Social Psychology. Daniel W. Barrett

social psychology remained largely nonexperimental until the 1930s. It is unfortunate that the experimental gains initiated by Ringelmann and Triplett were not followed by controlled research in social psychology until decades later. Instead of empirical research, social psychologists like McDougall and Ross were primarily occupied by the “big questions” of human existence, such as the nature versus nurture controversy and whether social behavior was a product of an individual’s personality or of social pressures (Jackson, 1988).

      About a generation after those first texts, Floyd Allport (1924) published a textbook that helped to redefine social psychology, an event that has been called the beginning of experimental social psychology (Stroebe, 2012). Allport was very critical of existing conceptualizations of social psychology and sought to place the field on a firm scientific footing. He argued that many key concepts, such as the “group mind,” were pseudoscientific; they were vague notions that were resistant to truly scientific examination and missed the critical role of the individual (Collier, Minton, & Reynolds, 1991). According to Allport, the causes of social behavior can be uncovered not through the investigation of large-scale phenomena but rather via analysis of the psychology of the individual. Allport initiated a shift in focus from the group to the individual and from nonscientific to scientific investigations.

      A Creative Synthesis: The Mutual Influences of the Person and the Situation

      During its formative years in the early 20th century, social psychology was heavily influenced by B. F. Skinner’s behaviorism—which focused solely on external causes—and Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis—which emphasized internal factors. These two perspectives on the causes of social behavior were seemingly incompatible. Resolution of this disagreement between advocates of the externalist versus internalist positions was achieved by Kurt Lewin, a Jewish émigré who fled Germany to escape persecution by the Nazis. Lewin theorized that human behavior was a product of both the person and the situation. That is, human social behavior can only be understood when both characteristics of the person and features of the environment are considered. For instance, understanding why a young mother yelled at her son at the local grocery store requires knowledge of her internal states (thoughts, emotions, personality traits, etc.) and of the context (what the child had done, the number and nature of bystanders, etc.).

      Lewin (1946) called his formulation “field theory” in order to signify the need to examine the person in the context. Let’s take a person walking through a crowd as an example. Any explanation of the path she takes is incomplete unless we consider how assertively she walks, her goals in passing through, and so forth, as well as aspects of the crowd, such as its density, whether or not people are moving, and so forth (see Figure 1.2). Lewin (1946) offered a simple yet elegant representation of this formulation: B = F(P,E). Behavior (B), Lewin argued, was a function (F) or product of both the person (P) and the environment (E).

      Will Joanna walk around the crowd, through the crowd, or to her friends en route to her destination? This figure illustrates Lewin’s formulation of behavior as the product of the person and the environment (B = F(P,E)). Joanna’s behavior (B) depends on person (P) and environment (E) factors such as (a) her internal traits (e.g., assertive and willing to push through the crowd, conscientious about getting to her job on time, etc.), (b) who she encounters (how many people, density, etc.), (c) how important her friends are; and (d) what her goals are (going to work or the art museum).

      During the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, social psychology was strongly influenced by the atrocities of World War II and other historical events and, especially in the United States, developed an increasingly experimental focus as it examined their psychological underpinning (Moscovici & Markova, 2006). For instance, the unimaginable horror of the Holocaust led Stanley Milgram (1963) to investigate why people obey authority, even when ordered to harm innocent victims. In Chapter 6 we will examine Stanley Milgram’s research on obedience, along with other forms of social influence.

      One major theoretical advance that occurred during these years was prompted by Leon Festinger’s desire to understand why people sometimes say one thing but do the opposite and/or simultaneously hold two attitudes that conflict with one another. Festinger (1957) created the theory of cognitive dissonance to help explain these inconsistencies, arguing that the existence of these inconsistencies sometimes produces discomfort or dissonance in people. Festinger postulated that, in general, people will strive to overcome this dissonance by changing an attitude, belief, or behavior accordingly and thereby removing the inconsistency. Festinger’s theory was enormously influential and will be discussed in much greater detail in Chapter 7 on persuasion.

      Figure 1.2 Lewin’s Field Theory

      Further Developments: The Multiple Causes of Social Behavior

      Although the basic groundwork for social psychological science was laid out by these earlier thinkers, social psychology matured throughout the remainder of the 20th century. During those years—and continuing into the 21st century—social psychologists have expanded our theory and research to incorporate additional influences on social behavior. When you think about why people do what they do, what kinds of explanations come to mind? Consider the reasons we are romantically attracted to particular others of the same or opposite sex. Is romantic attraction based in our genes? Personality? Family background? Cultural and media influences? If you were asked to choose one of these explanations, which would it be?

      I suspect that you found it hard to select just one. Social psychologists are with you, and one of social psychology’s most appealing and important features is that it considers multiple explanations for any given behavior. Social phenomena are not so simple that they can be fully explained by any single factor, and consequently, social psychology has incorporated a number of approaches to understanding them.

      In fact, several of the most important developments in social psychology since the middle of last century reflect these different approaches to explaining social behavior. These different perspectives or levels of analysis complement each other, allowing us to develop a more holistic understanding of social phenomena (Bruner, 1990; De Houwer & Moors, 2015). These three levels of explanation vary in scope and method and are the (see Figure 1.3)

       evolutionary level, which emphasizes the genetic history of the human race;

       contextual level, which looks at group pressures, societal influences, and cultural background;

       individual level, which asks about a person’s own learning history, experiences, and cognitive processes.

      Evolutionary Factors

      The early American social psychologist McDougall, influenced by Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, placed natural instincts at the forefront of his explanations for social behavior. McDougall’s instinct-based approach quickly fell out of favor as a primary cause of human behavior and was replaced with a more externally focused, behaviorist perspective (Jackson, 1988). As a result, for several decades little attention was devoted to evolutionary or biological influences on social behavior. However, since the 1990s social psychologists have come a long way toward remedying this oversight, and today the study of biological influences on social psychological processes has been integrated into the mainstream of our science (Duntley & Buss, 2008; Kenrick & Cohen, 2012).

      Figure 1.3 Different Levels of Explanation for Social Behavior

      Social psychologists have recognized how traits handed down to us by our ancestors continue to influence social functioning. This evolutionary perspective derives from Darwin’s theory of natural selection, which, in a nutshell, states that genes that tend to increase the chances of survival of their carrier are