Understanding Yourself and Others Through Social Psychology!

It's been a while since I've written a proper post. So much has happened. There are going to be some changes to my schedule for the next term, so I'm going to reconsider my upload day to for this because Wednesdays aren't going to work very well!

This post is going to be a Psychology related one.
Studying Psychology at Warwick has not only completely shifted my perspective on psychology as a discipline, but also specific fields of Psychology as well. The more I learn, the more I enjoy it - even the fields which I wouldn't have previously chosen to study if I had a choice. If you knew me in Sixth Form, Social Psychology wasn't my favourite thing in the world, although it forms the foundational knowledge of how human behaviour and experiences (such as thoughts and feelings) are affected by the environment and the people around us. I completely take that back because Social Psychology classes (on a Monday morning) were actually quite interesting (enough hat I want to write a post on it! Our lecturer presented some compelling concepts in a really engaging way, and we covered so many topics within the 10 weeks.

So,  I'm going to present to you 10 concepts that we covered across the module. Hopefully this will give you a broad overview of the areas that I learned about.

TW: 
I will cite some studies for clarity (from lectures and personal reading) which may be of a sensitive nature to you . 
Please note that these are for purposes of comprehension only. If you would like to read into them further, you can find the references (with direct links to the papers attached) at the bottom of the post.

1. Reactance
   This is when you make an attempt to persuade someone to comply to doing something using emotional appraisal, but if this creates too much emotional arousal so that the individual feels like their freedom is being threatened, it can actually decrease compliance.
   As opposed to obedience (following an explicit request made by someone with higher authoritative power) and conformity (attitude change resulting from indirect external pressure such social cues), compliance refers to following a request of what someone wants from you.
   

   

   via GIPHY

   This type of emotional persuasion is commonly seen in advertisements relating to anti-drug use, anti-smoking, and similar. We also see this on cigarette packets as well.
   
   Leventhal, Watts, and Pagano (1967) conducted a study focused on anti-smoking where smokers were put into three conditions: reading a leaflet instructions on how to stop smoking, watching a graphic film on lung cancer, or reading the leaflet and watching the film. Whilst participants who just watched the film smoked less cigarettes a day than participants who only read the leaflet, those who read the leaflet and watched the film both showed significantly more progress than the other two conditions 3 months later.
   
   Therefore, next time you want to persuade someone to stop doing something or create an advert of a similar nature, keep in mind that using too much emotion can may lead them to lose sight of the actual message. Although using some emotion does get through to people, the induction of instructions alongside may have an even greater effect!
   
   
   
2. Pluralistic Ignorance
   Provides another explanation of the Bystander Effect (Darley & Latané, 1968). Alternative to the diffusion of responsibility argument, pluralistic ignorance occurs when an individual thinks that they hold values and beliefs, which they perceive others to not have. Therefore, if someone is placed in a situation where those around them don't exert their beliefs, they don't either to avoid social discomfort. For example, when you assume that everyone in the class understands the material as no one else is asking questions, so you don't ask for clarity to avoid embarrassment when really very few people actually understand what is being said.
   
   Sandstrom, Makover, and Bartini (2013) applied this to bullying. 448 fourth and eighth graders (equivalent Years 5 and 9 in the England school system). Pupils completed a survey measuring their attitudes and perceived attitudes of peers about bullies and victims of bullying, and also reported what their position in the situation was likely to be (bully, victim, bystander, defender). Questions were adapted from pre-existing questionnaires and scales (see paper).
   Analysis reported that children significantly viewed themselves as more pro-social than their peers, with females significantly reporting to be more pro-social than males. The more that pupils underestimate the beliefs of their peers, the more likely they reported to join in with the bullying and the less likely they were to intervene.
   
   It's easy to say that you would intervene in such a situation. However, even being aware of this effect there is still discomfort with standing up when no one else does if it comes to it, even with the knowledge that someone in the crowd will support you.
   
   
   
3. Affective Forecasting
   This is when we make predictions about how we would react emotionally to a potential event. It turns out that we are pretty bad at this!
   

   

   Myriam Zilles | Pixabay

   
   One reason is immune neglect. We forget that we have a psychological immune system that helps us to overcome negative (and positive!) states over time. We are more resilient than we think we are.
   
   Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg, and Wheatley (1998) conducted 6 studies looking into immune neglect and the durability bias (over predicting how long emotion would last) using self-report scales/ questionnaires. Scenarios included: relationships breakups, receiving or not receiving a tenure (professors), when their personalities are devalued, and rejection from a job application. In all 6 studies, participants over predicted the duration of their emotional response with immune neglect playing a role in half of these where potential casual relationships were not clearly established.
   
   Another reason is focalism, which is where we focus so much on one events that we forget that other things will happen which will affect how we feel also.
   Wilson, Wheatley, Meyers, Gilbert, and Axsom (2000) hypothesised that encouraging participants to think about other future events in addition to the event in focal will reduce this durability bias. They tested this in studies focusing on results of football games (study 1-3), spaceship tragedy (study 4), and the US winning a war giant another country (study 5). Results supported their hypothesis.
   
   Just something to think about next time you make affective forecasts!
   
   
   
4. Self-Discrepancy Theory
   Relates to self-regulation of inconsistencies between our 3 selves: actual, ideal, and ought selves.
   Higgins, Roney, Crowe, and Hymes (1994) conducted a study to explain the difference between the types of selves:
   Our ideal self is who we want to be and is promotion focused, meaning that we are motivated to aim towards desirable outcomes and reward promotes this further. e.g.: I want to do well in this exam, so I'm going to aim to get x%.
   Our ought self is our perception of who we should be based on how others perceive us and is prevention focused, meaning that we aim to avoid undesirable outcomes. It also relates to punishment sensitivity. e.g.: I should be smart, therefore I can't fail this exam.
   
   I've had phrases of not quite knowing who I am throughout the year, so it really makes me wonder, what is our actual self? How do we know what our actual self is? Do we even have one and can it be scientifically tested? It's all so mind-muddling!
   
   
   
5. Conjunction Fallacy
   Was covered in our social cognition lecture and it's the idea that we make the mistake of thinking that the likelihood of two events occurring, are greater than that of one event. considering the base rate, this does not statistically add up.
   
   This concept was developed by the Linda Study, conducted by Tversky and Kahneman (1983).
   Participants were provided with the following description: 'Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. Which is more probable?'
   The options were: 'Linda is a bankteller' or 'Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement'. 80% chose option 2, although option 1 is more likely!
   
   One reason for this is that it's much easier to imagine specific events than vague ones. This is kind of like when we anticipate future events and come up with all kind of very specific scenarios of what may happen. What are the statistically chances of something so specific actually happening? Yet we still manage to convince ourselves that the next time we do a presentation, for example, we're going to not only fall over on our way up to the front of the audience, but that we'll also stumble on our words every second, lose our place in our notes and forget what we're saying, shake so badly that everyone will notice, and technology with fail us.
   When you try to convince yourself that this very specific event is unlikely to happen, remind yourself that you're probably statistically correct.
   
   
   
6. Self-Serving Bias and Self-Handicapping
   Where self-serving bias is a cognitive process of attributing positive outcomes to dispositional (internal) factors and negative outcomes to external factors , self-handicapping facilities this bias in order to help us maintain our self-esteem. It works by putting (potential) failures to blame on factors which we claim to have limited control over, whilst enhancing crediting of success to personal attributes. People may even create barriers if they predict that they will not do well.
   
   For example: Justifying a potential bad grade by saying that you weren't able to do enough revision because you were ill for a fee days leading up to the class test, even though you had weeks to revise (but didn't do enough) and wasn't actually that ill. If you get a bad mark, it's justified, and your peers' impression of your competence isn't harmed. If you end up doing well, then this enhances your self-esteem.
   
   In their 2 studies, Beck, Koons, and Milgrim (2000) obtained a positive correlation between self-handicapping and procrastination in the context of exam performance in college students. Those who engaged in high levels of self-handicapping were also more likely to delay studying for an exam.
   
   Stewart and De George-Walker (2014) attempted to build a framework by using previous research which has offered links between dispositional characteristics to self-handicapping. Student completed a questionnaire containing pre-existing scales to measure these links. They found that external locus of control and maladaptive perfectionism positively correlated with self-handicapping. However, researchers wanted to emphasise that more empirical research needs to be done in order to cohesively establish these links.
   
   Are your reasons really justifiable or are you just trying to manipulate yourself? It may provide some shor- term relief but maybe think about the long-term consequences of self-handicapping.
   After all, it may not actually work in your favour, due to the....
   
   
   
7. Fundamental Attribution Error (Correspondence Bias)
   Lewin's (1939) equation - B = f(E, P) - states that Behaviour is a function of the Environment and the Person. However, the FAE model points out that we tend to overestimate the influence of dispositional characteristics in a situation and don't take into account the situational constraints as much. It's human nature to automatically attribute observed behaviour to the person themselves as we're always trying to work people out, even when the situational influence is blatantly obvious!
   
   

   

   Pxhere |  CC0 1.0

   Jones and Harris (1967) conducted a study whereby students read an anti- or pro-Castro essay (Fidel Castro was a communist leader of the Republic of Cuba. Half of the participants were told that the student writing the essay didn't have a choice, and the other half were told that they could freely choose which position they took. Even when those who had explicitly been told that the student who had written the essay had no choice, they attributed the political stance of the student to the stance that their essay took.
   
   However, with motivation, effort, and enough cognitive resources to spare we are able to re-evaluate our attributions and take into account external variables. Maybe we could all take a step back from our initial (and often biased) reactions and see whether this changes the way we view the situation.
   
   
   
8. Actor-Observer Effect
   Is an explanation of the FAE Model. It is the idea that depending on our position, we will attribute behaviours more to the situation or to internal characteristics. We can see this like an auditorium filled with an audience and the performer on the stage.
   As an actor, we are much more aware of our surroundings and we can't directly see our behaviours leading us to be more likely to make external attributions.
   However, as an observer (audience member) we can directly see the behaviours of others but maybe don't have access potential situational influences, so make internal attributions in this case.
   
   Frank and Gilovich (1989) did an interesting bit of research into this effect. They found that when participants were asked to recall a memory in 3rd person (i.e.: they, he; she), they attributed behaviours more to personal attributes, than if they were to be recalled in first person.
   
   You can imagine the amount of arguments that are caused because of this effect, especially when it comes to subjective perspectives of a given context. Sometimes we may find it hard to not immediately bite back when someone critiques the way we have behaved in a certain situation, but maybe the best thing to do is to take a moment, see it from the observer perspective and fill them in on your (the actor) perspective.
   
   
9. Misattribution of Arousal
   This is when we incorrectly attribute our physiological responses to something that didn't actually cause the response.
   
   One of the first studies examining this effect was done by Schachter and Singer (1962). Participants were given an adrenaline or saline (placebo) injection, which participants thought was 'vitamins' and were told that they would produce side effects similar to adrenaline (informed), may cause 'headaches' and 'numbness' (misinformed), or were given no information regarding the side effects (ignorant). They were then led into a room to fill out a questionnaire that asked some personal questions, but there was also an angry confederate present.
   Whilst there was a difference in the physiologically responses between the placebo and adrenaline groups, researchers also found that the ignorant group were significantly more likely to use the behaviour of the confederate as a cue to establish their arousal levels in comparison to the misinformed and informed conditions. These participants misattributed their arousal.
   
   

   

   Andre A. Xavier | Unsplash

   To give a simpler example, many studies have applied this to the context of romantic attraction. In Dutton and Aron's (1974) 'Shaky Bridge' experiment, males were asked to fill out a questionnaire by an 'attractive' woman after crossing either a shaky and unstable bridge or a stable bridge. Participants were then given the woman's number in case they had any questions about the study she was conducting. Participants who crossed the shaky bridge called the woman significantly more than those who crossed the stable bridge, misattributing their arousal caused by fear to attraction.
   
   Furthermore, Savitsky, Medvec, Charlton, and Gilovich (1998) found that when participants were able to attribute their arousal (nerves and lack of confidence) to a 'subliminal noise' (which they were told could make them more nervous) expressed greater confidence than those who didn't.
   
   Makes me wonder often we do this in our daily lives! Am I feeling anxious or excited? What event is my sympathetic nervous system actually reacting to?
   
   
   
10. Attitude Inoculation
    You know how some people are very fixed on their attitudes and beliefs about something and you can't seem to change their standing point? Attitude inoculation is when someone is exposed to counter-arguments and they are able to use these to build a resistance against them contrary to what you would like this to achieve. Again, this uses the analogy of the immune system.
    
    McGuire and Papageorgis (1961) explored this through cultural truisms (beliefs which members of a cultural group have accepted without questioning it). Participants rated their support for cultural truisms and were not given a counter-argument to prepare a defence against (control), given a counter-argument which they could prepare a defence against (defence inoculation), or were given the counter-argument but told to not do anything with it. Support for the cultural truism decreased the most for the control group and the least for those in the defence inoculation condition.
    More recently, similar studies looking into this using more extreme beliefs (such as those relating to politics and morals) have shown otherwise.
    
    I think this was an interesting point to be raised, because we've all come across situations where someone hasn't been able to provide a clear rational for their beliefs or attitudes. It also makes me wonder how many of our own attitudes and beliefs could be easily challenged up-front because we can't provide a clear line of argument to why we support them?

I hope that you have found some of these as thought-provoking as I did. If you're studying social psychology for A Levels now, I hope that this has helped you to open your eyes to the other topics within social psychology that you may not be covering. Human behaviour, thought, feelings, and cognition is so fascinating, and this is just from a small part of it from one area of psychology alone!

__

REFERENCES 

(These are place in alphabetical order. Some of them are open access, but you will need access to a majority of them).

Beck, B. L., Koons, S. R., & Milgrim, D. L. (2000). Correlates and consequences of behavioural procrastination: The effects of academic procrastination, self-consciousness, self-esteem and self-handicapping. Journal of social behavior and personality, 15(5), 3.

Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of personality and social psychology, 8(4), 377-383.

Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of personality and social psychology, 30(4), 510.

Frank, M. G., & Gilovich, T. (1989). Effect of memory perspective on retrospective causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 399–403.

Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley, T. P. (1998). Immune neglect: a source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(3), 617.

Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(2), 276.

Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of experimental social psychology, 3(1), 1-24.

Leventhal, H., Watts J. C., & Pagano F. (1967). Effects of fear and instructions on how to cope with danger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(3), 313–321.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology (Heider, F & Heider, G. M, Trans). New York: McGraw-Hill.

McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1961). The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 327.

Sandstrom, M., Makover, H., & Bartini, M. (2013). Social context of bullying: Do misperceptions of group norms influence children's responses to witnessed episodes?. Social Influence, 8(2-3), 196-215.

Savitsky, K., Medvec, V. H., Charlton, A. E., & Gilovich, T. (1998). "What, me worry?": Arousal, misattribution, and the effect of temporal distance on confidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 529-536.

Schachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological review, 69(5), 379.

Stewart, M. A., & De George-Walker, L. (2014). Self-handicapping, perfectionism, locus of control and self-efficacy: A path model. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 160-164.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgement. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315.

Wilson, T. D., Wheatley, T., Meyers, J. M., Gilbert, D. T., & Axsom, D. (2000). Focalism: A source of durability bias in affective forecasting. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(5), 821.