Contemporary social psychology is a vibrant field that encompasses a wide array of theories and perspectives, reflecting its rich intellectual heritage. Initially, social psychology discussions gravitated toward distinguishing between psychological and sociological social psychology, emphasizing their unique origins. However, this categorization has faced criticism for creating artificial divisions that obscure the profound connections shared between sociology and psychology. In 1980, Sheldon Stryker offered a more nuanced perspective by delineating three distinct “faces” of social psychology: psychological social psychology, sociological social psychology, and symbolic interactionism.
Each of these perspectives presents its own set of theoretical principles, but they are not mutually exclusive; rather, they mutually enrich and deepen our understanding of human interactions and their impacts on both individual and collective levels. All three perspectives share a common focal point—the individual and their interactions—as the key explanatory factors for various aspects of social life. This encompasses everything from the formation of stable group structures to the emergence of successful social movements. Consequently, these three theoretical perspectives in social psychology, broadly categorized as cognitive and intrapersonal, symbolic interactionist, and structural, not only originate from different intellectual backgrounds but also spotlight different facets of the individual and society.
To elaborate further, let’s explore each of these perspectives in contemporary social psychology:
- Psychological Social Psychology (Cognitive and Intrapersonal Perspective): This perspective delves into the cognitive processes and intrapersonal factors that underlie social behavior. It investigates how individual thoughts, emotions, and motivations shape interactions and influence group dynamics. Psychological social psychology explores topics such as attitude formation, persuasion, self-concept, and social cognition. It emphasizes the role of the individual’s internal world in driving social actions and reactions.
- Sociological Social Psychology (Structural Perspective): This viewpoint takes a broader societal and structural approach. It examines how social institutions, norms, and structures impact individual behavior and group dynamics. Sociological social psychology scrutinizes the effects of social hierarchies, cultural contexts, and institutional forces on social phenomena. It highlights the reciprocal relationship between individuals and their social environment.
- Symbolic Interactionism: Symbolic interactionism focuses on the micro-level interactions between individuals and how symbolic communication, such as language and gestures, shapes our understanding of the social world. This perspective emphasizes the significance of symbols, meanings, and shared interpretations in interpersonal exchanges. It explores the formation of identities, roles, and the construction of reality through social interactions.
While these perspectives may appear distinct, they ultimately converge to offer a holistic understanding of the intricate interplay between individuals and society. They remind us that human behavior cannot be fully comprehended by isolating psychological, sociological, or symbolic factors; rather, it’s the synergy of these perspectives that enables a comprehensive grasp of how we navigate the complex social landscape. This multifaceted approach underscores the interdisciplinary nature of contemporary social psychology and encourages scholars to bridge the gaps between these historically divided fields, fostering a richer and more interconnected body of knowledge.
Social Psychology Theories
Cognitive and Intrapersonal Social Psychology
Cognitive and intrapersonal social psychology, deeply rooted in the pioneering work of experimental psychologists like Wilhelm Wundt in mid-nineteenth century Germany, provides invaluable insights into how our internal processes profoundly influence our ability to engage with others. This perspective zooms in on the intricate workings of cognitive functions (such as memory, perception, and decision making) and physiological processes (including chemical and neural activities), shedding light on the multifaceted nature of human interactions.
1. The Role of Schemas: At the heart of the cognitive and intrapersonal approach lies the concept of schemas. These mental structures serve as the brain’s organizational framework, allowing us to identify and categorize objects and information from our environment. Schemas streamline our ability to process an overwhelming influx of data, thus facilitating smooth interactions. The accuracy with which individuals label and categorize social situations, drawing upon environmental cues, directly influences the ease and success of their interactions.
2. Cognitive Approach: This facet delves into how specific brain activities related to memory, perception, and decision making impact an individual’s capacity to comprehend the information necessary for successful interactions. Memory research explores how people categorize events, situations, and individuals encountered previously, offering insights into the schemas formed and employed within particular groups, cultures, and settings. For example, a person entering a room and perceiving two individuals engaged in a romantic encounter is less likely to interrupt than if the interaction is perceived as a casual conversation between coworkers. Moreover, identifying one of the participants as a close friend, based on prior experiences, alters the nature of interactions compared to a scenario where they are perceived merely as coworkers. Theoretical concepts central to this perspective include stereotypes (the actual categories used in labeling people and situations) and the self-fulfilling prophecy (where our actions confirm our initial impressions of people).
3. Perception Study: Researchers in this domain explore how individuals’ interpretation of information from their environment shapes their interactions with others. The study of perception investigates the meanings individuals attach to the categories in which events, situations, and people are placed. Key theoretical ideas include the attributions people make when assessing others’ actions and the consequences of those actions, as well as the errors in such attributions.
4. Decision Making: Decision-making research examines how schemas, memories, and perceptions collectively influence the choices people make, spanning from mundane decisions like what to wear in the morning to more significant choices regarding the level of risk they are willing to assume in various situations. These decisions bear direct consequences on whether individuals engage with one person over another and impact the quality of the interactions that ensue.
The cognitive approach in social psychology investigates the internal processes that play a pivotal role in determining whether or not an interaction will take place and, if it does, the quality of that interaction. On the other hand, the physiological approach delves into how specific biological and chemical processes influence individuals’ capacity to develop effective schemas, utilize their memory, perceive the world accurately, and make relevant decisions. Although the physiological approach has not traditionally been a prominent feature in discussions of social psychology due to its seemingly distant theoretical focus, recent developments have forged a closer connection between this approach and the cognitive perspective. This integration justifies its inclusion in our exploration of social psychology.
Cognitive and behavioral psychologists, working alongside neuroscientists, have conducted “animal studies” for more than a century. The primary objective of these studies is to provide a more precise understanding of how particular chemical and biological processes directly impact cognitive functioning. Early research in this realm predominantly focused on non-human species, primarily because of ethical concerns associated with experimenting on humans.
However, advances in technology, such as portable electroencephalograms (EEGs) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), have revolutionized our ability to study neural and chemical responses in relation to human actions and interactions. These technologies empower researchers in psychology, neuroscience, and sociology to explore the intricate relationship between these physiological processes and the actions and interactions of individuals. This suggests that such technological innovations hold the promise of enabling social psychologists to more accurately and directly measure the dynamics of social interactions.
In essence, the physiological approach, once seemingly distant from the core of social psychology, has become increasingly intertwined with the cognitive approach. It offers a pathway to gain deeper insights into the biological underpinnings of social behavior, bridging the gap between the internal processes and external interactions that define the intricate tapestry of human sociality. This fusion of cognitive and physiological perspectives represents an exciting frontier in social psychology, where our understanding of social interactions can be enriched by a more holistic consideration of both mental and physiological facets.
Symbolic Interactionism, a prominent perspective in social psychology, traces its roots to the pioneering work of George Herbert Mead and his students at the University of Chicago, as well as the contributions of pragmatic philosophers. Mead, who had affiliations with both the psychology and philosophy departments at the university, attracted students from the emerging sociology department, including Herbert Blumer, who coined the term “symbolic interactionism.” These scholars played a crucial role in disseminating Mead’s ideas, particularly those centered on the mind, self, and society.
Mead’s Contributions: George Herbert Mead’s contributions to symbolic interactionism revolve around his exploration of the mind, self, and society. He delved into what makes humans uniquely social beings, how we develop into social beings, and how our interactions are influenced by social institutions. While Mead addressed macro-level social issues like government’s role in education funding and education’s impact on socialization, he is most renowned for his contributions to symbolic interactionism.
Central Themes of Symbolic Interactionism: This perspective within social psychology focuses on the meanings that underlie social interactions. It seeks to understand how these meanings are created, sustained, and comprehended. Moreover, symbolic interactionists argue that individual interactions give rise to formal social organizations and institutions. Thus, comprehending society necessitates an understanding of the interactions shaping and upholding it.
Three Main Theoretical Approaches in Symbolic Interactionism:
- Symbolic Interactionism Approach: This approach closely aligns with Mead’s original ideas and centers on the creation and maintenance of meanings within social interactions, with the self serving as the foundation for these interactions. It emphasizes that individuals create and manage meanings through the roles and identities they assume. Importantly, individuals may take on various roles and identities, depending on their social context and interactions. Scholars like Herbert Blumer, Charles Horton Cooley, and Manford Kuhn expanded upon Mead’s concepts. Blumer elaborated on the social self as an object outside the individual, Cooley explained how the self recognizes itself as an object, and Kuhn explored the multiple dimensions of the self to understand individuals’ ability to adopt various identities.
- Phenomenological Approach: Originating from European sociology and philosophy, this approach emphasizes the meanings themselves and how these meanings reflect implicit normative expectations for interactions. It posits that language, both verbal and non-verbal, represents the formal and informal rules and norms guiding social interactions and shaping society. Early phenomenologists like Alfred Schutz and Harold Garfinkel distinguished between how people create social reality and how they operate within existing social reality. Schutz examined the intersubjective process of reality creation through language and communication, while Garfinkel developed ethnomethodology to explore how individuals manage reality. Contemporary developments of phenomenology can be found in the work of theorists like Howard Becker, Peter Berger, and Douglas Maynard. Becker’s studies explored how individuals’ interpretations of social interactions reflect their experiences and unspoken norms for behavior. Berger and Luckmann demonstrated how everyday interactions and language contribute to the creation of formidable social institutions and organizations. Maynard further developed ethnomethodology by focusing on conversation analysis to understand how social discourse shapes and represents reality.
In essence, symbolic interactionism offers a profound lens through which to examine the intricate web of meanings and social interactions that underpin human society. It underscores the dynamic interplay between the self, language, and social institutions, shedding light on how we create, navigate, and transform our social reality through symbolic communication.
The life course approach within symbolic interactionism offers a unique perspective on how individuals acquire and adapt to the meanings associated with social interactions throughout their lives, highlighting the various stages that reflect these learning processes. At its core, this approach underscores the dynamic nature of social norms, rules, and values that guide interactions and shape society, emphasizing their evolution as individuals transition into different social positions and environments over time.
Key Concepts and Origin: Although it’s a relatively newer approach within the broader symbolic interactionist perspective, its fundamental ideas can be traced back to the works of George Herbert Mead and Georg Simmel. Mead, in his discussions of socialization, articulated a three-stage process (preparatory, play, and game) through which humans learn the norms, rules, and values of the social group into which they are born, ultimately culminating in the development of a fully formed self. Simmel, on the other hand, explored how interactions within and between groups evolved as factors such as group size, composition, and social environment changed.
Contemporary Developments: Building upon these foundational concepts, contemporary theorists like Glenn Elder, Roberta Simmons, and Dale Dannefer, along with their students and colleagues, have further developed the life course approach. Their work can be summarized in two key aspects:
- Lifelong Socialization: The contemporary perspective posits that socialization is a lifelong process that continually evolves alongside individuals as they progress through different life stages. This approach recognizes that socialization experiences change as individuals themselves change, reflecting their shifting roles, responsibilities, and social contexts.
- Interplay of Individual and Societal Factors: The theorists within this approach investigate both individual-level factors and societal factors that contribute to the ongoing socialization process. Elder, for instance, has focused on how socialization remains consistent across cohorts of people, with qualitative variations arising from differences in environments and resources. Simmons explores how the socialization process itself varies depending on an individual’s stage in life. Dannefer delves into the role of groups in an individual’s continuous socialization journey, highlighting how the communities and associations individuals are part of contribute significantly to their ongoing social development.
In essence, the life course approach underscores the dynamic nature of socialization and the fluidity of social norms and values as individuals move through different life stages. It emphasizes the interplay between individual experiences and broader societal influences in shaping an individual’s understanding of social interactions and their role within society. By examining how socialization processes change over time and are influenced by various factors, this approach provides valuable insights into the complex journey of human development and interaction across the lifespan.
Structural Social Psychology
Structural social psychology is a field of study that originated from the collaboration of economists, psychologists, and sociologists who sought to provide formal, mathematical explanations for social interactions. Their aim was to develop testable hypotheses about human behavior. This perspective operates on the assumption that social actors are primarily motivated by rational concerns related to maximizing rewards and minimizing punishments. It also posits that interactions based on rational calculations result in formally structured individual, group, and institutional interactions.
Key Features of Structural Social Psychology:
- Rational Calculations: One of the foundational assumptions is that individuals engage in social interactions with the goal of maximizing rewards and minimizing punishments. This perspective suggests that people make rational calculations about the costs and benefits associated with each interaction.
- Formal Theories and Testable Hypotheses: Structural social psychology shares similarities with cognitive and intrapersonal social psychology by emphasizing the development of formal theories to explain interactions and creating specific hypotheses for experimental testing. However, it also employs diverse research methods, including survey research and participant observation techniques.
Three Main Theoretical Programs:
- Power, Exchange, and Bargaining Studies: This category explores how social interactions can be understood as exchanges between social actors who make rational calculations about the costs and benefits of their actions. George Homans, Richard Emerson, and Peter Blau made significant contributions to this area. They examined concepts such as distributive justice, trust in social exchanges, and the development and management of power in social interactions. Contemporary research in this field delves into various aspects of bargaining and power differentiation and how they impact exchanges among individuals.
- Social Influence and Authority Studies: This set of studies focuses on understanding the factors that influence individuals to comply with authority figures or conform to group norms. Stanley Milgram’s research on obedience to authority figures and Solomon Asch’s studies on group conformity are classic examples. Contemporary research builds on these findings by investigating the conditions under which compliance and attitude change occur and the extent to which individuals are influenced by others in various social contexts.
- Status Characteristics, Expectation States Theory, and Social Network Studies: This area of study examines the underlying structure of social interactions by investigating how status characteristics and expectations influence individuals’ behavior in group settings. Expectation states theory, in particular, seeks to explain how individuals’ perceived competence and abilities affect their influence and authority within groups.
In summary, structural social psychology offers a formal and mathematical framework for understanding social interactions, emphasizing the role of rational calculations, power dynamics, social influence, and authority. Researchers within this perspective aim to provide theoretical insights and testable hypotheses to better comprehend the underlying structure of human interactions and the factors that drive them.
Status characteristics, expectation states, and social network studies delve into the intricate dynamics of social interactions by exploring the role of socially and culturally derived expectations for behavior. These expectations are associated with assumptions about individuals’ potential contributions to exchange or interaction processes, ultimately determining who receives more opportunities for interaction and influence within a group.
1. Status Characteristics Theory: Originating with the work of Berger, Zelditch, and associates, status characteristics theory identifies two main types of social characteristics: diffuse (e.g., race, gender, class, and ability) and specific status characteristics (e.g., job experience, education, relevant skills). This theory is often applied in groups aiming to achieve specific goals. The core premise is that individuals with status characteristics perceived as more likely to contribute successfully to group goals are granted greater opportunities for interaction and wield more social influence within the group. Expectations for behavior based on these characteristics give rise to specific and stable hierarchical group structures.
2. Expectation States Theory: Building on status characteristics theory, expectation states theory posits that individuals holding certain status characteristics, whether diffuse or specific, that are deemed more conducive to achieving group goals will receive more opportunities for interaction and greater social influence among group members. This theory delves into the development of expectations, how different status characteristics impact these expectations, and whether individuals perceive these expectations as just.
3. Social Network Theory: Social network theory and elementary theory expand on these concepts by examining how an individual’s position relative to others within a network affects social influence processes and the stability of group structures. The core assumption is that social influence, power, and bargaining are all influenced by the ways in which individuals are interconnected within a social network. Researchers like Markovsky, Willer, Cook, along with their students and colleagues, investigate various aspects of how actors’ network connections shape social processes.
Collectively, these approaches within structural social psychology shed light on how individuals’ interactions are governed by socially and culturally derived expectations. These expectations, linked to status characteristics, influence the allocation of opportunities for interaction and social influence within groups. Additionally, social network theory highlights how an actor’s position within a network can impact social dynamics and the stability of group structures.
In summary, these three theoretical perspectives offer unique insights into the complex interplay of individual attributes, social expectations, and network connections within the realm of social interactions. They contribute to our understanding of how individuals, their interactions, and the resulting group structures collectively shape the fabric of society.
- Adler, P. A. & Adler, P. (1987) Role Conflict and Identity Salience: College Athletes and the Academic Role. Social Science Journal 24: 443-55.
- Asch, S. E. (1955) Opinions and Social Pressure. Scientific American 193: 31-5.
- Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1972) Status Characteristics and Social Interaction. American Sociological Review 37: 241-55.
- Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., Fisek, M. H., & Norman, R. Z. (1998) The Legitimation and Delegitimation of Power and Prestige Orders. American Sociological Review 63: 379-405.
- Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality. Anchor, New York.
- Best, J. B. (1995) Cognitive Psychology, 4th edn. West, Minnesota.
- Blau, P. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York.
- Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
- Burke, P. J. & Reitzes, D. (1981) The Link Between Identity and Role Performance. Social Psychology Quarterly 44: 83-92.
- Bush, D. & Simmons, R. (1990) Socialization Processes Over the Life Course. In: Rosenberg, M. & Turner, R. (Eds.), Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives. Basic Books, New York.
- Cook, K. (Ed.) (1987) Social Exchange Theory. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
- Cooley, C. H. (1902) Human Nature and the Social Order. Scribner, New York.
- Elder, G. H., Jr. (1975) Age Differentiation and the Life Course. In: Inkeles, A., Coleman, J., & Smelser, N. (Eds.), Annual Review of Sociology 1.
- Festinger, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
- Gecas, V. & Burke, P. J. (1995) Self and Identity. In: Cook, K. S., Fine, G. A., & House, J. S. (Eds.), Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
- Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor/Doubleday, New York.
- Gubrium, J. (1988) The Social Preservation of the Mind: The Alzheimer’s Disease Experience. Symbolic Interaction 9: 37-51.
- Kleinman, S. (1991) Fieldworkers’ Feelings: What We Feel, Who We Are, How We Analyze. In: Shaffir, W. B. & Stebbins, R. A. (Eds.), Experiencing Fieldwork: An Inside View of Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 184-95.
- Lawler, E. J. & Bacharach, S. B. (1987) Comparison of Dependence and Punitive Forms of Power. Social Forces 66: 446-62.
- Markovsky, B. (1998) Social Network Conceptions of Group Solidarity. In: Doreian, P. & Fararo, T. J. (Eds.), The Problem of Solidarity. Gordon & Breach, New York, pp. 343-72.
- Maynard, D. (1984) Inside Plea Bargaining. Plenum, New York.
- Milgram, S. (1963) Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67: 371-8.
- Ridgeway, C. & Berger, J. (1986) Expectations, Legitimation, and Dominance Behavior in Task Groups. American Sociological Review 51: 603-17.
- Stryker, S. (1980) Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Benjamin Cummings, Menlo Park, CA.
- Zelditch, M., Jr. & Walker, H. A. (1984) Legitimacy and the Stability of Authority. In: Lawler, E. J. (Ed.), Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 1. JAI Press, San Diego.