Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Belongingness wikipedia , lookup
Social loafing wikipedia , lookup
In-group favoritism wikipedia , lookup
Albert Bandura wikipedia , lookup
False consensus effect wikipedia , lookup
Communication in small groups wikipedia , lookup
Social dilemma wikipedia , lookup
Social tuning wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
Aim of social cognition is to understand the social nature of being human Area of social psychology that seeks to understand how humans come to understand the social world and their position in it Social psychology – the attempt to understand how the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others › Ex. Individuals in a crowd of strangers vs. a group of friends › Ex. Individuals in a chat-room vs. in face-toface interaction The label “social cognition” was developed in the 1970s Today, social cognition is the dominant perspective in North American social psychology › Social: the people, groups, and events which are studied › Cognition: the thought processes of individuals in various social situations Research and theories in social cognition come from earlier work on perception, attribution, and attitudes Methods and concepts largely come from cognitive psychology › In other words, social cognition came about when social psychologists started using theories from cognitive psychology to explain social phenomena There are many definitions of social cognition and no single-sentence definition exists that would satisfy all researchers Important features of social cognition › Social cognition emerged from the information-processing perspective in cognitive psychology › Social cognition approach is based on the assumption that the concepts that are important for our cognitive representations and processes (i.e. the way we think about the world) are important to understanding all human responses, regardless of whether those responses are social or nonsocial in nature In other words, the way we think and reason about the world determines all human behavior, whether the behavior is social or not › What differs between cognitive psychology and social cognitive psychology is the phenomena being studied Social cognition assumes that “real-world issues” (ex. stereotypes) can be understood in terms of basic cognitive processes The topic of study in social cognition is people, and how people think about other people › Importantly people are not “things” › Cognitive psychologists might investigate how people think about things such as frogs, rocks, cars, etc., but social cognitive psychologists study how people think about people Important differences between people and things are critical to understanding the “social” in social cognition › People intentionally influence their environment › People are perceived and also perceive their › › › › › environment The self is a subject and an object Social objects may change upon being the target of cognition The accuracy of cognitions about people is harder to assess than cognitions about non-social objects Social cognition involves social explanation Social cognition is shared People think about other people more than any other topic › And probably more than about all other topics combined › Think about it, what are most TV shows about? Some theories suggest that people think about other people so much because it is evolutionarily beneficial › The human brain evolved for solving problems in the physical environment (ex. Making tools and finding shelter) › But in reality, we actually spend relatively little time thinking about these things and instead think about other people › This implies that humans evolved to rely on each other for information and help The human mind is designed to participate in society and this means its primary job is dealing with other people › Ex. Birds get their food and shelter from trees in their environment, most people get their food and shelter from other people Thus, it makes sense that birds probably think mostly about their environment and predators while people mostly think about each other In this class we will discuss 3 main perspectives › Social cognition: the way we think about other people › Social identity: an analysis of identity based on group belongingness People are conceptualized first as social beings, based on the social groups to which they belong and how these group memberships facilitate a sense of who the individual is, how they should behave, and what they should believe › Social representations: focuses on the individual as part of social groups, but more emphasizes how group memberships shape an individual’s consciousness Social representations refer to common-sense theories and knowledge people have about the social world Explores not only what these common-sense theories are and how they differ between social groups, but also how these shared theories affect how individuals in social groups view the world in similar ways Discussion of 2 studies in social cognition can help us understand how this approach helps us understand real-world issues Macrae, Milne, and Bodenhausen (1994) Studies were designed to examine the cognitive processes involved in stereotyping › A common belief was that thinking stereotypically frees up cognitive resources for other tasks › These studies attempted to investigate the assumption that stereotypes are essentially energy saving devices Task 1: Participants were asked to form an impression of several target persons from trait terms presented on a computer screen Task 2: Participants also listened to an unrelated passage played on a tape recorder which they would be asked about at the end of the experiment › The passage contained facts about the geography and economy of Indonesia (subjects that participants knew nothing about) The target person’s name was presented on the top half of the computer screen and a trait word on the lower half › 4 target persons total, each was described throughout the experiment by 10 adjectives For half of the participants, the target person was also introduced with a category label › Either doctor, artist, skinhead, or estate agent Ted is a Doctor Larry is a Skinhead OR Ted Larry For each target person, half of the ten adjectives were stereotype consistent and half were stereotype neutral Ted is a Doctor Larry is a Skinhead Honest Aggressive Ted is a Doctor Larry is a Skinhead Passive Observant Ted Honest Ted Passive Larry Aggressive Larry Observant Result 1 › Participants who were given category labels for the target persons recalled twice as many stereotype-consistent adjectives as the participants who were not given the labels › The two groups of participants did not differ in recall of the stereotype-neutral adjectives This suggests that the stereotypes were facilitating either the encoding or recall of stereotype-consistent information Result 2 › Participants who were given the stereotype label remembered more facts about Indonesia than did those participants not provided with the labels Suggests that the stereotype functioned to free up some of the participants’ cognitive resources so they could better attend to the second task Study 2: repeated the procedure of the first experiment but presented the stereotype labels to participants subliminally › Done by showing the label for 30 milliseconds (ms) Results › The effect of the stereotype labels was still apparent Importantly, even though participants had no conscious access to the label (i.e. the didn’t know they saw it) › Participants who were exposed to the stereotype label remembered more of the targets’ traits and more information about Indonesia than did participants who were not exposed to the stereotype label The results of study 2 indicate that: › Activating the stereotype facilitated encoding and recall of information about the target person › And, freed up cognitive resources so that more information about the 2nd task could be attended to Importantly, participants had no conscious awareness of the stereotype label Using these 2 experiments as examples of research in social cognition, we can better understand the core principles that define how social cognition helps us understand real-world issues A central and defining methodology used in social cognition is experimentation Often, the sorts of experiments conducted in social cognition research rely on the controlled presentation of stimuli to participants via a computer › Ex. The presentation of target names, adjectives, and stereotype labels Often the stimuli are presented for a brief time so that participants cannot be aware of the stimuli, in order to observe the effects of those stimuli on participants’ responses › Ex. The 30 ms presentation of the stereotype labels in experiment 2 The effects of the stimuli are often judgments made about other stimulus, or the time taken to make a judgment about a stimulus Experimentation is a significant point of difference as well as similarity between the social cognition tradition and the other 2 traditions › Social identity: often, but not always, uses experimentation, but a different style › Social representation: sometimes uses experimentation, but usually in combination with other methods Perceptual-cognitivism – the view that “reality” is directly perceived by our senses and that this input is then worked upon by internal cognitive computational processes in the mind These internal computational processes produce outputs in the form of mental representations › These representations are stored in the mind as templates that can be used to understand and make sense of the world Therefore we must have some sort of internal cognitive constructs › Categories, schemas, attitudes, attributions, and stereotypes › All of which are thought to represent particular aspects of our psychological reality and experience Mental representation is a central tenet of social cognition › These mental representations are learned and developed over time through our direct and indirect perception and experience › Categories, schemas, attitudes, attributions, identity, and stereotypes are thought of as mental structures that organize our knowledge, evaluations, and expectations about particular social objects in the world around us They allow us to interact with the world without having to treat every object individually They help: › › › › Guide what we attend to and what we ignore How we encode information and experience in memory What we remember and what we infer How we feel and respond in specific situations and interactions › How we categorize a particular stimulus – how we represent it cognitively in our mind – ultimately shapes our attitudes, attributions, and behavior towards the object Categorization is a critical process within social cognitive models Social cognitive researchers have demonstrated unconscious operations in several different ways › The first comes from the logic of experimentation One group of participants were exposed to a loud noise outside the laboratory and a second group was not The group who heard the noise behaved differently than the group who did not When the group who heard the noise was asked to give explanations for their behavior, the loud noise was never mentioned Thus, the noise unconsciously affected their behavior, because they were not aware that it had A second way research demonstrates unconscious operations is through subliminal perception › Recall the 2nd study (Macrae et al., 1994) › Participants had to form an impressions of target persons while also engaging in a demanding task (listening to facts about Indonesia) › When a category label was provided for the target person, participants performed better on the demanding task and recalled more stereotype-relevant information about the target person › Importantly, this effect occurred even when the category label was presented for only 30 ms, which is so brief that participants could not have been aware of its presence › Thus the category label influenced cognitive operations unconsciously A final way research employs unconscious operations is through the concept of automaticity › A cognitive process or effect is considered to be automatic if it satisfies one of several criteria It must not require conscious intention, attention, or effort It must be resistant to intentional manipulation It must happen beyond any awareness Automatic processes and effects happen rapidly, and do not use cognitive processing capacity › If a process or effect fails to satisfy these criteria, it is said to be controlled › Controlled processes are susceptible to conscious intervention, require cognitive effort, and are able to be brought into consciousness › Macrae et al. (1994) Participants’ performance on the 2 demanding tasks was aided by the presentation of a category label Whether they were aware of the label or not, its effect on subsequent recall of information about the target person and about Indonesia was automatic It did not require conscious intervention, attention, or effort The effects of the label on cognitive processes were beyond awareness The effect of the category label did not require cognitive processing capacity The social cognition perspective has adopted a number of metaphors to understand how people perceive and make sense of the world around them Information-processing model › Views the person as an information processor, like a computer › People’s cognitive processes have been compared to the ways in which computers receive, recognize, store and program information The person as a naïve scientist › Suggests that people attempt to make sense of the world around them in the same way a scientist would › People observe systematic variations in the relationships between specific situations/conditions and consequent behaviors (like cause and effect relationships) › People make inferences about the nature of other people involved in these cause and effect situations The person as a cognitive miser › This view contends that thinking scientifically is very strenuous, and that if people were to think scientifically all they time they would be quickly overwhelmed by the sheer amount and complexity of social stimuli to be attended to › Rather than pay attention to all the stimuli that are constantly bombarding them People ignore a lot of information Make quick inferences about information Chunk stimuli into discrete categories and then think categorically rather than in a step-by-step fashion Generally take whatever cognitive shortcuts they can find to reduce the vast amount of the information-processing tasks of everyday life › In this view, people are cognitively lazy, expending the minimum amount of cognitive energy and resources to get by The metaphor of the cognitive miser goes a long way in describing the nature of much of our thinking › But, There are many occasions on which we do devote considerable energy to thinking deeply about people and things, when we do analyze information in a step-by-step way rather than categorically, and when we expend a lot of cognitive effort To accommodate this social cognition has adopted the metaphor of the motivated tactician › › › In this view, the considerable cognitive resources people possess can be used in any situation requiring us to process information, BUT we only do so when we are motivated to In other words, we can be both cognitively lazy and cognitively active, and switch between the two comfortably depending on our context-specific motivations Ex. In the Macrae experiments, when participants were busy working on trying to comprehend information about Indonesia, they formed impressions of target persons by using category labels that provided other information about those people They performed better on the demanding task when they had labels to use than when there were no such labels They also remembered more stereotype-related characteristics about the target persons In terms of the metaphor, participants appeared to have limited mental resources to devote to the different tasks, and they reduced the total demand on their limited resources by using the category labels provided about the target persons The social cognitive approach is a foundational approach within social psychological theory and research addressing how we understand the world around us and our place in it Social cognitive research is experimental, and focuses on mental processes within the individual Emphasis is placed upon the structure of knowledge into mental schemas, which direct attention, facilitate encoding of information into memory, and facilitate recall of information Schemas are activated, often unconsciously, by situated environmental stimuli Activation makes it more likely that other related schemas will also become activated, and also makes the activation of other competing schemas less likely The question of identity is one of the most central questions facing people throughout their lives It is important to distinguish between personal identity and social identity › Personal identity – the qualities and characteristics we see in ourselves that are strictly individual Ex. “I’m bored,” “I worry a lot,” “I speak with a southern accent,” and “I am highly strung.” › Social identity – the part of an individual’s self-concept that comes from the individual’s knowledge of his/her membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance of that membership Ex. “I am a psychology student,” “I am American,” and “I am in group A in this experiment.” Importantly, social identity is NOT just another aspect of individual identity And the authors of your text book believe that all identity is social, and that the notion of a solely personal identity is fictional › But, we’ll leave that argument to the “experts” › Social identity normally refers to an individual in relation to a social category, social position, or social status › Our social identities are normally attached to, and derive from, the groups to which we belong (these are called membership groups) But we can also identify with groups to which we do not belong (called reference groups), and with particular individuals A test of social identity Social identity is always attached to some social reference, usually a social group › If your feelings, thoughts, self-esteem, behavior, etc. are affected by the actions, fortunes, etc. of a social referent, then you likely identify with the referent › Ex. Even though I no longer live in North Carolina, I was still excited when the Carolina Panthers drafted Cam Newton, and have negative feelings about their losing record for the past few seasons › Thus I must still identify myself as a fan of the Panthers… Social identity theory (SIT) is explicitly a theory of intergroup behavior › Intergroup behavior – interactions among people are governed primarily by their respective group memberships and not by any individual qualities they may display Intergroup behavior is different from interindividual behavior › Interindividual behavior – individuals interacting with one another solely on the basis of their respective qualities as individuals Just as the authors of your text book believe that no identity is strictly personal, they similarly believe that no behavior is strictly individual Before SIT, the dominant theory of intergroup behavior was realistic conflict theory (RCT) › RCT is based on the premise that intergroup conflict is always based upon real competition between groups over scarce resources › Although there is ample evidence to support this premise, there are examples where real competition is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of intergroup conflict To investigate the unique individual effects of each of the many possible causes of intergroup conflict researchers create a “minimal” group in an experimental laboratory › Minimal groups have none of the characteristics that normally characterize what it is to be a group Such as real social and economic relations, interaction among ingroup members, structural divisions within the group to create different roles, interdependency among ingroup members etc. The aim of the original minimal group experiment was to create a “baseline” experimental condition in which there was no intergroup differentiation › Without intergroup differentiation individuals cannot ‘define’ themselves as being part of a group › Thus, the effects of each characteristic on intergroup differentiation could be investigated by being introduced one at a time To create a minimal group, experimental groups were created in which group members were alone and anonymous Subjects were 14 and 15 year old schoolboys in a state school in Bristol, England Each subject estimated the number of dots which were projected quickly on a screen in successive clusters After doing so, subjects were randomly placed in one of two groups › The “underestimators” and the “overestimators” One experimenter pretended to “score” the subjects’ answer sheets while a 2nd experimenter announced that there would be another experiment 2nd experiment › › › Involved rewards and penalties Used the existing 2 groups of under and overestimators Participants were seated in a cubicle and asked to complete a series of “payoff” matrices in a booklet The booklet consisted of 18 payoff matrices Each matrix had 2 rows of numbers The participant’s job was to choose a vertical pair of numbers one from each row to give to 2 people Member 26 of the overestimators 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Member 17 of the underestimators 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 › Participants were told that on each matrix they were going to give points to 2 people Sometimes the 2 people would be from the same group as the participant, sometimes from the other group, and sometimes 1 person would be from each group › At the end of the experiment, the number of points given by all participants to each person would be added up, and that person would receive an amount of money proportional to their number of points › To eliminate self-interest, participants never had the opportunity to give points to themselves What is of interest is what happens when the 2 point recipients belong to different groups Suppose that a participant had been told he was an overestimator and was given this matrix Member 26 of the overestimators 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Member 17 of the underestimators 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 He knows that one of the recipients is also an over estimator, making overestimators the ingroup He also knows that the other person is an underestimator, making this the outgroup If he follows a strategy of maximizing joint profit he would choose the 19:25 response If he follows a strategy of maximizing ingroup profit he would also choose the 19:25 response He could also follow a strategy of maximum difference in payoff to the two groups and choose the 7:1 response For this matrix Member 26 of the overestimators 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Member 17 of 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Participants who were told they were overestimators on the average chose the 12:11 response underestimators What does this mean? › Participants did not follow a joint profit strategy, or a strategy to maximize ingroup profit, or a strictly “fair” point allocation strategy › Participants seemed to resolve a conflict between a fairness strategy and maximum ingroup profit strategy by choosing the fairest response which also allowed the ingroup to receive more points than the outgroup Even though doing so meant that the ingroup member received fewer points than if the participant had followed a maximum joint profit strategy Later research shows that these results are obtained when participants are categorized according to preferences for abstract paintings and even when the categorization is made by randomly tossing a coin Research has also shown that the results are not just due to something about English schoolboys › These results have been obtained children from other countries and with adults from the U.S. as well as Switzerland It appears that these results are a genuine intergroup phenomenon But, how can these results be explained? › Realistic conflict theory cant explain them There is no real competition between the groups (participants could easily have followed a maximum joint profit strategy) These minimal groups lack all the characteristics normally associated with groups Participants did not know each other, had no interaction among group members, and there was no intragroup structure The groups are truly minimal, in a sense there are actually no groups at all Yet participants still acted as though the groups were real for them They gave points in a way that would create positive intergroup differentiation, some fairness between groups but still favoring their ingroup SIT was developed largely to account for this minimal group phenomenon The social world is divided up into many social categories › Some are large: class, race, religion, ethnicity, gender › Some are smaller and more localized: hobby groups, minor political groups, groups created by an experimenter in a laboratory For any person, some of these categories will be membership, or ingroups and some will be outgroups Most, but not all, social categories stand in power or status relation to one another Social categorization – the process of identifying an individual as belonging to a particular social group The simple act of categorization has important cognitive consequences Accentuation effect suggests that when stimulus objects are categorized, similarities among members of one category are perceived as greater than they actually are, and differences between members of different categories are perceived as greater than they actually are › In others words, intercategory differences and intracategory similarities are accentuated The accentuation effect has been demonstrated in the judgment of lines as well as in the judgment of social stimuli One study presented subjects with 8 lines of different lengths and asked them to estimate their length When the 4 shortest lines were always presented with the letter A and the 4 longest lines were presented with the letter B › Subjects overestimated the difference between the A lines and the B lines and also overestimated the similarity of the lines in each group A B The accentuation effect also operates in the judgment of social stimuli One set of studies asked white subjects in the U.S. to rate the degree of “negroness” of a series of pictures of faces Subjects imposed their own classification on to the faces so that some were judged to be “white” and others were judged to be “black” › Once the pictures were classified the similarities among the faces within the category and the differences between categories were accentuated › Other studies of have found similar categorization effects with ethnicity Thus, the basic, and probably unavoidable, perceptual process of categorizing the social world can lead to the formation of stereotypes BUT, not all categorizations produce accentuated judgments › The accentuation effect only occurs when the categorizations are salient (i.e. significant) to the person judging the stimuli and when the categorizations are useful to the person in the judgment task To sum up categorization › The most elemental part of SIT is the simple and obvious proposition that the social world is perceived in categories which are socially constructed › We each belong to some categories and not to others › In the minimal group experiments: The categorizations available for participants are, literally, minimal Any meaning the categorizations have for participants, who always are assigned to one or the other category, is imposed by the participant themselves Despite being empty categories, the act of categorization reliably produces systematic effects on perception and behavior Identity is central to SIT (obviously) One of the most basic categorizations (perhaps the most basic) is the distinction between self and other › And the more social distinction between us and them › Failure to enact this motive successfully is often considered psychologically unhealthy Development of the distinction between self and other is an early and necessary part of socialization A powerful motive for this distinction is the motive to think the self is positive, to have a positive evaluation of identity, or to have a positive self-esteem This motive also operates at the social level, in addition to the individual level There is as strong a motive to evaluate one’s social identity positively as there is to evaluate one’s personal identity positively › This motive for positive social identity facilitates much social behavior › And, is expressed as a tendency to evaluate one’s ingroup memberships, the social categories one belongs to, positively › A person’s social identity is made up of the vast number of social identifications that person has with various social categories › Not all those identifications are primed, or activated, or salient, at any one time Ex. When I am home in North Carolina with my family, my identity as a professor isn’t usually activated, primed, or salient › Rather, social identity at any one time is made up of a few identifications selected to suit the particular social context Ex. When I’m at home in N.C., my social identity of a daughter, sister, and granddaughter are activated; but, in class my social identity of a professor is activated, and when at my house in M.I. my social identity of a pet owner is activated There will be more about identity later in Chapter 6… for know it’s enough to say… Knowledge of social identifications on its own is not sufficient to form an evaluation of those identifications › For a person to know he or she is Australian, or a psychology student, or a parent, is not enough for that person to evaluate those category memberships Evaluation of category memberships can only be made through social comparison In evaluating self on any dimension, an implicit social comparison with others is necessary Social comparison is also necessary for evaluation of social identifications of self with social categories › Any particular social category membership can facilitate a positive social identity only through social comparison between the ingroup and some relevant outgroup Ex. The value of being Australian, or psychology student, or a parent, can only be evaluated through comparison with other relevant social categories You wouldn’t evaluate yourself as a parent by comparing yourself to Australians How people evaluate personal and social attributes through social comparison has been theorized and studied since the 1950s The theory of social comparison processes forms the backbone of this last part of SIT and has undergone major changes over the years The original version of the theory was formulated by Leon Festinger (1954) › It was largely a theory of how people evaluate the self and its qualities against some “objective” criterion or other › When such objective criteria are unavailable, people turn to social comparison – comparison with others – for evaluative standards Festinger distinguished between comparison of abilities and comparison of opinions He suggested that the motives driving comparisons of each were different › Motive for comparison of abilities: accuracy and selfimprovement › Motive for comparison of opinions: gaining social consensus For abilities, Festinger proposed a universal drive upward › A person selects someone with a greater amount of the ability in question to compare themselves to › The principle of similarity states that, all other things being equal, a person will select a person who is more similar to themselves to compare themselves to, rather than someone who is more dissimilar › Combining the universal drive upward with the similarity principle leads to the prediction that, when evaluating abilities, a person selected as a comparison other will be someone who is only slightly better than the comparer Festinger believed that the motive behind all social comparisons is the desire for accurate self-evaluations However, a wealth of research since the 1950s has shown that Festinger’s belief is WRONG Rather, people appear to engage in social comparisons mostly for reasons of self-enhancement The proposition that people compare upwards to evaluate their self and their abilities conflicts with much research on self-esteem › This research suggests that people selectively attend to information which bolsters their own self view › Basically, we only pay attention to information in our environment that backs up how we view ourselves, and tend to ignore other information Self-evaluation and self-enhancement are usually conflicting and competing motives; but, people usually follow a selfenhancement strategy This is the position taken by SIT, and is the cornerstone of SIT’s use of social comparison › In other words, in the view of SIT, people compare themselves to others to make themselves feel better To make a social comparison between an ingroup and outgroup two decisions must first be resolved › 1st the ingroup member must decide what dimension should be compared This is known as the problem of dimension selection › 2nd the ingroup member must decide which outgroup of the many available should be chosen as the comparison other This is known as the problem of referent selection How and why these 2 problems are solved have plagued social comparison theory for 4 decades Regardless of how people engage in social comparisons between ingroups and outgroups, it is the consequences, rather than the mechanisms, of comparisons that are most important to SIT The consequences of social comparison are also most important to the individual doing the comparing › Which can be seen in the ways people select referent targets and dimensions We select according to the anticipated positive outcome of the comparison SIT proposes that people are motivated to achieve a positive social identity, just as they are motivated to achieve a positive sense of self-esteem Most of the time, social category memberships, on their own, can neither enhance nor degrade social identity › Category memberships are only of value in relation to other categories › Only the relative status positions of an ingroup and an outgroup on a comparison dimension of value to the ingroup member affect the social identity of that member SIT proposes that there is a motive to evaluate group memberships positively so as to enhance social identity › And, that this positive differentiation of ingroup from outgroup is achieved through comparison of the ingroup to an outgroup An important difference between the SIT approach to social comparison and Festinger’s approach: › Festinger described comparison processes at an individual level Individuals compared to individuals, where individual characteristics are evaluated and self-esteem and selfknowledge are affected › SIT describes social comparison processes at a group level Where group memberships are evaluated and social identities are shaped and bolstered When making comparisons, especially when evaluating the fairness of outcomes, people often engage in comparisons between an ingroup and some referent outgroup Group behaviors are more strongly linked to intergroup social comparisons (comparisons between one’s ingroup and an outgroup) than they are to interindividual comparisons (comparisons between individuals) Another important difference between Festinger’s approach and SIT regards the core function of social comparison › In Festinger’s theory, people as social comparers, are treated as “isolated social atoms,” Viewing people as unrelated to one another and free to engage in one-directional comparisons with any other isolated social “atom” › SIT regards people as being embedded in a social network and engaging in multidirectional comparisons with related (not disconnected) others Also, social comparisons are made (or avoided) to preserve social relationships SIT emphasizes the social processes, consequences, and functions of social comparisons Recall that, in minimal group experiments, participants acted on the basis of a trivial or even random classification by discriminating between an ingroup and an outgroup member › This is a problem for realistic conflict theory (the theory before the development of SIT) › Participants in a minimal group experiment are confronted with an almost empty situation › They are assigned to one of two groups on the basis of some trivial or random act, they are separated from anyone other than the experimenter, and they are asked to give points to other participants who are identified only by a number and their group membership What meaning does such an empty situation have for these participants? › SIT proposes that the participants recognize their group membership › They are also motivated to enhance their social identity The situation is so minimal and empty that there is only one way to do this: Participants can only enhance their social identity by striving to differentiate their group from the other group and by elevating their group relative to the other group Doing so puts their group in a superior position relative to the other group, and hence, through social comparison, their own group becomes more positive, which in turn, and through their identification with that group, enhances their own personal social identity SIT does not claim to be able to generalize the findings of experiments with minimal groups to situations of intergroup conflict and hostility between “real” groups In real world groups, the history of relations between groups as well as the economic and social positions of the conflicting groups must be considered, at the very least However, the principles of SIT are claimed to support all intergroup contexts Minimal groups are not the same as real groups › Participants in minimal groups are free to enhance their social identity by discriminating the points between ingroup and outgroup members There is nothing in the experiment to stop them from doing so › Members of real groups, with real status and power differences between groups, are not so free to discriminate It is not so easy, and often not possible at all, for members of minority groups in society to assert their group’s superiority by inventing flattering comparison dimensions or comparison others It is important to note that intergroup differentiation is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon Generally, it can occur as either ingroup favoritism or as outgroup derogation › But these two aspects are not necessarily tied closely to one another That is, ingroup favoritism does not necessarily also entail outgroup derogation, and vice versa Ingroup favoritism can vary with strength of ingroup identification, ingroup size relative to the outgroup, and perceived group threat Either or both ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation can represent prejudice › But we’ll talk more about prejudice later in Chapter 7 SIT is based on the interpersonal-intergroup dimension But how and why is a situation perceived by a person to be “interpersonal” or “intergroup” or in between? This question formed the basis for the development of self-categorization theory (SCT) In SCT, social identity and personal identity are not different forms of identity › Rather, they represent different forms of self-categorization Self-categorization can occur on 3 broad levels: › Superordinate level – defining self as part of humanity › Intermediate level – defining self by particular group memberships › Subordinate level – defining self in individual, personal terms Because self-categorization is context specific, and self can be categorized in individual or group terms, the distinction between personal and social identity originally made in SIT is no longer justified › As self-categorizations become more social, the self is said to become depersonalized › Instead of being 2 distinct types of identity, personal and social identities represent different levels of self-categorization (the personal is social and the social is personal) This is meant in the sense that the self-categorization is relatively less based on personal characteristics When the self is categorized it is also stereotyped Stereotyping is usually thought of as applied to outgroups in which outgroup members are perceived as having the same traits or qualities because of their group membership › SCT suggests that self-perception operates in the same way – the self is judged stereotypically on the basis of self-categorizations › Self-stereotype – to perceive identity between self and the ingroup › SCT is not meant to supersede SIT, it is an extension of it › Developing the construct of identity and the process of categorization › Reconceptualizing the distinction between personal and social identity › Providing a mechanism for predicting when and how people will self-categorize in one way or another SIT is primarily a motivational theory and SCT is primarily cognitive SCT has been applied to several different traditional problems in social psychology, such as stereotyping, group polarization and crowd behavior, and leadership Summary › Social identity theory provides a systematic account of the links between: Personal and social identity Interindividual and intergroup behaviors › Focuses on the nature of social categorization, especially: Categorization into ingroups and outgroups The primacy of social identity and positive social differentiation Social comparison processes as the main means for evaluating the value of social identifications › Self-categorization theory is a development that extends SIT into a fuller examination of the cognitive processes underpinning the context dependent nature of personal and social identities Seeks to understand individual psychological functioning by placing the individual in his or her social, cultural and collective environment Views psychological experience as being mediated and determined by the individual’s belongingness to a group of others who share similar views, experiences, and a common environment and language › Ex. Individuals in the U.S. mostly speak English and/or Spanish, live in the same country, believe in democracy and freedom of speech, and have similar experiences (e.g. getting a drivers license at age 16) Starts with the premise that the individual is primarily a social being whose existence and identity are rooted in a collectivity Therefore, this theory attempts to understand how social processes influence the social psychological functioning of individuals and groups However, social representations theory does not view the individual and society as separate › Rather, it sees both as influencing each other › The individual is a product of the society and is also able to influence the society and evoke change in it Social representations – the ideas, thoughts, images and knowledge which members of a collective share › Social representations are the stock of social knowledge which people share in the form of common-sense theories about the social world › They are made of both conceptual and pictorial elements Social representations shape our beliefs, attitudes, and opinions, and are the processes by which we build social reality Further explanation of social representations › Concern the contents of everyday thinking and the stock of ideas that gives coherence to our religious beliefs, political ideas and the connections we create as spontaneously as we breath › They make it possible for us to classify persons and objects, to compare and explain behaviors and to objectify them as parts of our social setting › While representations are often to be located in the minds of men and women, they can just as often be found ‘in the world,’ and can be examined separately Social representations range from broad ideals shared by a nation (ex. freedom) to smaller knowledge structures shared by subgroups (ex. specific religious beliefs) Through shared representations social groups establish their identities and come to differentiate themselves from other groups within society The role of representations is to conventionalize objects, persons and events › In other words, to locate them within a familiar context Representations are general and informative › They are determined by tradition and convention and impose themselves in our thinking Often we are unaware that social representations are affecting our thought › We prefer to view our thoughts as ‘common sense’ The study of social representations has been viewed as related to the study of common sense › By social representations we mean a set of concepts, statements and explanations originating in daily life in the course of our communications with others What makes social representations social is how they are created and generated › Through social interaction and communication They construct our understanding of the social world and allow interaction between individuals in groups sharing the same representation Social representations theory views the study of social communication and interaction as the most important topic of study in social cognition Representations are flexible and dynamic › Once created, representations circulate, merge, attract and repel each other, and give birth to new representations, while old ones die out Two processes are central to the generation of representations: anchoring and objectification › These are the processes by which unfamiliar objects, events, or stimuli become familiar › The purpose of all representations is to make the unfamiliar familiar People make sense of new things by giving them meaning › Representations guide the process of attributing meaning to new things › One of the main ways people search for meaning of something new is to refer to familiar things Anchoring – the classification and naming of unfamiliar objects or social stimuli by comparing them with the existing stock of familiar and culturally accessible categories When we classify something new, we compare it with a “prototype” or model, and develop our perspective of the new stimulus by determining its relationship to the model or prototype › When we compare, we either decide that something is similar to a prototype Meaning we generalize certain features of the prototype to the unfamiliar stimulus › Or, we decide that something is different Meaning, we differentiate between the object and the prototype The process of naming something new is significant › › It gives that which is being named meaning It locates it within a society’s “identity matrix” › Because, by classifying or categorizing, we are, in essence, revealing our conceptual frameworks, or “our theory of society and human nature” Only after a stimulus has been named, given meaning, and located in a society’s identity matrix can an object actually be mentally represented Thus, representations are reflected in the way we classify and allot categories and names to stimuli By classifying and naming an object, we are not only able to recognize and understand it, we are also able to evaluate it We can evaluate the stimulus as positive or negative, normal or abnormal › Thus, naming a stimulus is related to a social attitude › Objectification – the process by which unfamiliar and abstract notions, ideas and images are transformed into concrete and objective common-sense realities › Refers to the human tendency to simplify complex information into a core or “figurative nucleus” that consists of pictorial (iconic) and cognitive elements When we objectify a stimulus we are transforming it from something vague and imprecise into a concrete concept image in our minds › Many scientific and technological concepts undergo this type of transformation as they become used in everyday lay discourse › Ex. Freud’s psychoanalytic concepts, such as “complexes” and “neuroses” became commonly used by lay persons to explain their own and others’ behavior The process of objectification transforms concepts into objective individual entities › So, abstract concepts such as “mind” or “ego” are perceived by us as physical entities › And, “complexes” and “neuroses” are perceived as objective conditions that afflict people The diffusion and popularization of scientific concepts throughout society is occurring at a rapid rate through the mass media The increasing proliferation of scientific “knowledge” throughout all sectors of society has made the lay public “amateur” scientists, economists, psychologists, doctors, etc. Ordinary people with little expert training discuss issues such as the greenhouse effect, damage to the ozone layer, stressrelated ailments, familial and relationship problems, cancer prevention diets, etc. Most of this knowledge becomes an integral part of mass culture and, ultimately, what will become regarded as “common sense” There are 3 external processes by which knowledge is transformed into common sense or a social representation › Personification of knowledge: links the idea, theory, or concept to a person or group Ex. Freud and psychoanalysis or Einstein and the theory of relativity; the association of an idea with a person gives the idea a concrete existence › Figuration: the process by which an abstract notion is embodied or dominated by a metaphorical image so that, again, what is conceptual is made more accessible or concrete Ex. Media coverage of the first Gulf War (1990-1991) generated graphic metaphors such as the description of hostages in Iraq as Saddam Hussein’s “human shields” › Ontologizing: the process by which a verbal or conceptual construct is given physical properties Ex. Concepts such as “mind” or “ego” become construed as material phenomena These 3 processes contribute to making highly specialized and technical knowledge more accessible to the lay community so that communication about this knowledge is able to occur The original social representations theorist Moscovici, suggests there are 2 distinct and different types of reality › Reified universe – the world of science Where scientists subject reality to experimentation The laws of science govern this reality in which human thinking takes a logical and rational form › Consensual universe – the world of common sense Comprised of social representations which are created, used, and reconstituted by people to make sense of everyday life Moscovici argues this reality is the one social psychologists should be interested in: how ordinary people create and use meaning to make sense of their world In distinguishing between the forms of thinking in the reified and consensual universes, Moscovici is not suggesting that everyday thinking (as opposed to scientific reason) is full of distortions, biases, illusions, and misperceptions › A central tenet of the social cognition tradition is that human perception and cognition is ‘faulty’ or ‘inferior’ to scientific reason Rather, Moscovici suggests that by understanding the underlying social representations that constitute common sense, social psychologists will begin to understand the social glue that derives from shared values and beliefs Also, scientific thought is not immune to social representations › Scientists also use social representations to construct their reality and give meaning to their world Making the distinction between thought in the reified and consensual reality does emphasize the importance of expert knowledge in creating contemporary social knowledge Increasing scientific knowledge makes the reified universe very important in the modern world › The scientific knowledge in the reified universe is transformed in the consensual universe so that it is more accessible › The transformed version of knowledge then contributes to the stock of common sense knowledge people use to understand their social reality › The reduced and simplified form of complex ideas and theories is called a figurative nucleus made up of images and concepts that are easier for laypersons to comprehend Example: cerebral hemispheric specialization › The idea that the left and right hemispheres of the human brain specialize in different tasks originated in neuroscience The left hemisphere specializes in logical, rational, and analytic thinking The right hemisphere specializes in more subjective, intuitive and emotional functions › Through mass media and popular press most laypersons are now aware of this cerebral dualism This notion has been used by the popular press to explain a wide range of opposing cultural tendencies in human behavior (ex. Femininity vs. masculinity, rational vs. intuitive thought, etc.) How many times have you heard someone say something about being “right-brained” or “left-brained” › The split brain view has become so widely known that it has become part of common sense knowledge: a social representation A social representation is an organized, coherent, socially shared set of knowledge about an object or domain of objects This implies that there is a structure › The set of knowledge that constitutes the representation consists of a range of elements, some more important than others to the whole representation › Abric (1976) was the first to distinguish between the central core and the periphery of a social representation The central core of a representation is the most essential part of the representation › Central core is defined in part by the object of the representation and by the relationship of the group holding the representation to the object of the representation The core of the representation determines reactions to novel information and keeps a representation tied to its object even though the environment is ever-changing The core is also relatively stable, persisting across situational contexts The core is organizational, in that other, peripheral, elements are structured around the core Peripheral elements are malleable, while core elements are not › › If a core element is changed, then the representation is also changed On the other hand, a representation and its core will still remain the same even if peripheral elements are changed The theory of social representations does not require that core elements must be consistent with each other › Rather, they must be related and coherent around the object of the representation › This allows contradictory relationships among core elements Inconsistent core elements are still related to one another through themata › Meaning that inconsistent elements often are opposites of each other Antagonistic, mutually defining › Ex. Social understandings of organ donation study Word associations with a variety of linguistic elements broadly related to organ donation and transplantation were examined A clear structure underlying the pattern of word associations emerged Two core elements were prominent in this structure: life and death These elements are clearly opposites and the tension between them determines how people understand and orient to a variety of different stimuli all related to organ donation Social representations research places emphasis on the content of social knowledge rather than the underlying cognitive processes associated with this knowledge Many topics studied under the rubric of social representations tend to be social issues which have attracted extensive media coverage and controversy › Recently, this has included work on the social representations of “risk,” organ donation and transplantation, and biotechnology The daily reporting in the media of rapid advances in genomics and biotechnology has led to widespread public debate and discussion about the social, moral, and ethical implications of these scientific advances › Many of these advances are presented as being full of opportunity and having enormous potential to enhance well-being through the alleviation and prevention of a range of illnesses and medical conditions For example, the recent completion of the mapping of the human genome was reported as being one of the most significant scientific advances in history › Graphic metaphors were used both by scientists and the media to present this scientific knowledge to the public Ex. The search for “the essence of human life” and the decoding of the “book of life” Graphic religious metaphors such as the “Book of Life” and “Hand of God” served to anchor the public’s understanding of this scientific milestone to already existing cultural knowledge › But at the same time, there has been increasing public concern and resistance to some of these developments, particularly with regard to the potential uses (and abuses) of genetic information and genetic intervention › During this period of rapid scientific advances in genomics a group of European social psychologists has investigated the European public’s representations of biotechnology This consisted of a large-scale longitudinal study designed to assess public perceptions and understandings of biotechnology in several European nations Quantitative and qualitative methods were used › Included survey questionnaires, the qualitative analysis of media stories and policy statements on biotechnology, and focus group discussions with members of the public The Eurobarometer Survey › Found that in 1996 the European public displayed considerable ambivalence towards biotechnology There was considerable support for biotechnological advances in medicine, especially in the area of genetic testing In contrast, significantly less support for genetically modified (GM) foods, and even less support for laboratory research on GM animals and xenotransplants Xenotransplants – transplanting organs from non-human animals to humans Opposition was primarily associated with moral objections to this kind of experimental research › The survey also found that public concern was linked to a lack of trust in national governments and institutions to “tell the truth” about biotechnology and to adequately regulate it These findings contradicted claims that increased public knowledge of biotechnology should lead to greater support › Rather, people with greater knowledge were found to have stronger opinions about biotechnology, but these could be positive or negative Qualitative Research: Beyond surveys › Although quantitative surveys show trends in public representations of biotechnology they only scratch the surface › Surveys are not designed to answer questions about the representations that shape and underlie ambivalent responses to questionnaire items In other words, although survey data can tell us that the public finds some forms of biotechnology morally unacceptable or ‘risky’, they do not reveal the precise nature of these moral concerns and how they are framed by the public › For these reasons a series of focus group discussions in 10 of the participating countries were conducted To provide a richer and detailed understanding of the public’s perceptions of biotechnology Qualitative Research › Although there were local variations in the issues that emerged in the focus groups across countries, there were also common concerns › Overall, Europeans were ambivalent about biotechnology: Although recognizing its potential benefits, it was also represented as potentially risky and unsafe because of its unknown trajectory and development The metaphor of a ‘runaway train’ was used to represent biotechnology as an accelerating force that the public could not keep up with, and which authorities struggled to adequately control Qualitative Research: › Scientific progress, then, was perceived in opposing ways: On one hand, future advantages, but on the other hand, possible risks and unknown adverse consequences The idea of an ‘uncertain future’ was also found to be a pervasive theme across the groups, despite the fact that these concerns were nonspecific and lacked detail › These projected fears about the future tended to be related to past mishaps such as the scare surrounding the outbreak of ‘mad cow’ disease and its human variant BSE in the UK and the nuclear accident in Chernobyl › Both of these incidents were used to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of regulatory authorities, governments, and the scientific community to be honest with the public about possible risks associated with biotechnology › Further, participants expressed mistrust of what they described as powerful commercial interests associated with the increasing globalization and industrialization of food production They argued that ordinary consumers and democratic institutions were relatively powerless in controlling and regulating these commercial interests Representations of ‘Nature’ › Together, the Eurobarometer Survey and the focus groups give us clear indication of the European public’s ambivalent ‘attitude’ towards biotechnology › Importantly, the qualitative focus groups identified the underlying representations that give rise to this attitude › The opposition and fear surrounding biotechnology were shaped by underlying representations of ‘Nature’ and ‘Life’ the public used in their arguments One pervasive argument represented Nature and Life as spiritual forces that should be respected at all costs This argument was sometimes anchored to religious beliefs (ex. Expressions such as “playing God” or ‘tampering with God’s creation’ were recurring moral warnings about the uses and abuses of biotechnology) Representations of ‘Nature’ › Thus, some arguments against biotechnology viewed it as being against Nature › This view was used for arguing against some applications of biotechnology, in particular the cloning of humans and animals (however, cloning specific cells for medical purposes was deemed acceptable) › The use of genetic screening for ‘designer babies’ or for identifying possible “defective” life was also strongly rejected Therefore, concerns about eugenics were also part of the focus groups These fears were also anchored in historical events, such as Hitler’s Aryan project in Europe Representations of ‘Nature’ › Another opposition to biotechnological foods contrasted GM foods with other foods which were described as ‘natural’, ‘organic’, or ‘healthy’ › Specific preparation and consumption of certain foods was viewed as significant markers of culture and identity › Commercialization and industrialization of food production were seen as a threat to culture and identity This research, then, suggests that representations of biotechnology are grounded in culturally shared meaning-making practices Importantly, both secular and religious representations of ‘Nature’ and ‘Life’ are central in shaping the public’s views of biotechnology Further, the public’s fears were grounded in past experiences in which scientific advances had been harmful It is not surprising then that the public is so ambivalent about scientific advances in genomics and biotechnology Social representations refer to the ideas, thoughts, images, and knowledge structures which members of a society share These consensual structures are socially created through communication and interaction between and among people Representations anchor social objects, persons and events within a familiar categorical context › They give the unfamiliar meaning › The core nucleus is stored in memory and accessed during communication and interaction among individuals Representations are reduced or objectified into both cognitive and pictorial elements which together form a core nucleus Many of our social representations come from the world of science, which are communicated to us through the mass media › Then elaborated upon by ordinary people to help make sense of everyday life Broadly, “social cognition” refers to theory and research aimed at describing and explaining how we, as human beings, experience and understand ourselves in the social world There are foundational theoretical orientations: › Social cognitive, social identity, and social representations psychological approaches