THEORIES AND METHODS FOR ANALYZING THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN SELVES AND SOCIETIES

A definition is no proof.
--William Pinkney, American diplomat (1764-1822)

Unlike the physical sciences, where over time there has been declining numbers of competing paradigms, in the social sciences it seems that
their numbers have historically increased. As of yet, we have no Newton having yet been hit on the noggin by some proverbial apple and
seeing some unifying principle.

Underlying the spectrum of theories of the human condition are basic differences in assumptions toward the extent to which human action is
the product of free will or determinism, nurture or nature. To what extent are are social fates preprogrammed by our genetic makeup, the
society into which we are enculturated, the social positions of our parents, the ways in which we were socialized, or by that slice of social
history happening to correspond with our biographies? To what extent can human behavior be ultimately explained in terms of biology and
biological impulses? predispositions of our personality types? the social roles within which we interact with others?

And what would a "perfect" social theory even look like? Among other things, it would predict exactly who would do what as well as when
and where. To even have such a theory in the social sciences would imply the non-existence of free will, the ability of individuals to determine
their own fates. The fact that social theories, when contrasted with the theories of astronomy and chemistry, have such limited predictiveness
can be taken as a sign of hope, that humans have some free will and are not pre-programmed by their genes or enculturations. But this is not
to imply that there is no predictiveness. Like meteorology's probabilities of rain (e.g., a 30% chance of rain means three out of ten areas will
experience precipitation), the intent here is to make predictions for a particular type or group of individuals. For instance, our theory may
predict that of those 18 to 29 years of age with less than 4 years of college experience, highly religious Catholics are twice as likely as weakly
religious Protestants to oppose abortion.

Click here to see Kenneth Gergen's "Social Psychology as Social Construction: The Emerging Vision.
The Halcyon Cosmopolitan Entertainment--with links to such theorists as Chomsky, Illich, Lasch, Marcuse, and Merton
Christopher D. Green's "Classics in the History of Psychology"
THE SPECTRUM OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES AND METHODS --FROM THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TO
THE SOCIOLOGICAL

SYMBOLIC
PSYCHOANALYTIC BEHAVIORISM COGNITIVE ROLE
INTERACTIONISM
gestalt, computer,
CENTRAL Pavlov's dogs, consumer individual as cryptography
machine theater
METAPHOR reasoning (exchange) information (encoding and decoding
processor
Human nature is People act in
Initially asocial infant learns People act in response
ASSUMPTIONS People can be molded into active and response to the
to control its impulses & to the inferred
ABOUT HUMAN almost any behavior pattern purposive, seeking expectations for
perhaps becomes altruistic, meanings of others'
NATURE through reinforcements. goals and self- the roles they
loving adult acts
improvement. occupy.
Contemporary,
HISTORICAL V.
Contemporary, although emphasis on Both with emphasis on Contemporary,
CONTEMPORARY Emphasis on historical but
concerned with behavioral attention, the meaning underlying "You are the role
CAUSES OF recognizes the contemporary
antecedents perception and observed behavior you now hold"
BEHAVIOR
judgment
Largely situational Emphasis on
INTERNAL V. (emphasis on reward roles and
Emphasis on the internal, Both internal and Both internal and
SITUATIONAL structure) but recognizes situational
types of people do distinctive situational factors situational factors
CAUSES OF that internal factors may influences;
types of things recognized recognized
BEHAVIOR determine what is internal factors
rewarding ignored
CENTRAL order,
power, belonging, esteem, order, belonging,
PERSONAL NEED safety, esteem meaningfulness, meaningfulness, esteem
transcendence esteem
ADDRESSED control
HOW SOCIAL workings of superego: guilt positive, zero or negative moral reasoning seeing self as others people act in
CONTROL WORKS and repression reinforcements; operant (Piaget,Kohlberg) view it: generalized response to the
and classical conditioning others, reference role expectations
 held by self and
groups
other
Definitions and
Specific response patterns Orders inferred--
UNITS OF Personality traits and the social act (both responses to
and habits--each treated as the whole is greater
ANALYSES general characteristics overt and covert) various
unit than sum of parts
situations
Direct and
Experiments
TYPICAL Classical experiments participant
Rorschach, free associations, involving processes
METHODS looking at frequencies of Semantic differentials observation, 20-
dream analysis of decision-making
EMPLOYED distinctive behavior Statement test
and thought control
("I am ...")
Theories Gestalt, Dramaturgical,
RELATED
of Freud, Erikson,Fromm, Exchange phenomenology, Labeling, Sapir-Whorf interaction ritual
THEORIES
and Jung field, attribution chains
Cognitive Role conflict and
Authoritarian personalities, Token economies; aversion dissonance, halo Self-fulfilling strain, age and
ILLUSTRATIONS
psychobiographies, therapy; classical effect, self-efficacy, prophecies, Pygmalion gender
OF INQUIRIES
scapegoating and operant conditioning schematas and effect stratification of
perceptual norms roles
learning to take
change is linear,
change is universal: age- perspective of
quantitative & age extrinsic, stages of logical one moves
CHANGE ACROSS intrinsic, qualitative and increasingly
linear accumulation of (and moral) through series of
THE LIFE COURSE discontinuous, with generalized others:
skills, no developmental reasoning age-graded roles
developmental endpoints preparatory, play, and
endpoints
game stages

Adapted from Lawrence Wrightsman and Kay Deaux. 1981. Social Psychology in the 80s. Monterey, CA:Brooks/Cole, p.28.

ON THE CONCEPT OF SOCIETY

How do we even view this abstraction called "society", let alone the ways that it shapes our identities, cognitions and
behaviors? All knowledge is perspectival and hence is metaphoric. The abstractions we take will order our experiences, which is
why so much attention is given in introductory textbooks to the various theories of the discipline. Metaphorically, society can
be likened to the Great Barrier Reef, wherein individuals find their niches and continue to contribute to the residues left by
previous generations. Others have viewed it to be some supra-level organism of which we
are all but red blood cells, with all parts (like the organs) integrated and interdependent in
their functioning. From this perspective, societies' evolution is like that of animals, with
increasing complexity over time. And society, like each creature, goes through a distinctive
life-cycle of change and old age, when its responses toward novel situations slow as
bureaucracies proliferate and expand, clogging the flow of vital energy just as
atherosclerosis clogs the blood vessels impeding the flow of blood.

Social structure involves the enduring patterns of behavior and networks of relationships, such
as dyads, organizations, and family systems. But there is debate in the social sciences as to
the origins of these patterns, how these supraindividual dynamics arise out of the myriad of interactions between individuals.
For instance, does form follow function or does function follow form? Exchange theorists, such as Richard Emerson, view
structure as a dependent variable, emerging through the exchange relationships of individuals which give rise to coalitions and
networks of associations (as well as conflicts and competitions).

Others view structure as an independent variable, as the source of changes in the types of relationships and need systems.
Rational organizations, for example, are intentionally designed structures to efficiently achieve goals of the group, wherein
individuals are but functional parts of a larger machine, with well-defined tasks that they perform in exchange for wages.

GENERAL LINKS
Social Psychology Network (Wesleyan U)

Social_Psychology.Net (U of Southern Indiana)

Douglas Degelman's AmoebaWeb's Psychology on the Web: Social Psychology

SocioSite's listings of Networks, Groups and Social Interaction resources

Current Research in Social Psychology: An Electronic Journal (U of Iowa)

Allyn and Bacon's Sociology:Social Psychology Links

Courses Related to Social Psychology

Sociology 319
February 1, 2000
Symbolic Interactionism
Perhaps the most important and enduring sociological perspective from North America has been that of symbolic
interactionism. It traces its roots in the pragmatist philosophers such as Peirce, Dewey, Cooley, and Mead. As Plummer notes, "it
seeks to unify intelligent thought and logical method with practical actions and appeals to experience" (p. 227). The sociologists
who developed and have continued this perspective include Blumer, Becker, Goffman, Denzin, and Hochschild. Some of the
characteristics of the symbolic interaction perspective are an emphasis on interactions among people, use of symbols in
communication and interaction, interpretation as part of action, self as constructed by others through communication and
interaction, and flexible, adjustable social processes. Its concern tends to be the interaction order of daily life and experiences,
rather than the structures associated with large scale and relatively fixed social forces and laws.

While the symbolic interaction perspective is sometimes associated with Mead, it was Herbert Blumer (1900-1987) who
took Mead’s ideas and developed them into a more systematic sociological approach. Blumer coined the term symbolic
interactionism in 1937, keeping this sociological perspective alive through the early 1950s at Chicago, and then in California
where he was a professor at the University of Californa in Berkeley. While Holton and Cohen argue that Blumer took only
certain ideas from Mead, it was the specific aspects developed by Blumer that formed the basis for later symbolic interaction
approaches. Blumer notes:

The term "symbolic interaction" refers, of course, to the peculiar and distinctive character of interaction as it takes
place between human beings. The peculiarity consists in the fact that human beings interpret or "define" each other's
actions instead of merely reacting to each other's actions. Their "response" is not made directly to the actions of one
another but instead is based on the meaning which they attach to such actions. Thus, human interaction is mediated
by the use of symbols, by interpretation, or by ascertaining the meaning of one another's actions. This mediation is
equivalent to inserting a process of interpretation between stimulus and response in the case of human behavior.
(Blumer, p. 180).

According to Blumer, the characteristics of this approach are (i) human interaction, (ii) interpretation or definition rather
than mere reaction, (iii) response based on meaning, (iv) use of symbols, and (v) interpretation between stimulus and response.
Blumer proposed an interpretive model for sociology which "inserts a middle term into the stimulus response couplet so that it
becomes stimulus-interpretation-response" (Wallace and Wolf, p. 206). Holton and Cohen note that Blumer made this theory
more individualistic and less concerned with larger social processes than did Mead.

Plummer (Ch. 8 of the Blackwell Companion) notes four characteristics of the symbolic interaction perspective. Some of
these were illustrated in the reading from Simmel, and the symbolic interaction perspective derived at least partly from Simmel
(p. 229). Plummer notes the following characteristics (pp. 223-225).

1. Symbols. While the social world is composed of material and objective features, what distinguishes humans is their extensive
and creative use of communication through symbols. The history, culture, and forms of communication of humans can be traced
through symbols and it is through symbols that meaning is associated with interpretation, action, and interaction. At one level
symbols may seem fixed, but the symbolic interaction perspective emphasizes the shifting, flexible, and creative manner in which
humans use symbols. The process of adjustment and change involve individual interactions and larger scale features such as
norms and order. Plummer notes how habit, routine, and shared meanings occur, but how "these are always open to reappraisal
and further adjustment" (p. 224). The symbolic interactionist studies and analyzes the processes involved in all aspects of the use
of symbols and communication.

2. Change, Adjustment, Becoming. The symbolic interactions perspective considers people as active agents, but quite different
from the rational, self-centred, autonomous, individual of nineteenth century liberalism. People are actors or agents and the social
world is an active one – with constant adjustment and organization as essential features of social interaction. The self is created
through such interactions, but it is not necessarily a fixed and inflexible self, but one that is constantly adjusting to others. The
concern is with how the self develops, how individual lives develop a biography, how social order is constantly being created,
and how larger social forces emerge from these. For the symbolic interactionist, the world is an active one and society is this
active social world.

3. Interaction. Plummer notes that this perspective is not just concerned with the individual or with society, but "with the joint
acts through which lives are organized and societies assembled" (p. 224). Actions are not individual actions as in rational choice
models, nor with personal meaning in the Weberian sense, nor with the unit act of Parsons. Rather, actions are always joint, with
the mutual response and adjustment of the actor and others considered. The self if one which emerges not just from the
individual, but with how others see the person, and how the person responds to and develops his or her own responses to this.

4. Empirical. Perhaps one of the main reasons that symbolic interaction has remained an important theoretical influence during
most of the twentieth century is its attention to what actually occurs as humans interact. While the symbolic interaction
perspective may seem to lack well developed concepts, logical models, or theoretical rigour, it makes up for this by studying
social interaction of actual people in the social world. Given that it concerns human interaction, which is something that any
student of sociology is part of, the raw materials for study of this interaction are available to anyone. At the same time, the study
requires careful observation, an ability to pay attention to detail, and a consideration of the accepted and routine. While it may be
difficulty to abstract from the perspective of each sociologist, empirical study must move beyond the prejudice and bias of the
observer.

Erving Goffman
 One of the sociologists who used the symbolic interaction approach to examine human interaction in social settings was
Erving Goffman. Goffman did not develop a theoretical approach that would explain all parts of the social world, but he
developed an analysis of the interaction order – social situations or "environments in which two or more individuals are
physically in one another’s presence" (Goffman Reader, p. 235). These are the situations where we spend much or most of our
life – in face-to-face activities involving others, whether these be everyday social situations, situations within organized
structures (jobs, school), or unusual social situations (accidents, weddings, funerals). Goffman excels at observation, description,
and insight, analyzing how people interpret and act in ordinary situations, and he provides guidelines concerning how to examine
social situations. One of my colleagues recently read some articles by Goffman, noting how he sometimes became overly formal
in his writings, and suggested that it is unfortunate the Goffman did not become a novelist rather than a sociologist.

Erving Goffman (1922-1982) was born and raised in Alberta, and attended the University of Toronto and the University of
Chicago. He became a professor at Berkeley and later at the University of Pennsylvania. Goffman's best known work is The
Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life (1959). In addition to the ordinary situations of everyday life, Goffman also examined
unusual situations such as prisons and asylums, total institutions, using these to show how individuals used various means (many
unauthorized) to maintain their sense of selfhood. He also using these settings to illustrate aspects of everyday life, and the
unexamined asumptions that we all make in the various situations and encounters in which we find ourselves.

The handout from Goffman is "On Face-Work" a paper originally written in 1955. This was fairly early his career and lays
out some of the ways in which people present a face or image of the self in social relationships, interactions, and encounters.
Goffman continued to develop similar ideas to those in this article, with a more systematic analysis of social interaction in The
Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. This book employs the model of the theatre or theatrical performance as a means of
analyzing how we develop and present ourselves to others. This approach is sometimes called dramaturgy and focuses on the
techniques people use to convey impressions and create their self. In that book and in "On Face-Work" Goffman examines
processes and procedures that are associated with social interactions. It is these that build and maintain the social world.

In this article, look for the four themes identified by Plummer. Also attempt to identify and consider a variety of other themes,
concepts, and issues that are addressed in the article. Some of these are:
  How Goffman uses ideas from earlier sociologists such as Durkheim, Parsons, Simmel, and Mead, but in a somewhat
different manner.
 Note comments on the construction and development of the social self – as image and as actor (or player in a social game),
and always through the various aspects of interactive processes.
 While agency and structure are not a primary concern of Goffman, there are various insights into the connections
associated with these – look for ways that Goffman connects these or how he considers these two social concepts.
 Goffman’s focus is on the procedures and processes of social interaction, his actor is also conscious and attributes meaning
to symbols and actions of others. Cohen notes that this approach may provide a way of bridging the gap between the
subjective consciousness and praxis perspectives, by considering how social face has meaning and value, and how "tacitly
enacted rituals … defend, protect, and preserve social face" (p. 136).
 Emotions have traditionally been downplayed or ignored as social phenomena by sociologists. Goffman considers
emotions and feeling such as embarrassment, feeling bad or good, shame, pride, and makes these an integral part of his
analysis of social face.
 Social order and mechanisms by which it is achieved are issues addressed by Goffman. But he addresses these at the level
of the interaction order, in quite a different manner than does Durkheim.

Notes on "On Face-Work" from Interaction Ritual, pp. 5-45.

Pages 5-15

Interaction order. This is the world of face-to-face social encounters that is the topic of the article. Mediated contacts could be
mail, memoranda, telephone, or electronic messages.

Line. Actor adopts or develops a pattern of verbal (language) and non-verbal (gestures) acts that portray his or her version of the
situation, others, and self. Goffman makes particular note of the "evaluation of the participants, especially himself" so that the
line presents a view of the self, and this line must also deal with how others view the actor (last line of 1 st paragraph). Note that
the line taken may be conscious or less conscious, in that the line is what does take place, whether or not it is intended. Also note
the active nature of the interaction order and how the patterns of the act is worked out in the line. Note how the themes of
Plummer are illustrated in this paragraph.

Face. This is the image of the self that is presented. Goffman here connects it to approved social attributes, although later he
notes how it may not always be the approved or expected attributes that are portrayed. Face is what other assume and it is the
image that others see or consider to have been expressed by the actor. Note "effectively" (2 nd line of last paragraph, p. 5) so that it
is what is portrayed, not necessarily what was intended, that is, it is the image of self portrayed.

Emotion. p. 6. Emotions and feelings become attached to the particular image presented, so that the actor may feel good or feel
bad, depending on how the image unfolds and what the encounter produces. If the encounter proceeds very well, the actor feels
good, whereas a poor playing out of the encounter may produce bad feelings. By focusing on emotions and feelings, the
implication is that some of this is fairly spontaneous or produced without strong conscious considerations, rather it is the act itself
which creates the image and feelings.

Commitment. By entering into encounters, the actor has a commitment to his or her own face and to the face of others. All of
these are social constructs, spontaneous and part of the situation, not some predetermined set of unchangeable personal attributes.
At the same time, the "rules of the group and the definition of the situation" that are important in how face and images of self are
viewed, so that norms and institutions are important considerations here.

Maintaining Face. An internally consistent face is one whereby the actor is in face or maintains face. But the internal
consistency involves not just the actor and "is something that is not lodged in or on his body" (p. 7), rather the internal
consistency involves judgements and evidence from others. That is, it is both the actions of the actor, but also the perception and
view of others, through "the flow of events in the encounter" that establishes whether or not face is maintained. This is a strong
praxis orientation in which social interaction is necessary and is the means by which consistency is established.

Institutional. Goffman notes that these encounters are generally within certain legitimized institutional contexts, so that there
may be a limited range of possible forms of action. The actor does have choice concerning the lines and faces, but within a
particular order. While there is freedom for individuality, Goffman considers there to be sets of rules which govern the range of
possibilities. Note though that these are a long way from Durkheim’s social facts or Parsons’s norms, in that the social actor has
considerable flexibility and spontaneity, and perceptions and responses of others are important aspects of these encounters.

The line and face also connect the self to a larger world. Any single activity or encounter produces a certain line and face,
and these have implications beyond this encounter. It may be by "discrediting" possession of certain attributes that the individual
makes this connection. For example, a bureaucrat may present a particular face that is expected, but may show himself or herself
to be flexible and understanding, thus showing in a negative manner the wider attributes usually associated with the position. In
later works, Goffman extends this idea into role distance – how individual actors fill certain roles but also are able to distance
themselves from the role. This connection to a wider world may be to the past or the future, showing a continuity of lines and
faces, or to events and situations outside the immediate interaction order.

Wrong Face. (p. 8). Information that discredits the actor’s face or is inconsistent with the face of the actor may come forward
from external sources or from inadvertent slips by the actor. Goffman makes reference to some of these on p. 14, as faux pas,
gaffes, or boners. Alternatively, the actor may be out of face if he or she has no line to present – taken by surprise, unprepared, or
unfamiliar with the situation or encounter. While the actor may express "confidence and assurance" when in face, when in wrong
face or out of face, the actor may feel dissonance within himself or herself, or may feel shame, inferiority, or may have other bad
feelings. Again note how Goffman connects internal emotions with lines and faces that emerge from interaction.

Poise. (p. 9). In contrast to feeling shame, the actor may always present an impression of confidence, in situations when in or out
of face. Note Goffman’s emphasis on presentation of the self.

Social Face. (pp. 9-10). In this section, Goffman discusses some of the meaning of the social self – the impressions and images
that the individual actor is expected to live up to, and how this is regulated internally and externally to the individual. In the
middle of p. 9, there is reference to the "social code of any social circle" – a self-image that the actor has presented and which he
or she is expected to live up to. In the interaction order the actor sustains these images through expression (expressive order), to
be consistent with the actor’s face. Various possible emotional responses occur: pride (if duty to self), honour (duty to wider
social units), or dignity (if handled with poise). For Goffman, the self is the individual’s personal possession, in that it defines the
individual and provides the individual with "security and pleasure." But he also notes that it is social, it is given to the individual
by others, and can be withdrawn by them. That is, if the self is the images of self that are perceived by others as the face of the
individual, then this can be maintained or destroyed. In any case, it is a social self – connecting the individual to social interaction
and the wider society. There is no self without social interaction, so the self is flexible but also constrained.

Considerateness. Here Goffman moves in a somewhat different direction, beginning to examine how social interaction is played
out in practice. For the most part, people attempt to save the face and perhaps identify with others in encounters. For the most
part, such interactions do not humiliate actors, but attempt to provide a way "to maintain both his own face and the face of the
other participants" (p. 11). It is this "mutual acceptance" of lines and faces that maintains social interaction, preserves the feelings
and faces of each of the participants, and allows the interaction order to continue. The faces presented are maintained and built
upon, so this provides continuity in social interaction (top of p. 12). While some may be cold and heartless, and sometimes face is
discredited, Goffman focuses on the ways in which face tends to be maintained.

Rules. Following Goffman’s observation that there is a certain order and continuity to social interaction, he begins to examine the
ways that such interaction proceeds, considering the procedures associated with the interaction order. Much of the remaining part
of the article considers these methods and procedures. The praxis view of social action is well demonstrated here, and at times
Goffman sounds more like an ethnomethodologist than a symbolic interactionist.

On p. 12, Goffman notes that maintenance of face is not the objective of social action. There are various goals that the actor has –
gaining an income, achieving friendship, pursuing spiritual values, or pursuing various personal emotional goals – and face-
saving is not the objective, but rather part of the code or rules that actors use in social interaction.

Face-Work (pp. 12-13) is the general designation for the actors social praxis. That is, the individual must work at presenting
images of self, saving face, adjusting to possible loss of face, or being poised when face is threatened. By studying the rules and
codes of face-work, the sociologist can understand how social interaction proceeds. On p. 13, Goffman discusses various social
skills and standard practices. These are partly individual but are also associated with the individual but part of the social culture
of which the person is a part. These are social in that they must be learned, and they are social in the sense that they protect own’s
own face and also the face of the other participants in social encounters. Various possible ways in which this may break down are
mentioned on p. 14, but again Goffman notes how there are procedures that deal with these threats. On p. 15 he notes that one
means is that of avoidance.
Face-work is an active process, one where the agent is an active individual. But the actor is not just an individual – face
necessarily involves others and social interaction, so the focus for the social actor and his or her social self is always on the nature
of the interaction. These also provide an idea of Goffman’s approach to agency and structure – actors exist within these structures
and institutions, but are active agents dealing with situations and encounters. Much of what Goffman says is reminiscent of
Simmel, but with the emphasis more on the interaction order in the case of Goffman.

Pages 30-33:

This section deals with some of the procedures used in social interaction to maintain the face of the self and the face of the
other, to avoid embarrassment and shame.

Tact. Being tactful and providing various hints are procedures that people use in social interaction. Reciprocal self-denial,
running oneself down, praising the other, and negative bargaining are all noted here.

Socialization is necessary in order to prepare the actors for such social situations.

The section beginning on p. 33 notes further procedures – using signs and symbols, various conventions, etc.

Self. Goffman notes that he has been using the self in two senses – (i) as image, deriving from the perceptions and responses of
others that create the face of the person, and (ii) the actor as a player in a game or set of rituals. This may be similar to the I and
the me of Mead, but with Goffman’s theoretical discussion of the player less clear than the self as image. At the same time,
Goffman does consider various aspects of the player, by focussing on the emotions of the individual – embarrassment, shame,
pride, etc. so that he has developed a somewhat better explanation of the inner aspect of the self than have some other writers.
What Goffman discusses in this section on pp. 31-3 is the fragility and limits of the self, and how the interaction order has certain
mechanisms, check and balances (p. 33) to maintain the rituals and preserve the self. Some of these mechanisms are cooperation,
signs and symbols, and well understood practices.

Encounters and Ritual Order. This discussion is continued in the following pages and concludes on pp. 41-4. People cooperate,
avoid places where they are not wanted, talk in half-truths, etc. People work hard at face-work, attempting not to overstep
accepted bounds. The ritual order then is that of maintaining face – "what will sustain for the moment the line to which he has
committed himself and through this line to which he has committed the interaction" (p. 44).

Social Self. Pp. 44-5.

 What is Social Psychology?
Social psychology is a branch of psychology that studies individuals in the social context. In other words, it is the study of how and
why people think, feel, and do the things they do depending upon the situation they are in. Social psychology is related to sociology in
this regard, but instead of focusing on group factors such as race and socioeconomic class, it focuses on the individual. Also, it relies
on the scientific research to generate the theories of social behavior.

Why is social psychology important to us?

In studying how people act in certain situations, we can better understand how stereotypes are formed, why racism and sexism exist,
how a person can seem like an entirely different person in different situations, and even how people fall in love. (Social psychology
can't explain all of our social problems, of course. There are always different ways to explain a social phenomenon.)

Social Perception
Self-perception

There are many important factors in how one perceives oneself. One is self-esteem,a person's positive and negative evaluations of
his or her self. People who have low self-esteem can get caught in cycles of self-defeating behavior, leading to depression or other
mental disorders. There are theories concerning how low self-esteem develops. One is a result of large discrepancies between one's
actual self and desired self. A serious manifestation of this example is anorexia nervosa, which usually results from distorted
perceptions of one's own body. Self-awareness can encourage people to notice self-discrepancies. In general, people spend little time
thinking about themselves, but mirrors, audiences, etc. can put the focus on oneself and cause people to notice their self-discrepancies.
Most people find ways to keep up their self-esteem through self-enhancement techniques. These include (but are not limited to) taking
credit for success but making excuses for failure, comparing oneself to less fortunate people, and self-handicapping, which is
purposely handicapping oneself in order to excuse an anticipated failure. Research suggests that such positive illusory thinking can
maintain mental health, but that too much of it can be self-defeating.

Perceiving Others

In regards to how people perceive others, there are a group of theories, called Attribution Theory, which describe how people attribute
the cause of a behavior. A personal or internal attribution is an attribution to a person's characteristic that is from within, such as
intelligence or effort. A situational or external attribution is an attribution something outside the individual, such as luck or God. The
Fundamental Attribution Error states that in perceiving other people's behavior, people tend to focus on personal causes and
underestimate situational causes. Such thinking can lead people to hold on to bad first impressions as well as stereotypes.

Perceiving groups

A stereotype is a set of beliefs that associates a whole group of people with a few certain traits. They are formed through 2 different
processes: categoration, sorting individual objects or people in groups, and outgroup homogeneity effect, which is a tendency of
people to overestimate to similarity of people in the outgroups than people in the ingroup. Although categorization and other short-cut
methods of thinking can be very helpful, they also contribute and arise from racism, sexism, and other forms
of prejudice and discrimination.

Social Influences
Aggression
Aside from unjust court verdicts, hot weather can contribute to aggression, as well as lack of personal space (crowded cities), and
smog. Other more significant factors include viewing aggressive behavior or pornographic material, frustration, and highly arousing
stimuli.

Altruism

So when do people help? Aside from self-interest, empathy has been found to be a major factor in influencing altruistic behavior in
people. It has even been shown that a baby, when put near another baby who is crying, will start to cry as well. However, it's been
argued that it since helping the other person reduces his or her distress, it reduces one's own stress (from empathizing with the other
person) that it really stems from self-interest.

Attraction and Love

The old proverb "opposites attract" has in recent times been found to be just an old wives' tale. In fact, similarity breeds
attraction. Such similaries include, demographics, mood ("misery loves company"), personality, physical attractiveness, and
attitudes. Other forces that encourage attraction are familiarity (like that bad song they keep playing on the radio 'til you find yourself
singing it one day), close encounters, and proximity. So "Birds of a feather" really do "flock together." But it takes a lot more than
feathers to develop into love.

Social Interaction
Group Processes

When in a group discussion or debate with similar but not identical opinions, people's beliefs, whether they are moderate or not,
become more extreme. (Ever had a discussion with an extremely conservative person and felt like you were a radical liberal?)

Comformity and Individuation

There is a lot of pressure in society to conform to a group. In America, majority rules, but the minority plays an important part in our
society. The majority has more influence on direct overt measures of conformity while the minority influence impact private covert
measures of conformity. Minorities encourage other people to resist comformity and practice more individuation.

Attitudes

Cognitive dissonance is a state in which one feels tension because one's attitudes are different from one's behavior. In order to
alleviate the discomfort, people will often change one's attitudes to justify the behavior (like paying $50 to see a bad concert and then
convincing yourself that it wasn't that bad).

Social Psychology in Action

Health

In coping with a stressful situation, women tend to focus on their negative feelings and are more likely to become depressed. Men
in the same situation are more like to engage in self-destructive distractions. Research has shown that both confronting one's
feelings and distractions, in moderation, can help with coping.

Law

Death qualification is a procedure in which judges may exclude prospective jurors in capital cases who say they would not vote for the
death penalty. Although this eliminates bias in sentencing, it has been found that people who would vote for the death penalty are also
more likely to give a guilty verdict. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the evidence that death qualification interfered with a
defendent's right to a fair trial.

Business

Although there have been gains for women and minorities in the workforce in recent years, they are still very underrespresented in
positions of leadership. Despite affirmative action, women and minorities are subject to gender and race stereotypes. Furthermore,
many people devalue ther own performance and feel devalued by others when they think they were chosen because of affirmative
action.