Language & social action as merely transparent media to get to inner entities  29 Discursive Psychology 1 Language use Moulding & creative force of the social world 2 Internal states NOT trying to look inside people’s heads for them Instead… what’s going on when people start talking about their mental states?  30 An Example of DP  31 Persuasion in Interaction Humă et al. (2019, 2020)  Persuasion as attitude 32 change Classic approach Persuasion = via information-processing mechanisms Which produce change-of-attitude E.g. Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) Central vs peripheral information processsing Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM) Heuristic vs Systematic information processing  33 Role of language Persuasive messages Designed by researchers Participants don’t get to persuade Stripped of the features of real talk Participants’ replies Measured via Likert-scale questions Don’t get to answer how they like  34 Role of language Language treated as Just a tool for transmitting messages for cognitive processing Rather than As in naturally occurring interaction, language as … “the medium in and through which social life is talked into existence, and in which the consequence of one turn at talk is revealed in the next.” (Humă et al., 2020, p. 358)  35 Role of interaction Traditional approach = individualistic Focuses on people’s cognitive processes Ignores interaction between participants According to Humă et al. (2020) This turns out to be a big miss! As we will see …  36 Their focus “Cold” calls by salesperson to “prospect” (i.e. potential customer) An encounter not initiated by prospect Involving invite to an action they didn’t seek This focus on just one step in multi-step sales process Objective: Secure a face-to-face meeting Where the sale can take place  37 Their data Recordings of 150 real life cold calls On the phone From 3 British companies Selling office equipment By 9 salespeople To private companies/schools  38 “Persuaded” to meet Analysis shows how Prospects prevented from refusing to meet Mostly by design of turn-taking so … Space to respond = restricted Consent to meeting = bypassed Meeting frame = as already accepted Here’s one example … Extract 5: Eplus 2 39 1 S: ↑Walter ↑very very quickly just before sometime I 2 spoke to Eva,.mht A:ndu:h we discussed about the 3 telecoms contracts=I used to be in touch with 4 Fernando: last year?.hh A:ndu:h we discussed 5 about your Yeltel contracts which are up for 6 renewal by early next year? 7 (0.3) 8 S:.Pt [h So] Eva advised me to have a quick chat= 9 P: [Mkay,] 10 C: =with you an’ schedule a meeting in to discuss 11 about the: Yeltel:.h (.) contracts..h U:h just 12 (a) wonderin’ if u::h you’re available  40 Starts with meeting framing Frames meeting as Proposed by colleague “Eva” NOT “Hi, just out of the blue, wanna meeting?” Avoids great opportunity for “No!!” Constructs the company as Already having shown an interest NOT “Is your company interested?” Avoids great opportunity for “No!!” (We can just imagine what Eva really said)  41 Informing mode Frames the Eva suggestion as Just informing No response needed to an informing Avoids space for a (potentially rejecting) response Prospect says “Mkay” NOT (much harder) “Go away!”  42 Literally no space Then, there’s literally no slot to respond in Salesperson continues to hold the floor 8 S:.Pt [h So] Eva advised me to have a quick chat= 9 P: [Mkay,] 10 C: =with you an’ schedule a meeting in to discuss 11 about the: Yeltel:.h (.) contracts..h U:h just 12 (a) wonderin’ if u::h you’re available I.e.sometime Avoids space for getting a rejection in before 13 topic moves to or (.) °December scheduling the meeting January time°?  43 Scheduling becomes topic Once scheduling becomes the topic Prospect’s agreement to meet Becomes a done deal! Whatever prospect answers (unless makes a fuss) is about timeframe (i.e. not meeting) Yes = yes, meet then No = no, can’t meet then NOT No = “Don’t wanna meet”  44 Minimises wriggle- room Although “wonderin’ if u::h you’re available” Seems room for prospect to refuse Via “sorry, I’m not available” Timeframe is huge “sometime (.) °December or January time° Hard to argue “I’m not free then, sorry”  45 DP & Persuasion DP perspective on persuasion is demonstrated here And in the rest of both articles “What singles out persuasive communication is … its recipient constraining sequential architecture … [which acts] to pre-empt or deal with resistance to … courses of action” (Humă et al., 2020, p. 360)  46 Participation Point How familiar to you is (somehow) not having an easy chance to refuse a cold call? A. Has never happened to B. Has never happened to me: me: I never get cold calls I find cold calls easy to end C. Happens to me: I have often D. None of these answers experienced some sort of is quite true of me discomfort ending cold calls  47 Radio Talk Horowitz and Kilby (2019)  48 Radio phone-in shows Laura Kilby & I were interested in how people talk on radio phone-in shows  49 Talking about ‘thinking’ Our interest was in when, how and to what effect people talk about ‘thinking’, e.g. “I think…” “What do you think?” “they think … but …” “That lady thinks…” “I didn’t think that …”  50 ‘Think’ in Radio Talk So, we wanted to see what Talking about ‘thinking’ Does in radio phone-in show talk Where does it get you to talk about ‘thinking’ On talk radio?  51 The shows & ‘think’ We recorded a series of Radio 5 Live shows This analysis uses a corpus of 11 of those shows Covering a wide range of topics 10,228 lines of transcript We found ‘Think’ stated 708 times Between 33 – 105 times in each show  52 Three themes We identified three main ways that ‘thinking’ was being used Today only covering two of them: 1. Setting an intersubjective agenda 2. Doing opinion 3. Managing facts  53 1. Setting an intersubjective agenda One place you repeatedly saw ‘think’ mentioned was by Show hosts when they Invited people to take part in the show Introduced/re-introduced callers to the air  54 Invite to take part Hosts said, e.g. Extract 6: Host thoughts [Show F] NC: >we want< your thoughts oh five hundred >nine oh nine< ↓six nine thre::e Extract 7: Host think [Show E] NC: what do you think should tax payers stump up so parents can (.) stay at home  55 (Re)introduction onto the air Hosts said, e.g. Extract 8: Host what think [Show C] NC: Well let’s hear from ↑A::ngela in ox er Angela in Oxfordshire Angela what d’you ↓think (.) Extract 9: Host do you think [Show K] RB: do you think it is a uniquely (0.2) English trait this ↑arrogance?  56 A focus on subjectivity Hosts’ talk of thinking focuses the shows on subjectivity I.e. there isn’t just one answer, one opinion, one truth So, when hosts talk about thinking they set up a space where … People are expected to think differently So what you think matters … phone in & tell us!  57 3. Managing facts A straightforward way ‘I think’ used to manage facts Express uncertainty about some fact you are stating Distances speaker one step from the fact Not just ‘it is’ whatever Instead ‘I think it is’ whatever  58 Uncertainty about facts Extract 12: Uncertainty [Show B] Al: and ↑then you put >somebody< who’s in↑competent and as parliament put it.hh er Keith Vaz I ↓think the chairman of the home affairs sel↑ect com↓mittee  59 Concluding A more nuanced way that facts are managed using ‘think’ is when people do concluding Which is often done via …so… Present something Put forward as an …and… I think … a subjective objective proposition “Fact” (i.e. as arising … from that fact)  60 … So I think… Extract 13: So I think [Show E] Be: there are no allowances for the married ↑mother hh “Fact” but ↑single mothers (0.4) ↑do get allowances for their children (0.4) Subjective.hh so ↑I think proposition that it would be a good idea to pay something to ↑married ↓mothers  61 …I think… Extract 14 [Show H: caller-think]. De: my father said (0.2).hh “Fact” when I left (0.2) e:rm the ↑train station I’ll see you in a couple a weeks (.) I think Subjective that gave me-.hh e:r basically proposition the (0.4) will hh to stay in really  62 Concluding So, these facts are presented as what grounds the speaker’s subjective position Their subjectivity is an upshot of the facts they’ve just stated This wonderfully manages the potentially dodgy nature of coming off as subjective It’s my opinion But it’s thoroughly grounded by objective fact  63 Quick aside … This marrying of fact & opinion is what fills journal article introductions & discussions, e.g. “Our findings indicated a greater reward for trustworthiness and Facts dominance in senior managers than lower-level managers and this is likely to be routed in the Subjective proposition specific context of senior positions (e.g. Mintzberg, 1975; Tengblad, 2006).” (Others agree) (Fruhen et al., 2015, p. 1011)  64 Participation Point Which of these did we find people using thinking for in radio talk shows? To decide what (Doing) being unsure to say on the air about something Introducing a speaker Concluding to the air (host) after “so”  65 Summing up Horowitz and Kilby Just an example of the way DP adds pieces to a growing puzzle Other work has looked at Everyday conversations, political interviews, etc. And found ‘thinking’ used Various contexts And found cognitive verbs used E.g. think, know, believe etc. Radio phone-in shows And found other devices used  66 Building a picture All this work builds a growing picture of How we use talk/text to accomplish social business And it’s quite stunning how deft we really are at it!  67 Overall DP Conclusion  68 Discursive Psychology Discursive Psychology is Psychology But NOT cognitive Instead … accomplishment of social actions through discourse, e.g. Legitimating & sustaining social positions Justifying, praising & blaming Making speaker/others look like a certain sort of person, e.g. Good/bad Competent/incompetent Worthy-of-believing Building & maintaining social relationships & social life  69 References Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon Press. Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. Sage. Edwards, D. & Potter, P. (1992). Discursive psychology. Sage. Fruhen, L. S., Watkins, C. D., & Jones, B. C. (2015). Perceptions of facial dominance, trustworthiness and attractiveness predict managerial pay awards in experimental tasks. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 1005–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.07.001 Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall. Horowitz, A. D., & Kilby, L. (2019). Thinking out loud: A discourse analysis of 'thinking' during talk radio interactions. Text and Talk, 39(6), 699–724. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0235 Humă, B., Stokoe, E., & Sikveland, R. O. (2020) Putting persuasion (back) in its interactional context. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17(3), 357–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1725947  70 Humă, B., Stokoe, E., & Sikveland, R. O. (2019). Persuasive conduct: Alignment and resistance in prospecting “cold” calls. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(1), 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X18783474 Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures in conversation (2 Vols.). Blackwell. Schank, R. C. & Ableson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding. Erlbaum. Shotter, J. (1992). Bakhtin and Billig: Monological versus dialogical practices. American Behavioural Scientist, 36, 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764292036001003