Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)

Semester: Autumn, 2022

ASSIGNMENT No. 2
Q.1 Explain the concept of self-presentation and self-perception.
The definition for self-perception is “a person’s self-concepts; self-awareness.
A person’s “online identity can lead to a new – or at least changed – self.” Page 139. Developing an identity
online often provides a person with the freedom to “find one’s own voice” and establish a sense of image
awareness. By creating such a personality, a person often finds the self-confidence needed to express
themselves in ways they may find difficult in their embodied self. As discussed by Baym, “embodied” self
means – in real life. By exploring self-perception, a person can test, practice and prove themselves. People can
gain a better perspective of themselves and broaden their own consciousness.
Self-Concept
Self-concept refers to the overall idea of who a person thinks he or she is. If I said, “Tell me who you are,” your
answers would be clues as to how you see yourself, your self-concept. Each person has an overall self-concept
that might be encapsulated in a short list of overarching characteristics that he or she finds important. But each
person’s self-concept is also influenced by context, meaning we think differently about ourselves depending on
the situation we are in. In some situations, personal characteristics, such as our abilities, personality, and other
distinguishing features, will best describe who we are. You might consider yourself laid back, traditional, funny,
open minded, or driven, or you might label yourself a leader or a thrill seeker. In other situations, our self-
concept may be tied to group or cultural membership. For example, you might consider yourself a member of
the Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity, a Southerner, or a member of the track team.
Our self-concept is also formed through our interactions with others and their reactions to us. The concept of
the looking glass self explains that we see ourselves reflected in other people’s reactions to us and then form our
self-concept based on how we believe other people see us (Cooley, 1902). This reflective process of building
our self-concept is based on what other people have actually said, such as “You’re a good listener,” and other
people’s actions, such as coming to you for advice. These thoughts evoke emotional responses that feed into our
self-concept. For example, you may think, “I’m glad that people can count on me to listen to their problems.”
We also develop our self-concept through comparisons to other people. Social comparison theory states that we
describe and evaluate ourselves in terms of how we compare to other people. Social comparisons are based on
two dimensions: superiority/inferiority and similarity/difference (Hargie, 2011). In terms of superiority and
inferiority, we evaluate characteristics like attractiveness, intelligence, athletic ability, and so on. For example,
you may judge yourself to be more intelligent than your brother or less athletic than your best friend, and these
judgments are incorporated into your self-concept. This process of comparison and evaluation isn’t necessarily
a bad thing, but it can have negative consequences if our reference group isn’t appropriate. Reference groups
are the groups we use for social comparison, and they typically change based on what we are evaluating. In
terms of athletic ability, many people choose unreasonable reference groups with which to engage in social
comparison. If a man wants to get into better shape and starts an exercise routine, he may be discouraged by his

1
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
difficulty keeping up with the aerobics instructor or running partner and judge himself as inferior, which could
negatively affect his self-concept. Using as a reference group people who have only recently started a fitness
program but have shown progress could help maintain a more accurate and hopefully positive self-concept.
We also engage in social comparison based on similarity and difference. Since self-concept is context specific,
similarity may be desirable in some situations and difference more desirable in others. Factors like age and
personality may influence whether or not we want to fit in or stand out. Although we compare ourselves to
others throughout our lives, adolescent and teen years usually bring new pressure to be similar to or different
from particular reference groups. Think of all the cliques in high school and how people voluntarily and
involuntarily broke off into groups based on popularity, interest, culture, or grade level. Some kids in your high
school probably wanted to fit in with and be similar to other people in the marching band but be different from
the football players. Conversely, athletes were probably more apt to compare themselves, in terms of similar
athletic ability, to other athletes rather than kids in show choir. But social comparison can be complicated by
perceptual influences. As we learned earlier, we organize information based on similarity and difference, but
these patterns don’t always hold true. Even though students involved in athletics and students involved in arts
may seem very different, a dancer or singer may also be very athletic, perhaps even more so than a member of
the football team. As with other aspects of perception, there are positive and negative consequences of social
comparison.
We generally want to know where we fall in terms of ability and performance as compared to others, but what
people do with this information and how it affects self-concept varies. Not all people feel they need to be at the
top of the list, but some won’t stop until they get the high score on the video game or set a new school record in
a track-and-field event. Some people strive to be first chair in the clarinet section of the orchestra, while another
person may be content to be second chair. The education system promotes social comparison through grades
and rewards such as honor rolls and dean’s lists. Although education and privacy laws prevent me from
displaying each student’s grade on a test or paper for the whole class to see, I do typically report the aggregate
grades, meaning the total number of As, Bs, Cs, and so on. This doesn’t violate anyone’s privacy rights, but it
allows students to see where they fell in the distribution. This type of social comparison can be used as
motivation. The student who was one of only three out of twenty-three to get a D on the exam knows that most
of her classmates are performing better than she is, which may lead her to think, “If they can do it, I can do it.”
But social comparison that isn’t reasoned can have negative effects and result in negative thoughts like “Look at
how bad I did. Man, I’m stupid!” These negative thoughts can lead to negative behaviors, because we try to
maintain internal consistency, meaning we act in ways that match up with our self-concept. So if the student
begins to question her academic abilities and then incorporates an assessment of herself as a “bad student” into
her self-concept, she may then behave in ways consistent with that, which is only going to worsen her academic
performance. Additionally, a student might be comforted to learn that he isn’t the only person who got a D and
then not feel the need to try to improve, since he has company. You can see in this example that evaluations we

2
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
place on our self-concept can lead to cycles of thinking and acting. These cycles relate to self-esteem and self-
efficacy, which are components of our self-concept.
Self-Esteem
Self-esteem refers to the judgments and evaluations we make about our self-concept. While self-concept is a
broad description of the self, self-esteem is a more specifically an evaluation of the self (Byrne, 1996). If I again
prompted you to “Tell me who you are,” and then asked you to evaluate (label as good/bad, positive/negative,
desirable/undesirable) each of the things you listed about yourself, I would get clues about your self-esteem.
Like self-concept, self-esteem has general and specific elements. Generally, some people are more likely to
evaluate themselves positively while others are more likely to evaluate themselves negatively (Brockner, 1988).
More specifically, our self-esteem varies across our life span and across contexts.
Pedro did a good job on his first college speech. During a meeting with his professor, Pedro indicates that he is
confident going into the next speech and thinks he will do well. This skill-based assessment is an indication that
Pedro has a high level of self-efficacy related to public speaking. If he does well on the speech, the praise from
his classmates and professor will reinforce his self-efficacy and lead him to positively evaluate his speaking
skills, which will contribute to his self-esteem. By the end of the class, Pedro likely thinks of himself as a good
public speaker, which may then become an important part of his self-concept. Throughout these points of
connection, it’s important to remember that self-perception affects how we communicate, behave, and perceive
other things. Pedro’s increased feeling of self-efficacy may give him more confidence in his delivery, which
will likely result in positive feedback that reinforces his self-perception. He may start to perceive his professor
more positively since they share an interest in public speaking, and he may begin to notice other people’s
speaking skills more during class presentations and public lectures. Over time, he may even start to think about
changing his major to communication or pursuing career options that incorporate public speaking, which would
further integrate being “a good public speaker” into his self-concept. You can hopefully see that these
interconnections can create powerful positive or negative cycles. While some of this process is under our
control, much of it is also shaped by the people in our lives.
The verbal and nonverbal feedback we get from people affect our feelings of self-efficacy and our self-esteem.
As we saw in Pedro’s example, being given positive feedback can increase our self-efficacy, which may make
us more likely to engage in a similar task in the future (Hargie, 2011). Obviously, negative feedback can lead to
decreased self-efficacy and a declining interest in engaging with the activity again. In general, people adjust
their expectations about their abilities based on feedback they get from others. Positive feedback tends to make
people raise their expectations for themselves and negative feedback does the opposite, which ultimately affects
behaviors and creates the cycle. When feedback from others is different from how we view ourselves, additional
cycles may develop that impact self-esteem and self-concept.
Self-discrepancy theory states that people have beliefs about and expectations for their actual and potential
selves that do not always match up with what they actually experience (Higgins, 1987). To understand this

3
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
theory, we have to understand the different “selves” that make up our self-concept, which are the actual, ideal,
and ought selves. The actual self consists of the attributes that you or someone else believes
you actually possess. The ideal self consists of the attributes that you or someone else would like you to
possess. The ought self consists of the attributes you or someone else believes you should possess.
Q.2 Our beliefs may generate their own reality. Discuss in detail.
Our personal beliefs play a huge role in how we view our own lives and the world around us. Likewise, our
estimation of successes and failures depend on the framework our personal beliefs construct. Basically, we
evaluate everything we see, hear, experience, and come into contact with, from the lens of our personal beliefs.
We develop our beliefs about reality based on how we interpret the world around us according to our individual
observations and experiences from both a logical and emotional standpoint. Initially, a belief can start from
assumptions based on logical observations and deductions, or alternatively, a belief can grow out of an
emotional view that seems to be supported by our logic. Basically, we try to make sense out of things going on
in the world around us based on the beliefs we form, and also use these beliefs to form ideas about probable
future outcomes as well.
Once we establish a core set of beliefs to operate by, we have accepted these beliefs as “facts” that become our
own personal system, or, “map” of operating in the world. Because of this, we essentially, on an unconscious
level, adjust the things we see, hear, feel, or experience to fit with our core beliefs making our version of reality
merely a creation of our own beliefs.
An example of this would be, if a person held a core belief that “the world is out to get me”, they would
constantly be searching – again unconsciously – for ways this is true such as, when they walk down the street
and say “hi” to someone walking past them who does not answer, they might make the assumption that the
person was intentionally not saying hi in response because “they don’t like me,” or if a person in front walking
into the same store fails to hold the door open for that person, their likely assumption may be “that was
intentionally rude,” and so forth.
As we learn and grow, we may find that many of our former beliefs no longer serve us and it becomes important
to understand how our beliefs inform our current perspectives and worldviews. We need to take stock from time
to time and examine whether some of these beliefs we hold are no longer useful to us and therefore may need
updating.
The map of reality that we use to navigate the world around us has a major influence on our successes, failures,
happiness, unhappiness, and satisfaction or dissatisfaction with our life experience. We create an emotional
attachment to the map we construct of our reality, in that we develop a deep interest in its accuracy – we want it
to be real because it’s familiar – it’s what we know which makes us feel safe and secure. When events don’t fit
our map of reality, it can create an emotional charge that makes coping difficult because our world may no
longer makes sense in the way it used to. This is an indication that the map needs to be updated.
When we replace limiting beliefs with self-powering beliefs such as, self-doubt with confidence, fear with

4
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
curiosity, or negativity with positivity, our internal map automatically rearranges itself to support these new
beliefs, thus, updating what no longer serves with something new and more supportive of the direction we
ultimately want to go in life.
The first step in making changes to an unconscious system is to ask questions about what kind of reality you
have created for yourself. This acknowledges we have the ability to create and make change, and holds us
accountable for the current reality we have already created for ourselves.
Once we ask these questions, we need to identify the limiting beliefs we want to change or update by examining
the results they produce. Any area in our lives that is producing good results is likely anchored in empowering
beliefs. Likewise, areas that yield unsatisfying or frustrating results is probably anchored to limiting beliefs.
Beliefs that limit you need to be updated in order to create desired change.
Once you identify the limiting beliefs, the next step is to dismantle them, then look for empowering beliefs to
replacement them with. Once you find new beliefs, continue to look for improved results, which will solidify
these beliefs to be seen as true, thus creating a new framework of reality to live by.
The conclusion here is that just because we may have a life we see as not being worthwhile, or perhaps has been
riddled with negative experiences—where we have come to see ourselves as a victim, or that we have to work
so hard but never seem to get ahead—know that we do have the power to create changes in the way we view the
world. These shifts have major effects on the experiences we have and ultimately, create a life more in line with
what we want for ourselves, rather than leaving us feeling that we are destined to live a live that just “happens”
to us. We can take charge of our life by exploring different beliefs that support what we want instead of
repeating what we don’t want.
The therapists at Cielo House are a great resource to help explore or obtain more information on these concepts
and how they can support the recovery process.
Q.3 Critically discuss the classic studies about conformity.
conformity, the process whereby people change their beliefs, attitudes, actions, or perceptions to more closely
match those held by groups to which they belong or want to belong or by groups whose approval they desire.
Conformity has important social implications and continues to be actively researched.
Classic studies
Two lines of research have had a great impact on views of conformity. In one set of studies (1935), the Turkish-
born social psychologist Muzafer Sherif demonstrated the power of social influence to change people’s
perceptions of highly ambiguous stimuli. Sherif made use of the autokinetic effect, a perceptual illusion that
occurs when people are asked to concentrate on a stationary point of light in a dark room. Under those
circumstances, people perceive movement in the light. Some think it moves only a little; others think it moves a
lot.
Sherif found that when groups of three people were brought together and asked to say out loud how far a light
moved, their judgments gradually converged. In other words, they developed a group norm about the distance

5
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
the light moved. And that norm had a lasting impact on participants’ perceptions. Conformity to the group norm
was still evident a year later. Participants created a norm through mutual social influence, which then influenced
their private responses.
In another series of experiments, the American psychologist Solomon Asch assembled groups of seven to nine
people for a study on visual perception. The experimental task, which involved matching the length of a
standard line against three comparison lines, was easy. Each group contained one naive participant who
answered next to last. The remaining “members” were confederates of the experimenter and gave unanimously
incorrect answers on 12 of 18 trials.
Asch found that conformity occurred even in a situation where the majority gave clearly erroneous answers.
Participants’ responses agreed with the erroneous majority approximately one-third of the time, and 27 percent
of participants conformed on at least eight trials. Control participants (who made judgments privately) gave
incorrect answers less than 1 percent of the time. Although the level of conformity that Asch obtained may
seem surprising, it is worth noting that participants’ responses were correct approximately two-thirds of the
time, and 24 percent of participants never conformed.
Types of conformity
Two categories of conformity have been distinguished: public agreement (compliance) and private agreement
(acceptance). If conformity is defined as movement toward a group norm, then compliance refers to overt
behavioral change in the direction of that norm, whereas acceptance refers to covert attitudinal or perceptual
change. For example, if an individual initially refused to sign a petition advocating abortion rights, learned that
a group advocated those rights, and then signed a petition favouring those rights, the person would be showing
compliance. In contrast, if an individual privately believed that abortion should be outlawed, learned that a
group advocated abortion rights, and then changed his private opinion about those rights, the person would be
showing acceptance.
Several forms of nonconformity have been distinguished, but two of the most important are independence and
anticonformity. Independence occurs when a person initially disagrees with a group and exhibits neither
compliance nor acceptance after being exposed to group pressure. In other words, the person stands fast when
faced with disagreement. In contrast, anticonformity occurs when a person initially disagrees with a group and
moves even farther away from its position (at the public or private level) after being exposed to pressure.
(Ironically, anticonformers are just as responsive to group pressure as conformers, but they manifest their
susceptibility by moving away from the group.)
The role of motivation
People conform to group pressure because they are dependent on the group for satisfying two important desires:
the desire to have an accurate perception of reality and the desire to be accepted by other people.
People want to hold accurate beliefs about the world because such beliefs usually lead to rewarding outcomes.
Some beliefs about the world can be verified by using objective tests; others cannot be verified by using

6
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
objective standards and hence must be verified by using social tests, namely comparing one’s beliefs to those of
other people whose judgment one respects. If those others agree with one’s beliefs, one gains confidence in
them; if they disagree, one loses confidence. Because disagreement is disturbing, people are motivated to
eliminate it, and one way to do so is to conform to group norms.
According to that analysis, people sometimes conform to groups because they are uncertain about the
correctness of their beliefs and believe the group is more likely to be correct than they are. That kind
of conformity reflects what the American researchers Morton Deutsch and Harold Gerard labeled informational
influence. Informational influence generally produces private acceptance as well as public compliance. This is
illustrated in Sherif’s work, which indicated that people judging an ambiguous stimulus exhibited both
compliance (when they made judgments in others’ presence) and acceptance (when they later responded
privately).
Because informational influence is based on insecurity about one’s beliefs, one would expect it to be more
common when an individual feels dependent on others for information. Consistently with that assumption,
people exhibit more conformity when they are working on ambiguous tasks than on unambiguous tasks. In
addition, they conform more when they have doubts about their own task competence and when they think other
group members are highly competent in the task.
Normative influence
In addition to wanting to hold correct beliefs about the world, people are motivated to be accepted by other
group members. The desire for social acceptance is very powerful in a wide range of situations and explains
why people are typically quite uncomfortable if they think others currently reject them or are likely to do so in
the future.
People sometimes conform to groups because they are motivated to be liked (or at least not disliked) and
believe that other members will feel more kindly toward them if they conform to rather than deviate from group
norms. That kind of conformity reflects what Deutsch and Gerard labeled normative influence. In general,
normative influence produces public compliance but not private acceptance. That is illustrated in the work of
Asch, as discussed above.
Group members exhibit more conformity when working toward a common goal rather than toward individual
goals, presumably because they believe that deviance on their part will be punished more severely in the former
case. As might be expected, however, conformity in common-goal groups is substantially reduced if members
believe that such behaviour will lower the group’s probability of attaining a positive outcome. Another factor
that increases normative influence is surveillance by other group members. People who are concerned about
others’ evaluations ought to conform more when their behaviour is public than when it is private, and
conformity is in fact higher in the former condition.

7
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
It should be noted that group members do reject people who deviate from the group consensus. Factors
influencing the likelihood of rejection include the extremity and content of the deviate’s position, the presumed
reason for the deviate’s behaviour, and the deviate’s status in the group.
Mixed cases
Although informational and normative influences have been discussed here as though they are
mutually exclusive, they occur simultaneously in at least some group situations. That is a
major premise of social-identity theory, which examines how the self-concept is influenced by social-group
membership. Social-identity theory assumes that disagreement with others produces uncertainty only when one
expects to agree with those people. For that reason, disagreement with in-group members produces more
uncertainty than disagreement with out-group members. In addition, the theory assumes that some in-group
members are more influential than others.
More specifically, a member’s influence depends on how much that member’s position embodies what is
unique about the group—the norm that differentiates the in-group from out-groups. Members who are closer to
that norm are more influential than those who are farther from it. Finally, the theory assumes that conformity
involves private acceptance as well as public compliance, because people believe that in-group norms provide
valid evidence about reality. A substantial amount of research is consistent with the social-identity explanation
of conformity.
Individual differences
Every conformity experiment has found that some people conform more than others. By
using analytic techniques that combined the results of many studies, the American psychologists Alice Eagly
and Linda Carli found that women were more influenceable than men, particularly in conformity experiments
that did not involve surveillance and in attitude-change studies where participants listened to persuasive
communications. The most plausible explanation is that most men are socialized to be more dominant
and assertive than are most women, and most people of both sexes are more likely to exhibit such gender-
consistent behaviour in public (group-pressure) settings than in private settings.
The psychologists Michael Bond and Peter Smith examined cultural differences in conformity by analyzing the
results of studies involving participants from 17 countries. They measured the relationship between the extent
of individualism or collectivism in the countries involved and the amount of conformity that residents displayed
on Asch’s line-judgment task. Individualism is a cultural orientation that emphasizes independence, autonomy,
and self-reliance. Collectivism is a cultural orientation that emphasizes interdependence, cooperation, and social
harmony.
Bond and Smith found that cultural values were indeed related to conformity: people in
collectivist cultures displayed more conformity than did people in individualist cultures. Although the
interpretation of those results is not completely clear, it is plausible that collectivists conform more than

8
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
individualists because they give greater weight to collective goals and are more concerned about how other
people view their behaviour and are affected by it.

Q.4 Write a detailed note on Culture and Sociology Diversity.

Material and nonmaterial cultures often make sense only in the context of a given society. If that is true, then it
is important for outsiders to become familiar with other societies and to appreciate their cultural differences.
These differences are often referred to as cultural diversity. Cultural diversity also occurs within a single
society, where subcultures and countercultures can both exist.
High Culture and Popular Culture
Do you prefer listening to opera or hip hop music? Do you like watching horse racing or NASCAR? Do you
read books of poetry or celebrity magazines? In each pair, one type of entertainment is considered high-brow
and the other low-brow. Sociologists use the term high culture to describe the pattern of cultural experiences
and attitudes that exist in the highest class segments of a society. People often associate high culture with
intellectualism, political power, and prestige. In America, high culture also tends to be associated with wealth.
Events considered high culture can be expensive and formal—attending a ballet, seeing a play, or listening to a
live symphony performance.
The term popular culture refers to the pattern of cultural experiences and attitudes that exist in mainstream
society and are accessible to most people. Popular culture events might include a parade, a baseball game, or the
season finale of a television show. Rock and pop music—“pop” is short for “popular”—are part of popular
culture. Popular culture is often expressed and spread via commercial media such as radio, television, movies,
the music industry, publishers, and corporate-run websites.
Although high culture may be viewed as superior to popular culture, the labels of high culture and popular
culture vary over time and place. Shakespearean plays, considered pop culture when they were written, are now
part of our society’s high culture.
Subculture and Counterculture
A subculture is just what it sounds like—a smaller cultural group within a larger culture; people of a subculture
are part of the larger culture but also share a specific identity within a smaller group.
Thousands of subcultures exist within the United States. Ethnic and racial groups share the language, food, and
customs of their heritage. Other subcultures are united by shared experiences. Some subcultures are formed by
members who possess traits or preferences that differ from the majority of a society’s population. In the United
States, adolescents often form subcultures to develop a shared youth identity. Alcoholics Anonymous offers
support to those suffering from alcoholism. But even as members of a subculture band together, they still
identify with and participate in the larger society.Sociologists distinguish subcultures from countercultures,
which are a type of subculture that rejects some of the larger culture’s norms and values. In contrast to
subcultures, which operate relatively smoothly within the larger society, countercultures might actively defy

9
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
larger society by developing their own set of rules and norms to live by, sometimes even creating communities
that operate outside of greater society.
Cultural Change
Culture is always evolving. Moreover, new things are added to material culture every day, and they affect
nonmaterial culture as well. Cultures change when something new (say, railroads or smartphones) opens up new
ways of living and when new ideas enter a culture (say, as a result of travel or globalization).
Innovation: Discovery and Invention
An innovation refers to an object or concept’s initial appearance in society—it’s innovative because it is
markedly new. There are two ways to come across an innovative object or idea: discover it or invent
it. Discoveries make known previously unknown but existing aspects of reality. In 1610, when Galileo looked
through his telescope and discovered Saturn, the planet was already there, but until then, no one had known
about it. Inventions result when something new is formed from existing objects or concepts—when things are
put together in an entirely new manner.
Consider the introduction of modern communication technology, such as mobile phones and smartphones. As
more and more people began carrying these devices, phone conversations no longer were restricted to homes,
offices, and phone booths. People on trains, in restaurants, and in other public places became annoyed by
listening to one-sided conversations. Norms were needed for cell phone use. Some people pushed for the idea
that those who are out in the world should pay attention to their companions and surroundings. However,
technology enabled a workaround: texting, which enables quiet communication and has surpassed phoning as
the chief way to meet today’s highly valued ability to stay in touch anywhere, everywhere.
When the pace of innovation increases, it can lead to generation gaps. Technological gadgets that catch on
quickly with one generation are sometimes dismissed by a skeptical older generation. A culture’s objects and
ideas can cause not just generational but cultural gaps. Material culture tends to diffuse more quickly than
nonmaterial culture; technology can spread through society in a matter of months, but it can take generations for
the ideas and beliefs of society to change. Sociologist William F. Ogburn coined the term culture lag to refer to
this time that elapses between the introduction of a new item of material culture and its acceptance as part of
nonmaterial culture (Ogburn 1957).
Diffusion and Globalization
The integration of world markets and technological advances of the last decades have allowed for greater
exchange between cultures through the processes of globalization and diffusion. Beginning in the 1980s,
Western governments began to deregulate social services while granting greater liberties to private businesses.
As a result, world markets became dominated by multinational companies in the 1980s, a new state of affairs at
that time. We have since come to refer to this integration of international trade and finance markets
as globalization. Increased communications and air travel have further opened doors for international business
relations, facilitating the flow not only of goods but also of information and people as well (Scheuerman 2014

10
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
(revised)). Today, many U.S. companies set up offices in other nations where the costs of resources and labor
are cheaper. When a person in the United States calls to get information about banking, insurance, or computer
services, the person taking that call may be working in another country.
Alongside the process of globalization is diffusion, or the spread of material and nonmaterial culture. While
globalization refers to the integration of markets, diffusion relates to a similar process in the integration of
international cultures. Middle-class Americans can fly overseas and return with a new appreciation of Thai
noodles or Italian gelato. Access to television and the Internet has brought the lifestyles and values portrayed in
U.S. sitcoms into homes around the globe. Twitter feeds from public demonstrations in one nation have
encouraged political protesters in other countries. When this kind of diffusion occurs, material objects and ideas
from one culture are introduced into another.
Q.5 Write short notes on the following.
i. Social Cognition and Loneliness
Interpersonal neurobiology presents an integrated view of the development of the human mind, investigating
how this occurs from the mutual influence between human relationships and brain structure and function: the
focus of this approach is to understand how the brain gives rise to mental processes and how it is directly
shaped by interpersonal experiences (Siegel, 1999). Through this approach we can understand what processes
are useful in facilitating cognitive-behavioral development, emotional and psychological wellbeing, and
resilience certainly during early childhood but probably throughout life. Underlying the mentioned processes is
indeed a fundamental mechanism of integration that can be examined at different levels, from interpersonal to
neurological (Siegel, 2001). Interpersonal neurobiology proposes an interpretation of mental processes whose
main characteristics are (1) being both embodied, in the body, and relational; (2) the smooth flow of metabolites
and information; and (3) the flow of information in the percipient and between people (Siegel, 2001). Knowing
how to control and knowing how to modify this flow of energy and information, the basis of healthy regulation,
are skills that are acquired in families with secure attachment (Bowlby, 1969; Siegel, 2001; Bowlby and King,
2004).
The child comes into the world genetically programmed to establish attachment bonds with its caregivers who
will become, thus, the child's attachment figures (Bowlby, 1969; Cassidy and Shaver, 1999; Bowlby and King,
2004). The attachment system is considered a motivational system: an innate, adaptive, biologically determined
system that drives a child to create certain selective attachments in his or her life. Although the attachment
system is programmed at the brain level, the experiences a child has throughout his or her childhood go a long
way toward shaping that system (Bowlby, 1969; Cassidy and Shaver, 1999; Bowlby and King, 2004). The
succession of relational experiences prompts the activation of brain neurons that respond to sensory events from
the outside world or internally generated images from the brain itself (Gazzaniga, 1995; Kandel et al., 2012).
The process is used to create a mental image, sensory image or linguistic representation of a concept or object
(Siegel, 2001; Kandel et al., 2012). According to Siegel (2001), the neural substrate also allows the formation of

11
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
an emergent self, a proto-self, determined largely by genetic and constitutional characteristics. This sense of self
is embedded in the brain as well as in its interactions with the environment: internal working model (Siegel,
2001). On the other hand, the child's mind seems to develop a fundamental process in which the other's mental
states (the so-called Theory of Mind, ToM) are also represented within the neuronal functioning of the brain
(Stone et al., 1998). The sense of acting, coherence, affectivity and even the continuity of the self (memory) are
therefore influenced by interaction with others. In this way, experience shapes the function of neural activity
and can potentially shape the evolving structure of the brain throughout the lifespan. Developmental stages and
aging change the concept of security from childhood's pursuit of physical proximity to sophisticated forms of
relating and representing others. Through the process of creating new meanings from memories, internal
working models reorganize themselves according to new relational experiences, thereby assisting in
constructing a consistent self-model through adulthood (Bowlby, 1969; Cassidy and Shaver, 1999; Bowlby and
King, 2004).
The attachment theory of John Bowlby is applicable to every age group, but researchers have been slow to
study attachment in older adults (Bradley and Cafferty, 2001). Study findings suggest, however, that attachment
issues could be relevant for the elderly, given that aging can be associated with separation, loss, and
vulnerability (Bradley and Cafferty, 2001). As a matter of fact, the personal attachment style is associated with
a range of outcomes in later life (such as reactions to the loss of a loved one, general wellbeing and adjustment
to chronic illness and caregiver burden). The implications of attachment styles and the questions raised by
interpersonal neurobiology regarding social isolation and loneliness on the directions of aging and the
acceleration of any neurodegenerative process are discussed here.
Theoretical framework: Social brain and social cognition
Networks of relationships are important to Siegel (2001) since neural networks appear strongly influenced by
relations with others, beyond genetic influences. In his words: “human connections shape neural connections,
and each contributes to mind. Relationships and neural linkages together shape the mind. It is more than the
sum of its parts; this is the essence of emergence” (Siegel, 2001, p. 3). The horizon of interpersonal
neurobiology thus allows for a broad perspective that is reflected in neuroimaging investigations. Thus, social
neuroscience hypothesizes brain evolution on the level of intersubjective actions. Due to the social environment
in which primates live, specific selective pressures have led to the evolution of neurocognitive mechanisms
capable of handling the challenges of social interaction (Adenzato and Enrici, 2005). Humans' social cognition
consists of psychological processes that allow us to make inferences about what others are thinking and feeling
(Adenzato and Enrici, 2005; Adolphs, 2009). The way social information is processed is divided into automatic
and stimuli-driven processes, and those that are deliberate and controlled, but sensitive to context and strategy
(Adolphs, 2009). In their proposal, the “social brain hypothesis,” Byrne and Whiten (1988) were among the first
to argue that complex social environments serve as a dominant selective pressure for human brain size. By
appealing to particular pressures that a species adapted to social interactions would have faced, the social brain

12
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
hypothesis attempts to explain the extraordinary size and complexity of the human brain ( Barrett and Henzi,
2005; Dunbar and Shultz, 2007a,b).
In everyday life, social interaction is one of the most complex mental activities in which humans engage. The
high cognitive load is necessary to predict the behavior of people involved in social interaction. In particular,
the functions involved in the social brain relate to social cognition, which is important for sociability. The term
social cognition refers to the set of abilities that enables an individual to construct mental representations of his
or her relationships with others and to use these representations to adapt behaviors to the context (Adolphs,
2001). Social groups are complex in nature, and it is their complexity that has led to the advancement of
prefrontal brain functioning and specialization (Adenzato and Enrici, 2005). Not only the prefrontal areas but
also other cortical and subcortical structures are involved in the processing of social stimuli. Social information
activates complex neural circuits that connect cortical and subcortical regions, including those usually thought
to be involved in the emotional processing of stimuli, such as the amygdala, as well as those usually thought to
be involved in the cognitive processing of stimuli, such as the temporo-occipital junction and the medial
prefrontal cortex (Van Overwalle, 2009). This widespread neural involvement reverberates the fact that social
cognition is a high-order function. Indeed, social cognition is broad and varied; it refers to all mental processes
useful in social interaction, among which the ToM and mentalizing play a significant role. Premack and
Woodruff (1978) define ToM as the ability t to attribute to other individuals' mental states that are different
from one's own. Mentalisation is an inherently imaginative activity involving the attribution of intentional
mental states based on clues. In mentalisation, it is recognized that a person's actions are autonomous and can be
explained by his or her internal state (McLaren and Sharp, 2020).
According to Dodich et al. (2015), we deal with a multidimensional process in which different components are
integrated. Among these, attribution of emotions and intentions is a very important component during the
representation of mental states. Other authors use this term to refer to thinking or feeling about others' mental
states (Saxe et al., 2006a,b; Van Overwalle, 2009). Some neural structures, such as the anterior cingulate cortex
(ACC) (Palermo, 2017, 2020b), the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), the temporoparietal junction (TPJ), the
posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), and the superior temporal sulcus (STS) are known to play a role (Adolphs,
2001; Saxe and Kanwisher, 2003). On the other hand, Sebastian et al. (2012) used functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) on healthy subjects which showed that some brain areas involved with mentalization
and perspective-taking, like the temporoparietal junction and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, are recruited
when affective stimuli are present.
In fact, it is only one behavioral domain, that of social cognition (Laird et al., 2011), that is strongly and
exclusively associated with a neural network that closely resembles the default mode network (DMN),
demonstrating bilateral activation of the inferior parietal/TPJ, posterior precuneus/cingulate, and medial frontal
(Smith et al., 2009; Mars et al., 2012). Similar conclusions had previously been reached by Schilbach et al.
(2008). When they examined the DMNs' responses to different types of cognitive stimulation some activations

13
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
were quite similar to those observed in various aspects of social cognition: the left angular gyrus/TPJ in
differentiating between self and others (Vogeley and Fink, 2003); the anterior cingulate in monitoring action in
self and others (Amodio and Frith, 2006); the precuneus in social interactions (Schilbach et al., 2006).
According to the authors, the biological “baseline” of the human brain corresponds to a psychological
“baseline,” our predisposition to engage in social cognition by default (Schilbach et al., 2008; Mars et al.,
2012). Cognitive processes geared toward self-reflection, such as introspection and autobiographical memory,
have been also linked to the DMN, and its integrity is now considered crucial to mental health ( Grieder et al.,
2018).
Loneliness and its impact on psychological wellbeing and social cognition
Loneliness is a negative emotional state experienced when there is a discrepancy between the relationships one
would like to have and that one perceives to have (Alberti, 2019). This condition does not so much concern the
amount of time spent with other people as the quality of the relationships themselves.
In industrialized countries about one-third of people are affected by this condition, with one in severely
affected, with these proportions constantly increasing (Cacioppo and Cacioppo, 2018). Loneliness is to such an
extent a painful companion for many people that an editorial in the New York Times on the issue was entitled,
“Is Loneliness a Health Epidemic?” (Klinenberg, 2018). Those who are most likely to report a significant
feeling of loneliness tend to belong to the most vulnerable social groups, such as the young, the elderly, the
poor, the chronically ill, and the mentally ill (Hawkins-Elder et al., 2018).
Importantly, loneliness has a profound impact on physical and psychological health, often leading to negative
outcomes; loneliness and social isolation would appear to be associated with a reduction in lifespan like that
caused by smoking 15 cigarettes a day, with a 27% increased risk of premature mortality ( Holt-Lunstad et al.,
2010). On the other hand, establishing strong relationships would lead to a reduced risk of mortality (Holt-
Lunstad et al., 2017).
Several studies on the effects of loneliness on the health of the general population have been conducted over
time. Loneliness is known to affect mental influence mental health, by leading to depression (Alpass and
Neville, 2003; Cacioppo et al., 2006a; Hawkley and Cacioppo, 2010). Indeed, loneliness precedes mood
disorder in time, proving to be a key factor in the onset of the disorder (Cacioppo et al., 2010): loneliness seems
to mediate the anxiety-depression relationship, with loneliness potentially resulting from anxiety and
subsequently being able to sequentially activate depressive symptoms (Ebesutani et al., 2015). The process
behind this phenomenon is quite complex. It is believed that oxytocin and arginine vasopressin act as key
mediators of social behavior in non-human mammals and human (Heinrichs and Domes, 2008). Oxytocin
reduces behavioral and neuroendocrine responses to social stress and, as a result, may allow animals to
overcome their natural aversion to close proximity and inhibit defensive behavior, thus facilitating approaches
(Heinrichs and Domes, 2008). Seven primary emotional processes have been described by affective
neuroscience: SEEKING, RAGE, FEAR, sexual LUST, maternal CARE, separation-distress PANIC/GRIEF

14
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
and joyful PLAY (Panksepp, 1998; Zellner et al., 2011). Social loss, perhaps the biggest epidemiological
determinant of depression, may promote deflection of mood through overactivity of separation-distress
PANIC/GRIEF and hypoactivity of SEEKING networks (Panksepp, 1998, 2003; Zellner et al., 2011).
Endogenous opioids, which may mediate attachment and separation distress via oxytocin pathways, contribute
to initiating depressive cascades through decreased SEEKING (Gunnar and Quevedo, 2007; Heinrichs and
Domes, 2008; Nolte et al., 2011). Thus, altered affective networks occurring in depression may explain
psychological pain and dysphoria. Human health, including the need for social relationships, is largely driven
by the endogenous opioid hormonal system (Johnson et al., 2014). Illness may result from disrupting this
system.
Indeed, from a biomedical point of view, loneliness has been associated also with poor self-rated health
(Stickley et al., 2013). Consistent with this, persistent loneliness has been associated with physical health
problems (Newall et al., 2014) and sleep disorders (Cacioppo and Cacioppo, 2014). Moreover, it has also been
linked with negative health habits, such as alcohol consumption (Stickley et al., 2013; Arpin et al., 2015) and
smoking (Stickley et al., 2013).
In the neuropsychiatric field, loneliness has also been linked to obsessive-compulsive disorder (Timpano et al.,
2014), social anxiety (Lim et al., 2016), and paranoia (Jaya et al., 2017). Loneliness has been associated with
psychological distress (Stickley et al., 2013) but the most dramatic outcome of loneliness is suicide especially in
populations at risk such as adolescents and old adults (Stravynski and Boyer, 2001; Morese et al.,
2019a; Morese and Longobardi, 2020; Morese et al., 2020), an act almost constantly associated with the idea of
being left alone and no longer able to receive help from anyone (De Leo and Diekstra, 1990). Indeed, strong
associations among suicide ideation, parasuicide, and different ways of being lonely and alone were verified
(Stravynski and Boyer, 2001). Importantly, the prevalence of suicide ideation and parasuicide increased with
the degree of loneliness with differences between men and women (Stravynski and Boyer, 2001).
From a neuropsychological perspective, perceived social isolation (i.e., loneliness) is a risk factor for - and may
contribute to - poorer overall cognitive performance, faster cognitive decline, poorer executive functioning,
greater sensitivity to social threats, which is a confirmation bias in social cognition (Cacioppo and Hawkley,
2009). Therefore, social worlds tend to be perceived as threatening and punishing by lonely people ( Cacioppo
and Hawkley, 2009). Researchers have found that manipulating feelings of loneliness causes people to feel
more anxious, fear negative evaluation, and act more coldly toward others (Cacioppo et al., 2006b), while also
making them feel colder (Zhong and Leonardelli, 2008). Also, lonely people are more likely to form negative
social impressions of others, and their expectations, attributional reasoning, and behavior toward others are less
charitable than those of non-lonely individuals (Cacioppo and Hawkley, 2005). As a result of negative social
expectations being validated by others, these expectations are reinforced and an individual is more likely to
behave in ways that distance them from the very people they want to be close to better meet their social needs
(Cacioppo and Hawkley, 2009). Hence, lonely individuals may perceive themselves as passive victims in their

15
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
social world, yet they are active agents through their self-destructive interactions with others (Cacioppo and
Hawkley, 2005).

ii. Social Cognition and Social Anxiety

Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is one of the most common mental illnesses (Kessler et al., 2005), and levels of
social anxiety (SA) have increased in young adults since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (Hawes et al.,
2021). SAD is characterized by a fear of evaluation and avoidance of social situations, which can negatively
affect social functioning (American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Clark and Wells, 1995). Indeed, individuals
with SAD report having more interpersonal problems and difficulty maintaining relationships (Davila and Beck,
2002; Kashdan et al., 2007; Tonge et al., 2020). These issues extend beyond close relationships and can have a
substantial negative impact on occupational and educational functioning (Schneier et al., 1994; Wittchen et al.,
2000) above and beyond the effects of comorbidities including depression (Aderka et al., 2012). One
mechanism through which SA may negatively impact interpersonal functioning is via alterations in social
cognitive processing (Morrison and Heimberg, 2013). Social cognitive ability (i.e., the ability to accurately
understand others' thoughts and emotions; Brothers, 1990; Frith and Frith, 2007) has been associated with
beneficial outcomes in interpersonal relationships beginning in childhood and extending into adulthood
(Banerjee, 1997; Gleason et al., 2009; Sened et al., 2017). Given the negative impact of SA on interpersonal
functioning (Alden and Taylor, 2004), a key predictor of health and well-being (Holt-Lunstad, 2021),
identifying specific aspects of social cognition that may be impaired can increase our understanding of the
development and maintenance of SAD.
Although most studies using standardized measures of social cognition have included individuals with
schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorder, an increasing amount of research has focused on anxiety
symptomology, including SA. To date, three reviews and meta-analyses have examined the association between
SA and social cognition in adults, but findings have been inconsistent. A potential reason for the lack of
consistency stems from the complexity of social cognition and the extent to which different behavioral tasks
index both related and distinct aspects of social cognitive processes. One method of categorizing the numerous
domains of social cognition is to separate them into lower-level and higher-level processes (Green et al., 2013).
Lower-level processes involve the recognition of basic social-emotional cues (e.g., emotion recognition; Green
et al., 2008 and social cue perception; Penn et al., 2002; Pinkham et al., 2014), as well as affective empathic
processes (i.e., shared feelings for others; Davis, 1983), such as affect sharing, which is thought to be automatic
and reflexive (Hatfield et al., 1992; Singer and Lamm, 2009) and may precede cognitive processes (Fan and
Han, 2008). Higher-level social cognitive processes involve the interpretation of complex social stimuli to make
inferences about the thoughts and intentions of others (e.g., theory of mind; Baron-Cohen et al., 2001, and
empathic accuracy; Ickes et al., 1990).

16
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
In the first review and meta-analysis of the association between SA and social cognition, O’Toole et al.
(2013) found a small negative effect between SA and basic emotion recognition and a moderate negative effect
between SA and complex emotion recognition (higher-level social cognition). However, Plana et al.
(2014) found no association between SA and emotion recognition, mentalizing ability, or social perception (no
association with lower- or higher-level processes). More recently, Pittelkow et al. (2021) conducted a meta-
analysis examining the association between SA and empathy (a multi-dimensional construct that is often used
synonymously with the term social cognition). They distinguished cognitive empathy (i.e., the ability to
recognize and identify others' emotions) from affective empathy (i.e., experiencing an emotion based on
another's emotional experience), both of which can also be conceptualized as facets of social
cognition. Pittelkow et al. (2021) found a positive association between SA and affective empathy and no
association between SA and cognitive empathy. However, these results included studies measuring empathic
processes based on self-report, which ask about one's perception of their own empathic tendencies or abilities,
as well as behavioral assessments of social cognition, which examine the accuracy or congruence of one's
responses in relation to targets or normed reference groups. The distinction between self-report and behavioral
measures of social cognition is important given the weak correlation between the two, which suggests that self-
report measures are not accurate proxies for ability (Murphy and Lilienfeld, 2019). Thus, it is important for
reviews to distinguish between self-report and behavioral assessments when interpreting results to avoid
conflating findings for separable constructs. Due in large part to a lack of studies available, previous reviews
(O’Toole et al., 2013; Pittelkow et al., 2021; Plana et al., 2014) have also not examined the association between
SA and empathic accuracy, a behavioral measure of higher-level social cognition.
Beyond the type of social cognition assessed, previous reviews of SA and social cognition have not always
examined valence-specific associations of SA on social cognitive processes or the method of measuring SA
(i.e., dimensional measures, cutoff scores from dimensional measures, or diagnostic groups). Based on studies
showing that greater levels of SA are associated with lower social cognitive ability for neutral and positive
stimuli (Alvi et al., 2020; Washburn et al., 2016), parsing apart whether associations are valence-specific
(between negative, neutral, and positive stimuli) may provide further clarity on associations between SA and
social cognition that are not apparent when collapsing across all stimuli. Indeed, although Pittelkow et al.
(2021) considered the potential moderating role of positive and negative valence, they did not examine the
association between SA and social cognition for neutral stimuli. Finally, noting whether SA is assessed
dimensionally or categorically may clarify previous findings. For example, when using the same facial
recognition task, some have found no association between SA and emotion recognition when SA is assessed
dimensionally (Mullins and Duke, 2004), while others have found a significant, positive association when SA is
categorized based on cut-off scores (Hunter et al., 2009). Thus, considering the type of SA assessment may help
to elucidate whether associations are specific to individuals with the highest levels of SA (i.e., those meeting

17
 Course: Social Psychology-I (5639)
Semester: Autumn, 2022
criteria for SAD based on diagnostic interview), or if associations are evident when assessing SA
dimensionally.
Inclusion criteria included: a) an adult sample (≥18 years old), b) a measure of SA and/or a clinical, SA group,
and c) at least one behavioral measure of social cognition. Based on meta-analytic evidence that self-report
assessments of empathy are only weakly related to behavioral assessments of social cognition (Murphy and
Lilienfeld, 2019), in the present review, we focus specifically on behavioral assessments. Exclusion criteria
included: a) use of a child/adolescent sample, b) no measure of SA or SA group, c) a sample that included
comorbid diagnoses, d) no behavioral measure of social cognition, and e) imaging studies with no behavioral
outcome. We chose to exclude studies containing individuals with comorbid disorders who did not have a
primary diagnosis of SA since the focus of our review is on the unique effects of SA on social cognitive
abilities. Importantly, recent evidence has shown that many interpersonal difficulties experienced by individuals
with SAD exist above and beyond the effects of comorbid depression symptoms (Tonge et al., 2020). Social
cognition tasks were classified into their respective domains using the framework proposed by Green et al.
(2008). Emotion recognition tasks include those that prompt participants to identify a discrete emotion (e.g.,
happiness, sadness) in response to static or video stimuli (Heberlein et al., 2004; Joormann and Gotlib,
2006; Nowicki and Carton, 1993). Tasks measuring social perception include presentation of social scenes in
which participants are asked to assess domains such as nonverbal cues, status, and intimacy (Conzelmann et al.,
2013; Schroeder, 1995a, Schroeder, 1995b; Veljaca and Rapee, 1998). Measures of theory of mind include
static and video stimuli that prompt participants to infer the mental states of others (Baron-Cohen, 1995; Baron-
Cohen et al., 2001; Dziobek et al., 2006; Tibi-Elhanany et al., 2011). Studies in the present review
assessed empathic accuracy for strangers using a video task in which participants continuously rate their
perceptions of a target's emotional state as the target tells an autobiographical story (Kern et al., 2013). The
targets also rate themselves, and the ratings of the perceiver and target are then correlated to create an empathic
accuracy score. Studies in the present review assessed affect sharing using the same empathic accuracy video
task with altered instructions that ask participants to rate their own feelings, as they watch the target individual
(Morrison et al., 2016). All tasks are considered measures of cognitive empathy, apart from the affect sharing
task, which measures affective empathy.

18