Introduction to Social Psychology
What is Social Psychology?A working definition of social psychology consists of these elements.
Scientific field (we may not think of the topic as "scientific," but the method is) |
Why has common sense often been confused with social psychology?
Identify similarities and differences between social psychology and the other disciplines that study human nature.
What might a social psychologist study?
The five major categories of factors affecting social interaction:
The power of social influence:The contributions of Sherif and Kurt Lewin in the 1930s.
Trends of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
What new topics became important in the 1970s and 1980s?
What larger-scale trends began in the late 1970s and continue to expand? The experimental method:The main goal of experimentation in social psychology is to find out if a factor influences social behavior. |
The steps followed in an experiment:
A control condition is an experimental condition in which the variable expected to influence behavior is absent. |
What is an interaction?
Random assignmentWhat two general reasons sometimes make it impossible to use the experimental approach?
Correlational studies
| Negative | ||
Increase in eating | Increase in weight | Increase in exercise | Decrease in weight |
Decrease in eating | Decrease in weight | Decrease in exercise | Increase in weight |
What are the advantages and disadvantages of correlational studies? |
If we systematically vary the physical beauty of a defendant through appropriate photos to determine its effect on length of sentence by a simulated jury, we are using the experimental method; if we simply observe the relationship between the physical beauty of defendants and the length of sentence, we are using the correlational method. |
Deception
Informed consent and debriefing safeguards
Social psychology and social problemsCareer Information
The American Psychological Association (APA) provides career information on this web page. You will find information about social psychologists as well as other types of psychologists.
Skip to content
Is there a valid (i.e., non-historical) reason why personality psychology and social psychology are so often lumped together as one branch of psychology? There are PSP journals, PSP conferences, PSP brownbags… the list goes on.
It all seems kind of odd considering that, in some ways, personality psychologists and social psychologists have completely opposite focuses (foci?). Personality psychologists are all about the consistencies in people’s behavior, and classify situational variables under “measurement error”; social psychologists care not one whit for traits, and are all about how behavior is influenced by the situation. Also, aside from the conceptual tension, I’ve often gotten the sense that personality
psychologists and social psychologists often just don’t like each other very much. Which I guess would make sense if you think these are two relatively distinct branches of psychology that, for whatever reason, have been lumped together inextricably for several decades. It’s kind of like being randomly assigned a roommate in college, except that you have to live with that roommate for the rest of your life. I’m not saying there aren’t ways in which the two disciplines
overlap. There are plenty of similarities; for example, they both tend to heavily feature self-report, and both often involve the study of social behavior. But that’s not really a good enough reason to lump them together. You can take almost any two branches of psychology and find a healthy intersection. For example, the interface between social psychology and cognitive psychology is one of the hottest areas of research in psychology at the moment. There’s a journal called Social
Cognition–which, not coincidentally, is published by the International Social Cognition Network. Lots of people are interested in applying cognitive psychology models to social psychological issues. But you’d probably be taking bullets from both sides of the hallway if you ever suggested that your department should combine their social psychology and cognitive psychology brown bag series. Sure, there’s an overlap, but there’s also far more content that’s unique to each
discipline. The same is true for personality psychology and social psychology, I’d argue. Many (most?) personality psychologists aren’t intrinsically interested in social aspects of personality (at least, no more so than in other, non-social aspects), and many social psychologists couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the individual differences that make each of us a unique and special flower. And yet there we sit, week after week, all together in the same seminar room, as one half of the audience experiences
rapture at the speaker’s words, and the other half wishes they could be slicing blades of grass off their lawn with dental floss. What gives?