This document provides an overview of social psychology. It begins by defining social psychology as the scientific study of how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by real or imagined presence of others. It discusses key concepts such as social influence, construal, fundamental attribution error, self-esteem, and social cognition. Experimental research methods are emphasized. Comparisons are made between social psychology and other fields like personality psychology and sociology. Applications of social psychology to understanding and solving social problems are also mentioned.
1 of 50
More Related Content
Aronson 6e ch1_intro
1. Social Psychology
Elliot Aronson
University of California, Santa Cruz
Timothy D. Wilson
University of Virginia
Robin M. Akert
Wellesley College
slides by Travis Langley
Henderson State University
6th edition
3. WHAT IS SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY?
Social psychology
The scientific study of the way in which
people's thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors are influenced by the real or
imagined presence of other people.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
4. • At the very heart of social psychology is the
phenomenon of social influence:
We are all influenced by other people.
• Social psychologists are interested in
understanding how and why the social
environment shapes the thoughts and feelings
of the individual.
WHAT IS SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY?
Social Influence
The effect that the words, actions, or mere presence of other
people have on our thoughts, feelings, attitudes, or behavior.
5. The Power of Social
Interpretation
To understand social influence it is more
important to understand how people
perceive and interpret the social world
than it is to understand that world
objectively.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
6. The term "construal" refers to the world as
it is interpreted by the individual.
Given the importance placed on the way
people interpret the social world, social
psychologists pay special attention to the
origins of these interpretations.
The Power of Social
Interpretation
7. Example:
Consider what happens in a murder trial.
• Even when the prosecution presents compelling evidence,
these construals rest on a variety of events and perceptions
that often bear no objective relevant evidence.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
8. Example:
Consider what happens in a murder trial.
• Even when the prosecution presents compelling evidence,
these construals rest on a variety of events and perceptions
that often bear no objective relevant evidence.
• Did a key witness
hesitate before
answering, suggesting
to some jurors that she
might not be certain of
her data?
• Or did some jurors
consider the witness too
remote, arrogant,
certain of herself?
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
9. A special kind of construal is what Lee
Ross calls “naïve realism.”
Naïve Realism
The conviction all of us have that we
perceive things “as they really are.”
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
10. A special kind of construal is what Lee
Ross calls “naïve realism.”
Naïve Realism
The conviction all of us have that we
perceive things “as they really are.”
Example:
Although both Israelis and Palestinians
understand intellectually that the other
side perceives the issues differently,
both sides resist compromise, fearing
that their “biased” opponent will benefit
more than they.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
11. Another distinctive feature of social psychology
is that it is an experimentally based science.
As scientists, our goal is to find objective answers to
a wide array of important questions:
• What are the factors that cause aggression?
• How might we reduce prejudice?
• What variables cause two people to like or love
each other?
• Why do certain kinds of political advertisements
work better than others?
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
12. How Else Can We Understand
Social Influence?
• Social psychologists approach the
understanding of social influence
differently than philosophers, journalists,
or the lay person.
• Social psychologists develop
explanations of social influence through
experiments in which the variables being
studied are carefully controlled.
13. How Else Can We Understand
Social Influence?
Why do people behave the way they do?
• One way to answer this question might
be simply to ask them.
• The problem with this approach is that
people are not always aware of the
origins of their own responses and
feelings.
14. Folk Wisdom
Although a great deal can be learned from
“common sense” knowledge, there is at least
one problem with relying entirely on such
sources: They frequently disagree with one
another, and there is no easy way of
determining which of them is correct.
• Are we to believe that “out of sight is out of
mind” or that “absence makes the heart grow
fonder”?
• Which is true, that “haste makes waste” or that
“he who hesitates is lost”?
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
15. Philosophy
• Throughout history, philosophy has been a
major source of insight about human nature.
• The creativity and analytical thinking of
philosophers are a major part of the foundation
of contemporary psychology.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
• But what happens when philosophers disagree?
• Social psychologists address many of the same
questions that philosophers address, but we
attempt to answer them scientifically.
16. Social Psychology Compared
with Personality Psychology
• When trying to explain
social behavior—how an
individual act within a
social context (in relation
to others)--personality
psychologists explain the
behavior in terms of the
person's individual
character traits.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
17. Social Psychology Compared
with Personality Psychology
• While social psychologists
would agree that
personalities do vary, they
explain social behavior in
terms of the power of the
social situation (as it is
construed by the individual)
to shape how one acts.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
18. One of the tasks of the social psychologist
is to make educated guesses (called
hypotheses) about the specific situations
under which one outcome or the other
would occur.
• Just as a physicist performs experiments
to test hypotheses about the nature of
the physical world, the social
psychologist performs experiments to
test hypotheses about the nature of the
social world.
• The next task is to design well-controlled
experiments sophisticated enough to
tease out the situations that would result
in one or another outcome.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
19. Social Psychology Compared
with Other Social Sciences
Personality Psychology
• When trying to explain social behavior,
personality psychologists generally focus on
individual differences—the aspects of
people’s personalities that make them different
from others.
• Social psychologists are convinced that
explaining behavior primarily through
personality factors ignores a critical part of the
story: the powerful role played by social
influence.
20. Social Psychology Compared
with Other Social Sciences
The difference between social psychology and
other social sciences in level of analysis
reflects another difference between the
disciplines: what they are trying to explain.
• Other social sciences are more concerned with
broad social, economic, political, and historical
factors that influence events in a given society.
• For the social psychologist, the level of analysis
is the individual in the context of a social
situation.
21. Social Psychology Compared
with Other Social Sciences
Sociology
• Sociologists are more concerned with why a
particular society or group within a society
produces behavior (e.g., aggression) in its
members.
• The major difference is that sociology, rather
than focusing on the psychology of the
individual, looks toward society at large.
22. Social Psychology Compared
with Other Social Sciences
The goal of social psychology is to identify
universal properties of human nature that
make everyone susceptible to social
influence, regardless of social class or
culture.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
23. THE POWER OF SOCIAL
INFLUENCE
When trying to convince people that their behavior
is greatly influenced by the social environment, the
social psychologist is up against a formidable
barrier:
All of us tend to explain people’s behavior in terms
of their personalities.
Fundamental Attribution Error
The tendency to explain our own and other people’s
behavior entirely in terms of personality traits, thereby
underestimating the power of social influence.
24. Underestimating the Power of
Social Influence
• When we underestimate the power of social
influence, we gain a feeling of false security.
• Doing so gives the rest of us the feeling that we
could never engage in the repugnant behavior
shown by others.
• Ironically, this in turn increases our personal
vulnerability to possibly destructive social
influence by lulling us into lowering our guard.
• By failing to fully appreciate the power of the
situation, we tend to:
– Oversimplify complex situations which,
– Decreases our understanding of the true causes.
25. Underestimating the Power of
Social Influence
• Aspects of the social situation that may seem
minor can have powerful effects, overwhelming
the differences in people’s personalities.
• Personality differences do exist and frequently
are of great importance.
• But social and environmental situations can be
so powerful that they have dramatic effects on
almost everyone.
26. Underestimating the Power of
Social Influence
Lee Ross and colleagues had university resident assistants
identify which students would play games more
cooperatively and which would play more competitively.
All student volunteers then played the same game.
• Half were told that it was the Wall Street Game.
• Half were told that it was the Community Game.
Players’ behavior changed depending on something as
seemingly trivial as the game’s name.
• When it was called the Wall Street Game, two thirds played
competitively.
• When it was called the Community Game, only one third
played competitively.
27. The name of the game sent a powerful message about how
the players should behave.
28. The Subjectivity of the Social
Situation
• How humans will behave in a given
situations is not determined by the
objective conditions of a situation but,
rather how they perceive it (construal).
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
• Human beings are
sense making creatures,
constantly interpreting
things.
29. The Subjectivity of the Social
Situation
What exactly do we mean by the social situation?
One strategy for defining it would be to specify the
objective properties of the situation and then
document the behaviors that follow from these
objective properties.
Behaviorism
A school of psychology maintaining that to understand
human behavior, one need only consider the reinforcing
properties of the environment—that is, how positive and
negative events in the environment are associated with
specific behaviors.
30. The Subjectivity of the Social
Situation
• Behaviorists chose not to deal with cognition, thinking,
and feeling because they considered these concepts
too vague and mentalistic and not sufficiently anchored
to observable behavior.
• But behaviorism therefore has proved inadequate for a
complete understanding of the social world.
• We need to look at the situation from the viewpoint of
the people in it, to see how they construe the world
around them.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
31. The Subjectivity of the Social
Situation
This emphasis on construal, the way people interpret the
social situation, has its roots in an approach called
Gestalt psychology.
Gestalt Psychology
A school of psychology stressing the importance of
studying the subjective way in which an object appears
in people’s minds (the gestalt or “whole”) rather than
the objective, physical attributes of the object.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
32. Gestalt Psychology
• The Gestalt approach was formulated in Germany in
the first part of the twentieth century by Kurt Koffka,
Wolfgang Kohler, Max Wertheimer, and colleagues.
• In the late 1930s, several of these psychologists
emigrated to the United States to escape the Nazi
regime.
“If I were required to name the one person
who has had the greatest impact on the
field, it would have to be Adolph Hitler.”
(Cartwright, 1979, p. 84)
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
33. Gestalt Psychology
Among the émigrés was Kurt Lewin, generally
considered the founding father of modern experimental
social psychology.
Lewin took the bold step of applying
Gestalt principles beyond the
perception of objects to social
perception.
Lewin was the first scientist to
stress the importance of taking
the perspective of the people in
any social situation to see how
they construe this social
environment.
Lewin illustration copyright (2007) Nick Langley. Used with permission.
34. WHERE CONSTRUALS
COME FROM:
BASIC HUMAN MOTIVES
• If it is true that subjective and not
objective situations influence
people, then we need to
understand how people arrive at
their subjective impressions of
the world.
• What are people trying to
accomplish when they interpret
the social world?
35. Where Construals Come From
• We human beings are complex
organisms; at a given moment, various
intersecting motives underlie our thoughts
and behaviors.
• Over the years, social psychologists have
found that two of these motives are of
primary importance:
– The need to feel good about ourselves,
– The need to be accurate.
36. The Self-Esteem Approach:
The Need to Feel Good about Ourselves
• Most people have a strong need to
maintain reasonably high self-esteem,
to see themselves as good, competent,
and decent.
• Given the choice between distorting the
world in order to feel good about
themselves and representing the world
accurately, people often take the first
option.
Self-Esteem
People’s evaluations of their own self-worth;
the extent to which they view themselves as
good, competent, and decent.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
37. Justifying Past Behavior
• Acknowledging major deficiencies in
ourselves is very difficult, even when the
cost is seeing the world inaccurately.
• Although extreme distortion of reality is
rare outside of mental institutions, normal
people can put a slightly different spin on
the existing facts, one that puts us in the
best possible light.
38. Suffering and Self-Justification
• Why would hazing cause someone to like his fraternity?
• Didn’t behavioristic psychology teach us that rewards, not
punishments, make us like things associated with them?
• But social psychologists have discovered that this
formulation is far too simple to account for human thinking
and motivation.
• Unlike rats and pigeons, human beings have a need to
justify their past behavior, and this need leads them to
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that don’t always fit into
the neat categories of the behaviorist.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
39. Suffering and Self-Justification
Experiments demonstrated that the more unpleasant the
procedure the participants underwent to get into a group, the
better they liked the group.
The important points to remember here are:
(1) That human beings are motivated to maintain a positive
picture of themselves, in part by justifying their past
behavior, and
(2) That under certain specifiable conditions, this leads them to
do things that at first glance might seem surprising or
paradoxical.
For example, they might prefer people and things
for whom they have suffered to people and
things they associate with ease and pleasure.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
40. The Social Cognition Approach:
The Need to Be Accurate
• The Social Cognition perspective is an
approach to social psychology that takes into
account the way in which human beings think
about the world.
• Individuals are viewed as trying to gain
accurate understandings so that they can make
effective judgments and decisions that range
from which cereal to eat to whom they will
marry.
• In actuality, individuals typically act on the basis
of incomplete and inaccurately interpreted
information.
41. SOCIAL COGNITION
Social Cognition
How people think about themselves and the
social world; more specifically, how people
select, interpret, remember, and use social
information to make judgments and decisions.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
The social cognition perspective
views people as amateur sleuths
doing their best to understand
and predict their social world.
42. EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THE SOCIAL WORLD
• Our expectations can even change the
nature of the social world.
• Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968) found that a
teacher who expects certain students to do
well may cause those students to do better
– A self-fulfilling prophecy .
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
43. EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THE SOCIAL WORLD
How does such a self-fulfilling prophecy come about?
Teaching expecting specific students to perform well
often:
• More attention to them,
• Listen to them with more respect,
• Call on them more frequently,
• Encourage them,
• Try to teach them more challenging material.
This, in turn, helps these students feel:
• Happier,
• More respected,
• More motivated,
• and smarter.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
44. Additional Motives
A variety of motives influence what we
think, feel, and do:
• Biological drives (e.g., hunger & thirst),
• Fear,
• Desire for rewards (e.g., love, favors),
• Need for control.
45. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS
Why study social influence?
1. We are curious.
2. Some social psychologists contribute to
the solution of social problems.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
46. Social psychologists have always been interested in social
challenges:
• Reducing hostility and prejudice,
• and increasing altruism and generosity.
Contemporary social psychologists have broadened the
issues of concern:
• Conservation,
• Safe sex education,
• TV violence,
• Negotiation strategies,
• Life adjustments (college, death of loved one).
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS
47. Social psychologists realized that in AIDS
education, arousing fear would not help with
most people.
Most people do not want to think about dying
or contracting horrible illness when ready to
have sex.
Many people feel that interrupting the sexual
act to put on a condom tends to destroy the
mood.
Given these considerations, when people
have been exposed to frightening
messages, instead of engaging in rational
problem-solving behavior, most tend to
reduce that fear by engaging in denial: “It
can’t happen to me,” “Surely none of my
friends have AIDS,” etc.
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
48. The denial stems not from the desire to be
accurate but from the need to maintain
one’s self-esteem.
If people can convince themselves that their
sexual partners do not have AIDS, they
can continue to enjoy unprotected sex
while maintaining a reasonably good
picture of themselves as rational beings.
By understanding how this process works,
social psychologists have been able to
contribute important insights to AIDS
education and prevention.
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
49. Throughout this book, we will examine many similar
examples of the applications of social psychology.
Social Psychology
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
• aggression
• altruism
• attitudes
• attribution
• attraction
• authority
• research
• ethics
• deception
• gender
• emotion
• decisions
• social cognition
• social influence
• social interaction
• social dilemmas
• social norms
• social support
• groups
• prejudice
• decisions
• obedience
• conformity
• courtrooms
and much more!
50. Social Psychology
Elliot Aronson
University of California, Santa Cruz
Timothy D. Wilson
University of Virginia
Robin M. Akert
Wellesley College
slides by Travis Langley
Henderson State University
6th edition
Editor's Notes
Definition: (Allport, 1985).
To understand how people are influenced by their social world, social psychologists believe it is more important to understand how they perceive, comprehend, and interpret the social world than it is to understand the objective properties of the social world itself (Lewin, 1943).
For example, when construing their environment, are most people concerned with making an interpretation that places them in the most positive light (e.g., Jason believing “Debbie is going to the prom with Eric because she is just trying to make me jealous”) or with making the most accurate interpretation, even if it is unflattering (e.g., “Painful as it may be, I must admit that Debbie would rather go to the prom with a sea slug than with me”)?
Even when the prosecution presents compelling evidence it believes will prove the defendant guilty, the verdict always hinges on precisely how each jury member construes that evidence.
Ross (2004); Ehrlinger, Gilovich, & Ross (2005).
In a simple experiment, Ross took peace proposals created by Israeli negotiators, labeled them as Palestinian proposals, and asked Israeli citizens to judge them. The Israelis liked the Palestinian proposal attributed to Israel more than they liked the Israeli proposal attributed to the Palestinians. ” Ross concludes, “If your own proposal isn’t going to be attractive to you when it comes from the other side, what chance is there that the other side’s proposal is going to be attractive when it comes from the other side?” The hope is that once negotiators on both sides become fully aware of this phenomenon, and how it impedes conflict resolution, a reasonable compromise will be more likely.
As experimental scientists, we test our assumptions, guesses, and ideas about human social behavior empirically and systematically rather than by relying on folk wisdom, common sense, or the opinions and insights of philosophers, novelists, political pundits, our grandmothers, and others wise in the ways of human beings.
(Nisbett & Wilson, 1977b; Wilson, 2002)
In the aftermath of both the Waco conflagration and the Heaven’s Gate tragedy, the general population was just as confused as it had been following the Jonestown suicides. It is difficult for most people to grasp just how powerful a cult can be in affecting the hearts and minds of relatively normal people. Finding someone to blame became a national obsession. After the Heaven’s Gate tragedy, many people blamed the victims themselves, accusing them of stupidity or derangement.
But the evidence indicated that they were mentally healthy and for the most part uncommonly bright and well educated.
After Waco, many pointed to the impatience of the FBI, the poor judgment or leadership of by authority figures.
Fixing blame may make us feel better by resolving our confusion, but it is no substitute for understanding the complexities of the situations that produced those events.
How can we know which explanation account for the Jonestown massacre?
a.Reverend Jones succeeded in attracting the kinds of people who were psychologically depressed to begin with?
b.Only people with self-destructive tendencies join cults?
c.Jones was such a powerful, messianic, charismatic figure that virtually anyone—even strong, nondepressed individuals like you or us—would have succumbed to his influence?
d.People cut off from society are particularly vulnerable to social influence?
e.All of the above?
f.None of the above?
In recent decades, psychologists have looked to philosophers for insights into the nature of consciousness (e.g., Dennett, 1991) and how people form beliefs about the social world (e.g., Gilbert, 1991).
Are there some situations where philosopher A might be right and other conditions where philosopher B might be right?
In 1663, the great Dutch philosopher Benedict Spinoza offered a highly original insight. He proposed that if we love someone whom we formerly hated, that love will be greater than if hatred had not preceded it. Spinoza’s proposition is beautifully worked out. His logic is impeccable. But how can we be sure that it holds up? Does it always hold? What are the conditions under which it does or doesn’t hold? These are empirical questions for the social psychologist (Aronson, 1999; Aronson & Linder, 1965).
We will discuss the scientific methods social psychologists use in more detail in Chapter 2.
The major reason we have conflicting philosophical positions (just as we have conflicting folk aphorisms) is that the world is a complicated place. Small differences in the situation might not be easily discernible, yet these small differences might produce very different effects.
For example, to explain why the people at Jonestown ended their own lives and their children’s by drinking poison, it seems natural to point to their personalities. Perhaps they were all “conformist types” or weak-willed; maybe they were even psychotic.
Remember that it was not just a handful of people who committed suicide at Jonestown but almost 100 percent of the people in the village. Though it is conceivable that they were all psychotic, it is highly improbable. If we want a deeper, richer, more thorough explanation of this tragic event, we need to understand what kind of power and influence a charismatic figure like Jim Jones possesses, the nature of the impact of living in a closed society cut off from other points of view, and a myriad of other factors that might have contributed to that tragic outcome.
Sociology is concerned with such topics as social class, social structure, and social institutions. Of course, because society is made up of collections of people, some overlap is bound to exist between the domains of sociology and those of social psychology.
Social psychologists seek to identify universal properties of human nature that make everyone susceptible to social influence regardless of social class or culture. Sociologists seek to explain properties of societies.
People tend to explain behavior in terms of individual personality traits and underestimate the power of social influence in shaping individual behavior.
When trying to explain repugnant or bizarre behavior, such as the people of Jonestown, Waco, or Heaven’s Gate taking their own lives or killing their children, it is tempting and, in a strange way, comforting to write off the victims as flawed human beings.
See Ross & Ward (1996).
See figure in next slide.
See Griffin & Ross (1991), Ross & Nisbett (1991), Ross & Ward (1996).
The name alone conveyed strong social norms about what kind of behavior was appropriate in this situation.
For example, dogs come when they are called because they have learned that compliance is followed by positive reinforcement (e.g., food or fondling); children will memorize their multiplication tables more quickly if you praise them, smile at them, and paste a gold star on their forehead following correct answers.
Psychologists in this tradition, such as John Watson (1924) and B. F. Skinner (1938), suggested that all behavior could be understood by examining the rewards and punishments in the organism’s environment and that there was no need to study such subjective states as thinking and feeling.
See Griffin & Ross (1991); Ross & Nisbett (1991).
To understand the behavior of Los Angeles residents who ignored a neighbor’s predawn cries for help, a behaviorist would analyze the situation to see what specific, objective factors were inhibiting any attempts to help.
What were the objective rewards and punishments implicit in taking a specific course of action?
What were the rewards and punishments implicit in doing nothing?
For example, one way to try to understand how people perceive a painting would be to break it down into its individual elements, such as the exact amounts of primary colors applied to the different parts of the canvas, the types of brush strokes used to apply the colors, and the different geometric shapes they form. We might then attempt to determine how these elements are combined by the perceiver to form an overall image of the painting.
According to Gestalt psychologists, however, it is impossible to understand the way in which an object is perceived simply by studying these building blocks of perception. The whole is different from the sum of its parts. One must focus on the phenomenology of the perceiver—on how an object appears to people—instead of on the individual elements of the objective stimulus.
As a young German-Jewish professor in the 1930s, Lewin experienced the anti-Semitism rampant in Nazi Germany. The experience profoundly affected his thinking, and once in the United States, Lewin’s ideas helped shape American social psychology, directing it toward a deep interest in exploring the causes and cures of prejudice and ethnic stereotyping.
A focus on individual differences in people’s personalities, though valuable, misses what is usually of far greater importance: the effects of the social situation on people.
To understand these effects, we need to understand the fundamental laws of human nature, common to all, that explain why we construe the social world the way we do.
There are times when each of these motives pulls us in the same direction.
Often, though, these motives tug us in opposite directions—where to perceive the world accurately requires us to face up to the fact that we have behaved foolishly or immorally.
Leon Festinger, one of social psychology’s most innovative theorists, was quick to realize that it is precisely when these two motives tug in opposite directions that we can gain our most valuable insights into the workings of the human heart and mind.
See Aronson (1998); Baumeister (1993); Tavris & Aronson (2007).
Suppose a couple divorces after years of marriage made difficult by the husband’s irrational jealousy. Rather than admitting his jealousy and overpossessiveness drove her away, he blames the breakup of his marriage on the fact that she was not responsive enough to his needs. His interpretation serves some purpose: It makes him feel better about himself.
Consider Roger; everybody knows someone like Roger. He’s the guy whose shoes are almost always untied and who frequently has coffee stains on the front of his shirt or mustard stains around his lips. Most observers might consider Roger a slob, but Roger might see himself as casual and non-compulsive.
To avoid feeling like a fool for undergoing severe hazing to join a fraternity, a new member is likely to justify his decision by distorting his interpretation of his fraternity experience. In other words, he will try to put a positive spin on his experiences.
See Aronson & Mills (1959); Gerard & Mathewson (1966).
See Fiske & Taylor (1991); Markus & Zajonc (1985); Nisbett & Ross (1980).
It is almost never easy to gather all the relevant facts in advance. Moreover, we make countless decisions every day. Even if there were a way to gather all the facts for each decision, we simply lack the time or the stamina to do so.
Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) told teachers that according to a certain test, a few specific students were “bloomers” who were about to take off and perform extremely well. Actually, the children labeled as bloomers were chosen at random. At the end of the year, the bloomers were performing extremely well.
This has been replicated a number of times in a wide variety of schools (Rosenthal, 1995).
We want to reiterate what we stated earlier: The two major sources of construals we have emphasized here—the need to maintain a positive view of ourselves (the self-esteem approach) and the need to view the world accurately (the social cognition approach)—are the most important of our social motives, but they are certainly not the only motives influencing people’s thoughts and behaviors.
Still another significant motive is the need for control. Research has shown that people need to feel they exert some control over their environment (Langer, 1975; Taylor, 1989; Thompson, 1981). When people experience a loss of control, such that they believe they have little or no influence over whether good or bad things happen to them, there are a number of important consequences; we will discuss these further along in this book.