Applied Social Psychology

Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems

Jamie A. Gruman, Frank W. Schneider, Larry M. Coutts

• Éditeur: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Année: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781506353951
• Édition: 3
• Sujet: Psychology
• Sous-sujet: Social Psychology

This student-friendly introduction to the field focuses on understanding social and practical problems and developing intervention strategies to address them. Offering a balance of theory, research, and application, the updated Third Edition includes the latest research, as well as new, detailed examples of qualitative research throughout. The book begins with separate chapters that define the field, examine social psychological theory, review research methods, and consider the design and evaluation of interventions. Subsequent content chapters focus on the application of social psychological theory and knowledge to such areas as counseling, sports, media, health, education, organizations, criminal justice, community, environment, and diversity.

Part I Foundations of Applied Social Psychology

1 Defining the Field of Applied Social Psychology

Frank W. Schneider

Jamie A. Gruman

Larry M. Coutts

Chapter Outline

• Social Psychology
  • Defining Social Psychology
  • Social Psychology as a Science
• Applied Social Psychology
  • Applied Social Psychology as a Science
  • The Role of Personal Values
  • Historical Context of Applied Social Psychology
  • A Problem Focus
  • Approaches to Applied Social Psychology
  • Social Influences on Behavior: The Power of the Situation
  • Levels of Analysis
  • The Need for a Broad Approach
  • Various Roles of Applied Social Psychologists
• Overview of Book
• Summary

Social Psychology

The purpose of this book is to introduce you to the field of applied social psychology. Before reviewing some of the contributions of the field in various domains of life (e.g., education, health, sports), it is important to define the field of applied social psychology, including placing it in the context of its parent field, social psychology. We begin by considering a series of social interactions described to one of the chapter authors by friends who live in a city in the U.S. Midwest. The interactions occurred in early fall of 2010. The events were similar to those that commonly occur in people’s lives—a first-time meeting of two couples, the development of friendship between the couples, and a party hosted by one of the couples—and as most social interactions do, they reflected a great variety of social psychological phenomena. These phenomena enable us to illustrate first the focus of the science of social psychology and then the focus of applied social psychology, which we define as a branch of social psychology.

A family moved in across the street from Ken and Kim (all names altered). They first met their new neighbors when the husband (Scott) came across the street with jumper cables to help Ken start his car. Ken thought that Scott seemed quite friendly. After the car was started, Ken and Kim invited Scott and his wife Jen in for coffee. The couples liked each other right away, discovering they had many interests in common. Over the following weeks a strong friendship began to develop as they spent more and more time together. The two men took in a number of sports events, and Ken interested Scott in taking up kayaking. The two women began to go to garage sales and flea markets. The couples agreed with each other’s parenting practices and began to watch the other couple’s children on occasion.

Kim suggested to Ken that they introduce their new friends to some of their other friends. So they invited Scott and Jen and three other couples to a pizza and game night at their home. The evening began very well. There was lively conversation and lots of laughter with Scott and Jen readily joining in. However, the pleasant atmosphere quickly evaporated when the conversation turned to the ongoing controversy over the proposal to build a mosque within a few blocks of the site of the World Trade Center disaster. The discussion became increasingly loud and heated as sharp differences of opinion emerged. One of the group, named Russ, forcefully advanced the position that the location of the mosque should be moved farther away from the site of the disaster out of respect for the memory of the victims and sensitivity for their loved ones. As Russ argued his position, Ken began to worry because he knew that Russ had temper control problems. Meanwhile, Scott strongly disagreed with Russ, believing the mosque should be built as planned as a sign of America’s commitment to religious freedom and because it would give an international face to moderate and peaceful Islam. When Scott raised the possibility that negative attitudes toward Arabs may underlie opposition to the proposed location, Russ became enraged and yelled, “I don’t have negative attitudes toward Arabs; I just love my country,” and then he pointed at Scott and called him “an un-American loser.” That triggered louder voices and more accusations about prejudice and racism. Ken and Kim’s friendly get-together was clearly in danger of falling apart. Several people tried to settle down the people who were arguing, but unfortunately no matter what they tried, nothing worked. Soon the party ended with Russ and Scott refusing to shake hands and all guests leaving for home.

Defining Social Psychology

So, what about the above series of interactions helps to define the field of social psychology? For one thing, the events were rich in social psychological phenomena. Drawing on the definitions in several social psychology textbooks (e.g., Myers, Spencer, & Jordon, 2009), social psychology may be defined as the science that seeks to understand how people think about, feel about, relate to, and influence one another. Given this definition, you should be able to identify many examples of social psychological subject matter in the interactions involving Ken, Kim, and their friends by looking for instances of thinking about others, feeling about others, relating to others, and influencing others. Scott related to Ken by helping with his car. Ken thought Scott seemed friendly. Ken and Kim invited (related to) Scott and Jen into their home. The couples liked each other (feelings), and they subsequently related to each other by spending time together, including going to various events. Ken influenced Scott to take up kayaking. The couples agreed with (thoughts) each other’s parenting practices and helped (related to) each other by watching each other’s children. Ken was influenced by Kim to have the party. In the beginning, the party went well with the partygoers relating positively in lively conversation, but then things turned for the worse. . . .

We want you to recognize that one can do a similar analysis with virtually any kind of social situation. Those processes exemplified in the above social interactions—thinking and feeling about others, relating to and influencing them—are precisely the kinds of processes that comprise the subject matter of social psychology, and thus are what social psychologists focus on in their research. We also can see where the examples of social psychological processes in those interactions can be related to broader areas of social psychological concern and investigation, such as helping behavior (e.g., Scott helping with Ken’s car), friendship formation (e.g., relationship between the two couples), person perception (e.g., Ken’s view of Russ as having a volatile temper), and interpersonal conflict (e.g., altercation among group members).

Social Psychology as a Science

So, those are the kinds of phenomena that social psychology—as a science—seeks to understand. Do not pass lightly over the phrase “as a science” because the fact that social psychology is a science is fundamental to its meaning. The essence of science involves (a) a set of research methods that in combination make up what is known as the scientific method, and (b) a foundation of core values.

Scientific method and core values.

The research methods (e.g., correlational, experimental) that fall under the scientific method are those that depend on empirical tests, that is, the use of systematic observation to evaluate propositions and ideas. An empirical test of an idea (e.g., people are happier in sunny weather) entails a research study that is (a) set up in such a way as to allow for the idea to be either refuted or supported, and (b) conducted so that what is done can be readily evaluated and replicated by other researchers (Cozby, 2009).

Undergirding and guiding research methods is a set of core values (Baron, Branscombe, & Byrne, 2008; Heiman, 2002). The following are some of the most important values that are absolutely essential for scientists to adhere to in their work:

• Accuracy: precise, error-free measurement and collection of information (i.e., data)
• Objectivity: minimization of bias in data collection and proposition testing
• Skepticism: refusing to believe findings and conclusions without rigorous verification
• Open-mindedness: readiness to accept as valid evidence that which may be inconsistent with one’s initial, and perhaps strongly held, beliefs or theories
• Ethics: acceptance of the absolute importance of ethical behavior in conducting research

Adherence to the first four values is necessary to ensure that findings of research validly reflect the phenomenon under study. The fifth value, ethics, also pertains to the validity of findings (e.g., researchers should not wittingly alter or misrepresent their results), but also encompasses the need to safeguard the dignity and well-being of research participants.

Scientific understanding.

Thus, to seek an understanding of social psychological phenomena, social psychologists, as scientists, are guided by certain core values and rely on research strategies that fall under the scientific method. But, what is meant by “understanding”? In science, including social psychology, understanding involves the accomplishment of four goals: description, prediction, determining causality, and explanation (Cozby, 2009). We define these goals and illustrate them by considering the possible influence that having a pet has on the adjustment of the elderly.

The goal of description entails identifying and reporting the details and nature of a phenomenon, often distinguishing between the classes or types of the phenomenon and recording its frequency of occurrence. In the case of the adjustment of the elderly, a researcher might distinguish between emotional adjustment and social adjustment and then measure and record the incidence of older persons in the community who fit this classification. The researcher could also find out whether or not each elderly person has a pet, perhaps listing information about the kind and number of pets. Achieving accurate descriptions of phenomena is one aspect of understanding. Understanding also entails prediction.

The prediction form of understanding requires knowing what factors are systematically related (i.e., correlated) to the phenomenon of interest. In our example, if research showed that there is a relationship between adjustment and having a pet—those who have a pet tend to be better adjusted—we would understand that adjustment in the elderly can be predicted in general by the presence or absence of a pet. This relationship would represent an important insight and lead us to consider the third form of understanding: ascertaining whether or not there is a causal relationship between having a pet and adjustment.

Determining causality between two factors means determining that changes in one factor produce (i.e., cause) changes in the other factor. Just because two factors are related does not necessarily mean that they are causally related. For instance, having a pet might have no effect whatsoever on the adjustment of the elderly even though a relationship may exist. A third factor could be responsible for the existence of the relationship. For instance, physical health could influence both how well-adjusted people feel and whether they have a pet (because it is easier to care for a pet if one is healthy). So, it is important not to be misled by a common tendency among people to assume that if two things are correlated, a causal relationship necessarily exists.

Identifying the cause(s) of phenomena is a very important component of understanding. If research were to establish that having a pet does indeed lead to improvements in adjustment (i.e., causes better adjustment), there could be clear-cut practical implications in terms of providing help to the elderly. But, pursuit of understanding does not end with the establishment of causation. Understanding also involves explanation, the fourth goal.

Explanation pertains to establishing why a phenomenon or relationship occurs. We may understand that one factor causes another factor without knowing exactly why the effect occurs. If having a pet does lead to improvements in the adjustment of the elderly (and this does seem to be the case [Beck & Katcher, 1996]), what is the explanation? Is it because having a pet reduces loneliness, because it increases feelings of security, because it gives the elderly person a chance to feel needed by nurturing a living thing, or because of some other factor?

Social psychological understanding: The formation of intergroup attitudes.

Let us further illustrate social psychology’s approach to understanding social psychological phenomena by considering the formation of intergroup attitudes. An attitude may be defined as “a person’s overall evaluation of persons (including oneself), objects, and issues” (Petty & Wegener, 1998, p. 323). Thus, an intergroup attitude refers to a person’s overall evaluation of members of a group to which the person does not belong. One major area of research in the study of attitudes focuses on understanding how attitudes are formed (i.e., how people come to possess their attitudes). Let us focus specifically on intergroup attitudes and consider a small portion of the research that sheds some light on how negative intergroup attitudes develop in people. Note that this is essentially a question of causality. We expect that you are sensitive to the serious social and political consequences that can stem from the existence of negative attitudes (and relations) between various groups (e.g., ethnic, racial, religious, national) in the world. Recall the furor that erupted at Ken and Kim’s party when one person simply implied that another person possessed negative attitudes toward Arabs.

One approach that social psychologists have taken in the study of the formation of intergroup attitudes is to examine the role of various agents of socialization. This research indicates that children tend to take on the attitudes of important people around them (e.g., parents, teachers, peers) and that at least part of the explanation is that these people influence the development of such attitudes through the basic principles of learning, such as instrumental conditioning, classical conditioning, and observation (e.g., Banaji & Heiphetz, 2010; Oskamp, 1991). For instance, Castelli, De Dea, and Nesdale (2008) showed that when White preschool-age children observed a White adult nonverbally convey uneasiness toward a Black person, they subsequently expressed more negative attitudes toward Black targets.

So, intergroup attitudes are learned partly from others. But, as is the case with many social psychological phenomena, multiple factors must be recognized when exploring the determinants of intergroup attitudes. Another influential factor that is a salient part of people’s lives is the media (Banaji & Heiphetz, 2010). For instance, news reports about terrorism have been linked to increased prejudice toward Arabs (Das, Bushman, Bezemer, Kerkhof, & Vermeulen, 2009). It is especially noteworthy that social psychologists also have found that people’s attitudes toward other groups may be influenced by the simple fact that they see themselves as members of a particular group. When people view themselves as belonging to one group (e.g., Americans), that group is referred to as the in-group; nonmembers of the in-group (e.g., non-Americans) are called the out-group. Many investigations confirm the existence of a very robust phenomenon called in-group/out-group bias, which means that in-group members tend to evaluate and relate to the in-group favorably and to the out-group less favorably (or unfavorably). This might not seem particularly surprising. What is remarkable, however, is that in-group/out-group bias is such a basic social psychological phenomenon that it can show up even in a situation where there is just the slightest differentiation between the in-group and the out-group. In many laboratory experiments, Tajfel and his colleagues (e.g., Tajfel & Billig, 1974) and others (e.g., Allen & Wilder, 1975) divided participants—all strangers—into two groups on the basis of trivial criteria (e.g., those who underestimate and those who overestimate the number of dots on slides). Across experiments, participants consistently assigned more favorable rewa...