Social Psychology: Introduction

BASIC QUESTION: What is human social interaction like?

WHAT ARE SOME MAJOR COMMON QUESTIONS THAT SOCIAL

PSYCHOLOGISTS ASK TO INVESTIGATE THIS BROADER QUESTION?

• Is there a difference between how people act in groups vs. how they act when they
are alone?
• How do we persuade and influence one another?
• How do we perceive one another? How do our self-perceptions influence how we
perceive others?
• What factors contribute to prosocial behavior? To antisocial behavior?
• When are we most likely to help?
• To what degree, if any, are humans free to choose their actions? (determinism)
And so forth……

WHY are we studying it? Because the findings of social psychology research are
applicable to many situations in our everyday life. In addition, knowing about the general
tendencies in social interaction can help us examine our own interactions with others in a
more substantive way.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE APPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS OF SOCIAL

PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH THAT WE WILL LOOK AT?

• What the research findings suggest about how we become attracted to one
another.
• How the findings help us understand how prejudice and stereotyping occur
• How we can use the research findings to help us see how groups and communities
can be influenced for the better
• How people are influenced in court proceedings
• How social psychological dispositions may be influenced by and interact with the
cyber-world
• What implications the findings may have for Christian ideas and vice versa

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE MAJOR OVERARCHING TERMS I SHOULD

KNOW FOR THIS COURSE?

• Naturalism/materialism:

• Determinism:
 • Empiricism:

• Reductionism:

IS SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY JUST COMMON SENSE?

 Hindsight Bias (The “I knew-it-all-along phenomenon; after-the-fact

common sense): believing that you knew something all the time after being
told about it.
 Overconfidence: tendency to be more confident in one's behaviors, attributes
and physical characteristics than one should be (the “better than average”
effect)
 Illusory correlations: When we believe that there is a relationship between
two things, we are likely to notice and recall instances that confirm our belief

WHAT ARE SOME WAYS THAT CHRISTIAN IDEAS AND SOCIAL

PSYCHOLOGY TOGETHER CAN INCREASE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF
HUMAN SOCIAL BEHAVIOR?

• Scriptures provide us with general descriptions of the inclinations of humans.

Example: We are quick to judge others.
• Social psychology provides us with more specific descriptions of discrete
behaviors. Example: The fundamental attribution error :

• Social psychology research demonstrates recurrent themes in human social

behavior. Examples:

WHAT DO WE MAKE OF THESE COLLECTIVE FINDINGS?

• There appears to be a fairly consistent tendency to humans, specifically with

regard to our social interactions.
 • We could take at face value the findings, as does Evolutionary psychology (EP),
which argues that humans are simply a highly developed species along the
evolutionary ladder. From this perspective, we evolved as the result of random
processes that all have their basis in nature (no immaterial substance exists). This
has been the predominant view in the entire field of psychology for the past
decade or so.
• According to EP, the two primary motives of all behavior are survival and
reproductive advantage.
• Humans thus could be seen as basically selfish beings who interact socially
mostly for personal gain. This would be an example of both a naturalist and a
reductionist argument: all complex social behavior can be explained by these two
fundamental principles: survival and reproductive advantage. The overwhelming
majority of the results of social psychology research seem to support the logic of
this conclusion.
• We could also consider the results within the context of a Christian perspective,
which assumes that humans were created in God’s image. This is not necessarily
anti-evolutionary theory! A Christian who espouses evolutionary theory would
most likely argue that while evolution did (and does) occur, and humans are one
result of that process, God was the originator of that process as opposed to some
random material force as the originator.
• So what? How does this help us interpret the social psychology research findings?
• Consider the difference between human nature and the human condition. To
speak of the nature of something is to talk about what essential characteristics a
certain entity must have, and if it lacks those characteristics, then that entity is of
another sort. For example, water must by its very nature be two parts hydrogen to
1 part oxygen (H2O). If it is any other combination of elements, it is something
other than water. From an EP perspective, the nature of humans is essentially a
savage one that is primarily preoccupied by survival and reproductive advantage.
Thus, an EP psychologist would argue that we are “by nature” selfish beings
whose primary aim in all social interactions is to maximize these two underlying,
essential motives. As humans, we can not escape these essential characteristics.
Thus, even if it looks like we are being nice to others, deep down inside we are
really concerned about what advantage that supposedly “kind” gesture has for our
own lives.
• A Christian could argue that in this respect, the EP approach is right. That is to
say, we are by our very nature essentially sinful beings who are self-seeking. This
is consistent with the Calvinist perspective, as well as many other Christian
traditions that emphasize the fallen state of humans.

POSSIBLE DIFFICULTIES WITH THIS PERSPECTIVE:

• Limitations of the empirical approach:
o In the overwhelming number of studies, it is possible to achieve statistical
significance of the experimental effect when only about 30% or so of your
subjects respond in the way that your hypothesis predicted (e.g., Milgram
 study). This leaves a lot of unexplained variance. In other words, the
results tell us nothing about the majority of subjects, who do not respond
to the experimental manipulation.
o Research results tell us only of what we might expect from the “average
person” as opposed to any specific person.
o All researchers begin with a specific bias that emanates from their
worldview. So, results are often interpreted in a way that favors that bias.
In the case of EP, a social psychologist most often begins with the bias
that any behavior observed serves the purpose of survival and reproductive
advantage, and no other possible explanation could exist (e.g., helping
study).

ANOTHER POSSIBLE CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING: (From Sabates book

currently under consideration with InterVarsity Press)
• Consider the following orthodox Christian beliefs together:
o the importance of being created in God’s image (creation)
o the fall
o redemption
• In the orthodox understanding of creation, humans were created in God’s image,
and He declared that all things He created were by their very nature good.
• From this same orthodox perspective, the fall indicates that humans sinned and
broke relationship with God. What are the implications of this? One is that we are
inevitably sinful, though to what degree and in which ways any individual will
fall prey to these is never really specified in the Scriptures.
• How do we reconcile that we were both created as good beings and that we also
sin? One way is to begin with the theocentric view (God-centered view) of human
social interaction as opposed to beginning with an anthropocentric view (human-
centered). That is, begin with assuming that we share some of the characteristics
of God, which include, at the very least, the capacity for virtues such as other-
centered love and compassion. In addition, as the Trinity is itself a deeply social
entity, we, too, are intrinsically social beings. From a Christian perspective, this
social characteristic is the primary way in which God works out His redemptive
plan: we help each other as part of the Body of Christ and as part of a common
humanity. A Christian view acknowledges the two powerful forces of survival
and reproductive advantage, but to what end? From this view, loving social
interaction is an ultimate goal that supersedes that of survival and reproductive
advantage.
• OK, but we are still sinful, right? Yes, but this is where the difference between the
terms human nature and the human condition become relevant. One could argue
that because we were created by God, all humans are by their very nature
essentially good. That is, we are truly capable of goodness. But since the fall, the
human condition entails both goodness and sinfulness. So, we are neither all good
nor all bad, but at least we are somewhat good.
• The EP perspective does not acknowledge that such goodness is possible, because
it is irreconcilable with the premise that our primary motives are survival and
reproductive advantage. Once again, sure people can act nicely toward one
 another, but from the naturalist EP perspective, these so-called “nice” behaviors
can be seen to be motivated primarily by selfish factors (specifically self-
preservation and reproductive advantage). But then what about all those people in
the studies who act in ways that do appear good or kind or other-centered, i.e.,
those people whose behavior is not explained by the hypothesis that we are self-
seeking? Think about this and please bring your ideas to class! Thanks….  

RECENT WORK IN THE FIELD OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY:

• As noted above, the field of psychology as a whole has tended to have a

negative view of humans as ultimately self-centered.
• More recent work in the area called positive psychology instead focuses on
human strength and virtue. Lots of empirical research is being done on how
people do well, how their strengths are used to help others, and the overall
potential for “goodness” in others.
• So, what could a Christian view add to our understanding of social interaction
if the positive psychology movement is already trying to make the case that
people can be capable of “good”?
• Most research in positive psychology treats the various virtues (e.g., patience,
kindness, generosity, etc.) as a means to an end: ultimately, the end (goal) is
subjective well-being, which basically means that you are content with life,
have a more positive self-esteem, etc... So, for example, the positive
psychology forgiveness research focuses on the beneficial results of
forgiveness for one’s own mental state and emotions. Generosity is also noted
to be a mood enhancer, etc.
• A Christian view certainly acknowledges the potential for the beneficial
effects of practicing a virtuous life. But these positive effects that enhance
subjective well-being are not the end goals; the virtues (other-centeredness)
that enable and enhance loving relationships are the goals. In other words, a
virtue is good because it is good, not because it necessarily affords us a way to
feel better. Sometimes, for example, forgiveness is a very difficult and
arduous journey, but we are commanded to forgive nonetheless. There is no
guarantee from God that you will feel “better” having done it.

SO WHAT?

• It is important to know the underlying assumptions regarding humans that drive

research in social psychology because humans are, after all, the principal agents in
such interactions.
• Biases in research can occur as a result of biases about the human condition. If
you believe that humans are basically self-centered, then you will interpret your
findings in that way and exclude other possible interpretations.