RUNNING HEAD: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY1

Social Psychology: The Essentials

Randall L. Noggle

PSY301: Social Psychology

Instructor Debra Ozolnieks

4/7/14

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY2

Social Psychology: The Essentials

Social psychology is a fairly new field of study, originating (arguably) within the last 110

years (Feenstra, 2011). In a sense, it is the baby of the sciences. However, social psychology is

not something we are unfamiliar with. While some of the principles and vernacular may be new

to some, the idealism and goal of this field is not. We participate in social psychology every day

of our lives. The definition, as stated in Introduction to Social Psychology, “…is the scientific

study of human thoughts, feelings, and behavior as they relate to and are influenced by others.”

(Feenstra, 2011). Any time we watch and learn how to interact with another person, group of

people, engage in a relationship, stay in touch with an old friend or make a new friend—that’s all

amateur social psychology. We all already have our foot in the psychological door simply by

living our lives. There are many aspects of social psychology, but we can break it down into the

four main areas of discovering the self, thinking about others, influencing others, and group

dynamics. Within these four areas nearly all aspects of our social lives are reisde. These are all

areas we have already experienced, but this is a more in-depth look at the how and why we do

what do and say what we say.

The first main area of social psychology is discovering the self. One might ask why

discovering yourself is a social concept. It is an understandable question, but within ourselves

lays the basis of understanding. To truly understand others, we must first understand how and

why we think the things we do. Although it does seem contradictory—discovering the self in

social psychology—is an essential starting place. The best place to start analyzing is the person

we interact with the most—ourselves.

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY3

Understanding the person in the mirror is self-concept. This includes everything we have

experienced and learned throughout the course of development. Learned beliefs, attitudes, and

opinions are all examples of this, and part of our cognitive understanding (Feenstra, 2011). There

is a lot of information in the self-concept considering it is everything we learn our entire lives. So

how do we make sense of this massive amount of information? We use self-schemas.

Self-schemas influence the way in which we encode and retrieve information about the

self and is widely believed to be important in the regulation in behavior, although the latter does

not have sufficient evidence to be considered reliable because of the dissimilar constructs from

which it is derived (Froming, Nasby & McManus, 1998). However, it does make a fair amount

of sense to presume that our cognitive understanding would also be intertwined with how we

make our behavioral choices.

We can see that all of the information about the self is organized by self-schemas and our

behavior is guided by this understanding of ourselves and our view of the world. To go even

further, to understand (or not in some cases) the thoughts, emotions, and wants we possess is

called self-awareness. These examples are private self-awareness. To be aware of how we think

others see us in the any public forum is called public self-awareness. While we may not be able

to fully grasp the meaning behind these concepts, just being aware that they exist plays a major

role in self-esteem and self-efficacy.

Self-esteem is a major aspect of our daily lives. According to Stegier, Allemand, Robins

& Fend (2014), the definition of self-esteem is, “…characterized as an individual’s global

evaluation of his or her overall worth as a person” (para 2). It is hard to overemphasize the

significance of our self-esteem. This is how we view ourselves and what we are worth, and as

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY4

such can dictate how happy we are with our lives. Typically, people with higher self-esteem are

happier and more confident than those with low self-esteem. Although this depends on what

character quality is being valued (e.g. attractiveness, intelligence, generosity, etc.) and its

importance in regards to social and cultural factors.

This view of self has a “sister”, if you will. Her name is self-efficacy. While self-esteem

is how we view the values of the qualities we possess, self-efficacy is the emphasis how well and

capable we are in performing specific tasks (Feenstra, 2011). Even with a low self-esteem, we

may have a very high self-efficacy for certain tasks. Unlike self-esteem, self-efficacy is not

dependent on social or cultural influences (for the most part). In essence self-efficacy is knowing

you are competent in a specific thing, regardless of outside factors.

All of these factors, when viewed together, help comprise the acting self. The acting self

is self is, very simply, how we act based on what we believe about ourselves. How we explain

our actions is defined as attributions. What’s interesting is the definition of attribution includes

more than just our actions. In Introduction to Social Psychology, attribution is defined as, “…our

explanations of the behavior of ourselves and others.” (Feenstra, 2008). This leads us to the next

major area of social psychology: thinking about others.

Thinking about others is an extension of thinking about self, or is it? Our lives involve a

lot of social interaction. Part of that interaction is judgment of others, as well as self. Most of the

time, our judgments are based on the actions of others. If we judge someone based on personal

character qualities, we are making an internal attribution. This places all of the credit/blame on

that person as being wholly responsible for the action. However, we cannot be responsible for

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY5

every aspect of our lives. When there is an action that is not a result of a personal character

quality and dependent on situational factors, we have an external attribution (Feenstra, 2011).

There is more to attribution than simply internal vs. external interpretation. There is also

the interpretation of the events surrounding the attribution and how we apply it to ourselves. This

concept is called explanatory style. There are three ideals taken into consideration when

characterizing explanatory style causes. Those three ideals are: 1) is it something about you

(internal) or it is a cause of the other person or situation (external); 2) whether the event will

happen again (stable) or whether the event will most likely rarely or never happen again

(unstable); and 3) whether the event will apply to all circumstances (global) or if it was just this

specific set of circumstances (specific) (Mileviciute, Trujillo, Gray & Scott, 1998).

The explanatory style can be characterized into either optimistic or pessimistic based on

how the ideals are interpreted. We have a tendency to fall into patterns regarding the causes of

events. For instance, an optimistic person considers positive events as internal, stable, and global

while they view negative events are external, unstable, and specific (Feenstra, 2011). To the

contrary, a pessimistic person will interpret these events in the exact opposite fashion. While

attribution and explanatory style interprets who receives the credit/blame in personal qualities

and events, it does not provide much explanation of personal evaluation and reaction to these

things, which could also be called our attitudes.

Attitude--this is a word that most people associate with adolescents. However, in social

psychology, attitude is the evaluation of something based on how we think and how we feel

about a person, group, idea, or pretty much anything that can be evaluated. These evaluations

have strength (strong or weak) and valence (like or dislike), and in some cases are ambivalent

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY6

(both positive and negative at the same time) (Feenstra, 2011). Attitudes are also broken down

into both explicit (based on information we have gathered) and implicit (based on our initial,

unfiltered reaction) (Feenstra, 2011).

There is a lot to be considered in forming an attitude. One question that has been posed is

the relationship between our attitudes and our behavior and how they correlate. Is behavior a

result of or an influence on our attitudes? The answer is both, depending on the situation and

theory used. The main theories taken into consideration and applied to this question are theory of

planned behavior, cognitive dissonance theory, and self-perception theory.

The theory of planned behavior poses that behavior can be predicted by your attitude

towards a behavior, beliefs of how people in your environment view that behavior, or subjective

norm, and the belief that you can participate in that behavior and succeed (perceived behavioral

control) (Feenstra, 2011). If your behavior does not coincide with your beliefs, you would be

creating cognitive dissonance. This entails changing your attitude or importance of a choice, and

it aids in behavioral modification regarding the cognitive dissonance theory. Now, if you use

your behavior as a way to understand your attitude, you would be utilizing the self-perception

theory in that your behavior influenced your attitude (Feenstra, 2011).

Regardless of which theory you subscribe to, there is a dark side that is present. This

comes in the form of prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination. While these three things all go

hand-in-hand, they focus on separate areas of emphasis. Prejudice is a feeling and is often

implicit. It is a negative attitude towards a person for belonging to a certain group. The most

common prejudice is based on ethnicity. This leads to stereotypes, which are based on the

personally held ideas and beliefs about individuals and/or the groups in which they belong. The

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY7

last form is the action that takes place because of prejudice and stereotyping, which is

discrimination. Discrimination is the cumulative outcome of these feelings and beliefs, resulting

in negative actions towards another. These actions are influenced by our thoughts, the

combination of feelings and opinions we harbor. However, these feelings and opinions can be

altered.

This alteration of thought it called persuasion. We are constantly bombarded by people

trying to persuade us into thinking we believe or want/need something. This is a big business,

and is also an art form when everything is taken into consideration. It isn’t something that a

person can just do without thought. There are three main components to address when

persuasion takes place. Those three components are the characteristics of the persuader, the

message, and the audience (Feenstra, 2011).

The first component of persuasion is the persuader. This is the person who is trying to

convince someone of something. The first characteristic of a persuader is credibility. Credibility

is actually a combination of both expertise and trustworthiness. Communicating apparent

knowledge in a certain area and the believability that the information is correct encompasses

credibility, and also expertise and trustworthiness, respectively. The second characteristic of the

persuader is physical attractiveness. Physical attractiveness can be just as powerful, if not more

so, than credibility. It has been proven that more physically attractive persuaders are more

successful than unattractive or unpictured persuaders, and do not have to depend on sound

arguments as much (Debevec, 1984). The last characteristic of a persuader is likeability, which is

intertwined with physical attractiveness. The success of a persuader can be determined by their

intent and whether or not it work with or against their physical attractiveness. For instance, a

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY8

physically attractive person can typically get away with stating their intent to persuade, while a

less attractive persuader often has to keep their intent hidden.

The second component of persuasion is the message. The way in which the persuader

presents their information and which cognitive aspect they are appealing to is the key to the

message. A persuader can use a message that appeals to or elicits a certain emotional response;

they can use framing: specifically gain framed where they are being benefited by their

idea/product or loss framed where they are losing out without their idea/product; they can use a

one-sided or two-sided message depending on how strong their argument is; they can use a

narrative, which relates the efficacy of the idea/product with an individual’s story; and finally

they can use the sleeper affect, which is the message lingering in the audience’s thoughts until

they act upon it.

This brings us to the third and final component of persuasion, which is the audience. This

is the receiver of the persuader’s message. There are many variables to consider about an

audience. The cultural backgrounds, gender differences, and self-esteem all play a role audience

receptiveness. Although these are important aspects of the persuasion process and should not be

underestimated, a persuasive message’s success with an audience also includes the concepts that

the elaboration likelihood model presents, and is basically a combination of persuader, message

and audience.

The elaboration likelihood model suggests the idealism of elaboration, which is the

audience’s ability and motivation to be engaged in the message, as taking either the central or

peripheral route to persuasion (Feenstra, 2011). The central route to persuasion require extensive

thought and consideration of the message, while the peripheral route to persuasion uses more of a

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY9

“blanket” approach consisting of peripheral cues instead of critical thought. These cues are

inherently unrelated to the actual message and require a lower need for cognition (Areni, 2005).

There are numerous persuasive techniques that can be used depending on the message

and audience. This is where persuasion becomes an art. Because of the amount of different

techniques, we will only explore three examples in which very different methods are utilized.

The first persuasive technique we will examine is the low-ball technique. This is fairly simple

idea to start with. In this technique the key selling point is a very reasonable initial offer. Upon

agreeing to this seemingly good deal, extras and additional costs that were not previously

mentioned, are added on. The main goal is to get to the audience to agree to the initial offer,

knowing full well they are much less likely to decline the additional fees (Feenstra, 2011). In

contrast, the reciprocity technique relies on social constructs. According to Mauss, Goudlner,

Blau, Regan, Emerson & Cialdini, reciprocity is”…the societal role that obligates individuals to

repay gifts, favors, and services that have been performed for them.” (Goldstein, Griskevicius &

Cialdini, 2011). This can be as simple as a free sample in a store with the product within close

proximity of it, prompting a compulsory reaction to buy the product. In even further contrast,

scarcity possesses none of these factors, but instead relies on a limited amount of a product or

incredibly low price. This tactic elicits reactance, or the act of personal freedom protection

(Feenstra, 2011). If there are only X amount of a certain product exclusively made, we don’t

want to lose the ability (and freedom associated with it) of being able to acquire a certain

product.

The concept of freedom is basically doing or saying what we want, when we want to.

People have fought and died for this freedom throughout history. Most of the time freedom

doesn’t cause problems, but when it does, it is often associated with aggression. Aggression is

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY10

doing or saying something with the intent to harm another individual (Feenstra, 2011). It is hard

to define a single cause of aggression. Some individuals or more likely than others to be

aggressive because of genetics, but this is a case where both nature and nurture come into play.

Regardless of natural temperament, there are a host of external factors that can lead to

aggression. Some of those factors include, but are not limited to: frustration, media, weapons,

alcohol, and other environmental factors (Feenstra, 2011). Frustration is when something inhibits

you reaching a particular goal. Media can influence aggression by constantly showing violent

images and news stories. Weapons are an influence because of the weapons priming effect,

which entails someone who is unfamiliar with weapons having heightened aggression by merely

being exposed to them (Feenstra, 2011). Alcohol, along with other mind altering substances, can

increase aggression by inhibiting our ability to clearly think of the effects of our actions. Finally,

there are environmental factors such as overcrowding and excessive heat that also seem to lower

our inhibitions and increase aggressiveness (Feenstra, 2008).

In discussing aggression, we must also discuss its juxtaposition—prosocial behavior.

Prosocial behavior, essentially, is helping others. Like many others things we have discussed,

there are numerous reasons behind this area of social psychology. Although most people are

fairly similar in personal character qualities, those who are helpful possess more empathy, or

concern for others well-being, than those are not helpful (Feenstra, 2011). Another factor that

influences helpfulness is kin selction, or helping those that are closely related to us. The more

closely related, the more helpful one becomes (typically) (Feenstra, 2011). Reciprocity is also

another reason why people are helpful, which we discussed earlier, albeit with a different

outcome.

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY11

In all of these examples, the ultimate, or overall, goal is simply to help others because of

empathy or social obligation. But we cannot forget that sometimes when helping others, the

helper’s ultimate goal is for personal benefit, which is an egoistic motive. The opposite of this

approach is altruism, which is helping another for no other reason than their well-being

(Feenstra, 2011).

While the well-being of others is a goal of prosocial behavior, it is also one of the goals

involved with the need to belong when undertaken mutally. The other goal of the need to belong

is the continued positive interaction with other people, which increase the feeling of belonging

and contribution (Ferguson, 2010). This need to belong can be aided by both or social and

emotional bonds with others. To the contrary, this need can be stifled by deprivation, or lack of

continued positive interaction, which can cause loneliness , depression, and the striving to stand

out in order to be noticed (Ferguson, 2010).

This need to belong also affects our attraction to others. We often times are attracted to

those people who are similar to us in physical characteristics, personality, ideals and beliefs.

Others factors of attraction are close to us, utilizing the mere-exposure effect, which is basically

having a tendency to like things or people we are around on a frequent basis (Feenstra, 2011).

Although it doesn’t go by its name, reciprocity, yet again, comes into play. In an attraction sense

it is called equity, or more specifically, being benefited as much as we provide (Feenstra, 2011).

These factors can aide in creating a personal relationship with another person. In some

cases, this can lead to love. But what is love? That word is so commonly used it is hard to ascribe

a singular definition to it. There are many types of love, but we will look at the main three. Those

types of love are passionate, companionate, and compassionate love. First, what everyone wants

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY12

to hear—passionate love. Unfortunately, this type of love, while often considered the most fun, is

also the most fleeting because of its initial focus on intense emotional arousal and physical

attractiveness (Feenstra, 2011). When this love starts to die down, it can lead way to

companionate love, which is a deep caring of another person that develops over time and through

shared experiences, comfort, trust, and faith in each other (Feenstra, 2011). This type of love is

considered an aspect long-term, happy marriages (or romantic relationships if marriage isn’t an

option or choice). Very similar to this is compassionate love, which still have a deep caring for

another person, is more related to parenting or long-term friendships.

Family, an example of an intimacy group, brings us to our final aspect of social

psychology: group dynamics. A group is simply two or more people that are acting in a cohesive

way though interaction (Feenstra, 2011). This leads a lot of room for interpretation as to what a

group can consist of. Basically, any number of people communicating together is a group. The

results of this grouping of people as a cohesive unit can accomplish great things. We have seen

this in history. Likewise, is can create calamity and infamy, which we have a tendency to not

forget as easily as what great things have been accomplished. These acts of infamy (holocaust,

the crusades, Salem witch trials, etc.) are often attributed to groupthink.

Groupthink is where people conform to the will of the group in order to maintain

harmony and cohesion. As Sims & Sauser put it, “individual members suspend their own critical

judgment and right to question, with the result that they make bad and/or immoral decisions.”

(Sims & Sauser, 2013, para 2). It can also be characterized by people receiving incorrect

information and leaders who are charismatic and refuse to listen to ideas differing from their own

(Werieter, 1997). When left unchecked, the consquences of groupthink can be disasterous, not

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY13

only to the individuals but also society in general with the previous examples of the holocaust,

crusades, and Salem witch trials.

While groupthink can definitely impact society, we also have specific social dilemmas.

Three big social dilemmas are tragedy of commons, resource dilemma, and the prisoner’s

dilemma. The tragedy of commons is where individuals take more than what is necessary out of

a shared, sustainable resource until it can no longer be sustained and perishes (Feenstra, 2011).

Resource dilemma is a slightly different concept. In this scenario, people take advantage of a

public resource that is comprised of individual offerings. These resources too can perish if the

amount of people taking exceeds the amount of people contributing. The last example of social

dilemma is the prisoner’s dilemma which is an entirely different concept focusing on some

combination of cooperation and competition in regards to personal matters, typically between

two people. If both parties compete, both parties lose. If both parties cooperate, both parties win.

The other combinations are dependent of the situation and people involved.

Social psychology has so much room for growth since it is so young and so prevalent in

our daily lives. As with every other scientific area, new discoveries are being made fairly

regularly. When we consider how integral the concepts of social psychology are in our

interactions with both ourselves and others, the world shrinking because of technology, and our

desire to understand each other, social psychology really hasn’t even begun to scratch the surface

of what it capable through research regarding its importance. Social media alone is a treasure

trove of uncharted research within the scope of social psychology. There are many aspects of

social psychology, but we can break it down into the four main areas of discovering the self,

thinking about others, influencing others, and group dynamics. Within these four areas nearly all

aspects of our social lives reside.

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY14

References

Areni, C. S., & Sparks, J. R. (2005). Language power and persuasion. Psychology & Marketing,

22(6), 507-525. doi:10.1002/mar.20071

Debevec, K., & Kernan, J. B. (1984). MORE EVIDENCE ON THE EFFECTS OF A

PRESENTER'S PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS: Some Cognitive, Affective, and

Behavioral Consequences. Advances In Consumer Research, 11(1), 127-132.

Feenstra, J. (2011). Introduction to social psychology. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Ferguson, E. (2010). Adler's Innovative Contributions Regarding the Need to Belong. Journal Of

Individual Psychology, 66(1), 1-7.

Froming, W. J., Nasby, W., & McManus, J. (1998). Prosocial self-schemas, self-awareness, and

children's prosocial behavior. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 75(3), 766-

777. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.766

Goldstein, N. J., Griskevicius, V., & Cialdini, R. B. (2011). Reciprocity by Proxy: A Novel

Influence Strategy for Stimulating Cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(3),

441-473. doi:10.1177/0001839211435904

Mileviciute, I., Trujillo, J., Gray, M., & Scott, W. D. (2013). THE ROLE OF EXPLANATORY

STYLE AND NEGATIVE LIFE EVENTS IN DEPRESSION: A CROSS-SECTIONAL

STUDY WITH YOUTH FROM A NORTH AMERICAN PLAINS RESERVATION.

American Indian & Alaska Native Mental Health Research: The Journal Of The National

Center, 20(3), 42-58.

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY15

Sims, R. R., & Sauser, W. I. (2013). Toward a better understanding of the relationships among

received wisdom, groupthink, and organizational ethical culture. Journal of Management

Policy and Practice, 14(4), 75-90. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1503089275?accountid=32521

Steiger, A. E., Allemand, M., Robins, R. W., & Fend, H. A. (2014). Low and decreasing self-

esteem during adolescence predict adult depression two decades later. Journal Of

Personality And Social Psychology, 106(2), 325-338. doi:10.1037/a0035133

Weierter, S. M. (1997). Who wants to play `follow the leader?' A theory of charismatic

relationships based on routinized.. Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 171.