the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, social psychology was strongly influenced by the atrocities of World War II and other historical events and, especially in the United States, developed an increasingly experimental focus as it examined their psychological underpinning (Moscovici & Markova, 2006). For instance, the unimaginable horror of the Holocaust led Stanley Milgram (1963) to investigate why people obey authority, even when ordered to harm innocent victims. In Chapter 6 we will examine Stanley Milgram’s research on obedience, along with other forms of social influence.
One major theoretical advance that occurred during these years was prompted by Leon Festinger’s desire to understand why people sometimes say one thing but do the opposite and/or simultaneously hold two attitudes that conflict with one another. Festinger (1957) created the theory of cognitive dissonance to help explain these inconsistencies, arguing that the existence of these inconsistencies sometimes produces discomfort or dissonance in people. Festinger postulated that, in general, people will strive to overcome this dissonance by changing an attitude, belief, or behavior accordingly and thereby removing the inconsistency. Festinger’s theory was enormously influential and will be discussed in much greater detail in Chapter 7 on persuasion.
Figure 1.2 Lewin’s Field Theory
Further Developments: The Multiple Causes of Social Behavior
Although the basic groundwork for social psychological science was laid out by these earlier thinkers, social psychology matured throughout the remainder of the 20th century. During those years—and continuing into the 21st century—social psychologists have expanded our theory and research to incorporate additional influences on social behavior. When you think about why people do what they do, what kinds of explanations come to mind? Consider the reasons we are romantically attracted to particular others of the same or opposite sex. Is romantic attraction based in our genes? Personality? Family background? Cultural and media influences? If you were asked to choose one of these explanations, which would it be?
I suspect that you found it hard to select just one. Social psychologists are with you, and one of social psychology’s most appealing and important features is that it considers multiple explanations for any given behavior. Social phenomena are not so simple that they can be fully explained by any single factor, and consequently, social psychology has incorporated a number of approaches to understanding them.
In fact, several of the most important developments in social psychology since the middle of last century reflect these different approaches to explaining social behavior. These different perspectives or levels of analysis complement each other, allowing us to develop a more holistic understanding of social phenomena (Bruner, 1990; De Houwer & Moors, 2015). These three levels of explanation vary in scope and method and are the (see Figure 1.3)
evolutionary level, which emphasizes the genetic history of the human race;
contextual level, which looks at group pressures, societal influences, and cultural background;
individual level, which asks about a person’s own learning history, experiences, and cognitive processes.
Evolutionary Factors
The early American social psychologist McDougall, influenced by Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, placed natural instincts at the forefront of his explanations for social behavior. McDougall’s instinct-based approach quickly fell out of favor as a primary cause of human behavior and was replaced with a more externally focused, behaviorist perspective (Jackson, 1988). As a result, for several decades little attention was devoted to evolutionary or biological influences on social behavior. However, since the 1990s social psychologists have come a long way toward remedying this oversight, and today the study of biological influences on social psychological processes has been integrated into the mainstream of our science (Duntley & Buss, 2008; Kenrick & Cohen, 2012).
Figure 1.3 Different Levels of Explanation for Social Behavior
Social psychologists have recognized how traits handed down to us by our ancestors continue to influence social functioning. This evolutionary perspective derives from Darwin’s theory of natural selection, which, in a nutshell, states that genes that tend to increase the chances of survival of their carrier are more likely to be passed on to a new generation (Darwin, 1859/1994). In other words, these genes—what are called adaptive genes—endow their animal or plant carrier with advantages that make them more likely to survive and reproduce in comparison to those that do not have them. Darwin recognized that there is natural variation in the genes of the members of a species, and that as a result, some members are better adapted to their environments than are others (see photo). The fortunate members have a higher probability of producing healthy offspring and, over time, their adaptive genes and corresponding traits become more common in the population. Eventually, virtually all members of the species carry the adaptive traits. For example, all humans (and all primates) have opposable thumbs, a feature that we now take for granted but that evolved over the course of millions of years.
One of the implications of natural selection is that characteristics—whether physiological or psychological—that are universally shared in a species are very likely the result of evolution. If similar psychological tendencies are found in humans regardless of culture, then there is a high probability that evolutionary pressures are responsible. For instance, individuals in all cultures share a taboo against incest. Whenever I talk to my students about incest, they shake their heads and show expressions of disgust. Yes, it is disgusting to think about—but why? Once we get past the mere disgust factor, students correctly point out that inbreeding increases the chances that offspring will have characteristics—genetic defects—that decrease the probability of survival. Evolutionary pressures have led to universal incest avoidance, and the disgust that we feel about incest is a psychological adaptation that has minimized its likelihood (HBO’s fantasy series Game of Thrones notwithstanding!). Biology clearly has a profound effect on social behavior. Returning to our opening example, how might our biology affect our sexual orientation?
Charles Darwin
©iStockphoto.com/stockcam.
A recent study nicely illustrates how the evolutionary perspective can be applied to understanding romantic attraction. Consider that the scent of a woman during ovulation can impact how a man rates the attractiveness of potential female partners (S. L. Miller & Maner, 2011). Miller and Maner (2011) had individual males work on a puzzle involving building blocks with a young female who was secretly working with the experimenter and was trained to refrain from flirtatious behavior. After the task the men were asked to rate her attractiveness, and how highly they rated her depended on two factors: whether or not they were in a romantic relationship and, believe it or not, whether or not she was ovulating. Single males rated her as more attractive when she was fertile versus when she was not, but men with partners showed the opposite tendency. Committed men downgraded her attractiveness, as if they were trying to avoid the temptation of an attractive woman! This is just one recent example of how biological factors can influence social behavior.
Moreover, advances in technology have ushered in the new subfield of social neuroscience that studies the relationships between social psychology and the brain (see Figure 1.4) (Todorov, Fiske, & Prentice, 2011). Social neuroscience applies sophisticated
