Sociological Social Psychology Definition
Psychological social psychologists tend to center their investigations on the individual, with a primary focus on how an individual’s perceptions of a social situation shape their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors in that specific context. In essence, they explore the internal cognitive and emotional processes that influence an individual’s response to social stimuli.
Conversely, sociological social psychology places greater emphasis on understanding the relationship between the individual and broader social systems, such as society at large. Rather than isolating individual experiences, sociological social psychology seeks to explore how social structures, norms, and institutions interact with and shape individual behavior and perception.
Within sociological social psychology, one can identify several distinct perspectives and theories, reflecting the diverse nature of this field. Typically, sociologists categorize sociological social psychology into two major variants: symbolic interactionism and social structure and personality. However, in recent years, a third variant known as structural social psychology has begun to emerge, further expanding the breadth and depth of this interdisciplinary approach.
- Symbolic Interactionism: Symbolic interactionism is a prominent perspective within sociological social psychology. It delves into how individuals assign meaning to symbols, gestures, and interactions in their social environment. Symbolic interactionists argue that human behavior is driven by the interpretation of symbols and the communication of these meanings through social interactions. This perspective explores how individuals construct their social identities and roles through ongoing interactions with others.
- Social Structure and Personality: This variant of sociological social psychology examines the influence of societal structures, institutions, and norms on an individual’s personality, attitudes, and behavior. It seeks to understand how broader social forces, such as social class, race, and gender, shape the self-concept and social identities of individuals. This perspective emphasizes the role of social context in determining individual outcomes.
- Structural Social Psychology: Emerging as a third variant, structural social psychology combines elements of both symbolic interactionism and social structure and personality. It aims to bridge the gap between micro-level interactions and macro-level social structures. Structural social psychologists investigate how individual experiences and behaviors are interconnected with societal structures, exploring the reciprocal relationship between the individual and the broader social context.
In summary, sociological social psychology represents a dynamic field within which sociologists examine the interplay between individual experiences and broader social systems. While rooted in sociological traditions, this interdisciplinary approach encompasses diverse perspectives, including symbolic interactionism, social structure and personality, and the emerging field of structural social psychology. These varied approaches collectively contribute to a deeper understanding of how individuals navigate and are influenced by the complex tapestry of social life.
Sociological Social Psychology History and Background
Symbolic interactionism is a multifaceted variant of sociological social psychology with its roots intertwined with the emergence of American sociology in the early 20th century, primarily owing to the pioneering ideas of George Herbert Mead. At the heart of Mead’s theoretical framework is the concept that society plays a crucial role in shaping the self, which, in turn, influences human behavior. This reciprocal relationship between the self and society not only affects individual actions but also contributes to the maintenance and transformation of society, as emergent patterns of behavior can drive societal change.
As symbolic interactionism evolved, it eventually divided into two distinct strands: the Chicago School and the Iowa School. While both strands draw inspiration from Mead’s ideas on self and society, they differ in their assumptions about human nature, social interaction, and the nature of society. Consequently, they offer contrasting perspectives on the appropriate empirical and theoretical methods for sociological analysis.
The Chicago School
The Chicago School, led by Herbert Blumer, continued Mead’s work at the University of Chicago after Mead’s passing in 1931. Blumer, credited with coining the term “symbolic interactionism,” emphasized the fluid and adaptable nature of the self and its tentative role in social interactions. According to Blumer, the self is just one element among many that can influence an individual’s behavior within a given situation. Consequently, he viewed social interaction as highly unpredictable and society as a dynamically balanced entity with immense potential for change. Blumer advocated for exploratory research methodologies and inductive theory-building as a means of achieving a deep interpretive understanding of social life.
The Iowa School
On the other hand, the Iowa School, championed by Manford Kuhn, took a different perspective on Mead’s interactionism. Kuhn argued for greater stability in the self, positing that individuals possess a core self, comprised of stable self-meanings derived from their social roles. According to Kuhn, this core self serves as a constraint on individual behavior, shaping how people experience social reality and make choices that align with their core self across various situations. In contrast to the Chicago School’s emphasis on unpredictability, Kuhn viewed social interaction as highly structured and predictable, with society forming a relatively stable framework connecting individuals within role networks. He advocated for the development of deductive theories that could generate predictions about human behavior, leading to the creation of the renowned Twenty Statements Test in 1950. This test aimed to assess the core self by asking respondents to provide 20 responses to the statement, “Who am I?”
Symbolic interactionism within sociological social psychology represents an ever-evolving perspective that traces its origins to George Herbert Mead’s groundbreaking work. Over time, it has branched into distinct approaches, with the Chicago School emphasizing the fluidity of the self and unpredictability of social interaction, while the Iowa School underscores the stability of the core self and the predictability of social behavior. Both strands contribute valuable insights to the study of human behavior and the intricate interplay between the self and society.
In contemporary symbolic interactionism, significant progress has been made in translating George Herbert Mead’s foundational but somewhat abstract ideas about the self and society into testable propositions. Central to these advancements is the concept of identity, which encompasses the specific meanings individuals attribute to themselves based on the societal roles they occupy. Modern theories of identity can be broadly categorized into two approaches: the structural approach and cognitive approaches. While these approaches are not in competition, they provide complementary perspectives on the relationship between identity and social behavior.
The Structural Approach:
- Sheldon Stryker and colleagues have played a pioneering role in the structural approach to identity theory. This perspective emphasizes how social structures play a pivotal role in shaping identities. These identities, in turn, exert influence on individuals’ social behaviors. In essence, this approach highlights the influence of external factors, such as societal roles and structures, on identity formation and expression.
Cognitive Approaches: 2. Peter Burke’s Identity Control Theory and David Heise’s Affect Control Theory represent cognitive approaches to understanding identity. These theories delve into the psychological mechanisms that underlie how individuals express their identities during social interactions.
A Key Commonality: One important commonality between Burke’s and Heise’s theories is the concept of a “control systems” view of the relationship between identities and behavior. This analogy likens identity meanings to a thermostat’s temperature setting. In this view, when the environment provides feedback that is incongruent with an individual’s self-identity, the person adjusts their behavior to align the feedback with their identity.
Notable Difference: However, there is a significant distinction between Burke’s Identity Control Theory and Heise’s Affect Control Theory regarding what individuals aim to control. Burke’s perspective is more individualistic, emphasizing that people behave in ways that confirm their self-meanings. For instance, someone who sees themselves as a diligent student will engage in behaviors that elicit feedback from others (such as parents, teachers, or classmates) confirming this self-perception.
In contrast, Heise’s theory argues that individuals act to create situations that not only align with their own self-meanings but also with the meanings attributed to other objects within the situation, including other people. Therefore, when a bright student interacts with a hardworking teacher in a classroom, both parties are motivated to behave in ways that construct a socially appropriate situation for these identities within that specific context. Heise’s theory aligns with Herbert Blumer’s perspective that the self is just one influencing factor in social behavior, illustrating how behavior can be predicted in complex social contexts.
These recent advances in symbolic interactionism provide valuable insights into the intricate interplay between identity and behavior, shedding light on how individuals navigate the social landscape and engage with their self-concepts within various societal contexts.
Social Structure and Personality
Social structure and personality is a sociological perspective that shares foundational concepts and concerns with symbolic interactionism but places greater emphasis on how societal elements influence various facets of individuals’ lives. This perspective views individuals as occupying distinct positions within a society, and the relationships among these positions define the system’s social structure. These positions come with specific roles, expectations, and varying levels of power and prestige, shaping individuals’ experiences in multifaceted ways.
Key Tenets of Social Structure and Personality:
- Social-Structural Positions: Individuals are seen as occupying diverse social-structural positions within society. These positions are defined by factors such as occupational roles, gender, race, and relationship status.
- Impact on Individual Outcomes: Social structure and personality studies have revealed that the positions individuals hold in society profoundly influence various aspects of their lives. These outcomes encompass physical and mental health, involvement in criminal activities, personal values, and status attainment.
- Childhood Social Conditions: Research, exemplified by the work of scholars like Mark Hayward at the University of Texas Population Center, has highlighted the significance of childhood social conditions. Factors such as socioeconomic status, family structure, and maternal employment during childhood can have lasting effects on an individual’s life, including their age of death in adulthood.
- Influence on Societal Patterns: More recently, analyses within the social structure and personality perspective have started to underscore the ways in which individuals can impact broader societal patterns and trends. Members of disadvantaged groups can, through their actions, initiate changes at the societal level, redistributing power, prestige, and privileges.
Notable Historical Example: A quintessential example of an individual who catalyzed significant societal change is Rosa Louise McCauley Parks. As an African American woman, her refusal to yield her bus seat to a White passenger in 1955 was a pivotal moment in the Civil Rights Movement. This courageous act ultimately led to the dismantling of racial segregation laws throughout the United States. Parks is revered as a trailblazer in civil rights activism, earning her the esteemed Congressional Gold Medal in 1999 and the titles of the “first lady of civil rights” and the “mother of the freedom movement.”
The social structure and personality perspective sheds light on the dynamic interplay between individuals and their societal contexts. It underscores the importance of recognizing how societal structures and positions can profoundly influence individual lives while also emphasizing the potential for individuals to drive meaningful societal transformations through their actions and advocacy.
Structural Social Psychology
Structural social psychology is an emerging variant of sociological social psychology that shares commonalities with symbolic interactionism and social structure and personality. It acknowledges the mutual influence between social structures and social interaction, recognizing that social interaction both perpetuates and occasionally instigates changes in social structures. However, what sets structural social psychology apart is its distinctive and somewhat contentious perspective on individuals.
Key Features of Structural Social Psychology:
- Minimalist View of Individuals: In contrast to some researchers in the social structure and personality tradition who advocate for comprehensive and detailed descriptions of individuals, structural social psychology takes a minimalist approach. It focuses solely on individual qualities considered pertinent to the specific theoretical questions under investigation.
- Scientific Parsimony: Structural social psychologists adhere to the principle of scientific parsimony. Their aim is to develop overarching theories that explain a wide range of phenomena while employing as few concepts and assumptions as possible. Rather than subscribing to the notion that more attributes yield better explanations, they adopt a “less is more” philosophy.
- Prominent Theories: Some noteworthy theories within this tradition include Joseph Berger and colleagues’ expectation states theory, Noah Friedkin’s social influence network theory, Barry Markovsky’s multilevel theory of distributive justice, and Barry Markovsky and colleagues’ network exchange theory.
A Promising Intersection: Agent-Based Modeling (ABM) One exciting aspect of structural social psychological theorizing lies in its compatibility with agent-based modeling (ABM), a contemporary approach to creating computer simulations of intricate phenomena. ABM employs a bottom-up strategy, illustrating how complex patterns at the system level emerge from the coordinated behaviors of actors following simple interaction rules—essentially, minimalist actors.
For instance, a renowned ABM known as “boids,” developed by Craig Reynolds at Sony Corporation, demonstrates how the intricate flocking formations seen in real-world birds are generated by computer-simulated birds adhering to just three straightforward collision-avoidance rules.
ABMs are now being used to simulate the emergence of complex patterns in human social behavior, encompassing phenomena like crowd dynamics, cooperation, learning, and social influence. The convergence of ABMs and structural social psychology holds substantial promise. ABMs currently emphasize how intricate social patterns and structures arise from individual behavior, while structural social psychological theories have traditionally highlighted the reverse—how social structures impact individual behavior.
In the future, these two domains stand to gain significantly by drawing upon each other’s strengths and insights. The synergy between ABMs and structural social psychology has the potential to yield a deeper understanding of the interplay between individual actions and the emergence of complex social structures and behaviors.
Sociological Social Psychology Implications
The diversity of approaches within sociological social psychology presents an intriguing paradox, one that raises questions about the field’s direction and cohesion. On one hand, this diversity might be seen as a symptom of the absence of shared standards for theory development and testing. As Barry Markovsky has pointed out, this lack of cohesion can lead to the creation of vague theories that struggle to provide genuine explanatory power.
Conversely, it can be argued that the multiplicity of approaches in sociological social psychology mirrors the intricate and multifaceted nature of the social phenomena it seeks to understand. In this view, the field acknowledges that social realities are diverse and complex, and therefore, theoretical and methodological differences should be not only tolerated but also valued and nurtured.
This duality of perspectives prompts an ongoing debate within sociology. How should the field respond to the rich tapestry of theories and methodologies? Is the diversity a symptom of fragmentation or a strength reflecting the diversity of social life itself? Resolving this debate stands as one of the most critical challenges facing sociology today.
In essence, sociological social psychology stands at a crossroads, where it must grapple with its own diversity. Whether this diversity represents a challenge or an opportunity depends on how the field navigates and harnesses the varied approaches to deepen our understanding of the intricate and ever-evolving social world.
- Axelrod, R., & Tesfatsion, L. (2006). On-line guide for newcomers to agent-based modeling in the social sciences. Retrieved September 29, 2006, from http://www.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/abmdemo.htm
- Cook, K. S., Fine, G. A., & House, J. S. (Eds.). (1995). Sociological perspectives on social psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
- Heise, D. (n.d.). Affect control theory. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~socpsy/ACT/
- House, J. S. (1977). The three faces of social psychology. Sociometry, 40(2), 161-177.
- Lawler, E. J., Ridgeway, C., & Markovsky, B. (1993). Structural social psychology and the micro-macro problem. Sociological Theory, 11(3), 268-290.
- Macy, M. W., & Willer, R. (2002). From factors to actors: Computational sociology and agent-based modeling. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 143-166.