Defining The FielD Of ApplieD SociAl PSychology

3y ago
80 Views
7 Downloads
319.87 KB
19 Pages
Last View : 1d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Elise Ammons
Transcription

1Defining the Field ofApplied Social Psychologyu Frank W. Schneideru Jamie A. Grumanu Larry M. CouttsChapter OutlineSocial PsychologyDefining Social PsychologySocial Psychology as aScienceApplied Social PsychologyApplied Social Psychology asa ScienceThe Role of Personal ValuesHistorical Context of AppliedSocial PsychologyA Problem FocusSocial Influences on Behavior:The Power of the SituationLevels of AnalysisThe Need for a BroadApproachVarious Roles of AppliedSocial PsychologistsOverview of BookSummarySocial PsychologyThe purpose of this book is to introduce you to the field of applied socialpsychology. Before reviewing some of the contributions of the field invarious domains of life (e.g., education, health, sports), it is important todefine the field of applied social psychology, including placing it in the3

4PART IFOUNDATIONS OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYcontext of its parent field, social psychology. Webegin by considering a series of social interactions described to one of the chapter authors byfriends who live in a city in the U.S. Midwest.The interactions occurred in early fall of 2010.The events were similar to those that commonlyoccur in people’s lives—a first-time meeting oftwo couples, the development of friendshipbetween the couples, and a party hosted by oneof the couples—and as such they reflected (asmost any social interactions do) a great varietyof social psychological phenomena. These phenomena enable us to illustrate first the focus ofthe science of social psychology and then thefocus of applied social psychology, which wedefine as a branch of social psychology.A family moved in across the street from Kenand Kim (all names altered). They first mettheir new neighbors when the husband (Scott)came across the street with jumper cables tohelp Ken start his car. Ken thought that Scottseemed quite friendly. After the car wasstarted, Ken and Kim invited Scott and hiswife Jen in for coffee. The couples liked eachother right away, discovering they had manyinterests in common. Over the following weeksa strong friendship began to develop as theyspent more and more time together. The twomen took in a number of sports events, andKen interested Scott in taking up kayaking.The two women began to go to garage salesand flea markets. The couples agreed witheach other’s parenting practices and began towatch the other couple’s children on occasion.Kim suggested to Ken that they introducetheir new friends to some of their otherfriends. So they invited Scott and Jen andthree other couples to a pizza and game nightat their home. The evening began very well.There was lively conversation and lots oflaughter with Scott and Jen readily joining in.However, the pleasant atmosphere quicklyevaporated when the conversation turned tothe ongoing controversy over the proposal tobuild a mosque within a few blocks of the siteof the World Trade Center disaster. The discussion became increasingly loud and heatedas sharp differences of opinion emerged. Oneof the group, named Russ, forcefully advancedthe position that the location of the mosqueshould be moved farther away from the site ofthe disaster out of respect for the memory ofthe victims and sensitivity for their loved ones.As Russ argued his position, Ken began toworry because he knew that Russ had tempercontrol problems. Meanwhile, Scott stronglydisagreed with Russ, believing the mosqueshould be built as planned as a sign ofAmerica’s commitment to religious freedomand because it would give an internationalface to moderate and peaceful Islam. WhenScott raised the possibility that negative attitudes toward Arabs may underlie oppositionto the proposed location, Russ became enragedand yelled, “I don’t have negative attitudestoward Arabs; I just love my country,” andthen he pointed at Scott and called him “anun-American loser.” That triggered loudervoices and more accusations about prejudiceand racism. Ken and Kim’s friendly gettogether was clearly in danger of falling apart.Several people tried to settle down the peoplewho were arguing, but unfortunately no matter what they tried, nothing worked. Soon theparty ended with Russ and Scott refusing toshake hands and all guests leaving for home.Defining Social PsychologySo, what about the above series of interactionshelps to define the field of social psychology? Forone thing, the events were rich in social psychological phenomena. Drawing on the definitions inseveral social psychology textbooks (e.g., Myers,Spencer, & Jordon, 2009), social psychology maybe defined as the science that seeks to understandhow people think about, feel about, relate to, andinfluence one another. Given this definition, youshould be able to identify many examples ofsocial psychological subject matter in the interactions involving Ken, Kim, and their friends bylooking for instances of thinking about others,feeling about others, relating to others, and influencing others. Scott related to Ken by helping withhis car. Ken thought Scott seemed friendly. Kenand Kim invited (related to) Scott and Jen intotheir home. The couples liked each other (feelings), and they subsequently related to each otherby spending time together, including going tovarious events. Ken influenced Scott to take upkayaking. The couples agreed with (thoughts)each other’s parenting practices and helped(related to) each other by watching each other’schildren. Ken was influenced by Kim to have theparty. In the beginning the party went well withthe partygoers relating positively in lively conversation, but then things turned for the worse. . . .

Chapter 1 Defining the Field of Applied Social PsychologyWe want you to recognize that one can do asimilar analysis with virtually any kind of socialsituation. Those processes exemplified in theabove social interactions—thinking and feelingabout others, relating to and influencing them—are precisely the kinds of processes that comprise the subject matter of social psychology andthus are what social psychologists focus on intheir research. We also can see where the examples of social psychological processes in thoseinteractions can be related to broader areas ofsocial psychological concern and investigation,such as helping behavior (e.g., Scott helpingwith Ken’s car), friendship formation (e.g., relationship between the two couples), person perception (e.g., Ken’s view of Russ as having avolatile temper), and interpersonal conflict (e.g.,altercation among group members).Social Psychology as a ScienceSo, those are the kinds of phenomena thatsocial psychology—as a science—seeks to understand. Do not pass lightly over the phrase “as ascience” because the fact that social psychology isa science is fundamental to its meaning. Theessence of science involves (a) a set of researchmethods that in combination make up what isknown as the scientific method and (b) a foundation of core values.Scientific method and core values. The researchmethods (e.g., correlational, experimental) thatfall under the scientific method are those thatdepend on empirical tests, that is, the use ofsystematic observation to evaluate propositionsand ideas. An empirical test of an idea (e.g.,people are happier in sunny weather) entails aresearch study that is (a) set up in such a way asto allow for the idea to be either refuted or supported and (b) conducted so that what is donecan be readily evaluated and replicated by otherresearchers (Cozby, 2009).Undergirding and guiding research methods isa set of core values (Baron, Branscombe, & Byrne,2008; Heiman, 2002). The following are some ofthe most important values that are absolutelyessential for scientists to adhere to in their work: Accuracy: precise, error-free measurement andcollection of information (i.e., data) Objectivity: minimization of bias in datacollection and proposition testing5 Skepticism: refusing to believe findings andconclusions without rigorous verification Open-mindedness: readiness to accept as validevidence that may be inconsistent with one’sinitial, and perhaps strongly held, beliefs ortheories Ethics: acceptance of the absolute importanceof ethical behavior in conducting researchAdherence to the first four values is necessaryto ensure that findings of research validly reflectthe phenomenon under study. The fifth value, ethics, also pertains to the validity of findings (e.g.,researchers should not wittingly alter or misrepresent their results) but also encompasses the needto safeguard the dignity and well-being of researchparticipants.Scientific understanding. Thus, to seek an understanding of social psychological phenomena,social psychologists, as scientists, are guided bycertain core values and rely on research strategiesthat fall under the scientific method. But what ismeant by “understanding”? In science, includingsocial psychology, understanding involves theaccomplishment of four goals: description, prediction, determining causality, and explanation(Cozby, 2009). We define these goals and illustratethem by considering the possible influence thathaving a pet has on the adjustment of the elderly.The goal of description entails identifying andreporting the details and nature of a phenomenon, often distinguishing between the classes ortypes of the phenomenon and recording its frequency of occurrence. In the case of the adjustment of the elderly, a researcher might distinguishbetween emotional adjustment and social adjustment and then measure and record the incidenceof older persons in the community who fit thisclassification. The researcher could also find outwhether or not each elderly person has a pet, perhaps listing information about the kind andnumber of pets. Achieving accurate descriptionsof phenomena is one aspect of understanding.Understanding also entails prediction.The prediction form of understanding requiresknowing what factors are systematically related (i.e.,correlated) to the phenomenon of interest. In ourexample, if research showed that there is a relationship between adjustment and having a pet—thosewho have a pet tend to be better adjusted—wewould understand that adjustment in the elderlycan be predicted in general by the presence or

6PART IFOUNDATIONS OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYabsence of a pet. This relationship would representan important insight and lead us to consider thethird form of understanding: ascertaining whetheror not there is a causal relationship between having a pet and adjustment.Determining causality between two factorsmeans determining that changes in one factor produce (i.e., cause) changes in the other factor. Justbecause two factors are related does not necessarily mean that they are causally related. Forinstance, having a pet might have no effect whatsoever on the adjustment of the elderly eventhough a relationship may exist. A third factorcould be responsible for the existence of the relationship. For instance, physical health couldinfluence both how well-adjusted people feel andwhether they have a pet (because it is easier tocare for a pet if one is healthy). So, it is importantnot to be misled by a common tendency amongpeople to assume that if two things are correlated, a causal relationship necessarily exists.Identifying the cause(s) of phenomena is avery important component of understanding. Ifresearch were to establish that having a pet doesindeed lead to improvements in adjustment (i.e.,causes better adjustment), there could be clearcut practical implications in terms of providinghelp to the elderly. But pursuit of understandingdoes not end with the establishment of causation.Understanding also involves explanation, thefourth goal. Explanation pertains to establishingwhy a phenomenon or relationship occurs. Wemay understand that one factor causes anotherfactor without knowing exactly why the effectoccurs. If having a pet does lead to improvementsin the adjustment of the elderly (and this doesseem to be the case [Beck & Katcher, 1996]), whatis the explanation? Is it because having a petreduces loneliness, because it increases feelings ofsecurity, because it gives the elderly person achance to feel needed by nurturing a living thing,or because of some other factor?Social psychological understanding: The formationof intergroup attitudes. Let us further illustratesocial psychology’s approach to understandingsocial psychological phenomena by consideringthe formation of intergroup attitudes. An attitudemay be defined as “a person’s overall evaluation ofpersons (including oneself), objects, and issues”(Petty & Wegener, 1998, p. 323). Thus, an intergroup attitude refers to a person’s overall evaluation of members of a group to which the persondoes not belong. One major area of research inthe study of attitudes focuses on understandinghow attitudes are formed (i.e., how people cometo possess their attitudes). Let us focus specificallyon intergroup attitudes and consider a small portion of the research that sheds some light on hownegative intergroup attitudes develop in people.Note that this is essentially a question of causality.We expect that you are sensitive to the serioussocial and political consequences that can stemfrom the existence of negative attitudes (and relations) between various groups (e.g., ethnic, racial,religious, national) in the world. Recall the furorthat erupted at Ken and Kim’s party when oneperson simply implied that another person possessed negative attitudes toward Arabs.One approach that social psychologists havetaken in the study of the formation of intergroupattitudes is to examine the role of various agents ofsocialization. This research indicates that childrentend to take on the attitudes of important peoplearound them (e.g., parents, teachers, peers) andthat at least part of the explanation is that thesepeople influence the development of such attitudes through the basic principles of learning suchas instrumental conditioning, classical conditioning, and observation (e.g., Banaji & Heiphetz,2010; Oskamp, 1991). For instance, Castelli, DeDea, and Nesdale (2008) showed that when Whitepreschool-aged children observed a White adultnonverbally convey uneasiness toward a Blackperson, they subsequently expressed more negative attitudes toward Black targets.So, intergroup attitudes are learned partly fromothers. But as is the case with many social psychological phenomena, multiple factors must be recognized when exploring the determinants ofintergroup attitudes. Another influential factorthat is a salient part of people’s lives is the media(Banaji & Heiphetz, 2010). For instance, newsreports about terrorism have been linked toincreased prejudice toward Arabs (Das, Bushman,Bezemer, Kerkhof, & Vermeulen, 2009). It is especially noteworthy that social psychologists alsohave found that people’s attitudes toward othergroups may be influenced by the simple fact thatthey see themselves as members of a particulargroup. When people view themselves as belongingto one group (e.g., Americans), that group isreferred to as the in-group; nonmembers of thein-group (e.g., non-Americans) are called theout-group. Many investigations confirm the existence of a very robust phenomenon called

Chapter 1 Defining the Field of Applied Social Psychologyin-group/out-group bias, which means that ingroup members tend to evaluate and relate to thein-group favorably and to the out-group lessfavorably (or unfavorably). This might not seemparticularly surprising. What is remarkable, however, is that in-group/out-group bias is such abasic social psychological phenomenon that it canshow up even in a situation where there is just theslightest differentiation between the in-group andthe out-group. In many laboratory experiments,Tajfel and his colleagues (e.g., Tajfel & Billig, 1974)and others (e.g., Allen & Wilder, 1975) dividedparticipants—all strangers—into two groups onthe basis of trivial criteria (e.g., those who underestimate and those who overestimate the numberof dots on slides). Consistently across experiments, participants have assigned more favorablerewards and traits to in-group members than toout-group members (see also Paladino & Castelli,2008). Relatedly, Lyons, Kenworthy, and Popan(2010) recently provided evidence linking negativeattitudes and behaviors toward Arab immigrantsamong Americans to their degree of identificationwith their national in-group (i.e., being American).So, we know that simply being a member of agroup contributes to the development of negativeattitudes toward other groups. We also have aglimpse at some social psychological factors thatwere potentially relevant to whether or not Russ infact did harbor negative attitudes toward Arabs (asintimated by Scott) including the following: thelevels of ethnic tolerance, especially toward Arabs,of his significant other; his exposure to mediareports about threatening acts associated withArabs; and the strength of his national identity.As we consider social psychology’s approach tounderstanding the development of negative intergroup attitudes, let us recognize one more causalfactor—competition. Around 1950, Muzafer Sherifand his research team took the investigation ofintergroup relations into the field where they studied the role of competition between groups (Sherif,1966b; Sherif & Sherif, 1953, 1969). The researchers conducted an ingenious series of three-weekexperiments with 11- and 12-year-old boys at isolated camp settings. The investigations were conducted in weeklong phases. During phase 1—groupformation—the boys were divided into two groupsof approximately 10 each. Each group lived in aseparate cabin and, as arranged by the experimenters, engaged in a series of appealing activities that required cooperative interdependence(e.g., camping, building a rope bridge). Members7of each group soon developed a sense of “we-feeling” as their group developed a definite role structure (e.g., leaders, followers) and set of norms (e.g.,expectations about how things should be done).During phase 2—group conflict—the researchersinvestigated conditions that resulted in negative intergroup attitudes and behavior. They implemented aseries of competitions (e.g., tug-of-war, skits) inwhich only the victorious group of boys won aprize. By the end of the week, the relations betweenthe two groups had deteriorated to a very antagonistic situation involving strongly negative stereotypes (e.g., “sneaky,” “stinkers”) and behavior (e.g.,name-calling, food fights, damage to property).In all of the preceding examples of research onintergroup attitudes, we can see that the socialpsychologists focused on furthering the understanding of one or more of the following: howpeople think about, feel about, relate to, and influence each other. All of the research reviewed fitsunder social psychology’s umbrella. Now let uslook under applied social psychology’s umbrella.Applied Social PsychologySherif ’s (1966b) field research on intergroup relations involved a third phase. During this phase—reduction of conflict—the researchers developedand evaluated an intervention strategy to improvethe relations between the groups of boys. Thestrategy was designed in accordance with Sherif ’sunderstanding of the existing research literatureon the determinants of positive attitudes andrelations among groups that are divided alongracial, political, and industrial lines (Sherif &Sherif, 1953). The strategy was based on the ideathat groups in conflict would experience improvedrelations if they cooperate in the attainment ofsuperordinate goals, that is, goals that are highlyappealing to both groups but that can be attainedonly through their cooperative effort. During thisphase, the groups of boys were introduced to aseries of superordinate goals (e.g., pulling togetheron a rope to start a broken-down truck that hadbeen on its way to get food). Over the course ofseveral days, hostile interaction between thegroups declined considerably and friendshipsbegan to cross group boundaries. Since this earlywork of Sherif, the utility of superordinate goalsi

Defining Social Psychology. So, what about the above series of interactions helps to define the field of social psychology? For . one thing, the events were rich in social psycho-logical phenomena. Drawing on the definitions in several social psychology textbooks (e.g., Myers, Spencer, & Jordon, 2009), social psychology. may

Related Documents:

May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)

Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .

On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.

̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions

Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have

Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được

Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.

Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. 3 Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.