Introduction to Social

Psychology (Psyc. 2071)

 Unit One: The Basics of Social Psychology
Human life, in fact, is connected by thousands of invisible threads. The places that people live,
the situations they meet are all continuously and consistently shape them as well as get shaped by
them. The situations an individual meet creates a good number of possibilities for him to behave.
Social psychology is a specific branch in psychology that scientifically tries to understand how
people influence as well as gets influenced by on other. It is a systematic body of knowledge
focusing on the social thinking, social influence and social relations. A fundamental theme of
social psychology is to discover how a social situation leads very different people to act very
similarly. As well as how very similar people act very differently. Social Psychology is a
scientific discipline. It is deeply committed to understand the nature of social behavior and social
thought. For this reason it makes sense to describe the filed as a scientific in orientation. Such
rich field has a systematic development over the periods of history. And as the field progressed
the focusing of its area also get changed. All these processes are presented in this lesson.

1.1. Definition of Social Psychology

The study of Social psychology is found to have been carried out from the very beginning of the
scientific study of psychology was born. The history of the subject matter of social psychology
seems to be continuously undergoing change adapting to the changing needs of the society. The
present day science and technology, specifically, the information arena is getting new shapes and
heights, which in turn, brings enormous change in the behavior patterns of every individual.
Hence, coming out with a formal definition of social psychology is really a complex task. Every
person gets chance to play various types of activities. Due to this everyone has to mix with or has
to live among the midst of different types of people. In this context, so many physical, social and
environmental factors necessarily influence human behavior. Reflecting on the above facts,
social psychology can be comprehensively defined as, a discipline that uses scientific methods in
―an attempt to understand and explain how the thought, feeling and behaviour of individuals are
influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others‖ (Gordon Allport, 1985, p. 3).
Social psychology is the scientific study of how individuals think. feel, and behave toward
other people and how individual‘s thoughts, feelings, & behaviors are affected by other people
(Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2002, p. 5).

In the above two definitions of social psychology have been described, the first of these has been
quoted in majority of the textbooks on social psychology.

Main Elements of Definitions

Thoughts, Feelings, and Behaviors of individual influence of other people How these influences
will be studied? It will be done by the use of Scientific Method.
The definitions suggest a cause and effect equation – people influencing individual‘s thoughts,
feelings and behaviour.

How Others’ Presence Affect an individual?

The definition of social psychology suggests that it is the scientific study of how individual‘s
thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of
other people. To better understand this definition, let‘s take a few examples.
Actual Presence of people affecting the individual:

First take an example, how might the actual presence of others influence one‘s thoughts, feelings
and behaviour. Response of cricket players may become different when fans of some opposing
team shout and make loud noises to divert attention of the players. Similarly, your behaviour will
be changed if you notice that someone is watching you.

Imagined Presence of people affecting the individual:

Regarding how the imagined presence of others might influence thoughts, feelings, and
behaviour, think about past incidents when you were considering doing something that ran
counter to your parents‘ wishes. Although they may not have been actually present, did their
imagined presence influence your behaviour? For example, if your parents have prohibited you
from smoking, and you start smoking in a party on peer pressure, does their imagined presence
affect your behaviour? Imagined presence in certain cases can be quite strong, as indicated by
Shaw (2003), ―Imagined figures can guide our actions by shaping our interpretation of events
just as surely as do those who are physically present‖. In a few conditions, imagined presence
can also help us fight negative emotions. For example, McGowan (2002) pointed out that in
anxiety imagined presence of others can serve as emotional security blanket. Similarly, daughter
of one renowned social psychologist confided to her father that she wants to be as brave as two
young wizards, Harmione& Harry in Harry Potter books.

Implied Presence of people affecting the individual:

Finally, how the implied presence of others influence an individual? If you have an experience
of driving on the motorway, you would have noticed that signs of specific speed limit make you
conscious. Similarly, in shopping stores sometime posters indicate that ―You are being
watched‖... All of this makes you self-ware and brings a change in your behaviour.

1.2. Brief Historical Development of Social Psychology

The science of social psychology began when scientists first started to systematically and
formally measure the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of human beings (Kruglanski&Stroebe,
2011). The earliest social psychology experiments on group behavior were conducted before
1900 (Triplett, 1898), and the first social psychology textbooks were published in 1908
(McDougall, 1908/2003; Ross, 1908/1974). During the 1940s and 1950s, the social
psychologists Kurt Lewin and Leon Festing errefined the experimental approach to studying
behavior, creating social psychology as a rigorous scientific discipline. Lewin is sometimes
known as ―the father of social psychology‖ because he initially developed many of the important
ideas of the discipline, including a focus on the dynamic interactions among people. In 1954,
Festinger edited an influential book called Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences, in
which he and other social psychologists stressed the need to measure variables and to use
laboratory experiments to systematically test research hypotheses about social behavior. He also
noted that it might be necessary in these experiments to deceive the participants about the true
nature of the research. Social psychology was energized by researchers who attempted to
understand how the German dictator Adolf Hitler could have produced such extreme obedience
and horrendous behaviors in his follower suring the Second World War. The studies on
conformity conducted by MuzafirSherif (1936) and Solomon Asch (1952), as well as those on
obedience by Stanley Milgram (1974), showed the importance of conformity pressures in social
groups and how people in authority could create obedience, even to the extent of leading people
to cause severe harm to others. Philip Zimbardo, in his well-known ―prison experiment‖ (Haney,
Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973), found that ordinary male college students who were recruited to play
the roles of guards and prisoners in a simulated prison became so involved in their assignments,
and their interaction became so violent, that the study had to be terminated early. The Stanford
prison experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo in the 1960s demonstrated the powerful role of
the social situation on human behavior.
Social psychology quickly expanded to study other topics. John Darley and Bibb Latané(1968)
developed a model that helped explain when people do and do not help others in need, and
Leonard Berkowitz (1974)pioneered the study of human aggression. Meanwhile, other social
psychologists, including Irving Janis (1972), focused on group behavior, studying why intelligent
people sometimes made decisions that led to disastrous results when they worked together. Still
other social psychologists, including Gordon All port and MuzafirSherif, focused on intergroup
relations, with the goal of understanding and potentially reducing the occurrence of stereotyping,
prejudice, and discrimination.
Social psychologists gave their opinions in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme
Court case that helped end racial segregation in U.S. public schools, and social psychologists still
frequently serve as expert witnesses on these and other topics (Fiske, Bersoff, Borgida, Deaux,
&Heilman, 1991).
The latter part of the 20th century saw an expansion of social psychology into the field of
attitudes, with a particular emphasis on cognitive processes. During this time, social
psychologists developed the first formal models of persuasion, with the goal of understanding
how advertisers and other people could present their messages to make them most effective
(Eagly&Chaiken, 1993; Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1963). These approaches to attitudes focused
on the cognitive processes that people use when evaluating messages and on the relationship
between attitudes and behavior. Leon Festinger‘s(1957) important cognitive dissonance theory
was developed during this time and became a model for later research.
In the 1970s and 1980s, social psychology became even more cognitive in orientation as social
psychologists used advances in cognitive psychology, which were themselves based largely on
advances in computer technology, to inform the field (Fiske & Taylor, 2008). The focus of these
researchers, including Alice Eagly, Susan Fiske, E. Tory Higgins, Richard Nisbett, Lee Ross,
Shelley Taylor, and many others, was on social cognition—an understanding of how our
knowledge about our social worlds develops through experience and the influence of these
knowledge structures on memory, information processing, attitudes, and judgment. Furthermore,
the extent to which humans‘ decision making could be flawed by both cognitive and
motivational processes was documented (Kahneman, Slovic, &Tversky, 1982).
In the 21st century, the field of social psychology has been expanding into still other areas.
Examples that we will consider in this book include an interest in how social situations influence
our health and happiness, the important roles of evolutionary experiences and cultures on our
behavior, and the field of social neuroscience—the study of how our social behavior both
influences and is influenced by the activities of our brain (Lieberman, 2010). Social
psychologists continue to seek new ways to measure and understand social behavior, and the
field continues to evolve. I cannot predict where social psychology will be directed in the future,
but I have no doubt that it will still be alive and vibrant.
1.3. Social Psychology’s Relation to Other Fields of Inquiry
Social psychology is the scientific study of how people think, influence, and relate to one
another. It is a comparatively young discipline. The broad theme of this course will be how
individuals‘ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by other people -- the SOCIAL
influences. Social Psychology is a surprisingly broad field that overlaps with other sub-
disciplines of psychology like personality and cognition, and various other human disciplines
like anthropology, sociology, and communication.
Whether within or outside of psychology, different fields rely on different levels of explanation
(see Table 1.1). Different levels of explanation tell us different things about people‘s behavior.
Table 1.1 lists several fields of inquiry ranging from those with a more collective focus (a larger
group or groups) to the more individual (solitary person or process) level of analysis. By moving
downward in Table 1.1, the focus becomes narrower and the phenomena of interest become
more internal and distinct to individuals. Moving upward in the table, the research emphasis
becomes broader and more inclusive, increasingly involving

Table 1.1 Explaining Behavior: Selected Fields and Their Levels of Scientific Explanation
Field of inquiry Level of explanation for behavior
More collective focus
Anthropology Cultural features and differences of past and present
Sociology Societal social structures and customs of groups
Social psychology Individual affect, cognition, behavior influencing
interactions with other people, groups
Personality Personal psychological processes, individual differences
between people
Developmental psychology Ages, stages, and life span issues in individuals and
groups
Cognitive psychology Individual mental structures, cognitive processes
Neuroscience Individual electrochemical processes
More individual focus
both individuals and their relations to groups, as well as within- and between-group processes.
Social psychologists are generally interested in the experience of people as individuals, not ably
how real or imagined others influence them in terms of affect (emotions, feelings), cognition
(thoughts, beliefs), and behavior (actions, intentions). After learning about LaPiere‘s work, for
example, most people are curious to know about the nature of the interactions between the
travelers and the people they met. What, for example, were the innkeepers and waiters thinking
and feeling when they served the travelers? Similarly, we would like to know the thoughts and
feelings of the respondents who later indicated on paper that Chinese guests were unwelcome.
By comparison, psychologists interested in the emerging areas of neuroscience would want to
examine the electrochemical activity in the brain during social encounters with minority group
members or when thinking about minority groups (see the bottom of Table 1.1). Neuroscientists
study neurochemical processes and how these processes affect the cognitive and behavioral
responses of individuals. In contrast, a cognitive psychologist would be curious about a slightly
higher level of analysis than a neuroscientist. What is the nature of the mental structures, for
example, that leads someone to categorize a person as a member of a minority rather than a
majority group? Developmental psychologists, in turn, examine social, cognitive, and emotional
changes that occur at different ages and stages of development (see Table 1.1).
Sociologists are often interested in some of the same issues that attract the attention of social
psychologists. Yet sociologists would be likely to take a different, more collective approach, one
involving a search for the general laws of behavior that are based on the nature of social
structures and groups. In the context of LaPiere‘s research, instead of focusing on the experience
of individual service providers, a sociologist would be interested in the nature of relations
between different racial or ethnic groups, the effects of socioeconomic class, and possibly in the
ways that owner-managers as a group held different beliefs than hired workers (see Table 1.1).
Thus sociology‘s level of analysis is more societal, aimed at the effect of social institutions and
customs on groups of people rather than individuals (see, e.g., Burke, 2006). Finally, an
anthropologist would want to examine the origins and the physical, cultural, and social
development of groups of people. In our current example, an anthropologist could examine how
perceived differences between racial groups originated and influenced social interaction across
time.
Not all academic fields relevant to social psychology are represented in Table 1.1,of course.
Instead, my purpose here is to identify social psychology‘s unique place asa bridge between
individual and collective levels of explanation. Thus social psychological research examines
individual processes that people have in common with others, and how those processes regulate a
person‘s interactions with other people, including groups.

1.4. Theories of Social Psychology

Social psychologists are primarily, interested in understanding the many factors and conditions
that shape the social behavior and thought of individuals. Mainly, how individuals form ideas
relating to the actions, feelings, beliefs, memories and inferences concerning other persons. A
huge number of different factors play a role in this regard.
The factors affecting social interaction fall into five major categories. They are, the actions and
characteristics of others, basic cognitive processes, ecological variables, cultural context and
biological factors.
1.4.1 The Actions and Characteristics of Others
One person‘s behavior and their characteristics expressed in the behavior directly influence other
person‘s feeling and action. For example, suppose you are standing on the railway reservation
line. If a stranger goes to the counter straightly without standing on the line, it will defiantly
create different types of feelings and as well action from thepeople who are already waiting in
the line. It is clear that the actions of others affect everyone. The behaviors of other persons often
exert powerful effects on the behaviors and social thoughts of every individual. For example,
When many people are attending aconcert in a theatre when a person seated nearby receives a
call on his cell mobile phone and begins a loud conversation about very private topics what
happens to the people around him? The next idea in this line is that, the behavior of a person
often affected by others appearance. For example, People normally feel uneasy in the presence of
a person with a physical disability. People differently behave towards highly attractive person
than toward less attractive person.
1.4.2 The Cognitive Processes
The Cognitive processes such as perception, memory and inferences play a key role on the
understanding and behavior of every individual in the society. Reactions to a certain situation by
an individual strongly depend on the memories of others past behaviors and the inferences an
individual formed about these behaviors. If anybody wants to clearly understand the causes of
others behavior in a social situation it is a must that one should understand what went on in the
thinking pattern and understanding process of those people when they behaved in a particular
social situation. For example, if your friend fixes an appointment with you in a particular time.
You are waiting for him at a particular point in a particular time, if he comes late what would be
your reaction. In such situations, cognitive process plays a crucial role in the social behavior and
social thoughts of every individual. A study of how people perceive, think bout and remember
information about others are really have a contributing effect of human social behavior.
Social cognition is a growing area of social psychology.
1.4.3. The Environmental Factors
The weather and the climate a person experiences has a say in his/her behavior. The findings of
research indicate the physical environment necessarily influences the feelings,thoughts and
behavior of everyone. The climatically conditions make a person eitherhappy or sad. For
example, if there is a continuous rain for a few days most of thepeople‘s day to day life gets
disturbed. Another example is that people become moreirritable and aggressive when the
weather is hot and steamy than when it is cool andcomfortable. The environmental factors create
different types of impact on the perceptualexperiences of individuals. The cognitive, affective,
interpretive, and evaluative responses of individuals change drastically. Further, if a person is
exposes to a particular environment for a long time he or she will adapt to that environment and
will feelhabituated for that condition. The environmental stimulations facilitate physical and
psychological arousals. The increased arousals will either improves or impairs
individualperformances. Hence, role of environment on the social behavior of individual
hasbecome one of the very important factors of study in social psychology.
1.4.4. The Cultural Context
People live in different cultural settings. Each culture comes out with its own rules andnorms to
be systematically followed in different facets of human life cycle. The practicesfollowed in one
culture will be different than the other cultures. If a person is hailingfrom a particular culture
he/she has to adapt appropriately the behavior patterns acceptedby his/her culture. In all these
process an individual is continuously influenced by theculture from which he/she is hailing.
Social behavior and social thoughts are oftenstrongly affected by the cultural norms and factors.
For example, there are culturalspecific behavior patterns exist for the birth of a newborn, the age
attainment ceremony,the marriage ceremony, and finally, the funeral ceremony. These are some
of the specificcultural behaviors expressed by every culture. The cultural ideas also get changed
by thepassage of times. For example, previously love marriages were viewed in negative terms
as drastic action but now the cultural beliefs and values about it have changed greatly.But,
whatever the changes takes place in a culture, person living in anyone of the cultures
is expected to follow the practices of that culture.
1.4.5 The Biological/Evolutionary Factors
This is a new branch of social psychology that seeks to investigate the potential role ofgenetic
factors in various aspects of human behavior. It is also called as genetic factors.
According to this view as any other species human beings also have a process ofbiological,
evolution throughout history. This evolutionary process takes three basiccomponents. They are
of the view that man is getting emancipated as the generationprocessed by. Every time man is
getting a new height in all his endeavors. This has leadto the possible difference in body shapes
and structures, the improved inheritance equalities and better selection of passing the genetic
variation to the coming generations.
Since the individuals evolutionarily differ on their biological structures their social interactions
will also gets varied in nature. The biological inheritance usually affect ones preferences,
behaviors, emotions and attitudes. For example, hair color, skin color body structure gets
changed from person to person in a long run.
1.5. Social Psychology in the new Millennium
As the Social Psychology tries to understand the individual‘s thoughts and behaviors in social
settings, the subject matter of Social Psychology goes on changing as the yearspasses by. Due to
the tremendous changes happening in the fields, the present day humanbeings are well advanced
in every sphere. The speedy growth found in every areas ofhuman life, the present day subject
matter of the social psychology found to incorporatethe latest developments into its subject
matter. This has led to the changing andformulating of new perspectives in the study of social
psychology. Mainly, cognitive perspective, application perspective, multicultural perspectives
and evolutionary perspectives have become the focus of research on social psychology.
1.5.1.Cognitive Perspective
Social psychology is the field that studies both social behavior and social thought. The definition
reflects the fact that both social psychologist have always been interested in how individuals
think about other person and about social situations. The cognitive side of social psychology has
grown dramatically in importance. Most social psychologist belief that how people act in various
situations are strongly decided by their thoughts.
The cognitive perspective and recollected in social psychological research in many ways, but two
are most important. First, social psychologists have attended to apply basic knowledge about
memory, reasoning and decision making to various aspects of social thought and behavior.
For instance, within this context, researchers have sought to determine whether prejudicestems,
at least in the part from our tending to remember only information consistent withstereotypes of
various groups, or tendencies to process information about one‘s ownsocial group differently
from interaction about other social groups; secondly there hasbeen growing interest in the
question of how one process social information.

1.5.2.Multicultural Perspective
As recognition of the importance of cultural, ethnic and gender differences has grown,the field of
Social Psychology has a adopted an increasingly multicultural perspective, anapproach that pays
careful attention to the rate of culture and human diversity as factorsthat influences social
behavior and social thought.
1.5.3.Evolutionary Perspective
An important trend in the modern social psychology is the increasing influence of abiological or
evolutionary perspective (Buss,1999). Evidence suggests that biological andgenetic factors play
a role in many forms of social behavior. Mueller and Mazur (1996)predicted that men who
looked dominant would attain higher military rank in theircareers than would men who would
did not look dominant. In general, studies conductedfrom the evolutionary perspective suggest
that biological and genetic factors play somerole in many aspects of social behavior.

1.6. Research Methods in SocialPsychology

Social psychologists are not the only people interested in understanding and predicting social
behavior orthe only people who study it. Social behavior is also considered by religious leaders,
philosophers,politicians, novelists, and others, and it is a common topic on TV shows. But the
social psychologicalapproach to understanding social behavior goes beyond the mere observation
of human actions. Socialpsychologists believe that a true understanding of the causes of social
behavior can only be obtainedthrough a systematic scientific approach, and that is why they
conduct scientific research. Socialpsychologists believe that the study of social behavior should
beempirical—that is, based on the collectionand systematic analysis of observable data.
There are three major approaches to conducting research that are used by social psychologists—
the observational approach, the correlational approach, and the experimental approach. Each
approach has some advantages and disadvantages.

Observational Research
The most basic research design, observational research, is research that involves making
observations of behavior and recording those observations in an objective manner. Although it
is possible in some casesto use observational data to draw conclusions about the relationships
between variables (e.g., bycomparing the behaviors of older versus younger children on a
playground), in many cases theobservational approach is used only to get a picture of what is
happening to a given set of people at a giventime and how they are responding to the social
situation. In these cases, the observational approachinvolves creating a type of ―snapshot‖ of the
current state of affairs.
One advantage of observational research is that in many cases it is the only possible approach to
collecting data about the topic of interest. A researcher who is interested in studying the impact
of a hurricane on the residents of New Orleans, the reactions of New Yorkers to a terrorist attack,
or the activities of themembers of a religious cult cannot create such situations in a laboratory but
must be ready to make observations in a systematic way when such events occur on their own.
Thus observational research allows the study of unique situations that could not be created by the
researcher. Another advantage of observational research is that the people whose behavior is
being measured are doing the things they do every day, and in some cases they may not even
know that their behavior is being recorded.
One early observational study that made an important contribution to understanding human
behavior was reported in a book by Leon Festinger and his colleagues (Festinger, Riecken,
&Schachter,1956). The book, called When Prophecy Fails, reported an observational study of
the members of a―doomsday‖ cult. The cult members believed that they had received
information, supposedly sent through ―automatic writing‖ from a planet called ―Clarion,‖ that the
world was going to end. More specifically, the group members were convinced that the earth
would be destroyed, as the result of a gigantic flood, sometime before dawn on December 21,
1954.
When Festinger learned about the cult, he thought that it would be an interesting way to study
how individuals in groups communicate with each other to reinforce their extreme beliefs. He
and his colleagues observed the members of the cult over a period of several months, beginning
in July of the year in which the flood was expected. The researchers collected a variety of
behavioral and self-report measures by observing the cult, recording the conversations among the
group members, and conducting detailed interviews with them. Festinger and his colleagues also
recorded the reactions of the cult members, beginning on December 21, when the world did not
end as they had predicted. This observational research provided a wealth of information about
the indoctrination patterns of cult members and their reactions to disconfirmed predictions. This
research also helped Festinger develop his important theory of cognitive dissonance.
Despite their advantages, observational research designs also have some limitations. Most
important, because the data that are collected in observational studies are only a description of
the events that are occurring, they do not tell us anything about the relationship between different
variables. However, it is exactly this question that correlational research and experimental
research are designed to answer.
Correlational Research
The goal of correlational research is to search for and test hypotheses about the relationships
between two or more variables. In the simplest case, the correlation is between only two
variables, such as that between similarity and liking, or between gender (male versus female) and
helping.
In a correlational design, the research hypothesis is that there is an association (i.e., a correlation)
between the variables that are being measured. For instance, many researchers have tested the
research hypothesis that a positive correlation exists between the use of violent video games and
the incidence of aggressive behavior, such that people who play violent video games more
frequently would also display more aggressive behavior.
A statistic known as the Pearson correlation coefficient (symbolized by the letter r) is normally
used to summarize the association, or correlation, between two variables. The correlation
coefficient can range from −1 (indicating a very strong negative relationship between the
variables) to +1 (indicating a very strong positive relationship between the variables). Research
has found that there is a positive correlation between the use of violent video games and the
incidence of aggressive behavior and that the size of the correlation is about r = .30 (Bushman
&Huesmann, 2010).
One advantage of correlational research designs is that, like observational research (and in
comparison with experimental research designs in which the researcher frequently creates
relatively artificial situations in a laboratory setting), they are often used to study people doing
the things that they do every day. And correlational research designs also have the advantage of
allowing prediction. When two or more variables are correlated, we can use our knowledge of a
person‘s score on one of the variables to predict his or her likely score on another variable.
Because high-school grade point averages are correlated with college grade point averages, if we
know a person‘s high-school grade point average, we can predict his orher likely college grade
point average. Similarly, if we know how many violent video games a child plays,we can predict
how aggressively he or she will behave. These predictions will not be perfect, but they willallow
us to make a better guess than we would have been able to if we had not known the person‘s
score on the first variable ahead of time.
Despite their advantages, correlational designs have a very important limitation. This limitation
is that they cannot be used to draw conclusions about the causal relationships among the
variables that have been measured. An observed correlation between two variables does not
necessarily indicate that either one of the variables caused the other. Although many studies have
found a correlation between the number of violent video games that people play and the amount
of aggressive behaviors they engage in, this does not mean that viewing the video games
necessarily caused the aggression. Although one possibility is that playing violent games
increases aggression, another possibility is that the causal direction is exactly opposite to what
has been hypothesized. Perhaps increased aggressiveness causes more interest in, and thus
increased viewing of, violent games. Although this causal relationship might not seem as logical
to you, there is no way to rule out the possibility of such reverse causationon the basis of the
observed correlation.
Experimental Research
The goal of much research in social psychology is to understand the causal relationships among
variables,and for this we use experiments. Experimental research designs are research designs
that include the manipulation of a given situation or experience for two or more groups of
individuals who are initially created to be equivalent, followed by a measurement of the effect of
that experience.
In an experimental research design, the variables of interest are called the independent variables
and the dependent variables. The independent variable refers to the situation that is created by
the experimenterthrough the experimental manipulations, and the dependent variable refers to
the variable that ismeasured after the manipulations have occurred. In an experimental research
design, the research hypothesis is that the manipulated independent variable (or variables) causes
changes in the measured dependent variable (or variables). We can diagram the prediction like
this, using an arrow that points in one direction to demonstrate the expected direction of
causality: viewing violence (independent variable) → aggressive behavior (dependent variable)
Consider an experiment conducted by Anderson and Dill (2000), which was designed to directly
test the hypothesis that viewing violent video games would cause increased aggressive behavior.
In this research, male and female undergraduates from Iowa State University were given a
chance to play either a violent video game (Wolfenstein 3D) or a nonviolent video game (Myst).
During the experimental session, the participants played the video game that they had been given
for 15 minutes. Then, after the play, they participated in a competitive task with another student
in which they had a chance to deliver blasts of white noise through the earphones of their
opponent. The operational definition of the dependent variable (aggressive behavior) was the
level and duration of noise delivered to the opponent. The design and the results of the
experiment are shown in Figure 1.1 "An Experimental Research Design (After Anderson &Dill,
2000)".

Figure 1.1An Experimental Research Design (After Anderson & Dill, 2000)

Two advantages of the experimental research design are (a) an assurance that the independent
variable (also known as the experimental manipulation) occurs prior to the measured dependent
variable and (b) the creation of initial equivalence between the conditions of the experiment (in
thiscase, by using random assignment to conditions).
Experimental designs have two very nice features. For one, they guarantee that the independent
variable occurs prior to measuring the dependent variable. This eliminates the possibility of
reverse causation.
Second, the experimental manipulation allows ruling out the possibility of common-causal
variables that cause both the independent variable and the dependent variable. In experimental
designs, the influence of common-causal variables is controlled, and thus eliminated, by creating
equivalence among the participants in each of the experimental conditions before the
manipulation occurs.
The most common method of creating equivalence among the experimental conditions is through
random assignment to conditions, which involves determining separately for each participant
which condition heor she will experience through a random process, such as drawing numbers
out of an envelope or using a website such as http://randomizer.org. Anderson and Dill first
randomly assigned about 100 participants to each of their two groups. Let‘s call them Group A
and Group B. Because they used random assignment to conditions, they could be confident that
before the experimental manipulation occurred, the studentsin Group A were, on average,
equivalent to the students in Group B on every possible variable, including
variables that are likely to be related to aggression, such as family, peers, hormone levels, and
diet—and,in fact, everything else Then, after they had created initial equivalence, Anderson and
Dill created the experimentalmanipulation—they had the participants in Group A play the violent
video game and the participants inGroup B the nonviolent video game. Then they compared the
dependent variable (the white noise blasts)between the two groups and found that the students
who had viewed the violent video game gavesignificantly longer noise blasts than did the
students who had played the nonviolent game. Because theyhad created initial equivalence
between the groups, when the researchers observed differences in theduration of white noise
blasts between the two groups after the experimental manipulation, they coulddraw the
conclusion that it was the independent variable (and not some other variable) that caused
thesedifferences. The idea is that the only thing that was different between the students in the two
groups waswhich video game they had played.When we create a situation in which the groups of
participants are expected to be equivalent before theexperiment begins, when we manipulate the
independent variable before we measure the dependentvariable, and when we change only the
nature of independent variables between the conditions, then wecan be confident that it is the
independent variable that caused the differences in the dependent variable.
Such experiments are said to have high internal validity, where internal validityrefers to the
confidencewith which we can draw conclusions about the causal relationship between the
variables.Despite the advantage of determining causation, experimental research designs do have
limitations. Oneis that the experiments are usually conducted in laboratory situations rather than
in the everyday lives ofpeople. Therefore, we do not know whether results that we find in a
laboratory setting will necessarilyhold up in everyday life. To counter this, in some cases
experiments are conducted in everyday settings—for instance, in schools or other organizations.
Such field experiments are difficult to conduct becausethey require a means of creating random
assignment to conditions, and this is frequently not possible innatural settings.
A second and perhaps more important limitation of experimental research designs is that some of
themost interesting and important social variables cannot be experimentally manipulated. If we
want tostudy the influence of the size of a mob on the destructiveness of its behavior, or to
compare thepersonality characteristics of people who join suicide cults with those of people who
do not join suicidecults, these relationships must be assessed using correlational designs because
it is simply not possible tomanipulate mob size or cult membership.

Ethical Issues
Ethical issues must always be considered when research is conducted. In social psychology, the
use of deception can be of particular ethical concern. Through institutional review boards,
informed consent, and debriefing, social psychologists try to ensure the welfare of their research
participants.

Unit Two
Understanding the Causes of Others Behavior
2.1 Impression Management/Self Presentation

Self-presentation or impression management: the tendency to present apositive self-image to

others, with the goal of increasing our social status,
Ways of self presentation:
a. To display our positive physical characteristics (spend money on teeth whiteners, hair
dye, face-lifts, and fashion accessories of every sort )
b. By collecting expensive possessions such as fancy cars and big houses and by trying to
associate with high-status others.
c. By attempting to dominate or intimidate others in social interaction. People who talk
more and louder and those who initiate more social interactions are afforded higher
status. A businessman who greets others with a strong handshake and a smile and people
who speak out strongly for their opinions in group discussions may be attempting to do
so as well.
d. In some cases, people may even resort to aggressive behavior, such as bullying, in
attempts to improve their status
Self-presentation strategies
-used to create different emotions in other people
Edward Jones and Thane Pittman (1982) described five self-presentation strategies, each ofwhich
is expected to create a resulting emotion in the other person.

1. The goal of ingratiation is to create liking by using flattery or charm.

2. The goal of intimidation is to create fear by showing that you can be aggressive.
3. The goal of exemplificationis to create guilt by showing that you are a better personthan the
other.
4. The goal of supplication is to create pity by indicating to others that you are helplessand
needy.
5. The goal of self-promotionis to create respect by persuading others that you arecompetent.
Self-Monitoring and Self-Presentation
Although the desire to present the self favorably is a natural part of everyday life, both person
and situation factors influence the extent to which we do it.
For one, we are more likely to self-present in some situations than in others. For example,
when we are applying for a job or meeting with others whom we need to impress, we naturally
become more attuned to the social aspects of the self, and our self-presentation increases.

And there are also individual differences. Some people are naturally better at self-presentation—
they enjoy doing it and are good at it—whereas others find self-presentation less desirable or
more difficult.
An important individual-difference variable known as self-monitoring has been shown to have a
major impact on self-presentation. Self-monitoring refers to the tendency to be bothmotivated
and capable of regulating our behavior to meet the demands of social situations.
High self-monitors are particularly good at reading the emotions of others and therefore are
better at fitting into social situations—they agree with statements such as ―In different situations
and with different people, I often act like very different persons‖ and ―I guess I put on a show to
impress or entertain people.‖ Low self-monitors, on the other hand, generally act on their own
attitudes, even when the social situation suggests that they should behave otherwise.
Low self-monitors are more likely to agree with statements such as ―At parties and social
gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will like‖ and ―I can only argue for
ideas that I already believe.‖
In short, high self monitors try to get other people to like them by behaving in ways that the
others find desirable (they are good self-presenters), whereas low self-monitors do not.

Narcissism and the Limits of Self-Enhancement

There is a negative aspect to having too much self-esteem, however, at least when the esteem is
unrealistic and undeserved.
Narcissism is a personality trait characterized by overly high self-esteem, selfadmiration,
and self-centeredness.
Narcissists agree with statements such as the following:
 ―I know that I am good because everybody keeps telling me so.‖
 ―I can usually talk my way out of anything.‖
 ―I like to be the center of attention.‖
 ―I have a natural talent for influencing people.‖
People do not normally like narcissists because they are unrealistic and think only of themselves.
Narcissists make bad romantic partners—they behave selfishly and are always ready to look for
someone else who they think will be a better mate, and they are likely to be unfaithful.Narcissists
may also be unbearable, continually interrupting and bullying others, and they may respond very
negatively to criticism.
Although they make positive first impressions, people eventually see narcissists less positively
than narcissists see themselves, in part because they are perceived as arrogant.
Perhaps surprisingly, narcissists seem to understand these things about themselves, although they
engage in the behaviors anyway.

Unit Three: Social Perception

3.1. Definition of Social perception
Social perception is defined as the study of how we form impressions of and make inferences
about other people.
Impression formation is one important topic within social perception.Impression Formation is the
process through which we develop ourbeliefs and evaluations of other people.
In order to know about other people, we depend on information gained from their physical
appearance, and verbal and nonverbal communication.

Factors InImpression Formation

Communication is a vital part of human life. It is what allows us to share thoughts, feelings,
wonderings, and knowledge with others and also shapes our social perceptions to a great extent.
Though we use both verbal and nonverbal communication, the vast majority of communication
we do is through nonverbal channels. The next section deals with nonverbal communication in
detail.
Nonverbal Communications
Nonverbal communication canbe defined as the way in which people communicate
intentionallyor unintentionally, without words. There are eight different types of
nonverbalcommunications.
1) Facial Expression This makes up the largest proportion ofnonverbal communication. Large
amounts of information can beconveyed through a smile or frown. The facial expressions
forhappiness, sadness, anger, and fear are similar across culturesthroughout the world.
2) Gestures Common gestures include pointing, waving, andusing fingers, etc. You can tell a
person's attitude by the waythey walk or by the way they stand. Same goes for gestures.
3) Paralinguistics; This includes factors such as tone of voice,loudness, inflection, and pitch.
Tone of voice can be powerful.The same sentence said in different tones can convey
differentmessages. A strong tone of voice may indicate approval orenthusiasm, whereas the same
sentence said with a hesitanttone of voice may convey disapproval or lack of interest. Vocal
Behaviors such as pitch, inflection(change in pitch), volume, rate, filler words,pronunciation,
articulation, accent, and silence, often revealconsiderable information about others.
4) Body Language and Posture A person‘s posture andmovement can also convey a great deal
of information. Armcrossing or leg-crossing conveys different meanings dependingon the
context and the person interpreting them. Body languageis very subtle, and may not be very
definitive.
5) Proxemics This refers to personal space. The amount of spacea person requires depends on
each individual‘s preference, butalso depends on the situation and other people involved in
thesituation. -T
6) Eye Gaze Looking, staring, and blinking are all consideredtypes of eye gaze. Looking at
another person can indicate arange of emotions including hostility, interest, or attraction. –
Eyebehaviors- plays a role in several important types of relationalinteraction.
7) Haptics This refers to communicating through touch. Haptics isespecially important in
infancy and early childhood. -Touch isone of our five senses, but, every touch has a different
kind ofmeaning to it and when nonverbally communicating –itssomething you need to know.
Five major areas of touching is :affectionate touch, caregiving touch, power and control
touch,aggressive touch, ritualistic touch.
8) Appearance Our choice of color, clothing, hairstyles, and otherfactors affecting our
appearance are considered a means ofnonverbal communication.

The particular nonverbal behaviors that we use, as well as their meanings, are determined by
socialnorms, and these norms may vary across cultures. For example, people who live in warm
climates nearerthe equator use more nonverbal communication (e.g., talking with their hands or
showing strong facialexpressions) and are more likely to touch each other during conversations
than people who live in colderclimates nearer Earth‘s poles.

And theappropriate amount of personal space to keep between ourselves and others also varies
across cultures. Insome cultures—for instance, South American countries—it is appropriate to
stand very close to anotherperson while talking to him or her; in other cultures—for example, the
United States and Europe—moreinterpersonal space is the norm.
The appropriate amount of eye contact withothers is also determined by culture. In Latin
America, it is appropriate to lock eyes with another person,whereas in Japan, people generally
try to avoid eye contact.
In general, they communicate our own status or dominance (selfconcern)as well as our interest in
or liking of another (other-concern). If we notice that someone issmiling and making eye contact
with us while leaning toward us in conversation, we can be pretty surethat he or she likes us.
On the other hand, if someone frowns at us, touches us inappropriately, or movesaway when we
get close, we may naturally conclude that they do not like us.
We may also use nonverbal behaviors to try out new situations: If we move a little closer and
look atsomeone a bit longer, we communicate our interest. If these responses are reciprocated by
the otherperson, that can indicate that he or she likes us, and we can move on to share other types
of information.

If the initial nonverbal behaviors are not reciprocated, then we may conclude that the relationship
maynot work out and we can withdraw before we go ―too far.‖ When we use nonverbal
communication, we donot have to come right out and say ―I like you.‖ That‘s dangerous!
Nonverbal behavior provides different information than verbal behavior because people
frequently sayone thing and do another. Perhaps you remember being really angry at someone
but not wanting to let onthat you were mad, so you tried to hide your emotions by not saying
anything. But perhaps yournonverbal behavior eventually gave you away to the other person:
Although you were trying as hard asyou could not to, you just looked angry.
We frequently rely moreon nonverbal than on verbal behavior when their messages are
contradictory. It is relatively easy tomonitor our verbal behavior but harder to monitor the
nonverbal. However, we expect that people whoneed to deceive others—for instance, good poker
players—are able to monitor their nonverbal behaviorbetter than most people, making it difficult
to get a good read on them.

Judging People by Their Traits

Although we can learn some things about others by observing their physical characteristics and
theirnonverbal behaviors, to really understand them we will eventually need to know their
personality traits.Traits are important because they are the basic language by which we
understand and communicate aboutpeople. When we talk about other people, we describe them
using trait terms. Our friends are ―fun,‖―creative,‖ and ―crazy in a good way,‖ or ―quiet,‖
―serious,‖ and ―controlling.‖ The language of traits is apowerful one—indeed, there are over
18,000 trait terms in the English language.
The Importance of the Central Traits Warm and Cold
The traits of warm and cold are known as central traits.The powerful influence of central traits is
due to two things.
For one, theylead us to make inferences about other traits that might not have been mentioned.
The students whoheard that the professor was ―warm‖ might also have assumed that he had other
positive traits (maybe―nice‖ and ―funny‖), in comparison with those who heard that he was
―cold.‖ Second, the importantcentral traits also color our perceptions of the other traits that
surround them. When a person is describedas ―warm‖ and ―intelligent,‖ the meaning of
―intelligent‖ seems a lot better than does the term ―intelligent‖in the context of a person who is
also ―cold.‖
Overall, the message is clear: If you want to get someone tolike you, try to act in a warm manner
toward them. Be friendly, nice, and interested in what they say. Thisattention you pay to the
other will be more powerful than any other characteristics that you might try todisplay to them.

4.2 Attribution and Its meanings

Attribution refers to the thought processes we employ in explaining the behavior of other people
and our own as well.
The Two-Step Process of Making Attributions
There are two steps involved in the process of attribution.
First step:Here people analyze another‘s behavior, they typicallymake an internal attribution
automatically.
Second step:Here they think about possible situational reasonsfor the behavior.

After engaging in the second step, they may adjusttheir original internal attribution to take
account of situational factors.
Because this second step is more conscious and effortful,people may not get to it if they are
distracted or preoccupied.People will be more likely to engage in the second step of
attributional processing when they consciously think carefullybefore making a judgment, when
they are motivated to be asaccurate as possible, or if they are suspicious about the motives of
the target.
Internal and external attributions can have dramaticconsequences on everyday interactions. How
you react to aperson's anger may be dependent on whether you believe that theyare having a bad
day or that they dislike something about you – theripples flow into the future and influence how
you treat that personhenceforth.

Theories of Attribution
I. Heider’s Theory of Naïve Psychology
How do people in general assign causal explanations for events? Studying the attribution process
has been of a primary concern to a number of social psychologists over the past forty years.
FritizHeider (1958) was the first social psychologist to formally analyze how people attempt to
understand the causes behind behavior. He believed that everybody has a general theory of
human behavior---what he called a naïve psychology--- and that they use it to search for
explanations of social events.
In making causal attributions, by far the most important judgment concerns the locus of
causality. According to Heider, people broadly attribute a given action either to internal states or
external factors. An internal attribution (also called person attribution) consists of any
explanation that locates the cause as being internal to the person, such as personality traits,
moods, attitudes, abilities, or effort. An external attribution (also called situation attribution)
consists of any explanation that locates the causes as being external to the person under scrutiny,
such as the actions of others, the nature of the situation, or luck. For Heider and other attribution
theorists, whether my explanation is correct or not correct is not the issue. Their task is not to
determine the true cause of events, but rather to explain how people perceive the causes.
II. Weiner’s Attribution Theory
Besides making internal or external distinctions, people also attempt to answer other important
attributional questions. Bernard Weiner and his colleagues expanded Heider‘s primary
distinction between the internal and external locus of causality to include questions about
stability and controllability. Stable causes are permanent and lasting, while unstable causes are
temporary and fluctuating. This stable/unstable dimension is independent of the direction of
causality. Some causes, called dispositional, are both internal and stable (―she insulted me
because she is rude‖). Other causes are considered to be internal but unstable (―She insulted me
because she has a cold‖). Likewise, some causes are seen as external and stable (―She insulted
me because I rub people the wrong way‖), while others are perceived as external and unstable
(―She insulted me because the weather conditions that day made her job very difficult‖).
Although judgments of the locus and stability of causes are the most important in making
attributions, a third dimension we often consider is controllability of these causes. According to
Weiner (1982), we think some causes as being within people‘s control and others as beingoutside
their control. The controllable/uncontrollable dimension is independent of either locus or
stability. Weather is a good example of uncontrollable factor.
The locus, stability, and controllability of causal attributions appear to be the primary dimensions
employed when people explain events.
Since Heider‘s initial formulations other social psychologists have expanded upon his insights
and developed formal attribution theories. The following discussionfocuses on theories that have
had the most influence on the field and also discuss recent refinements in our understanding of
the attribution process.
III. Jones & Davis’s Correspondent Inference Theory
In developing correspondent inference theory, Edward Jones and Keith Davis (1965) were
particularly interested in how people infer the cause of a single instance of behavior. According
to them, people try to infer from an overt action whether it corresponds to a stable personal
characteristics of the actor. Thus, a correspondent inference is an inference that the actor‘s
action corresponds to, or is indicative of, a stable personal characteristic. For example, if Jane
acts compassionately toward Bob, his correspondent inference would be that Jane is a
compassionate person. But will Bob actually make a correspondent inference? Not always. If
there are several plausible reasons why someone may have performed a certain act,
correspondence is low, and therefore you cannot be confident about the cause of the act.
However, if there is only one plausible reason to explain the act, correspondence is high and you
will be confident in your attribution.
In explaining social events, Jones and Davis argued that people have a preference for making
dispositional attributions (that is, those that are internal and stable), and that external attributions
are merely default options, made only when internal causes cannot be found. The reason for this
preference is the belief that knowing the dispositional attributes of others will enable one to
better understand and predict their behavior. The problem in confidently making these
attributions, however, is that social behavior is often ambiguous and the causes are not always
readily apparent to the observer. Therefore, to guide them in their attempts to infer personal
characteristics from behavior, Jones and Davis stated that people use several logical rules of
thumb.
One such rule deals with the social desirability of the behavior. That is, people are much more
likely to make dispositional attributions about behavior that is socially undesirable than about
behavior that is desirable. This is the case because socially desirable behavior is thought to tell us
more about the cultural norms of the group than about the personality of the individuals within
that group. Yet when people are willing to break from these norms to act in a certain way, such
unexpected behavior demands an explanation. When such action is taken, people realize that the
social costs incurred by the actor may be great, and they are much more confident that the
behavior reflects a stable and internal disposition.
Another rule consider by people is the actor‘s degree of choice. Actions freely chosen are
considered to be more indicative of an actor‘s true personal characteristics than those that are
coerced.
According to Jones and Davis, we not only observe the social desirability of behaviors and the
degree of choice of the actors, but we also analyze the actor‘s chosen behavior in the context of
other potential behaviors. We then ask ―Is there some effect or outcome unique to the chosen
behavior?‖ By comparing the consequences of the chosen behavior with the consequences of
other actions not taken, people can often infer the strength of the underlying intention by looking
for unique or ―non common‖ consequences. This third rule of inferences then has to do with
actions that produce noncommon effects-- outcomes that could not be produced by any other
action.
Taking these rules into account, according to Jones and Davis‘s theory, people are most likely to
conclude that other people‘s actions reflect underlying dispositional traits (that is, they are likely
to make correspondent inferences) when the actions are perceived to (1) be low in social
desirability, (2) be freely chosen, and (3) result in unique, noncommon effects.

Attribution Biases/Error in Attribution:

In psychology, an attribution bias is a cognitive bias thataffects the way we determine who or
what was responsible for anevent or action (attribution). It is natural for us to interpret eventsand
results as the consequences of the purposeful actions of someperson or agent. This is a deep-
seated bias in human perceptionwhich has been present throughout human history. Our
ancestorsinvariably attributed real events like earthquakes, volcanoes, ordroughts to the angry
retaliation of gods. Attribution biases aretriggered when people evaluate the dispositions or
qualities ofothers based on incomplete evidence.Attribution biases typically take the form of
actor/observerdifferences: people involved in an action (actors) view thingsdifferently from
people not involved (observers). Thesediscrepancies are often caused by asymmetries in
availability(frequently called "salience" in this context). For example, thebehavior of an actor is
easier to remember (and therefore moreavailable for later consideration) than the setting in which
he foundhimself; and a person's own inner turmoil is more available tohimself than it is to
someone else. As a result, our judgments ofattribution are often distorted along those lines.
The attribution bias causes us to under-estimate theimportance of inanimate, situational factors
over animate, humanfactors. For instance, we might talk to a person from anothercountry who
mentions they only venture outside the house foroutdoor recreation only once a week, and
assume this means thatthey are a person who loves the indoors. However, we may be
unaware that they live in a cold location where it is freezing outsidefor most of the season.
The fundamental attribution error (also known ascorrespondence bias) describes the
tendency to over-valuedispositional or personality-based explanations for the observed
Behaviors of others while under-valuing situational explanations forthose behaviors. It is most
visible when people explain the behaviorof others. It does not explain interpretations of one's
own behavior -where situational factors are often taken into consideration. Thisdiscrepancy is
called the actor-observer bias. FundamentalAttribution Error refers to the tendency to make
attributions tointernal causes when focusing on someone else‘s behavior. When
looking at the behavior of others, we tend to underestimate theimpact of situational forces and
overestimate the impact ofdispositional forces. Most people ignore the impact of rolepressures
and other situational constraints on others and seebehavior as caused by people's intentions,
motives, and attitudes.
Self-Serving Attributions: Self-serving attributions are explanations for one‘ssuccesses that
credit internal, dispositional factors andexplanations for one‘s failures that blame external,
situationalfactors. Self-serving bias is a tendency to attribute one‘s ownsuccess to internal causes
and one‘s failures to externalcauses. This pattern is observed in the attributions that
professionalathletes make for their performances. It has been found that lessexperienced
athletes, more highly skilled athletes, and athletes insolo sports are more likely to make self-
serving attributions.
One reason people make self-serving attributions is tomaintain their self-esteem. A second
reason is self-presentation, tomaintain the perceptions others have of one self. A third reason is
because people have information about their behavior in othersituations, which may lead to
positive outcomes being expectedand negative outcomes being unexpected (and thus attributed
tothe situation). People often blame themselves for their ownmisfortune. Because otherwise, they
would have to admit thatmisfortune was beyond their control, and they would be unable to
avoid it in the future.
Defensive attributions are explanations for behavior oroutcomes (e.g., tragic events) that avoid
feelings of vulnerabilityand mortality. One way we deal with tragic information aboutothers is to
make it seem like it could never happen to us. We do sothrough the belief in a just world, a
form of defensive attributionwherein people assume that bad things happen to bad people and
that good things happen to good people. Because most of us seeourselves as good, this reassures
us that bad things will nothappen to us. The belief in a just world can lead to blaming the
victim for his or her misfortunes.
Culture also influences attributional bias. With regard to thebelief in a just world, in cultures
where the belief is dominant, socialand economic injustices are considered fair (the poor and
disadvantaged have less because they deserve less). The justworld belief is more predominant in
cultures where there aregreater extremes of wealth and poverty.
Our attributions may not be always accurate under manycircumstances. First impressions, for
example, are not veryaccurate. However, the better we get to know someone, the moreaccurate
we will be about them .One reason our impressions are wrong is because of themental shortcuts
we use in forming social judgments. Anotherreason our impressions can be wrong concerns our
use ofschemas, such as relying on implicit theories of personality to judgeothers. Attribution
errors are the most pervasive and ultimately themost destructive of the cognitive deficits.
Avoiding the attributionbias can be difficult. One strategy is to simply give other people
thebenefit of the doubt. Another would be to inquire into thebackground behind the
circumstances of a situation, to clarifywhether a dispositional explanation is really most
plausible. Yetanother would be to ask oneself how one would behave in a similarsituation.
Eliminating the attribution bias completely seemsimpossible, as it is built into human nature.
However, throughreflective thinking, it appears possible to minimize its effects. Toimprove
accuracy of your attributions and impressions, rememberthat the correspondence bias, the
actor/observer difference, anddefensive attributions exist and try to counteract these biases.

Chapter Four: Attitude and Attitude Change

4.1. Definition of Attitude
Prior to the 1990s, attitudes were often defined in terms of three distinct components: beliefs,
feelings, and behavioral intentions. According to this multidimensional, or tricomponent
 view, attitudes are made up of our beliefs about an object, our feelings about the object, and
our behavior toward the object. Although this definition is appealing because it so neatly
carves up the attitude concept into three distinct categories, research indicates that not all
three of these components need be in place for an attitude to exist. For example, you could
develop a positive attitude toward a product you see on television without developing any
beliefs about it or every engaging in any behavior relevant to the product. Simply by
repeatedly being exposed to the product, you can develop a positive attitude toward it.
Because the three aspects of the component definition are not always present in an attitude,
many social psychologists have moved away from this elegant multidimensional view to an
earlier, more basic unidimensional, or single component, definition in which evaluation is
central. Here, attitude is simply defined as a positive or negative evaluation of an object.
―Objects‖ include people, things, events, and issues. When people use such words as like,
dislike, love, hate, good, and bad, they are usually describing their attitudes. Social
psychologists also use specialized terms to describe certain classes of attitudes. For example,
an attitude toward the self is called self-esteem, negative attitude towards groups are referred
to as prejudice, and attitudes toward individuals are referred to as interpersonal attraction.
The movement away from the tricomponent attitude definition does not mean that social
psychologists no longer consider beliefs, feelings, and behavior important in explaining
attitudes. Instead, these three sources of evaluative judgment—beliefs, feelings, and past
behavior—are thought of as determining attitudes singly or in combination.
4.2. Attitude Formation
Attitudes can develop from your beliefs, your feelings, and your behavior, singly or in
combination. Due to the various ways in which attitudes can be formed, social psychologists
have generated or applied a number of theories to explain these various developmental
processes. In this section of the chapter, we first examine theories that explain fairly simple
attitudes formed through mere exposure and classical conditioning. These largely feeling or
affect-based explanations are then followed by theories that involve more behavioral and/or
cognitive sources (For example, operant conditioning and self-perception theory). We also
examine one perspective on attitude formation and change, the functional approach that
describes how the three sources of attitudes- feelingsthinking and behavior- might differently
come into play due to a person‘s current psychological needs
Persuasion: Attitude Change
Persuasion is the effort to change our attitudes through theuse of various kinds of messages. It is
a part of daily life. Studies ofsocial psychologists yielded insights into the cognitive process
thatplay a role in persuasion. For attitude change persuasivecommunication plays a vital role.
Persuasive communication issuch a skill which is employed by a person to persuade other
Person or persons. The skill may be based on reason. Inpersuasivebehaviour communication is
vital. It can be through dialogue, written ideas, television or film. Through these media, the
messages sent might bring changes in our view point. Somepersuasive appeal do not succeed in
attitude change.
The Elements of Persuasion
Among the ingredients of persuasion explored by social psychologists are these four:
(1) The communicator, (2) the message, (3) how the message is communicated, and
(4) The audience. In other words, who says what, by what method, to whom? Howdo these
factors affect the likelihood that we will take either the central or the peripheral
route to persuasion?
Who Says? The Communicator
Social psychologists have found that who issaying something does affect how an
audiencereceives it. In one experiment, when the Socialistand Liberal leaders in the Dutch
parliament argued identical positions using thesame words, each was most effective with
members of his own party (Wiegman,1985). It‘s not just the message that matters, but also who
says it. What makes onecommunicator more persuasive than another?
CREDIBILITY
Any of us would find a statement about the benefits of exercise more believable ifit came from
the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences rather than froma tabloid newspaper. But the
effects of source credibility (perceived expertise andtrustworthiness) diminish after a month or
so. If a credible person‘s message ispersuasive, its impact may fade as its source is forgotten or
dissociated from themessage. And the impact of a noncredible person may correspondingly
increaseover time if people remember the message better than the reason for discounting it
This delayedpersuasion, after people forget the source or its connection with the message, is
called the sleeper effect.
PERCEIVED EXPERTISE How does one become an authoritative ―expert‖? Oneway is to
begin by saying things the audience agrees with, which makes one seemsmart. Another is to be
introduced as someone who is knowledgeable on the topic. Amessage about toothbrushing from
―Dr. James Rundle of the Canadian Dental Association‖is more convincing than the same
message from ―Jim Rundle, a local high schoolstudent who did a project with some of his
classmates on dental hygiene‖ (Olson & Cal,1984).
Another way to appear credible is to speak confidently. Bonnie Erickson and her collaborators
(1978) had University of North Carolina students evaluate courtroom testimonygiven in a
straightforward manner or in a more hesitant manner. For example:
QUESTION: Approximately how long did you stay there before the ambulancearrived?
ANSWER: [Straightforward] Twenty minutes. Long enough to help getMrs. David straightened
out.
[Hesitating] Oh, it seems like it was about uh, twenty minutes. Justlong enough to help my
friend Mrs. David, you know, get straightenedout.
The students found the straightforward witnesses much more competent andcredible.
PERCEIVED TRUSTWORTHINESS Speech style also affects a speaker‘s
apparenttrustworthiness. Gordon Hemsley and Anthony Doob (1978) found that ifvideotaped
witnesses looked their questioner straight in the eye instead of gazingdownward, they impressed
people as more believable.
Trustworthiness is also higher if the audience believes the communicator isnot trying to persuade
them. In an experimental version of what later became the―hidden- camera‖ method of television
advertising, Elaine Hatfield and Leon Festinger(Walster&Festinger, 1962) had some Stanford
University undergraduateseavesdrop on graduate students‘ conversations. (What they actually
heard was atape recording.) When the conversational topic was relevant to the
eavesdroppers(having to do with campus regulations), the speakers had more influence if the
listeners presumed the speakers were unaware of the eavesdropping. After all, ifpeople think no
one is listening, why would they be less than fully honest?
We also perceive as sincere those who argue against their own self-interest. AliceEagly, Wendy
Wood, and Shelly Chaiken (1978) presented University of Massachusettsstudents with a speech
attacking a company‘s pollution of a river. Whenthey said the speech was given by a political
candidate with a business backgroundor to an audience of company supporters, it seemed
unbiased and was persuasive.
When the same antibusiness speech was supposedly given to environmentalists bya pro
environment politician, listeners could attribute the politician‘s argumentsto personal bias or to
the audience. Being willing to suffer for one‘s beliefs—whichGandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.,
and other great leaders have done—also helpsconvince people of one‘s sincerity (Knight &
Weiss, 1980).
Clearly, communicators gain credibility if they appear to be expert and
trustworthy(Pornpitakpan, 2004). When we know in advance that a source is credible, we think
more favorable thoughts in response to the message. If we learn the sourceafter a message
generates favorable thoughts, high credibility strengthens our confidencein our thinking, which
also strengthens the persuasive impact of the message.

Clearly, communicators gain credibility if they appear to be expert and

trustworthy(Pornpitakpan, 2004). When we know in advance that a source is credible, wethink
more favorable thoughts in response to the message. If we learn the sourceafter a message
generates favorable thoughts, high credibility strengthens our confidencein our thinking, which
also strengthens the persuasive impact of the message.

Clearly, communicators gain credibility if they appear to be expert and trustworthy

(Pornpitakpan,2004). When we know in advance that a source is credible, wethink more
favorable thoughts in response to the message. If we learn the sourceafter a message generates
favorable thoughts, high credibility strengthens our confidencein our thinking, which also
strengthens the persuasive impact of the message.
ATTRACTIVENESS AND LIKING
We may think we are not influenced by attractiveness or likability, but researchershave found
otherwise. We‘re more likely to respond to those we like, a phenomenonwell known to those
organizing charitable solicitations, and candy sales. Even amere fleeting conversation with
someone is enough to increase our liking for thatperson, and our responsiveness to his or her
influence (Burger & others, 2001). Ourliking may open us up to the communicator‘s arguments
(central route persuasion),or it may trigger positive associations when we see the product later
(peripheralroute persuasion). As with credibility, the liking-begets- persuasion principle suggests
applications .
Attractiveness comes in several forms. Physical attractiveness is one. Arguments,especially
emotional ones, are often more influential when they come from peoplewe consider beautiful
(Chaiken, 1979; Dion & Stein, 1978; Pallak& others, 1983).Similarity is another. We tend to like
people whoare like us. We also are influenced by them, a fact that has been harnessed by
a successful antismoking campaign that features youth appealing to other youththrough ads that
challenge the tobacco industry about its destructiveness and itsmarketing practices (Krisberg,
2004). People who act as we do, subtly mimickingour postures, are likewise more influential.
Thus salespeople are sometimes taughtto ―mimic and mirror‖: If the customer‘s arms or legs are
crossed, cross yours; if shesmiles, smile back.

What Is Said? The Message Content

It matters not only who says something but also what that person says. If you wereto help
organize an appeal to get people to vote for school taxes or to stop smokingor to give money to
world hunger relief, you might wonder how best to promotecentral route persuasion. Common
sense could lead you to either side of thesequestions:
• Is a logical message more persuasive—or one that arouses emotion?
• Will you get more opinion change by advocating a position only slightlydiscrepant from the
listeners‘ existing opinions or by advocating an extremepoint of view?
• Should the message express your side only, or should it acknowledge andrefute the opposing
views?
• If people are to present both sides—say, in successive talks at a communitymeeting or in a
political debate—is there an advantage to going first or last?
Let‘s take these questions one at a time.

REASON VERSUS EMOTION

Suppose you were campaigning in support of world hunger relief. Would you bestitemize your
arguments and cite an array of impressive statistics? Or would you bemore effective presenting
an emotional approach—perhaps the compelling story ofone starving child? Of course, an
argument can be both reasonable and emotional.
You can marry passion and logic. Still, which is more influential—reason or emotion?Was
Shakespeare‘s Lysander right: ―The will of man is by his reason sway‘d‖?Or was Lord
Chesterfield‘s advice wiser: ―Address yourself generally to the senses,to the heart, and to the
weaknesses of mankind, but rarely to their reason‖?
The answer: It depends on the audience. Well-educated or analytical peopleare responsive to
rational appeals (Cacioppo& others, 1983, 1996; Hovland& others,1949). Thoughtful, involved
audiences often travel the central route; they aremore responsive to reasoned arguments.
Uninterested audiences more often travelthe peripheral route; they are more affected by their
liking of the communicator(Chaiken, 1980; Petty & others, 1981).
It also matters how people‘s attitudes were formed. When people‘s initial attitudesare formed
primarily through emotion, they are more persuaded by lateremotional appeals; when their initial
attitudes are formed primarily through reason,they are more persuaded by later intellectual
arguments (Edwards, 1990; Fabrigar& Petty, 1999). New emotions may sway an emotion-based
attitude. But tochange an information-based attitude, more information may be needed.
DISCREPANCY
A communicator who proclaims an uncomfortable messagemay be discredited. People who
disagree with conclusions drawn by a newscasterrate the newscaster as more biased, inaccurate,
and untrustworthy. People aremore open to conclusions within their range of acceptability
(Liberman&Chaiken,1992; Zanna, 1993). So perhaps greater disagreement will produce less
change.Elliot Aronson, Judith Turner, and Merrill Carlsmith (1963) reasoned that a credible
source—one hard to discount—would elicit the most opinion change when advocatinga position
greatly discrepant from the recipient‘s. Sure enough, when credibleT. S. Eliot was said to have
highly praised a disliked poem, people changed theiropinion more than when he gave it faint
praise. But when ―Agnes Stearns, a studentat Mississippi State Teachers College,‖ evaluated a
disliked poem, high praisewas no more persuasive than faint praise. Thusdiscrepancyand
credibility interact: The effect of a large versus small discrepancy depends on
whether the communicator is credible.So, if you are acredible authority and your audience isn‘t
much concerned with your issue, go forit: Advocate a discrepant view.

ONE-SIDED VERSUS TWO-SIDED APPEALS

Persuaders face another practical issue: how to deal with opposing arguments. Once
again, common sense offers no clear answer. Acknowledging the opposing arguments
might confuse the audience and weaken the case. On the other hand, a message might
seem fairer and be more disarming if it recognizes the opposition‘s arguments.

After Germany‘s defeat in World War II, the U.S. Army did not want soldiersto relax and think
that the still-ongoing war with Japan would become easy. SoCarl Hovland and his colleagues
(1949) in the Army‘s Information and EducationDivision designed two radio broadcasts. Both
argued that the Pacific war wouldlast at least two more years. One broadcast was one-sided; it
did not acknowledgecontradictory arguments, such as the advantage of fighting only one enemy
instead of two. The other broadcast was two-sided; it mentioned and responded tothe opposing
arguments.The effectiveness of the messagedepended on the listener. A one-sided appeal was
most effective with those whoalready agreed. An appeal that acknowledged opposing arguments
worked betterwith those who disagreed.
Experiments also reveal that a two-sided presentation is more persuasive andenduring if people
are (or will be) aware of opposing arguments (Jones &Brehm,1970; Lumsdaine& Janis, 1953). In
simulated trials, a defense case becomes morecredible when the defense brings up damaging
evidence before the prosecutiondoes (Williams & others, 1993). Thus, a political candidate
speaking to a politicallyinformed group would indeed be wise to respond to the opposition. So, if
your audiencewill be exposed to opposing views, offer a two-sided appeal.

PRIMACY VERSUS RECENCY

Imagine that you are a consultant to a prominent politician who must soon debateanother
prominent politician over a ballot proposition on bilingual education. Threeweeks before the
vote, each politician is to appear on the nightly news and presenta prepared statement. By the flip
of a coin, your side receives the choice of whetherto speak first or last. Knowing that you are a
former social psychology student,everyone looks to you for advice.
You mentally scan your old books and lecture notes. Would first be better?
People‘spreconceptions control their interpretations. Moreover, a belief, once formed,is difficult
to discredit, so going first could give voters ideas that would favorablybias how they perceive
and interpret the second speech. Besides, people may paymore attention to what comes first.
Then again, people remember recent things better.Might it really be more effective to speak last?
Your first line of reasoning predicts what is most common, a primacy effect:
Information presented early is most persuasive. First impressions are important.For example, can
you sense a difference between these two descriptions?
• John is intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, and envious.
• John is envious, stubborn, critical, impulsive, industrious, and intelligent.
When Solomon Asch (1946) gave those sentences to college students in NewYork City, those
who read the adjectives in the intelligent-to-envious order ratedthe person more positively than
did those given the envious-to-intelligent order.The earlier information seemed to color their
interpretation of the later information,producing the primacy effect.
Some other interesting examples of the primacy effect:
• In some experiments, people have succeeded on a guessing task 50 percentof the time. Those
whose successes come early seem more capable than thosewhose successes come after early
failures (Jones & others, 1968; Langer &Roth, 1975; McAndrew, 1981).
• In political polls and in primary election voting, candidates benefit frombeing listed first on the
ballot (Moore, 2004a).
• Norman Miller and Donald Campbell (1959) gave Northwestern Universitystudents a
condensed transcript from an actual civil trial. They placed theplaintiff‘s testimony and
arguments in one block, those for the defense inanother. The students read both blocks. When
they returned a week later todeclare their opinions, most sided with the information they had read
first.What about the opposite possibility? Would our better memory of recent information
ever create a recency effect? We have all experienced what the book of Proverbsobserved: ―The
one who first states a case seems right, until the other comes and crossexamines.‖
We know from our experience (as well as from memory experiments) thattoday‘s events can
temporarily outweigh significant past events. To test this, Millerand Campbell gave another
group of students one block of testimony to read. A weeklater the researchers had them read the
second block and then immediately state theiropinions. The results were the reverse of the other
condition—a recency effect. Apparentlythe first block of arguments, being a week old, had
largely faded from memory.
Forgetting creates the recency effect (1) when enough time separates the twomessages and (2)
when the audience commits itself soon after the second message.When the two messages are
back-to-back, followed by a time gap, the primacyeffect usually occurs ( Figure 7.6 ). This is
especially so when the first message stimulatesthinking (Haugtvedt& Wegener, 1994). What
advice would you now give tothe political debater?
Dana Carney and MahzarinBanaji (2008) discovered that order can also affect simple
preferences. When encountering two people or horses or foods or whatever,people tend to prefer
the first presented option. For example, when offered twosimilar-looking pieces of bubble gum,
one placed after the other on a white clipboard,62 percent, when asked to make a snap judgment,
chose the first-presentedpiece. Across four experiments, the findings were consistent: ―First is
best.‖

How Is It Said? The Channel of Communication

For persuasion, there must be communication. And for communication, theremust be a channel:
a face-to-face appeal, a written sign or document, a mediaadvertisement.
PERSONAL VERSUS MEDIA INFLUENCE
Persuasion studies demonstrate that the major influence on us is not the media butour contact
with people. Modern selling strategies seek to harness the power ofword-of-mouth personal
influence through ―viral marketing,‖ ―creating a buzz,‖and ―seeding‖ sales (Walker, 2004). The
Harry Potter series was not expected to be abest seller ( Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone
had a first printing of 500 copies). Itwas kids talking to other kids that made it so.
Two classic field experiments illustrate the strength of personal influence. Someyears ago,
Samuel Eldersveld and Richard Dodge (1954) studied political persuasionin Ann Arbor,
Michigan. They divided citizens intending not to vote for a revisionof the city charter into three
groups. Among those exposed only to what theysaw and heard in the mass media, 19 percent
changed their minds and voted infavor of the revision on election day. Of a second group, who
received four mailingsin support of the revision, 45 percent voted for it. Among people in a third
group, who were visited personally and given the appeal face-to-face, 75 percentcast their votes
for the revision.

Although face-to-face influenceis usually greater than media influence, we should not
underestimate the media‘spower. Those who personally influence our opinions must get their
ideas fromsome source, and often their sources are the media. Elihu Katz (1957) observed that
many of the media‘s effects operate in a two-step flow of communication: from media to
opinion leaders to the rank and file. In any large group, it is these opinionleaders and
trendsetters—―the influentials‖—that marketers and politicians seek towoo (Keller & Berry,
2003). Opinion leaders are individuals perceived as experts.They may include talk show hosts
and editorial columnists; doctors, teachers andscientists; and people in all walks of life who have
made it their business to absorbinformation and to inform their friends and family. If I want to
evaluate computerequipment, I defer to the opinions of my sons, who get many of their ideas
from theprinted page. Sell them and you will sell me.
Lumping together all media, from mass mailings to television to podcasting, oversimplifies.
Studies comparing different media find that the more lifelike the medium, the more persuasive
its message. Thus, the order of persuasiveness seems to be: live (face-to-face), videotaped,
audiotaped, and written. To add to the complexity, messages are best comprehended and recalled
when written. Comprehension is one of the first steps in the persuasion process . So Shelly
Chaiken and Alice Eagly (1976) reasoned that if a message is difficult to comprehend,
persuasion should be greatest when the message is written, because readers will be able to work
through the message at their own pace.
The researchers gave University of Massachusetts students easy or difficult messagesin writing,
on audiotape, or on videotape. The results indicated difficult messages were indeed most
persuasive when written; easy messages, when videotaped. The TV medium takes control of the
pacing of the message away from the recipients. By drawing attention to the communicator and
away from the message itself, TV also encourages people to focus on peripheral cues, such as the
communicator‘s attractiveness (Chaiken&Eagly, 1983).

To Whom Is It Said? The Audience

People‘s traits often don‘t predict their responses tosocial influence. A particular trait may
enhance one step in the persuasion process but work against another. Take self-esteem. People
with low self-esteemare often slow to comprehend a message and therefore hard to persuade.
Thosewith high self-esteem may comprehend yet remain confident of their own opinions.The
conclusion: People with moderate self-esteem are the easiest to influence
(Rhodes & Wood, 1992).Let‘s also consider other audience characteristic: age

HOW OLD ARE THEY?

Social psychologists offer twopossible explanations for age differences. One is a life cycle
explanation: Attitudeschange (for example, become more conservative) as people grow older.
The other isa generational explanation: Attitudes do not change; older people largely hold onto
theattitudes they adopted when they were young. Because these attitudes are differentfrom those
being adopted by young people today, a generation gap develops.
The evidence mostly supports the generational explanation. In surveys andresurveys of groups of
younger and older people over several years, the attitudesof older people usually show less
change than do those of young people. As DavidSears (1979, 1986) put it, researchers have
―almost invariably found generationalrather than life cycle effects.‖
The teens and early twenties are important formative years (Koenig & others,2008;
Krosnick&Alwin, 1989). Attitudes are changeable then, and the attitudesformed tend to stabilize
through middle adulthood. Gallup interviews of morethan 120,000 people suggest that political
attitudes formed at age 18—relativelyRepublican- favoring during the popular Reagan era, and
more Democraticfavoringduring the unpopular George W. Bush era—tend to last (Silver, 2009).
Young people might therefore be advised to choose their social influences—thegroups they join,
the media they imbibe, the roles they adopt—carefully. In analyzingNational Opinion Research
Center archives, James Davis (2004) discovered,for example, that Americans reaching age 16
during the 1960s have, ever since,been more politically liberal than average. Much as tree rings
can, years later,reveal the telltale marks laid down by a drought, so attitudes decades later
mayreveal the events, such as the Vietnam War and civil rights era of the 1960s,that shaped the
adolescent and early-twenties mind. For many people, these yearsare a critical period for the
formation of attitudes and values.
Adolescent and early-adult experiences are formative partly because they makedeep and lasting
impressions. When Howard Schuman and Jacqueline Scott (1989)asked people to name the one
or two most important national or world events ofthe previous half-century, most recalled events
from their teens or early twenties.
Unit five: Social Influence
Social Influence can bedefined as efforts by one or more individuals to change theattitudes,
beliefs, perceptions, or behaviors of one or more others.For example, the colleagues have strong
influence on one‘s work, while the friends have strong influence on one‘s daily life.
Conformity:
A type of social influence in which individuals change theirattitude or behavior in order to
adhere or to stick to the existingsocial norms.
Factors affecting Conformity: Cohesiveness, and Group Size
Cohesiveness and Conformity:
We are going to discuss how cohesiveness has impact onconformity. With respect to conformity,
cohesiveness can bedefined as the degree of attraction felt by an individual toward aninfluencing
group.
Groups with similar attitudes are more cohesive than groupswith dissimilar attitudes, successful
groups are more cohesive thanunsuccessful groups, and groups with clear paths to goals are
morecohesive than groups lacking clear paths.
A classic finding of social psychology is that whencohesiveness (attraction) is high, pressures
toward conformity aremagnified. This is a basic reason why most persons are morewilling to
accept social influence from friends or persons theyadmire than from others.

Conformity and Group Size:

Group size has the important effects on the tendency toconform i.e., the size of the influencing
group. We are likely toconform to the opinion held by the group if the number of groupmembers
holding the same opinion is large i.e., group size is large.

COMPLIANCE
In a situation when you wanted someone to do something foryou, you start thinking about the
tricks which you can use to getyour things done. Social psychologists have put efforts to
understand this process, the most frequent form of social influence.Professionals- people whose
success (financial orotherwise) depends on their ability to get others to say ―yes‖. Thesepeople
include salespeople, advertisers, political lobbyists, fundraisers,etc.
Techniques professionals use for gaining Compliance
A] Tactics Based on Friendship or Liking: Ingratiation:There are several techniques for
increasing compliancethrough getting others to like us. This is called as impressionmanagement.
These impression management techniques are oftenused for purposes of ingratiation i.e., getting
others to like us sothat they will be more willing to agree to our requests.
B] Tactics Based on Commitment or Consistency:
The Foot in the Door:
A procedure for gaining compliance in which requestersbegin with a small request and then,
when this is granted, escalateto a larger one (the one they actually desired to be agreed). Once
the target person says yes to the small request, it is more difficultfor that person to say no to a
larger request, because if they don‘tagree it would be inconsistent with the first response.

The Lowball:
It has been seen that auto dealers sometimes use thelowball technique. This involves offering an
attractive deal tocustomers but then, after they accept, changing that offer in someway.
Rationally, customers should refuse: but in fact, they oftenaccept less attractive deal because
they feel committed to thedecision of buying the car. To explain it further, in this technique,
avery good deal is offered to a customer. After the customeraccepts, however, something is
manipulated to show that itnecessary for the salesperson to change the deal and make it less
Advantageous for the customer-for example, an ―error‖ in pricecalculations is found, or the sales
manger rejects the deal. Thetotally rational reaction for customers, of course, is to walk away.
Yet often they agree to the changes and accept the less desirablearrangement.
Bait-and-switch tactic:
A technique for gaining compliance in which once thecustomers enters the shop; items offered
for sale are showed asunavailable or presented of very low quality. This leads customersto buy a
more expensive item that is available. It happens becausefor customers point of view, changing
one‘s mind and reversing aninitial commitment requires hard work, and many people, itappears,
would rather pay a higher price than change their minds.
Tactics Based on Reciprocity:
The Door in the Face:
A procedure for gaining compliance in which requestersbegin with a large request and then,
when this is refused, retreat toa smaller one (the one they actually desired to be agreed ). This is
exactly opposite of the foot-in-the-door technique: instead ofbeginning with a small request and
then presenting a larger one,persons seeking compliance sometimes start with a very largerequest
and then, after this is rejected, shift to a smaller request-theone they wanted all along.
The Foot in the Mouth:
When people feel that they are in a relationship with anotherperson-no matter how trivial or
unimportant-they often feel that theyare obliged to help or considerate to that person simply
becausethe relationship exists.For example, friends help friends when they needassistance, and
persons who perceive themselves as similar insome manner may feel that they should help one
another when theneed arises.
That’s-not-all technique:
An initial request is followed, before the target person canmake up or his/her his mind to say yes
or no, a small incentive isoffered by the person who is using this tactic sweetens the deal.
For example, auto dealers sometimes decide to throw in a smalladditional option to the car for
e.g., free full tank fill, offer of seatcover, etc., in the hope that this will help them close the deal;
andoften, it really helps! Persons on the receiving end of that‘s-notalltechnique view this small
extra as a concession on the part ofthe other person, and so feel obligated to make a
concessionthemselves.
D] Tactics Based on Scarcity:
Playing Hard to Get:
This technique involves the efforts to increase compliance bysuggesting that a person or object is
scarce, rare and hard toobtain.
A study carried out by Williams and her Colleagues (1993)as quoted in Baron, R. A., Byrne, D.,
and Branscombe, N. R.(2006) explains this phenomenon. Professional recruiter‘s werearranged
who were interviewing students at large universities toreview information about potential job
candidates. This information,which was presented in folders, indicated either that the job
Candidate already had two job offers (a hard-to-get candidate) or noother job offers (easy-to-get
candidate), and was either highlyqualified (very high grades) or less well-qualified (low average
grades). After reviewing this information, the interviewers then ratedthe candidates in terms of
their qualifications and desirability, thecompany‘s likelihood of inviting them to interview, and
the likelihoodof considering them for a job. Results clearly indicated that thehard-to-get
candidate was rated more favorably than the easy-togetcandidates regardless of their grades.
However, the hard-to-getcandidate who was also highly qualified received by far the
highestratings of all. Since it is persons who receive high ratings thatusually get the interviews-
and the jobs-these findings, indicate thatcreating the impression of being a scarce and valuable
resource
(being hard to get) can be another effective means for gainingcompliance.
Deadline Technique:
This is a technique for increasing compliance in which targetpersons are told that they have only
limited time to take advantageof some offer or to obtain some item.
Advertisements using this deadline techniques state aspecific time limit during which an item
can be purchased for aspecific price. After the deadline runs out, the ads suggest, the
price will go up. Of course, in many cases, the sale is not a realone, and the time limit is bogus.
Yet many persons reading suchads believe them and hurry down to the store in order to avoid
missing a great opportunity.
Other Tactics for Gaining Compliance: Complaining and putting others in a Good Mood:
Complaining:
In the context of compliance, expressing discontent,dissatisfaction, resentment, or regret as a
means of exerting socialinfluence on others. Complaining involves expressions ofdiscontent or
dissatisfaction with one self or some aspect of theexternal world, and often such statements are
simple expressionsof personal states (―I feel lousy!‖) or comments on the external
world (―Wow, is it cold today!‖). Sometimes, however, complainingis used as a tactic of social
influence:‖ Why didn‘t you take out thegarbage like you, promised?‖ ―We always see the movie
you want;it‘s not fair,‖ Statements such as these directed toward the goal ofgetting the recipient
to change his or her attitudes or behaviours insome manner.
Putting Others in Good Mood :People‘s moods often exert astrong effect on their behaviour.
And, it seems, this principle alsoholds with respect to compliance. When individuals are in a
goodmood, they tend to be more willing to say ―Yes‖ to various requestthan when they are in a
neutral or negative mood.

OBEDIENCE
Obedience occurs when people obey commands or ordersfrom others to do something.
Obedience is less frequent thanconformity or compliance, because even persons who possess
authority and power generally prefer to exert it through the velvetglove-through requests rather
than direct orders. Businessexecutives sometimes issue orders to their subordinates; military
officers shout commands that they expect to be followed withoutquestions; and parents, police
officers, and sports coaches, toname a few, seek to influence others in the same manner.
Destructive Obedience: Its Social Psychological Basis
Why does such destructive obedience occur? Why weresubjects in various experiments- and
many persons in tragicsituations outside the laboratory-so willing to this powerful form of social
influence? Following factors play role in it-
1. In many life situations, Transfer of responsibility is theunderlying phenomenon. ―I was
only carrying out orders‖ is thedefense mechanism many offer after obeying harsh or
crueldirections. In view of this fact, it is not surprising that manytended to obey; after all,
they are not held responsible for theiractions.
2. Persons in authority often possess visible badges or signs oftheir status. These consist of
special uniforms, insignia, titles, and similar symbols. Faced with such obvious reminders
of whois in charge, most people find it difficult to resist.
3. If there is anticipation that targets of influence might resist, thenthere is gradual intensification
of the authority figure‘s orders.
Initially command or request is made for comparatively mildaction but later it is increased in
scope and dangerous orobjectionable behaviours are expected. For example, police arefirst
ordered to question, threaten, or arrest potential victims.
Gradually, demands are increased to the point where thesepersonnel are commanded to even kill
unarmed civilians.
4. Events in many situations involving destructive obedience movevery quickly: demonstrations
turn into riots, or arrests turn intomass beatings-or murders-suddenly. The fast pace of such
events gives participants little time for reflection: people areordered to obey and–almost
automatically, they do so.

Unit Six: Interpersonal Relations

6.1 Pro-social behavior
These are the actions that are described as prosaically behavior. It refers to actions by individual
that help others with no immediate benefit to helper; such actions are very common in oursocial
life. People who engage in such behaviors do not gain anything in return.

WHY PEOPLE HELP – MOTIVES BEHINDPROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Empathy – Altruism: It refers to putting oneself in other‘s shoes. Understanding the situation
from other‘s perspective. According to this perspective we help others because we experience
empathy towards them; we want their plight to end.
Negative State Relief Model: According to this model we help either because our actions allow
us to reduce our own negative feelings. These negative feelings are not necessary aroused by
emergency situation. Weengage in prosocial act as a way to improve our own negative mood. In
such cases unhappiness leads to prosocial behavior. In such situations empathy may be there or
not.
Empathic Joy: Helping behavior has been explained by Empathic Joy Hypothesis (Smith,
Kealing & Stotland 1989). This theory suggests that helper responds and helps victims not
because of empathy but because he wants to accomplish something and doing so is rewarding.
The argument goes like this if we help people only for empathy, then they would not be
concerned about feedback.
Competitive Altruism: According to this view people help others because in doing so their
status and reputation is enhanced. Thus, the benefits incurred are larger than the cost of the
prosocial behaviour. Those people who help others get higher status because society will always
prefer to have people who engage in prosocial behaviour. If helping person has higher status then
such a personmay be well compensated for engaging in prosocial action. They
are not only treated as a star but they may have entire buildings named after them. The best
example is dead diction centre atPoone, Yerwada, named after P.L. Deshpande, the famous
Marathiauthor.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kin Selection Theory: Helping ourselves by helping people who share our genes.
The Kin Selection Theory (as given by Cialdini Brown Lewis luck &Neuberg (Pinker 1997).
From the evolutionary perspective the main goal of all the organism is passing our genes to next
generation. Therefore, weare more likely to help others to whom we are closely related rather
than those to whom we are not related.
Crucial Steps Determine Helping and Non-Helping :
Latane and Darley (1970) proposed that likelihood of aperson engaging in prosocial is
determined by series of decisionsthat must be made quickly by those who witness an
emergency.When we are suddenly and unexpectedly faced with an emergencysituation that is
difficult to interpret, before acting we must firstfigure out what if anything is going on and what
we should do aboutit. This requires series of decisions that will determine whether wewill help a
person. The following factors determine the helping behaviour duringemergency.
1. Noticing or failing to notice that something unusual inhappening. In our day to day life we
are thinking aboutsomething and concentrating on something else. Forexample when you are
traveling by a local train, you hear anoise and hear that someone in having a problem
ofbreathlessness. We may not notice, maybe we are in sleepor deeply engrossed in some
thinking, concentrating onsomething else. Here we may fail to notice that somethingunusual is
happening. In everyday life we ignore many sightsand sounds that are not relevant to us, and
may not noticethe emergency situation.
2. Correctly interpreting an event as an emergency – Eventhose who pay attention to an
emergency situation haveincomplete information about what is happening? Most ofthe time
whatever is noticed may not be always anemergency. Whenever potential helpers are not aware
ofwhat is happening, they are likely to hold back and wait forfurther information. It may be that
when Genovese wasmurdered, people around could not understand what washappening, when
they heard the screams it was felt that manand a woman were possibly having a fight. The
situationitself was quite ambiguous for those who were possiblyhaving a fight. The situation
itself was quite ambiguous forthose who were witnessing it. In such situations people tendto
accept the interpretation that is most comfortable to them.
It is observed that when three are many witness for agiven incident. The help may not be given
because ofdiffusion of responsibility, like when there are so manypeople who can help why me?
Help is generally not given insuch a situation with the fear of being misinterpreted by
people generally, when we are uncertain about the situationand our actions we land up doing
nothing.
3) Deciding that it is your responsibility to provide help :Building catches a fine, cards
collide, in this situationetc., take the lead. But when the responsibility is not clear,people assume
that someone must take responsibility. Butwhen no one is present, the lone bystander has to take
theresponsibility.
4) Deciding that you have the necessary knowledge andskills to act :Prosocial behaviour
cannot occur unless aperson knows how to become helpful. Some emergenciesare sufficiently
simple; almost everyone knows how tobecome helpful. But when emergencies require a
specialhelp only some of the bystander can be of help. e.g. Goodswimmer can help a person,
who is drowning or a doctor canhelp patient with heart problem.
5) Making final decision to help:During emergency situationkeep is given to a person, only
when a bystander makes adecision to help. Many times helping behaviour may beinhibited by
potential negative consequences of thebehaviour. Fritzsch and others held that helper
engageshimself in cognitive algebra where he weighs positive andnegative consequences of it.
To summarize, deciding whether to help or not to helpis not a simple process. It requires series
of decisions to betaken by the helper.

6.2 Aggression
Aggression is one of the most potential dangers to mankind.It is a greatest stumbling block for
one‘s self development andgrowth. Aggression and violence have been experienced by almost
all societies and times. The two world wars, terrorist attacks, racialconflicts, communal clashes,
etc., have gradually increased overthe years. Whether aggression is manifested by individuals or
groups (including nations), it is the most destructive force in socialrelations and consequently an
important social issue. A majorconcern in either individual or group aggression is its origin.
Aggression is behavior, verbal or physical, intended tophysically hurt or harm in some other way
another person or thing.
Aggression is defined as behavior aimed at causing harm orpain, psychological harm, or personal
injury or physical distraction.An important aspect of aggressive behavior is the
intentionunderlying the actor's behavior. Not all behaviors resulting in harmare considered
aggression. For example, a doctor who makes aninjection that harms people, but who did so with
the intent ofpreventing the further spread of illness, is not considered to havecommitted an
aggressive act.

PERSPECTIVES ON AGGRESSION
The term Perspective means viewpoint. Perspectives onAggression mean different viewpoints on
aggression or theories ofaggression. It deals with the views of different researches as to
thereasons concerning why human beings aggress against others.There are many different
perspectives on aggression. The threemost common perspectives are as follows:
• The Role of Biological Factors: From Instincts toEvolutionary Perspective.
• Drive Theories: The Motive to Harm Others.
• Modern Theories of Aggression: The Social LearningPerspective and The General Aggression
Model.
1. The Role of Biological Factors:From Instincts to Evolutionary Perspective: One of
theimportant debatable issues has been what role do instincts orgenetic factors play in
aggression. One view holds that humanbeings are genetically programmed for aggression and
violence.
Views of Sigmund Freud:One of the earliest instinct theorieswas given by Sigmund Freud
which held the view that humanviolence stems from built-in (i.e., inherited) tendencies to
aggressagainst others. He held the view that human aggression isinstinctive. Freud believed that
the individual has two basicinstinctive drives:
• Eros (or libido or life instinct) an Thanatos or death instinct.
He called the instinct to live and obtain pleasure libido and gave the name Thanatos to the death
drive. Whenthandominates, the result is self-punishment and suicide.
According to this viewpoint aggression springs mainly from abuilt in fighting, instinct that
humans share with many other species.Presumably, this instinct developed during the course of
evolutionbecause it yielded many benefits. For example fighting serves todisperse populations
over a wide area, thus, ensuring maximumuse of available resources. And since it is often closely
related, such behaviour often helps to strengthen the genetic makeup of a species by assuring that
only the strongest and mostvigorous individuals manage to reproduce.
Konrad Lorenz on Aggression:Konrad Lorenz held the view thatinstinct to aggress is common
to many animal species. Lorenz,however, differs from Freud, since he states that
aggressivebehaviour will not occur unless it is triggered by external cues.
Instinct view Rejected by Social Psychologists:Most SocialPsychologists rejected the
instinctive theories of aggression.According to them it is difficult to give a genetic explanation
ofhuman aggression because aggression in human beings isexpressed in many different forms,
how can such a huge variationbe caused by genetic factors. Secondly, the genetic theory
ofaggression is weak because all societies are not equallyaggressive. The frequency of
aggressive actions variestremendously across human societies, so that it is much more likelyto
occur in some than in others. Do biologically inherited tendenciestoward aggression actually
exist among human beings? Mostsocial psychologists doubt that they do, primarily for two
important
reasons:
(i) First, they note that instinctive view such as the one proposedby Freud and Lorenz is
somewhat circular in nature. Theseviews begin by observing that aggression is a common form
ofbehaviour. On the basis of this they then reason that suchbehaviour must stem from universal
built-in urges or tendencies.
Finally, they use the high incidence of aggression as support forthe presence of such instances
and impulses.
(ii) Second, and perhaps more important - several findings argueagainst the existence of
universal, innate human tendenciestoward aggression. Comparisons among various societies
indicate that the level of at least some forms of aggressionvaries greatly.
The present day Social Psychologists generally concludethat genetic and biological factors play
little if any role in humanaggression.
Evolutionary Perspective :Evolutionary perspective to a greatextent believes that human
aggression is adaptive in nature andthat aggressive acts help individuals to preserve their genetic
material. Studies of mate selection among human beings as well asaggression among animals
have revealed that aggression confersmany evolutionary advantages among individuals of a
givenspecies and help them to successfully survive and adapt to theirenvironment.

2. Drive Theories:The Motive to Harm Others: Drive theories suggest thataggression

originates from external conditions that give rise to themotive to harm or injure others. In other
words drive theoriessuggest that various external conditions (frustration, physical pain,loss of
face) serve to arouse a strong motive to engage in harmproducing behavior and such aggressive
drive, in turn then leadsto the performance of overt assaults against others. One importantdrive
theories of aggression was presented by Dollard et al., calledas Frustration-Aggression
Hypothesis.
Frustration Aggression Hypothesis:This hypothesis wasproposed by Dollard et. al.,(1939), at
Yale University. They statedthat aggression is always a consequence of frustration and that
frustration always leads to some kind of aggression. In short, it heldthat frustrated people always
engage in some type of aggressionand that all acts of aggression result from some type of
frustration.
Critics have objected to both the portions of the frustrationaggression hypothesis.
• First, it is now clear that frustrated individuals do not alwaysrespond to thwarting with
aggressive thoughts, words or deed.Rather, they may actually show a wide variety of reactions,
ranging from resignation and despair on the one hand toattempts to overcome the source of their
frustration on theother. In many cases, it appears that, the most likely reaction topowerful
frustration is depression not overt acts of aggression(Bandura 1973).
Second, all aggression does not result from frustration. Peopleaggress for many different reasons
and in response to manydifferent factors. For example boxers hit and sometimes injuretheir
opponents because it is a part of their job to do so, notbecause they are frustrated. Soldiers often
attack and killothers out of a sense of patriotism or simply because it is theirduty. Public
executioners as well as hired assassin regularly killindividuals they do not know simply because
they are being paidto carry out these actions. Thus, all aggression is not a result offrustration.
Social Psychologists have largely rejected this theory.
3. Modern Theories of Aggression:The Social Learning Perspective and The General
Aggression Model: The two most well know modern theories of aggression arethe social
learning perspective and The General Aggression Model.We would discuss each of these briefly.
i. The Social Learning Perspective:This is one of the mostpopular theories of aggression.
According to it aggression, likeother complex forms of social behaviour, is largely learned. The
theoretical position that aggression is learned social behaviour hasbeen presented in the writings
of Bandura (1973), Baron (1977)and Zillmann (1979). The social learning theories have
basicallyattempted to see how social models lead to aggression. They havestudied the effect of
viewing violence, especially televised violence.
The social learning view of aggression also states that throughdirect and vicarious experience we
also learn.
• How to attack others (For, e.g., through guns, blows, sticks,etc.).
• Which persons or groups are appropriate targets foraggression?
• What actions by other either justify or actually requireaggression retaliation and.
• What situations or contexts are ones in which aggression isappropriate or inappropriate.
Social learning perspective suggests that whether a specificperson will aggress in a given
situation depends on many factors,including an individual‘s past experience, the current rewards
associated with past or present aggression and attitudes andvalues that shape an individual‘s
thoughts concerning theappropriateness and potential effects of such behaviour.
ii. The General Aggression Model: The general model ofaggression was presented by a group of
researchers, chief amongthem is Anderson (1997, 2002). According to this model aggression is a
result of combination of two factors: (a) situational factors and(b) personal factors. We would
discuss each of these briefly:
a) Factors relating to the current situation (situationalfactors):
• Frustration.
• Some kind of provocation from another person (e.g., insult),
• Exposure to other people behaving aggressively (aggressivemodels – real or those shown in the
media),
• Anything that causes individuals to experience discomfort –such as high temperature, dentist
injection / drill, extremelyboring lecture.
b) Factors relating to the people involved (personal factors):
These factors include individual differences of different typeswhich we find among people.
Some of the personal factors thatcan cause aggression in us are as follows:
 Traits that predispose some individuals towards aggression(such as high irritability,
antisocial personality, impulsivity,etc.).
 Attitudes and belief about violence (e.g., believing that it isacceptable and appropriate).
 A tendency to perceive hostile intentions in other‘s behavior and
 Specific skills related to aggression (e.g., knowing how tofight or how to use various
weapons.
According to the General Aggression Model, thesesituational and individual (personal factors)
variables lead to overtaggression through their impact on three basic processes:
i) Arousal:They may increase physical arousal or excitement.
ii) Affective States:They can arouse hostile feelings andoutwards signs of these (e.g., angry
facial expressions) and
iii) Cognitions:They can induce individuals to think hostilethoughts or can bring beliefs and
attitudes about aggressionto mind.
THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OFVIOLENCE (AGGRESSION): SOME
USEFULTECHNIQUES:
Prevention and control aggression is a well-planned strategy.Since aggression originates from a
complex interplay of externalevents, cognitions and personal characteristics, it can be prevented
or reduced. Some important techniques for preventing andcontrolling aggression are as follows:

1. Punishment
2. Self-regulation
3. Forgiveness
4. Non-violence
5. Other methods of reducing aggression
We would discuss each of these briefly.
1. Punishment:Punishment can be defined as delivery ofaversive consequences. It is a major
technique for reducingaggression. People who are given punishment:
 Are made to pay fines
 Put in prison
 Placed under solitary confinement
 Receive physical punishment for their aggressive acts, etc.
It is a common belief among the members of the society thatthose individuals who have indulged
in acts of aggression needsto be punished. The amount of punishment people receiveshould be
matched to the magnitude of the harm they havecaused. For example breaking someone‘s arm
should deserveless punishment than permanently harming them or killing them.
In addition, the magnitude of punishment should take in toaccount the extenuating (mitigating or
justifying) circumstances.For example, was there some good reason for indulging inaggressive
actions such as self-defense or was it an act ofhostile aggression. The main aim of punishing the
individualwho have indulged in acts of aggression is to deter him/her formengaging in such acts
in the future. Secondly, aggressive actswhich are hard to detect, For example, that involve hidden
orcovert forms of harming others, should be strongly punishedbecause only strong punishment
will deter people fromengaging in actions they believe they can get away with.Parents as well as
social institutions resort to punishment tocontrol children's aggressive behaviour and aggressive
activitiesof the criminals. Punishment is assigned in proportion to theextent of seriousness of the
aggressive behaviour. It is true thatpunishment is sometimes quite effective. Results of
severalstudies conducted with children suggest that the frequency orintensity of such behaviour
can often be considerably reducedby even mild forms of punishment like social disapproval.
Conditions necessary for punishment to be effective:Inorder for punishment to be effective
several conditions asfollows must be met.
(a) Punishment must follow objectionable behavior immediately or at least quickly. In other
words punishmentmust be delivered promptly.
(b) It must be of sufficient magnitude to be aversive to therecipient.
(c) There must be clear contingency between individualbehaviour and punishment.
(d) Punishment must also be certain, i.e., the probability that itwill follow aggression must be
very high.
(e) Punishment must be strong, i.e., strong enough to be highlyunpleasant to potential recipients.
(f) Punishment must also be effective.
2. Self-regulation:Self-regulation refers to internal mechanismfor controlling aggression. It
involves displaying self-control andrestraints. It refers to our capacity to regulate many aspects
ofour behaviour including display of overt aggression. Selfregulationinvolves the use of
cognitive effort to controlaggression. Changing one‘s cognitions and attributions about agiven
event can lead to reductions in aggression.
3. Forgiveness :Forgiveness can be defined as giving up the desire to punish someone who has
hurt us and seeking,instead, to act in a kind and helpful ways towards them.
Forgiveness helps to reduce subsequent aggression andretaliation.
4. Non-violence:It is an important principle of peace that hasbeen a part of the Indian philosophy
and has been advocated byLord Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi and others. Non-violence helpsto
reduce aggressive acts. In public life, especially protestsagainst the authorities, non-violence
plays an important role.
5. Other methods of reducing aggression:Many differentmethods of reducing aggression are
available. These include asfollows:
a) Catharsis
b) Cognitive Intervention Strategies
c) Exposure to Non-aggressive models
d) Training in Social Skills
We would discuss each of these briefly.
a) Catharsis:It refers to a view that if individuals give went totheir anger and hostility in
relatively non-harmful ways, theirtendencies to engage in more dangerous types of aggression
will be reduced. In other words catharsis hypothesis, aspresented by Dollard et al (1939), states
that providing angryindividuals with the opportunity to ―blow off steam‖ throughvigorous but
non-harmful actions will:
 Reduce their level of arousal, and
 Lower their tendencies to engage in overt acts ofaggression.
b) Cognitive Intervention Strategies:By cognitive interventionstrategies we mean various
forms of perception, thoughts,reasoning or inferences that will help us to change our ideas,
behaviour or outlook with respect to aggression. There aremany cognitive intervention strategies.
(i) One type of cognitive intervention strategy is ourattributions concerning a given event.
Attributions often playa major role in determining reactions to provocation. If wedecide that
provocation from another stems mainly from internalcauses (e.g., his or her motives and
intentions) we are muchmore likely to grow angry and respond aggressively than if we
conclude that these actions stem largely from external factorsbeyond his or her control. This fact
in turn points to an intriguingpossibility ―perhaps aggression can be reduced in manysituations
by conditions encouraging individuals to make such external attributions‖. In short, if persons
exposed toprovocation can be induced to interpret provocative actions byothers as stemming
mainly from external causes, lateraggression may be greatly reduced.
(ii) Another cognitive intervention strategy is to help anindividual to overcome his/her cognitive
deficit. Very often,when we become angry our ability to evaluate theconsequences of our actions
is reduced. Helping the individualto overcome his/her cognitive deficit will help to
reduceaggression to a considerable extent. Two important proceduresthat will help us to
overcome cognitive deficits are as follows:
 Pre-Attribution: Attributing annoying actions by others tounintentional causes before the
provocation actually occurs.For example, before meeting with someone you know canbe
irritating, you could remind yourself that she or he doesn‘tmean to make you angry—it‘s
just the result of anunfortunate personal style.
  Prevention of Rumination: Another technique involvespreventing yourself—or others—
from ruminating aboutprevious real or imagined wrongs (Zillmann, 1993). You
canaccomplish this by participating in pleasant, absorbingactivities that have no
connection to anger and aggression,for e.g., watching a funny movie or television
program tosolving interesting puzzles. Such activities allow for acooling-off period
during which anger can dissipate, and alsohelp to reestablish cognitive control over
behavior.
(iii) Still another cognitive intervention strategy includesapologies and offering good excuses.
By apologies we meanadmissions of wrong doings that include requests forforgiveness. Offering
good excuses also helps to reduce angerin others. Good excuses are ones that make references
tofactors beyond the excuse-giver‘s control.
c) Exposure to Non-aggressive Models:Aggression results dueto exposure to aggressive
models. Similarly, exposingindividuals to non-aggressive models can lead to decrease
inaggression. Research studies by Baron and associates (1972)have shown that individuals
exposed to the actions of nonaggressivemodels later demonstrated lower levels of
aggression than persons not exposed to such models.Research has shown that it is very useful to
plant nonaggressivemodels in tense and threatening situations. Theirpresence will help to reduce
aggression and violence.
d) Training in Social Skills:One of the reasons why individualsindulge in aggression is that
they lack some form of social skill.There is a communication breakdown. Research has shown
that individuals, who lack the social skill of communication, selfexpressionsare insensitive to the
feelings and emotions ofothers and are likely to become more aggressive. Helping
suchindividuals to learn appropriate communication skills, to learnexpressive modes of
frustration and to become sensitive toemotional feelings of others will considerably help to
reduceaggression.

6.3 Stereotype, Prejudice and Discrimination

Stereotype - A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplifiedconception, opinion, or image.
A partiality that prevents objectiveconsideration of an issue or situation. A preconceived opinion;
bias;sentence passed before proper examination of the circumstancesStereotypes can be either
positive ("black men are good atbasketball") or negative ("women are bad drivers"). But most
stereotypes tend to make us feel superior in some way to theperson or group being stereotyped.
Stereotypes ignore theuniqueness of individuals by painting all members of a group withthe
same brush.
Prejudice – A prejudice evolves from a stereotype. Prejudices canbe positive as well as
negative. Positive stereotypes can also leadto discrimination but largely not as harmful as
negative. Based onour stereotypes if we start forming hostile or negative opinions ofothers or
when a person dislikes another for no good reason, orhas formed a hostile opinion of someone
before even getting toknow them it is prejudice. It is in other words a negative judgmentor
opinion formed about an individual or group without knowledgeof the facts.
Discrimination -- Treating people in a less favorable way becausethey are members of a
particular group. Discrimination is prejudicein action. Let us take a concrete example
For instance you perceive ‗A’ community as violent becauseof stereotyping. You might not show
your hatred with words, butyour prejudice is there and when you take a negative action
youdiscriminate. For instance you are the boss of a company and aperson from that A
community applies for a job you already have aprejudice against them and so you might not
select the candidateeven if he/she is meritorious. This is discrimination. So you see how
the three terms described above are interrelated.
Thus there is a relationship between stereotypes, prejudice anddiscrimination.Prejudice and
discrimination occur with respect todifferences in race, ethnicity, gender, language and a variety
ofother social categories.
Thus, stereotypes and prejudice is a widespreadphenomenon, present in all societies of the world.
Our societyoften innocently creates and perpetuates stereotypes, but thesestereotypes often lead
to unfair discrimination and persecutionwhen the stereotype is unfavorable. Social perception
involves thedevelopment of an attitude towards another person or group ofpersons.

• Stereotypes: Beliefs about members of a specific group.

• Prejudice: Negative feelings towards members of a specificgroup.
• Discrimination: Negative behaviours / actions directed atmembers of a specific group.

NATURE AND ORIGINS OF STEREOTYPING

From where does stereotype and prejudice emerge? Why dothey exist? Why do people even
today carry stereotypes leading toprejudice and discrimination? There are many possible sources
from where this stems.
1. Direct inter-group conflict (competition as a source ofPrejudice):It is sad but true that
people want and value mostgood jobs, nice homes, high status, which is always in shortsupply.
This fact serves as the oldest explanation forstereotypes and prejudice. This is the realistic
conflict theory,the view that prejudice stems form direct competition betweenvarious social
groups over valued commodities andopportunities.
2. The social learning view:A second explanation for the originsof stereotype and prejudice is
straightforward. It suggests thatprejudice is learned and that it develops in the same manner
and through the same basic mechanisms as other attitudestowards social groups because we hear
such views expressedby parents, teachers and others and because they are directlyrewarded for
adopting such views. Another reason is alsoconformity with social norms or with groups to
which theybelong. The development of stereotype and prejudice comesform this tendency. ―If
the members of my group dislike them,then so should I.‖
3. Social categorization:Us versus–Them Effect: A thirdperspective on the origins of
stereotyping and prejudice beginswith this basic facts that people generally divide the social
worldinto two distinct categories Us and Them–social categorization
In-groupsus and the Outgroup is them. Persons in theingroup are perceived favorably while
those in the latter areperceived more negatively. This tendency to make morefavorable and
flattering attributions about members of one‘sgroup than members about the other group is
known as theultimate attribution error. Research evidence shows thatindividuals seek to enhance
their self-esteem by identifying withsome special groups. And so the final result is inevitable,
eachgroup seeks to view itself better than the rivals. Thus, one of theimportant source of
stereotyping and prejudice is to divide ourworld into two opposing camps.
4. Outgroup Homogeneity Effect: Tendency for social perceiversto assume there is greater
similarity among members ofoutgroups than among members of ingroups. Sometimes wecome
across statements like you know what they are like?―They are all the same if you have met one
you have met all‖this means members of outgroup are more similar than theingroup.
TECHNIQUES TOCOUNTER PREJUDICE AND ITS EFFECTS :
Given that prejudice is common in all human societies andexerts damaging effects both on the
victims and on those who holdsuch views, the important question to address is ‗Is it possible to
remove prejudice? What steps can be taken to do this?
Considering the growing prejudice among people over religion,region, language, race, it seems
almost like prejudice is inevitable.But stereotyping and prejudice can be definitely reduced to a
largeextent by becoming aware and educating ourselves. And withconcentrated multi-pronged
approach we can do many things tocounter prejudice.
1. Teaching children Acceptance Instead of Bigotry (narrowmindedness):Homes and
schools are places where childrenlearn to get their generalizations leading to stereotypes. It is
theresponsibility of parents, teachers to bring their children up withacceptance and positive
attitudes towards other groups and berole models. Because often the attitudes and prejudiced
notionsare not necessarily taught but ‗caught‘ from adults and theenvironment the children
operate in. There is sufficientevidence, today that teachers can be victims of bias andprejudice
and can reflect in their classrooms.
2. Teaching children from an early age to respect all groups:
We must teach children, including ones very different from theirown - prejudice can be nipped in
the bud or at least curbed.
Valuing Diversity is very important. Ethnocentrism should bediscouraged. The education of
young children should promoterespect for a multicultural society and tolerance and
acceptancevirtures that need to be developed quite consciously.
3. Increased Intergroup Contact:This is based on the Contacthypothesis: the theory that
direct contact between hostilegroups will reduce prejudice. Recent findings indicate that ifpeople
merely know that friendly contacts between members oftheir own group and members of various
out groups (groups inwhich we do not belong) is possible, their prejudice towardsthese groups
can be sharply reduced.
However, there are some conditions like the groups interactingmust be roughly equal in status,
the contact situation mustinvolve cooperation and not competition. They should worktowards
shared goals and the setting should help themunderstand each other better. In short, direct inter-
group contactcan be an effective tool to combat cross-group prejudice.
4. Recategorization: redrawing the boundary between ‘Us andThem’: Once individuals
mentally include people, they onceexcluded from their ingroup(groups in which we belong)
withinit, prejudice toward them may disappear. Reminding people thatthey are part of large
groups - for instance, that they are allIndians, Americans Canadians or even human beings - can
helpaccomplish this kind of categorization.
5. Undermining-Stereotypes: Stereotypes suggest that allpersons belonging to specific social
groups alike - they sharethe same characteristics. Such beliefs can be weakened ifpeople are
encouraged to think about others as individuals notsimply as members of social groups. Also,
some evidencesuggests that affirmative action programs in schools andcolleges, offices may
actually encourage positive perceptionsand the persons who benefit from them will look at
people andevents more objectively. This will serve to counter prejudice
byundermining(deflating) stereotypes. There must be an effort tolook down upon people with
prejudiced attitudes.
6. Reducing Prejudice through Cognitive interventions:Weakening stereotypes: Stereotypes
involve category-drivenprocessing -- thinking about others in terms of their membershipin
social categories or groups. Stereotypes can be reduced ifpersons can be made to engage in
attribute-driven processing-- thinking about the unique characteristics of individuals
andobjective judgment.
7. Cooperative activities: Cooperative activities such as teambuilding exercises, workshops
involving games that help toremove bias and prejudice should be carried out in schools,colleges,
work places, etc. It is a good way to reduce animosityand bitterness that stems from low self
esteem and stereotypedattitudes. Thus, non-competitive contact between in and outgroups on
terms of equal status and the pursuit of common.

Unit seven: Group Process

Groups are a fundamental part of social life. As we see theycan be very small - just two people -
or very large. They can behighly rewarding to their members and to society as a whole, but there
are also significant problems and dangers with them. All thismakes them an essential focus for
research, exploration and action.
Defining ‘group’:
As researchers turned to the systematic exploration of grouplife, different foci for attention
emerged. Some social psychologists,looked at the ways in which, for example, working in the
presenceof others tend to raise performance (Allport 1924). Others looked atdifferent aspects of
group process. Kurt Lewin (1948), for example,found that nearly all groups were based on
interdependence amongtheir members – and this applied whether the group was large orsmall,
formally structured or loose, or focused on this activity orthat. In a famous piece Lewin wrote, ‗it
is not similarity ordissimilarity of individuals that constitutes a group, butinterdependence of
fate‘. In other words, groupscome about in a psychological sense because people realize they are
‗in the same boat‘.In part differences in definition occur because writers oftenselect those things
that are of special importance in their work andthen posit 'these as the criteria for group
existence'. This said, it is possible, as Jarlath F. Benson has done, toidentify a list of attributes:
 A set of people engage in frequent interactions.
 They identify with one another.
 They are defined by others as a group.
 They share beliefs, values, and norms about areas ofcommon interest.
 They define themselves as a group.
 They come together to work on common tasks and for agreed purposes.

Group Formation
Well functioning groups do not just form out of the blue. Ittakes time for a group to develop to a
point where it can beeffective and where all members feel connected to it. BruceTuckman has
identified four stages that characterize thedevelopment of groups. Understanding these stages can
helpdetermine what is happening with a group and how to manage whatis occurring. These four
group development stages are known asforming, storming, norming, and performing as described
below andthe skills needed to successfully guide a group through thesestages are described.
1. Forming:This is the initial stage when the group comestogether and members begin to
develop their relationship withone another and learn what is expected of them. This is thestage
when team building begins and trust starts to develop.Group members will start establishing
limits on acceptablebehavior through experimentation. Other members‘ reactions willdetermine
if a behavior will be repeated. This is also the timewhen the tasks of the group and the members
will be decided.
2. Storming:During this stage of group development,interpersonal conflicts arise and differences
of opinion about thegroup and its goals will surface. If the group is unable to clearly
state its purposes and goals or if it cannot agree on sharedgoals, the group may collapse at this
point. It is important towork through the conflict at this time and to establish cleargoals. It is
necessary that there should be discussion soeveryone feels heard and can come to an agreement
on thedirection the group is to move in.
3. Norming:Once the group resolves its conflicts, it can establishpatterns of how to get its work
done. Expectations of oneanother are clearly articulated and accepted by members of thegroup.
Formal and informal procedures are established indelegating tasks, responding to questions, and
in the process bywhich the group functions. Members of the group come tounderstand how the
group as a whole operates.
4. Performing:During this final stage of development, issuesrelated to roles, expectations, and
norms are no longer of majorimportance. The group is now focused on its task,
workingintentionally and effectively to accomplish its goals. The groupwill find that it can
celebrate its accomplishments and thatmembers will be learning new skills and sharing roles.
After agroup enters the performing stage, it is unrealistic to expect it toremain there permanently.
When new members join or some people leave, there will bea new process of forming, storming,
and norming engaged aseveryone learns about one another. External events may lead toconflicts
within the group. To remain healthy, groups will go throughall of these processes in a continuous
loop.
When conflict arises in a group, do not try to silence theconflict or to run from it. Let the conflict
come out into the open sopeople can discuss it. If the conflict is kept under the surface,members
will not be able to build trusting relationships and thiscould harm the group‘s effectiveness. If
handled properly, the groupwill come out of the conflict with a stronger sense of
cohesivenessthen before.

Social Facilitation: Performance in the Presence of others

Allport referred to the effects on performance of the presence of others as socialfacilitation,
because it appeared that when others were present performance was enhanced. Researchers today
refer to social facilitation as inhibition, a phrase that more accurately reflects the complex effects
of presence of other persons.
Zajonc’s Drive theory of Social Facilitation: Other persons as a source ofArousal
An implication of Zajon‘c reasoning is the drive theory of social facilitation. It suggeststhat the
mere presence of others is arousing and increases the tendency to performdominant responses.
Many studies soon provided support for Zajno‘c theory. Individualswere more likely to perform
dominant responses in the presence of others than whenalone and their performance on various
tasks was either enhanced or impaired dependingon whether these responses were correct or
incorrect in each situation.
Social Loafing: Letting Others Do the Work When Part of a Group
Social Psychologists refer to reduction in motivation and effort when individual‘s
workcollectively in a group compared to when they work individually or as independentcoactors
as social loafing. The social loafing occurs has been demonstrated in manyexperiments. For
example, on one of the first, Latane, Williams and Harkins (1979) askedgroups of male students
to clap or cheer as loudly as possible at specific times,supposedly so that the experimenter could
determine how much noise people make insocial settings. They performed these tasks in groups
of two, four or six persons. Resultsindicated that although the total amount of noise rose as group
size increased the amountof each participant dropped. In other words, each person put out less
and less effort asgroup size increased.
Decision Making by Groups
Groups are called upon to perform a wide range of tasks, everything from conducting surgical
operations through harvesting the world crops. One of the most important activities they perform
is decision making. The process through which individuals or groups combine and integrate
available information in order to chose one out of several possible courses of action.

The Nature of Group Decisions

Important decisions are rarely left to individuals. They are usually assigned to groups and highly
qualified groups at that. Different kinds of decisions in many different contexts groups show a
pronounced tendency to shift toward views more extreme than the ones with which they initially
begin. This is called group polarization. It is the tendency of group members to shift toward more
extreme positions than those they initially held as a result of group discussion. Not only does the
group shift toward more extreme views, individual group members too. The term group
polarization does not refer to a tendency of groups to split apart in to two opposing camps or
poles on the contrary it refers to a strengthening of the groups initial preferences.
De individuation
At times group situations may cause people to lose self-awareness, resulting less of individuality
and self –restraint. Social facilitation experiments show that groups canarouse people. Results of
such experiments indicate that people tend to commit acts that range from a mild lessening of
restraining to impulsive self-gratification. For example, in an incident, 200 University of
Oklahoma students gathered to watch a disturbed student threatening to jump from a tower. They
began to chant ―Jump. Jump …………‖ The student jumped to his death (UPI, 1967). The
incident described is provoked by the power of the group. Groups sometimes generate a sense of
excitement of being caught up in something bigger than one‘s self. In such group situations
people are likely to abandon normal restraints to lose their sense of individual identity.
Leon Festinger and Albert Pepitone and Theodore Newcomb, (1952) termed the above as de
individuation. It refers to the loss of self-awareness and evolution apprehension, occurs in group
situations that foster responsiveness to group norms, good or bad.
Group polarization
Studies of people in groups have produced a principle that helps to explain the good and bad
outcomes produced by groups. Group discussion often strengthens member‘s initial inclination.
The Case of the “Risky Shift
This refers to the group-produced enhancement of members preexisting tendencies, a
strengthening of the members‘ average tendency, not a split within the group. Research literature
from by James Stoner (1961) who tested the commonly held belief that groups are more cautious
than individuals. He posed decision dilemmas in which the participant‘s task was to advise
imagined characters how much risk to take. Results revealed that risky shift occurs not only
when a group decides by consensus but also when individuals alter their decisions. After several
years of study, Stoner discovered that risky shift was not universal.
Group Polarization experiments
Dozens of studies confirm group polarization. Moscovici and Zavalloni (1969) observed that
discussion enhanced French Students initially positive attitude toward their president and
negative attitude toward Americans. MititoshiIsozaki (1984) found that Japanese university
students gave more pronounced judgments of ―guilty‖ after discussing a traffic case. Markus
Brauer and his co-workers (2001) found that French students dislike for certain other people was
exacerbated after discussing their shared negative impressions.

Group Think
The tendency of highly cohesive groups to assume that their decisions can‘t be wrong, that all
members must support the group‘s decision and ignore information contrary to it. This is referred
to as group think. A strong tendency for decision making groups to close ranks cognitively
around a decision assuming that the group can‘t be wrong that all members must support the
decision strongly and that any information contrary to it should be rejected.
Conclusion
When two or more people join together with common goals, act interdependently with social
relationship and recognizing each other groups reformed. It is inevitable that each one are
members of so many groups. All the groups influence the behavior of individuals. Groups at
times facilitate the members‘ performance as well as hinders. Remaining in groups serve lot of
purpose for individuals. The groups mask the individual‘s identity. Again, when people join
together individual thinking reduces group think increases. Due to this individual‘s decisions are
influenced by the groups ideas.

Unit Eight

Theoretical perspectives in group dynamics

Introduction

In this unit you will be introduced with the different types of theoretical perspectives of groups
and group dynamics. Here, the perspectives are provided here dividing into two broad categories:
Psychological Theories and Sociological Theories. The first part deals with the psychological
perspectives on groups and these are motivational and emotional perspectives, behavioural
perspectives, system theory perspectives, cognitive perspectives and biological/evolutionary
perspectives. At the last it will deal with the sociological theories and these are such as classical
theory, social exchange theory and social identity theory. Hence, this unit in general focuses
about the explanation of groups and group dynamics from different perspectives.

Researchers have developed many theories about groups and their dynamics. Some of these
theories are relatively narrow, for they focus on some specific aspect of groups. Others, in
contrast, are far broader in scope, for they offer general explanations for groups across a wide
variety of times and contexts. It is to mean that some of them are very specific and others are too
abstract. These theories, despite their variations, often share certain basic assumptions about
what processes are more important than others, the types of outcomes they explain, and the
variables that are most influential. Under here, we are going to discuss the following five
theoretical perspectives.

8.1 Psychological Perspectives

8.1.1 Motivational and Emotional Perspectives

Why do some groups struggle against adversity, whereas others give up after the first setback?
Why do some people shy away from groups, whereas others join dozens of them? The answers
to these ―why‖ questions often lie in people‘s motivations and emotions. Motivations are
psychological mechanisms that give purpose and direction to behavior. These inner mechanisms
can be called many things—habits, beliefs, feelings, wants, instincts, compulsions, drives—but
no matter what their label, they prompt people to take action. Emotions often accompany these
needs and desires; feelings of happiness, sadness, satisfaction, and sorrow are just a few of the
emotions that can influence how people act in group situations. The words motivation and
emotion both come from the Latin word movere, meaning ―to move.‖

There is the concept of group affective mode. Jennifer George‘s (1995) theory of group
affective tone takes a more emotion-focused approach to explaining group behavior. George
posits that groups, over time, develop a tendency to display collective mood states. This general
affective tone is not tied to any specific aspect of the group‘s activities or to any one individual,
but rather pervades all the group‘s day-to-day activities.

8.1.2 Behavioral Perspectives

Many theories about groups draw on the seminal work of psychologist B. F. Skinner (1953,
1971). Skinner‘s behaviorism was based on two key assumptions. First, Skinner believed that
psychological processes, such as motives and drives, may shape people‘s reactions in groups, but
he also believed that such psychological processes are too difficult to index accurately. He
therefore recommended measuring and analyzing how people actually behave in a specific
context rather than speculating about the psychological or interpersonal processes that may have
instigated their actions. Second, Skinner believed that most behavior was consistent with the law
of effect—that is, behaviors that are followed by positive consequences, such as rewards, will
occur more frequently, whereas behaviors that are followed by negative consequences will
become rarer.

John Thibaut and Harold Kelley‘s (1959) social exchange theory extended Skinner‘s
behaviorism to groups. They agreed that individuals hedonistically strive to maximize their
rewards and minimize their costs. However, when individuals join groups, they forego exclusive
control over their outcomes. Groups create interdependence among members, so that the actions
of each member potentially influence the outcomes and actions of every other member.

8.1.3 Systems Theory Perspective

A systems theory approach assumes groups are complex, adaptive, dynamic systems of
interacting individuals. The members are the units of the system, who are coupled one to another
by relationships. Just as systems can be deliberately designed to function in a particular way,
groups are sometimes created for a purpose, with procedures and standards that are designed
with the overall goal of the system in mind. Groups can, however, be self-creating and self-
organizing systems, for they may develop spontaneously as individuals begin to act in
coordinated, synchronized ways. Just as a system receives inputs from the environment,
processes this information internally, and then outputs its products, groups gather information,
review that information, and generate products. Groups are also responsive to information
concerning the context in which they operate and their impact on that context, and will adapt in
response to feedback about the efficacy of their actions.
Systems theory provides a model for understanding a range of group-level processes, including
group development, productivity, and interpersonal conflict. Input–process–output models of
group productivity, or I–P–O models, are systems theories that emphasize inputs that feed into
the group setting, the processes that take place within the group as it works on the task, and the
outputs generated by the system.
8.1.4 Cognitive Perspectives

A group‘s dynamics, in many cases, become understandable only by studying the cognitive
processes that allow members to gather information, make sense of it, and then act on the results
of their mental appraisals. When people join a group for the first time, they immediately begin to
form an impression of the group. This perceptual work prompts them to search for information
about the other group members, rapidly identifying those who are outgoing, shy, and intelligent.
Group members also search their memories for stored information about the group and the tasks
it must face, and they must retrieve that information before they can use it. A group member
must also take note of the actions of others and try to understand what caused the other member
to act in this way. Thus, group members are busy perceiving, judging, reasoning, and
remembering, and all these mental activities influence their understanding of one another, the
group, and themselves.

John Turner‘s (1991, 1999) self-categorization theory, or SCT, offers a cognitive explanation
for a range for group processes, including intergroup perception and stereotyping. This theory
explains the cognitive mechanisms that work to align people‘s self-conceptions with their
conception of the groups to which they belong.

8.1.5 Biological Perspectives/Evolutionary Perspective

One biological perspective—evolutionary psychology—argues that these processes may be

genetically determined; part of the species‘ biological programming that has evolved through
natural selection. This perspective argues that in the last 15 million years, the human species has
evolved socially as well as physically. Those individuals who were even slightly genetically
predisposed to engage in adaptive social behaviors tended to survive longer, so they were more
successful in passing their genes along to future generations.

Evolutionary psychology offers insight into a range of group processes, including affiliation,
intergroup conflict, and aggression. For example, why do so many groups include the role of
leader, even when the group members are fully capable of organizing themselves? Evolutionary
psychology suggests that leadership, as a process, likely evolved over time to help relatively
small groups of people cope with extremely difficult, life-threatening circumstances. Facing
problems of survival, group members needed a way to coordinate their activities and manage the
inevitable conflicts that erupt in any group.
8.2 Sociological Theories
Man is a social animal; it is not possible for him to live in isolation. He needs people around and
hence lives in a society. When he lives in a society he follows some rules and regulations and
norms of the society. In this scenario general sociology comes into being. Sociology is very
closely related to Psychology though they differ in some areas. What makes sociology a science
was its scientific research focus on humanity.

Sociology may be defined as the study of social relationships, social action and social culture.
Areas of study in general sociology ranges from the analysis of brief contents between an
individual on the street to the study of global social process. Sociology is classified as a
behavioral science in academic discipline

Theories of social change in general, are concerned with the explanation on the sources of social
change, the time span of the change and the effect of the change on the changing unit. Theories
in rural sociology were all concerned with the problems of social order and social change. Based
on the above, different schools of thought emerged which were later grouped into two large
camps; consensus or equilibrium school (comprises of evolutionary and functional theories) and
conflict camps. Social change is the process by which attraction occurs in the structure and
function of a social system. Social system, in this definition, may be a group, a community, a
city, a region or a nativity. Social changes affect the society as well as the individual. At
individual level, it is concerned with how individual learns of innovation, what motivates him to
change, how to adjust to change and the societal personal factors affecting social change. It is on
these premises that various schools of thoughts and theories emerged as theories of social
change.

As applied to group development, group dynamics is concerned with why and how groups
develop. Theories of group development.
8.2.1 Classic Theory
This theory was developed by George Homans and he posited that groups develop based on
activities, interactions and sentiments. The theory indicates that, when individuals share common
activities, they will have more interaction and will develop attitudes towards each other.

8.2.2 Social exchange theory

This theory stipulates that individuals form relationship based on the implicit expectation of
mutually beneficial exchanges based on trust and felt obligation. Thus, a perception that
exchange relationships will be positive is essential if individuals are to be attracted and affiliate
with a group.
8.2.3 Social identity theory
Simply put, this theory suggests that individuals get a sense of identity and self-esteem based
upon their membership in salient groups. The group may be demographically based, culturally
based or organizational based. Individuals are motivated to belong to and contribute to identity
groups because of the sense of belongingness and self-worth membership.