Social Psychology Journal

NATURE AND CULTURE INTERACTING

2012-01-03T03:29:00.001-08:00

See what sort of explanation you can think of for this: Statisticians began noticing that a large number of professional hockey players in the National Hockey League had birthdays in January and February (Grondin, Deshaies, & Nault, 1984).

Maybe being born in winter makes someone love winter sports more? Getting ice skates for your birthday? But November and December should also be good for that, and those months were marked by relatively few birthdays of NHL players. Also, the same pattern began to emerge in other sports as well, especially soccer, where the effect has been found all over the world (for review, see Musch & Grondin, 2001). It is statistically undeniable. What might cause it? Astrology? No.

Th e unequal birthday pattern emerges from a curious mix of nature and culture. In hockey, as in many sports, pro athletes generally got their start while they were children. Children’s leagues are grouped by age, but rather than automatically moving from league to league on their birthday (which might disrupt teams), kids are grouped for each season based on a cutoff date—typically January 1st. Th us, when the season starts in November, if you’re already 9 or will turn 9 by the end of December, you play with the 9-year-olds, but if your birthday isn’t until after January 1st, you play with the 8-year-olds. Why does that matter? Nine-year-olds are usually bigger and stronger than 8-year-olds. Kids born late in the year grow up always being matched against others who are older, stronger, and faster, so they tend to drop out of the sport. Meanwhile, the lucky kids with birthdays in January will grow up always being among the oldest (and therefore biggest and strongest) children in their league, which puts them at a physical advantage. Th is advantage helps them be successful and makes the sport fun for them.

You might think the effect would wear off as children grow up. But many of the younger children have already dropped out. Moreover, coaching increases the problem. Coaches want to win, so they bestow their attention and more playing time on their best players—which often means their oldest (hence biggest, strongest, and most coordinated) ones. Children born after January 1st end up getting more training and more opportunities to compete, while those born late in the year spend more time on the bench.

Th e so-called relative age effect (Musch & Grondin, 2001) is not limited to sports. It has been shown in school performance also (Dickinson & Larsen, 1963; Hauck & Finch, 1993). Children who end up getting classified as gifted often benefited from starting school later than others, which made them older than their classmates (Maddux, Stacy, & Scott, 1981). Before you start planning to have your babies in January, however, note that school cutoff dates are different from sports ones. In many schools, it is the children born in the summer (just before school starts in September) who are destined to be always the youngest in their class and therefore suffer disadvantages in school (DeMeis & Stearns, 1992).

Sport in general is a combination of nature (innate physical abilities) and culture (practice, training, and arbitrary rules). Star pro athletes are thus neither made nor born: They need both the gifts of nature and the benefits of culture. And, it appears, the luck to be born on the right side of the cutoff date also helps!

Th is chapter began with the story of little Brenda. Th e failure to raise the boy as a girl suggests that being male has some elements of nature that are not easily overcome by culture. Yet manhood also has strong aspects of culture. Research on “precarious manhood” by Vandello, Bosson, Cohen, Burnaford, and Weaver (2008) showed some cultural differences in beliefs about being a man versus a woman. Many cultures require boys to prove themselves before they can claim to be men, whereas all girls grow up to be women. Even among modern American college students, manhood is regarded as more tentative and requiring of proof than womanhood. In one of their studies, students read about people who said they felt they were no longer a man, or no longer a woman. Loss of womanhood seemed difficult to fathom, and students thought it must mean that the woman had undergone a sex change operation. Loss of manhood was more readily seen as a result of social factors, such as not being able to provide for one’s family.

Th us, in a sense, society regards womanhood as a biological achievement, whereas manhood requires a cultural achievement. (Note that both are cultural opinions, however!) Th e need for men to prove themselves is relevant to many gender differences. In Vandelloetal.’s studies, threats to a man’s masculinity caused him to feel aggressive and anxious, whereas parallel threats to a woman’s femininity produced no such response.

Political Tradeoffs

2012-01-01T18:45:00.001-08:00

Tradeoff s are abundant in politics. Have you ever wondered why governments keep passing new laws, even though they hardly ever repeal any old ones? You would think that with the addition of more and more laws every year for hundreds of years, there would finally be enough.

One explanation is that most laws are designed to remedy an existing problem, but sometimes they create new problems. Tradeoff s are responsible for some of the problems that arise. As one famous example, in the 1990s the Ohio state legislature heard some sad stories about babies being born in prison (because their mothers were serving time). Taking pity on the babies, the government passed a new law to release pregnant women from prison. This solved one problem but created another, because all the women in Ohio prisons realized that they could get out of prison if they got pregnant, and many women would rather have a baby than be in prison. Female convicts began eagerly trying to have sex with male guards and lawyers. Some inmates would get a weekend pass to attend a relative’s funeral—but would skip the funeral and spend the weekend having as much unprotected sex as possible. Thus, there was a tradeoff between preventing babies from being born in prison and encouraging more prisoners to get pregnant. In this case, the law was repealed.

One important political tradeoff links energy issues to environmental ones. Should American oil companies drill for oil in our national forests, where an accident might cause an oil spill that could destroy part of a beautiful forest and kill its wildlife? Many people want to protect the environment, yet they don’t want to pay more for gasoline and electricity—and these goals are in conflict. Hence there is a tradeoff : The more you protect the environment, the more expensive power becomes. It is hard to strike exactly the right balance.

Another tradeoff connects taxes to government services. Everything the government does—maintain an army and police force, collect the garbage, provide public schools at whatever level of quality, deliver the mail, provide food for the poor—costs money, and the main method for governments to get money is to collect taxes. In general, higher taxes enable the government to provide more services. Here again is a tradeoff, because people do not want to pay high taxes, but they do want their government to provide good services.

To what extent do politicians recognize these tradeoff s? Social psychologist Phillip Tetlock (1981, 2000) analyzed the speeches of many politicians, with an eye toward whether they recognized that many problems have two sides. He noted, however, that politicians face another tradeoff in their own careers, because they have to get elected. If one politician says “Everything is expensive, and I can’t give you better government services unless we raise taxes,” whereas another says “I will give you better services and lower taxes,” the second one may be more likely to win the election.

Tetlock found that politicians seem to shuffle back and forth as to whether they acknowledge tradeoff s. When running for election, they make simple promises and ignore the political realities of tradeoff s. A successful candidate might well promise cheaper energy and better protection for the environment, in order to win the most votes. Once elected, however, politicians suddenly begin to recognize the complexity of tradeoff s, and their speeches often refer frankly to the difficulty of the choices, such as noting with regret that efforts to get cheaper oil may well require some sacrifices in environmental protection.

Is this change a matter of learning? After all, when one is just running for office and does not have any actual responsibilities of government, it may be possible to make all sorts of promises without fully realizing the tradeoffs involved. (Most politicians, like most people, really do want both cheaper energy and a cleaner environment.) Maybe they don’t realize the tradeoff s until they actually hold office and have to face up to the difficult choices. But this is not what Tetlock concluded. He found that politicians acknowledge tradeoff s when they are in office—but only until their campaigns for reelection start. At that point, they go back to simple statements that promise all things, disregarding tradeoff s. Tetlock concluded that politicians are dealing with the tradeoff built into the election process: to win an election you must oversimplify the issues and ignore the implicit contradictions.

The Social Side of Sex

2012-01-01T18:36:00.000-08:00

Like eating, sexual behavior will be featured through this book as an important category of behavior that is shaped by both nature and culture. Whereas food is needed for survival, sex is needed for reproduction.

Sex has been a bitter battleground between those who explain it on the basis of nature and evolution and those who emphasize cultural construction. Is sex a matter of genes and hormones causing people to feel desires the way nature has prescribed them? Or is culture the principal cause of who wants to do what to whom in bed?

Some features of sexuality are found everywhere and may well be rooted in nature. In all cultures, for example, men seem to desire a greater number of sexual partners than women (Pedersen, Miller, Putcha-Bhagavatula, & Yang, 2002). Sex is everywhere the main way (and usually the only way) to make babies. The same basic sex practices are known to most cultures. Sex historian Reay Tannahill (1980) observed that the sex manuals written thousands of years ago in ancient China covered almost all the same techniques one would find in a sex manual today, with only one exception (sadomasochism).

Some other universal aspects of sex reflect the influence of culture. All known cultures have rules about sex (Frayser, 1985). Cultures know that sex leads to making babies, and efforts to prevent pregnancy have been found all over the world, though the ancient means of preventing conception (except for abstaining from sex) are generally less effective than modern technologies such as the birth control pill and the IUD. Some form of prostitution, in which people pay money for sex, is found in most large cultures, although many aspects of it (such as whether it is legally tolerated and what it costs) diff er substantially.

Cultural differences in sex are also evident. In Guam, a law prohibits a woman from marrying while a virgin, so women who want to get married sometimes hire a man to deflower them. In Turkey, women are expected to be virgins until they marry, and until quite recently it was standard practice for many brides-to-be to have a medical examination to certify their virginity. Indonesian law prohibits masturbation and stipulates that anyone caught committing this “crime” should be beheaded. Lebanese men who have sex with male animals are likewise subject to the death penalty, but it is perfectly legal for them to have sex with female animals.

In New Guinea, some tribes regard male–male sex as normal while people are growing up, and boys are expected to perform oral sex on young men as a way of acquiring fluids that produce masculine strength, but after marriage men are supposed to stop their homosexual activities and restrict themselves to their wives (Herdt, 1984). Liberty Corner, New Jersey, has a law prohibiting people from beeping the horn of a parked car during sexual intercourse; one can scarcely imagine what life must have been like in that town before that law restored peace and quiet. Another curious law comes from Liverpool, England: Topless salesgirls are forbidden to work in tropical fish stores, though not in other stores.

Last, there are plenty of differences within a culture too. In the United States today, there are people who reach their 30th birthday while still virgins, whereas others have had sex with more than a dozen people by the age of 15. Millions of people go through their entire lives having sex with only one person (their spouse) and only in the missionary position (man on top, woman on bottom), whereas some people have more than a thousand sex partners without ever using the missionary position. Genghis Kahn, perhaps the world’s most successful lover, has more than 16 million direct male descendants alive today! Many people yearn for practices that others regard as dangerous perversions. Some people love to read about sex or watch films of people having sex, whereas others fi nd those materials disgusting and want them to be outlawed.

Nature or culture? There is ample evidence of both in human sexuality.

Virtuous Vegetarians

2012-01-01T18:27:00.000-08:00

Throughout this book, we will feature research relevant to eating. We have selected eating for this treatment because human eating is relevant to both nature and culture.

On the nature side, eating is natural; all animals eat. Eating is a vital means of getting what one needs for survival, which, as we saw, was a crucial goal of biological life. Social animals are social precisely because their social interactions help them get food and thereby to survive. Like other animals, humans feel bad when they do not have enough to eat, and these bad feelings motivate people to seek food. Also like other animals, humans quickly learn to dislike and avoid foods that make them sick.

Humans resemble other animals in their need to eat regularly. But eating has been transformed by culture. Unlike all other animals, humans go on diets, have elaborate systems of etiquette and table manners, cook their food, experiment endlessly with recipes, and sometimes serve meals to total strangers.

Another uniquely human trait is the tendency to reject certain categories of food based on ideas. Many religions, for example, prescribe or forbid particular foods, especially on certain days. Based on religious views, some people will eat beef but not pork, while others eat pork but not beef.

Vegetarianism is a revealing example. Some animals eat only plants, but that is the way nature made them. Humans are capable of eating meat and naturally do eat meat, yet cultural reasons convince many people to refuse to eat meat. For example, some people believe that it is morally proper to refuse to eat other animals (Blackwell & Hutchins, 1994; Frey, 1983; Ritson, 1802; Tansey & D’Silva, 1999; Walters & Portmess, 1999). That means that ideas convince them not to eat meat. These ideas include a belief that animals should have rights similar to humans, or a belief that it is better for the planet to have people eat only plant food (because land used for growing livestock is less productive than land used for growing plants).

Nothing like this has been seen in any other species. There is no evidence of any animal that naturally eats meat but sometimes decides, for moral or religious reasons, to eat only plant food. Many human beings do precisely that, however. Such behavior is not found in nature but is well documented among human beings, and it refl ects the power of meaning (ideas) to change and determine how people act.

Nature, Culture, and Money

2012-01-01T18:18:00.001-08:00

Money is such a familiar feature of human life that we take its existence and power for granted. All countries in the world today use money, so culturally it is nearly universal by now.

Looked at from the perspective of nature, however, money is quite unusual. No species of plant or animal (other than humans) uses money. Money is thus a product of human culture, but it is estimated to be only about 3,000 years old (Davies, 2002), which means that early civilizations did not have it. It is much too recent to have shaped human nature biologically. There is no “money instinct.”

Clearly people want money, and many people work long and hard to get it. Attempting to explain this in biological terms, Lea and Webley (2005) started with the analogy of a tool. Just as animals ure tools to get what they want, people use money to get what they want. Biology has programmed humans (like other animals) to want things, so people also come to want money because it enables them to get these things. This part of the theory seems straightforward. Like any tool, money is desired not for itself but for what can be done with it.

But this analogy failed to explain the widespread human concern with money, as Lea and Webley soon recognized. For example, some people hoard money, obviously wanting to get it and keep it but not spend it. What good is a tool you never use?

So Lea and Webley produced a second analogy: Money is not just like a tool; it is also like a drug. People come to want it for its own sake, even though it does not confer any benefi t that biology recognizes.

Drugs take advantage of the body’s natural capacities for pleasure. People feel happy when they do something that will ultimately lead to survival or reproduction, such as when they have sex or fall in love or fi nd something great to eat. Drugs in a sense trick the body, because when you take a drug, you might feel as good as if you had fallen in love, but whereas being in love might help you achieve survival and reproduction, being high on drugs will not normally accomplish either of these. In the same way, money comes to be desired for its own sake, rather than for the sake of the good things one gets for it. That’s why people might hoard money, for example. It is as if they are addicted to money.

Although animals never develop money on their own, some of them seem capable of learning aspects of money, if humans teach them. Levitt and Dubner (2005) reported on studies done by Keith Chen with monkeys. After several months of training, the monkeys learned to trade little coins for treats such as grapes. When the researchers changed the price, the monkeys adjusted their purchases accordingly. There wasn’t much sign of monkeys’ using money with each other, except for one enterprising male who managed to trade a coin for sex with a female (who then spent the coin on getting a grape, her favorite treat). Still, their grasp of money remained rudimentary, and the researchers reported that they sometimes tried to use cucumber slices as if they were coins, at least when trading with humans (who did not fall for the counterfeit).

Culture and Human Social Life: CULTURE DEFINED

2011-12-31T20:48:00.000-08:00

Culture is thus an advanced way of being social. If we think of evolution as proceeding from simple creatures

Culture is harder to define than nature. (In fact, Boyd and Richerson, 1985, listed 164 different definitions of culture that different thinkers have used!) Th e term originally referred to a system of farming (a usage one can still see in terms like agriculture). Then it came to refer to musical and artistic achievements, such as paintings and symphonies. Social scientists eventually began to use the term to refer to what a large group of people has in common. French culture, for example, refers to everything that French people share: language, values, food preferences, a style of government, a place (France), and a shared sense of connection to the artistic and historical achievements of other French people.

For present purposes, the important thing about culture is that it is a kind of social system. Just as a pack of wolves or a school of fish is a social system, so is France. But there are obvious differences. France is much more complex than a pack of wolves. It is rich in symbols, meanings, and information. There are more different kinds of relationships among the French people than among the wolves.

Culture is thus an advanced way of being social. If we think of evolution as proceeding from simple creatures such as plants, to solitary animals, to social animals, then cultural animals are a further step in that same direction.

Culture and Human Social Life: SOCIAL ANIMAL OR CULTURAL ANIMAL?

2011-12-31T20:38:00.000-08:00

Being social animals is not what is most special about human beings. What is special is being cultural animals. Some other animals have bits and scraps of culture.

Social psychologists like to use the phrase “the social animal” to describe human nature. Th is phrase has been used by many influential thinkers, from the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle right down to the modern social psychologist Elliot Aronson (2007). By calling people social animals, these thinkers are saying that people seek connections to others and prefer to live, work, and play together with other people.

People are indeed social animals, but using this label may miss the mark of what is special about human beings. Plenty of other animals are social, from ants to elephants (as Aronson and others acknowledge). Human beings are not the only and probably not even the most social animals.

Being social animals is not what is most special about human beings. What is special is being cultural animals. Some other animals have bits and scraps of culture, such as when a tribe of monkeys all use a certain group of stones to open nuts, or learn to rinse their potatoes in the stream to get the dirt off (de Waal, 2002), but none comes anywhere close to having the remarkably rich and powerful cultural systems that humans have. Moreover, human beings have culture everywhere; human life is almost impossible to imagine without it. Culture in animals is typically a bonus or a luxury, something they could live almost as well without. All humans use culture every day and depend on it for their survival.

Culture is thus the essence of what makes us human. Yes, we are social beings, but we have plenty of company in that respect. We are also deeply cultural beings, and in that respect we are unique. Let us therefore consider what culture is.

Nature and Social Behavior: THE SOCIAL BRAIN

2011-12-31T20:32:00.000-08:00

Trees don’t need brains, and solitary creatures can get by with relatively simple ones. Social animals, however, require brains with additional, flexible capabilities.

The evolutionary anthropologist Robin Dunbar (1993, 1996) compared the brain sizes of many different species to see what behavioral differences went with bigger brains. (Brain size is always adjusted for body weight, because bigger animals generally have bigger brains. For example, human men have bigger brains than women, but that’s mainly because men are bigger all over.) Did big-brained species eat better foods, or more complicated foods such as fruit (which ripens and turns rotten rapidly)? Did they roam over larger territories, so that they needed a bigger brain to maintain a more complex mental map? No. What Dunbar found was that bigger brains were mainly linked to having larger and more complex social groups. Small-brained animals tend to live alone or in small, simple groups, whereas bigger-brained, presumably smarter animals have more relationships with each other and more complicated groups (such as those with dominance hierarchies and competing allies).

Th is conclusion is highly important. The human brain did not evolve because it helped us outsmart lions and tigers and bears, or build better shelters, or invent calculus. It evolved mainly in order to enable human beings to have rich, complex social lives. Th e brain is not for understanding the physical world around us, so much as it is for understanding each other. It is not so much a calculating brain or a problem-solving brain as it is a social brain.

Again, what is inside is there to enable the creature to satisfy its needs and, ultimately, to survive and reproduce. Social animals (including humans) accomplish those things by means of social interaction. Much of what goes on inside the human mind is designed to help the person relate to others. Social psychologists spend much time studying people’s inner processes, including their thoughts and feelings and, recently, how human brains work. Th ey study those things because inner processes serve interpersonal functions. Remember that phrase; it will be one of the themes of this book, and it is a good basis for understanding social psychology.

MONEY Matters

2011-12-31T17:43:00.001-08:00

Asking for donations is hard work, and one gets used to refusals. A clever technique developed by Cialdini and Shroeder (1976) found a way to make it harder for people to say no. In their study, some confederates simply asked for a donation to the American Cancer Society, while others added the phrase “Even a penny will help.” Adding the latter phrase nearly doubled the rate at which people said yes and gave a donation.

Of course, getting donations of only a penny would not be really of much help to the American Cancer Society! But the researchers found that the average size of the donations did not change. Thus, the even-a-penny method produced many more donations of the same approximate size, resulting in a big increase in total amount.

Why? Most reasons people give for refusing resemble “I do not have enough money to donate,” but such reasons do not work with the even-a-penny method. Everyone can aff ord to give a penny! To refuse a request when even a penny would be acceptable might make the refuser feel cheap and petty. Apparently, though, once people decide to go ahead and donate, they donate the amount they would normally give (rather than just giving a penny).

Nature and Social Behavior: SOCIAL ANIMALS

2011-12-30T16:07:00.000-08:00

Psychologists study people. Many psychologists have studied other animals, especially rats. But psychologists have never shown much interest in studying trees. Why not?

Trees, like people and all other living creatures, need to get certain things (e.g., water, nutrients) from the world around them. What is inside them is there to enable them to get what they need. The inside parts of trees enable them to draw water from the soil, chemicals from sunlight, and so forth. Trees, however, do not move around in search of food or to escape from predators. They take what comes to them where they are. Facing few decisions and being therefore essentially indifferent to other trees, they do not have much psychology. They don’t have much in the way of thoughts, feelings, or behavior, because they don’t need these things to survive and reproduce. (That’s why psychologists don’t find them interesting.)

Contrast this with animals who also live as loners. They have to find food, possibly kill it, and eat it. They need more food and produce more waste than trees do. They need to sleep and so must find safe places to do so. Reproduction is more complicated than it is for trees, so they may need to perform a particular set of behaviors in order to reproduce. Like trees, they need to interact with their world, but doing so is more complicated for animals, so what is inside them has to be up to the task. Psychologists start to get interested in these processes.

Many animals are not loners. They discovered, or perhaps nature discovered for them, that by living and working together, they could interact with the world more effectively. For example, if an animal hunts for food by itself, it can only catch, kill, and eat animals much smaller than itself—but if animals band together in a group, they can catch and kill animals bigger than they are. A pack of wolves can kill a horse, which can feed the group very well. Thus, there is more food available to the same animals in the same forest if they work together than if they work alone. There are other benefits of cooperation: They can alert each other to danger, can find more food (if they search separately and then follow the ones who succeed in finding food), and can even provide some care to those who are sick and injured. Mating and reproduction are also easier if the animals live in a group than if they live far apart.

In short, being social provides benefits. Being social is a strategy that enables some animals to survive and reproduce effectively. That is the biological starting point of social psychology: Being social improves survival and reproduction.

Th e downside of being social is that it is more difficult to achieve than solitary life. As with trees, what is inside social animals is there to enable them to get what they need from the environment. But to be social, one has to have quite a bit going on inside. (Hence psychologists can find much to study.) Social animals have to have something inside them that makes them recognize each other and want to be together. They must have something that prompts them to work together, such as automatic impulses to copy what the others are doing. (Hunting in groups doesn’t happen by mere coincidence.) They must have ways to resolve the conflicts that inevitably arise in social life, as when two animals both want the same piece of food. They need something akin to self-control to enable them to adjust to group life. In short, social animals need complex, powerful brains.

Nature and Social Behavior: SURVIVAL

2011-12-30T15:51:00.001-08:00

Survival is not hard to understand. It means living longer. Darwin’s contemporary Herbert Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest” to describe natural selection.

Animals compete against each other to survive, as in who can get the best food or who can best escape being eaten by larger animals. In a group of zebras, for example, the ones who run the slowest are most likely to be eaten by lions, so the ones born to be fast are more likely to live long enough to pass along their genes.

Survival depends in part on the circumstances in your environment. Consider the coloring of fish. Almost all fish have a relatively light colored belly and a relatively dark colored top or back. Why? Th at coloring is adapted for survival in the water. Most fish live until a bigger fish eats them, making the ability to hide from bigger fish an important trait for survival. Some big fish swim near the surface and look downward for food. Th e lower (deeper) you go in the water, the darker it gets. When a big fish looks downward, therefore, it can’t see dark-colored fish very well, so fish who are dark on the top side are harder to see (and therefore safer). Meanwhile, some big fish lurk in the depths and look upward for their food. Looking upward is looking into the light, so the best way for a fi sh to blend in is to have a light coloring on its underside. Over millions of years, the fish who were dark on top and light on the bottom survived longest because they were the hardest for the bigger fish to see, so they were less likely to be eaten and, therefore, more likely to make more baby fish with the same coloring. As a result of this selection process, most fish have this coloring today.

Gradually, biologists have shifted their emphasis from survival to reproduction as the single most important factor in natural selection. Survival is important mainly as a means to achieve reproduction. Reproduction means producing babies—though the babies also have to survive long enough to reproduce. Reproductive success consists of creating many off spring who will in turn create many off - spring. Put another way, nature judges you by how many grandchildren you produce.

For example, suppose there were a mutation (that is, a new gene or combination of genes) today that doubled the expected life span of a woman, from about 75 years to about 150. Th at is, one particular woman was born with the biological makeup to enable her to live 150 years. Would subsequent generations have more and more of this trait, and thus be more and more like this woman (and hence able to live longer?). Possibly not. If the woman was still done having babies around the age of 40, and if her longer life did not improve her quantity or quality of children and grandchildren, then her genetic traits would not spread. Now imagine another woman born with a mutation that doubled the number of children she produced, even though she would die at age 75 just like the others. Subsequent generations would contain more and more people like her.

Much of the recent work in evolutionary theory has focused on gender differences (Buss, 1994; Symons, 1979; Trivers, 1972). For example, evolution would likely select men to want more sex partners than women want. A woman can only have one baby a year no matter how many men she has sex with, but a man can father dozens of children each year if he has sex with many women. Moreover, a woman’s children would be most likely to survive to adulthood if they were cared for by two parents rather than just their mother. Hence men today are probably descended from men who desired multiple partners, whereas today’s women probably descended from female ancestors who preferred long-lasting monogamous relationships. Current research suggests that this pattern is found all over the world, in many different cultures: Men desire more sex partners than women (Schmitt, 2003).

How, exactly, does biological evolution produce changes? Th e causal processes depend entirely on random changes to physical entities, such as genes. Th e person (or other creature) is programmed to respond a certain way. Crucially, nothing has to be thought, understood, or spoken in order for these changes to occur. Th at is, meaning has nothing to do with it. Molecules, chemicals, electrical impulses in the body, and other physical mechanisms produce the results. Behavior changes because the physical makeup of the newborn individual is different. Th is is quite different from how culture works, as we shall see.

Nature and Social Behavior: EVOLUTION, AND DOING WHAT’S NATURAL

2011-12-30T15:42:00.000-08:00

Over the past two decades, many social psychologists have begun looking to the theory of evolution to help explain social behavior.

The theory of evolution, proposed by the British biologist Charles Darwin in the 1800s, focuses on how change occurs in nature. Over thousands of years, a type of plant or animal may evolve into a somewhat different kind of creature. Human beings and the great apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Human beings may be different from all other animals, but we are animals nonetheless. As such, we have many of the same wants, needs, and problems that most other animals have. We need food and water on a regular basis, preferably a couple of times every day. We need sleep. We need shelter and warmth. We need air. We suffer illnesses and injuries and must find ways to recover from them. Our interactions with others are sometimes characterized by sexual desire, competition, aggressive impulses, family ties, or friendly companionship. Sometimes we say that certain people are “acting like animals,” but this is not surprising, because we are all animals. Th at phrase merely expresses the point that people can sometimes rise above their animal nature, but the animal parts are there inside all of us.

An important feature of most living things, including animals and hence humans, is the drive to prolong life. Th ere are two ways to do this. Obviously, one way is to go on living. (Wouldn’t you like to live forever? Death has always been a disturbing threat, and beliefs that death is not the end but merely a transition into a different kind of life, whether as a ghost, a spirit in heaven, or a reincarnated person, have been found all over the earth since prehistoric times.) Th e other is reproduction: Life makes new life. Indeed, you might say that nature was unable to create an immortal being and therefore settled on reproduction as the only viable strategy to enable any form of life to continue into the future.

Change is another common trait of living things. Each living thing changes as it grows older, but more important forms of change occur from one generation to the next: Children are different from their parents. Nature cannot plan ahead and design a certain kind of change. Instead, nature produces changes that are essentially random. Th at is, the complicated processes that mix the genes of two parents to produce a unique set of genes in the baby sometimes produce novel outcomes in the form of new traits. However, there are powerful forces that react to these random changes. As a result, some random changes will disappear, whereas others will endure. Th e process of natural selection decides which traits will disappear and which will continue.

For example, imagine that one baby was born with no ears, another with one leg longer than the other, and the third with eyes that could see farther than the average eye. Having no ears or having legs of unequal length would probably be disadvantages, and natural selection would not preserve these traits for future generations. (That’s a polite way of saying that those babies would probably die before being able to pass on their genes by having off spring.) A significant improvement in vision might however be selected to remain, because the baby who grew up seeing better than other people would be able to find more food and spot danger from a safer distance. The genes for better vision would therefore remain in the gene pool (assuming that this baby would grow up and have babies), and so in future generations more and more people would enjoy this improvement.

Natural selection operates on the basis of two criteria: survival and reproduction. (Remember, these are the two ways of prolonging life.) A trait that improves survival or reproduction will tend to endure for many generations and become more common. A trait that reduces one’s chances for survival or reproduction will probably not become common. These are crucial themes, because the biological success of any trait is measured in those terms. A novel trait that makes someone happier, or gives the person higher self-esteem, or fosters a weird sense of humor, will not necessarily be passed on to future generations, unless those changes can translate into better survival or better reproduction.

Nature and Social Behavior: NATURE DEFINED

2011-12-27T16:32:00.000-08:00

Behavior geneticists seek to understand behavior as the result of genes and show that people are born with tendencies to feel and act in certain ways

Nature is the physical world around us, including its laws and processes. It includes the entire world that would be there even if no human beings existed. Nature includes trees and grass, bugs and elephants, gravity, the weather, hunger and thirst, birth and death, atoms and molecules, and all the laws of physics and chemistry. Nature made people too. (People who believe that the original humans were created by a divine power still recognize that the natural processes of reproduction and childbirth create today’s people.)

Those who use nature to explain human behavior invoke the sorts of processes that natural sciences have shown. For example, neuroscientists look for explanations in terms of what happens inside the brain (chemical reactions, electrical activity). Behavior geneticists seek to understand behavior as the result of genes and show that people are born with tendencies to feel and act in certain ways. Above all,however, the advocates of nature in psychology turn to evolutionary theory to understand behavior patterns. Th e next section provides an introduction to this style of thinking.

Nature and Social Behavior: EXPLAINING THE PSYCHE

2011-12-27T16:28:00.000-08:00

One approach to understanding how people think, feel, and act is to try to understand what the human psyche is designed for. (Th e psyche is a broader term for mind, encompassing emotions, desires, perceptions, and indeed all psychological processes.) To understand something, you have to know what it was designed to do.

Imagine someone who has grown up on a deserted island and has never met another human being or seen any man-made items. Th en one day a box washes ashore containing an electric can opener. How would the person figure out what the can opener does? Having grown up on a deserted island, the person knows nothing about cans or electricity. Th is hypothetical person might take it apart, analyze it, observe its parts, and see what some of their properties are, but it would be almost impossible for this person to understand it properly.

Understanding the human psyche is somewhat like that. We want to understand and explain how it works. To do that, it is useful to know what the psyche/human mind is designed for. Hence we turn to nature and culture, because those are what made the psyche the way it is. If the psyche was designed for something in particular, then nature and culture designed it for that purpose. Accordingly, if we can learn what the purpose is, then we can understand people much better.

Why are people the way they are? Why is the human mind set up as it is? Why do people think, want, feel, and act in certain ways? Most of the explanations for human behavior ultimately lead back to two basic ways of answering these fundamental questions: nature and culture. Th e nature explanations say that people are born a certain way; their genes, hormones, brain structure, and other processes dictate how they will choose and act. In contrast, the culture explanations focus on what people learn from their parents, from society, and from their own experiences.

Such debates have raged over many other forms of social interaction and behavior. Are people born with a natural tendency to be aggressive, or is aggression something they pick up from watching violent films, playing with toy guns, and copying other people’s actions? Are some people born to be homosexuals, or can people choose and change their sexual orientation? Is mental illness the result of how your parents treated you, or is it something in your genes? What about whether someone likes to drink alcohol or gamble? What about heroism, especially when people risk their own lives to protect or save others? How many of the differences between men and women reflect their innate, genetic tendencies, and how many are the product of cultural stereotypes?

Many social scientists have grown tired of nature– nurture debates and wish to put an end to them, though others continue to pursue them vigorously. Th ere has been an effort in recent years to say that both nature and culture have real influence. Th e most common resolution tends to favor nature as more important, however, because nature is indispensable. As Frans de Waal (2002) argued, nature versus culture isn’t a fair fight, because without nature you have nothing. He proposed that the argument should be waged between whether a particular behavior is the direct result of nature or stems from a combination of nature and culture. Your body has to perceive what is happening, your brain has to understand events, and your body has to carry out your decisions (and brain and body are both created by nature). Put more simply, nature comes first, and culture builds on what nature has furnished. Th at is one view.

Th is book, however, favors the view that nature and culture have shaped each other. In particular, nature has prepared human beings specifically for culture. Th at is, the characteristics that set humans apart from other animals (including language, a flexible self that can hold multiple roles, and an advanced ability to understand eachother’s mental states) are mainly there to enable people to create and sustain culture. Th is interaction between nature and culture is the key to understanding how people think, act, and feel. But let’s start by considering nature and culture separately.

Next: NATURE DEFINED

Being Correct: Informational Influence

2011-12-26T14:29:00.000-08:00

Two types of situations produce informational influence: (a) ambiguous situations, so that people do not know how to behave; and (b) crisis situations, so that people don’t have time to think for themselves.

If you look at a pinpoint of light in a dark room, the light appears to move even though it does not actually move at all. This illusion of movement, caused by very slight movements of the eye, is called the autokinetic effect.

Muzafer Sherif (1935) used the autokinetic effect to study the formation of group norms. Group norms are the beliefs or behaviors that a group of people accepts as normal. Sherif asked individual participants in a dark room to estimate how far the light moved. Their individual estimates ranged from about 1 inch to about 8 inches. They repeated this process on subsequent days, but in the presence of two other participants. As participants heard the estimates provided by others, their individual answers converged and became more similar.

These social norms are not temporary, either; they can last at least one year (Rohrer, Baron, Hoff man, & Swander, 1954). These social norms can also be transmitted from one person to another. In another study that used the autokinetic effect (Jacobs & Campbell, 1961), researchers had a confederate give an inflated estimate of how far the light moved in the presence of a real participant. Th e confederate was then replaced by a real participant, who was in turn replaced by another real participant, and so on. The inflated estimate persisted over five generations of research participants. Thus, people ended up conforming to the (false) norms set by someone who was by this point long gone.

The studies conducted by Sherif indicate a second type of social influence called informational influence. Informational influence involves going along with the crowd because you think the crowd knows more than you do (rather than because you want to be liked, as with normative social influence). It fits the “people first” theme we have seen throughout this book: People get valuable information from others, and sometimes they give more weight to what others think than to what their own eyes and ears tell them.

Two types of situations produce informational influence: (a) ambiguous situations, so that people do not know how to behave; and (b) crisis situations, so that people don’t have time to think for themselves. In these situations, people conform to what others are doing because they assume that those others know what they are doing. Sometimes this assumption is wrong—others really do not know more than we do. In fact, others may assume that we know more than they do. In some cases, nobody knows anything, which is called a state of pluralistic ignorance.

In short, there are two different motives to conform: normative and informational. A key difference is whether the conforming person comes to believe that others are right or believes they are wrong but conforms simply to avoid rejection, ridicule, hostility, or other kinds of punishment. Informational social influence helps produce private acceptance— a genuine inner belief that others are right. Normative social influence may elicit mere public compliance—outwardly going along with the group but maintaining a private, inner belief that the group is wrong. The Jonestown example contained both. Some people probably believed that Jones was a great religious leader with correct views, because they were surrounded by others who expressed those beliefs. Others went along under pressure of punishment and threat of death.

Being Liked: Normative Influence

2011-12-22T22:55:00.000-08:00

Social influence is a broad category. Social psychologists distinguish between two major forms of social infl uence: normative infulence and informational infulence. Let us consider each of these in turn.

Normative infl uence involves going along with the crowd in order to be liked and accepted. As we have seen throughout this book, humans have a fundamental need to belong to social groups. Being accepted and included improves one’s chances for survival (and improves life in many other ways). However, there is a long road to acceptance within the group. To live together, people usually need to agree on common beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors that reduce ingroup threats and act for the common good. Th erefore, people learn to conform to their group’s rules. Th e more we see others behaving in a certain way or making particular decisions, the more we feel inclined to follow suit. Th is happens even when we are in a group of complete strangers: we will go along with the others to avoid looking like a fool.

The studies conducted by Solomon Asch illustrate the power of normative influence. Asch asked participants to judge which of three lines matched a comparison line. In some studies, the participant was asked last in a group of confederates, all of whom had been instructed to give the same wrong answer. Asch found that many participants went along with the confederates and gave the wrong answer, even though they could plainly see it was wrong, rather than deviate from the group.

In some studies, Asch varied the discrepancy between the standard line and the comparison lines to discover the point at which the error made by the confederates was so glaring that no participants would conform. Th ese manipulations did not eliminate the effect: Participants went along with the group even when the group made fl agrant errors. To be accepted by the group was more important to participants than to be correct.

In another study, one of the confederates was a “dissenter” who always gave the correct answer. The dissenter reduced conformity by about one-fourth. In addition, participants who gave the correct answer reported feelings of warmth and closeness toward the dissenter.

Asch wondered whether the dissenter reduced conformity because he was accurate or because he deviated from the other confederates. So Asch conducted another study in which the dissenter disagreed with the other confederates but chose another incorrect answer. Half the time the dissenter made a moderate error, choosing a line that was incorrect but not too far off; the other half of the time the dissenter made an extreme error. The results showed that when the dissenter made a moderate error, conformity decreased by about one-third; when the participants did make errors, most were moderate rather than extreme. When the dissenter made an extreme error, conformity decreased by almost threefourths! Furthermore, when participants did make errors—and this occurred on only 9% of trials—all of the errors were moderate, none extreme. Thus, the extreme dissenter had a remarkably freeing eff ect on participants. Th e implication is that people feel considerable pressure to conform to a group if everyone agrees, but if there is any sort of disagreement among group members, then people become willing to stand up for what they believe.

When people deviate from group norms, they may pay a heavy price, including social rejection. Social rejection can be painful. Asch found that people would agree with the group, even when they knew the group was wrong, rather than suff er social rejection. Other research has shown that people who deviate from the group do indeed run a heightened risk of being rejected. For example, in an early study conducted by Stanley Schachter (1951), groups of eight individuals discussed the case of a juvenile delinquent named Johnny Rocco. Each group consisted of fi ve real participants and three confederates. One confederate, the “deviant,” adopted the extreme position of punishing Rocco severely and did not deviate from this position during group discussion. A second confederate, the “slider,” initially adopted the extreme position of punishing Rocco but then “slid” toward the position adopted by most group members.

A third confederate, the “mode,” adopted the position of most group members. At the end of the group discussion, the experimenter told everyone that a smaller group was needed for the next group discussion, so that the group needed to vote one member out. Most groups voted out the deviant. A review of similar studies showed that groups are quick to reject deviants or nonconformists. Rejection is more likely when there are only one or two nonconformists than when there are many nonconformists.

Communication Skills in the Business Environment

2011-12-21T16:55:00.000-08:00

Good communication skills are important in many aspects of life, and the business environment is certainly no exception.

No matter how talented an individual may be, if they lack the communication skills required to turn their thoughts into useful contributions then it will be to the firm's disadvantage. Skills like the ability to make effective and attention-grabbing presentations are extremely important to a variety of businesses when trying to win new clients.

For example, an employee could have spent hours producing the most brilliant presentation that has ever been created in order to win a contract from a potential client, but if they lack the communication skills to present it effectively and confidently then it is unlikely to convince those listening to the presentation that the firm could deliver on its promises and that it 'simply has' to choose your firm over the competition, and the new order will be lost. Can your business really afford to let that happen?

Similarly when it comes to handling the media, good communication skills are vital in order to get your organisation's message across. A failure to get that message across could lead to a loss of potential sales if, for example, customers are not aware of your amazing new special offer. Just as failing to get you organisation's message across is bad, putting out a misleading or factually incorrect message can be just as disastrous.

This can make your business look incompetent and unprofessional, leading to a decline in corporate image. You could also potentially be sued if an interviewee from your organisation gets flustered and makes an outburst which contains defamatory or slanderous comments about another person or professional body. A good level of media training will equip them with the communication skills needed to handle the media, even under hostile and intense questioning.

By Peter A Kay
Editor: Social Psychology

Confronting Anti-Social Behaviors

2011-12-21T16:45:00.000-08:00

It's easier to behave in a socially acceptable way with others who follow the same rules, but how do you handle someone with anti-social behavior? When someone is rude, confrontational or purposefully undermining, there are some techniques that can minimize the behavior.

Anti-social people have expectations of how people respond to them. By acting outside social norms, they force others to cater to their needs and get frustrated. Anti-social people enjoy the knowledge that comes from knowing they have the power to change a conversation or disrupt a gathering. The best way to handle an anti-social person is to not allow that to happen.

When someone is making rude comments or acting rudely, many people initially react with forced laughter or simply turn away and ignore it. This encourages the individual to act up more so that everyone notices his behavior. Instead of turning your back, confront an anti-social person. Simply address the person in a straightforward and coolly polite manner. You can point out that their behavior is bothering you and others and that surely they know better. There may be a few more rude comments in return, but the wind is out of his sails and the rude person has been acknowledged, just not in the way that makes him feel powerful.

Another tactic that works with some anti-social behavior is to overemphasize your own good, sobial behavior. By acting extremely kind and accommodating, the person can quickly see that they will not get a rise out of you. Your over-the-top social etiquette will be a direct contrast to their rudeness, and may even make the person step back and reassess the situation.

The key to dealing with anti-social behavior is to remain strong and unaffected by the behavior. Whether you are dealing with a chance encounter with a stranger or are constantly exposed to an anti-social colleague or client, calling out the offending social behaviors and neutralizing them are the best way to send a clear message. When the recipient understands that his words and behavior are not going to get the response he craves or is used to, the control suddenly shifts to you.

By Jennifer Maughan
Editor: Social Psychology

Why We Need Cultural Studies?

2011-12-21T15:05:00.000-08:00

The citizens of multicultural countries need to have a better understanding of cultural studies than people living in countries that have a single culture

Many people are unable to describe why they behave the way they do or why their thought processes are similar to their neighbor's but not similar to a person from another country. The reasons for such differences are complicated. There are many such questions, the answers to which lie in the difference in cultures across the world. They can only be understood by studying the implication of difference in location and the evolution of behavior. The field of study that deals with such questions and variations is called cultural studies.

Such questions are relevant for a country like USA or India that has a large diversity of people. The citizens of such countries need to have a better understanding of cultural studies than people living in countries that have a single culture. One can invest time and money to understand this subject. This will promote a higher level of cooperation and understanding. Today, many institutions teach the basic tenets of the evolution of culture and tradition to their students, as a part of the country's history. Consequently, people who are interested in studying history find themselves delving deeper into the subject.

Those that are interested in these kinds of studies wish to understand the way their society functions and the reasons why it has evolved the way it is today. Their interest in the subject is their effort to understand the social evolution of their country. People who spend time and money to understand other cultures apart from their own are found to be more tolerant and understanding of the differences between cultures around the world. Therefore, they are model citizens as they promote cooperation and tolerance between different people. This is one major aspect that makes the country stronger and more efficient.

Although courses on cultural studies are provided in many universities, the subject is one that is relevant for every person. As a result one finds many people reading books related to this subject. Many times, books on this subject are unavailable or out of stock due to their high demand. As the demand for books on this subject is usually significant, people should find alternate routes to get the required books. One such option is the internet. There are many websites that provide used and brand new editions of books on cultural studies. What's more, once the person has read the book, he or she can sell it right back to the website.

By Flora Bright
Editor: Social Psychology

Group Norms in Organizations

2011-12-20T16:37:00.000-08:00

Group norms are important determinants of whether a group will be productive. Norms usually develop slowly as groups learn those behaviors that will facilitate their activities.

Group norms are the informal rules that groups adopt to regulate members' behavior. Norms are characterized by their evaluative nature; that is, they refer to what should be done. Norms represent value judgments about appropriate behavior in social situations. Although they are infrequently written down or even discussed, norms have powerful influence on group behavior.

If each individual in a group decided how to behave in each interaction, no one would be able to predict the behavior of any group member; chaos would reign. Group norms guide behavior and reduce ambiguity in groups.

Groups do not establish norms about every conceivable situation but only with respect to things that are significant to the group. Group norms might apply to every member of the group or to only some members. Norms that apply to particular group members usually specify the role of those individuals. Norms vary in the degree to which they are accepted by all members of the group: some are accepted by almost everyone, others by some members and not others.

For example, university faculty and students accept the faculty norm of teaching, but students infrequently accept the norm of faculty research. Finally, norms vary in terms of the range of permissible deviation; sanctions, either mild or extreme, are usually applied to people for breaking norms. Group norms also differ with respect to the amount of deviation that is tolerable. Some norms require strict adherence, but others do not.

Understanding how group norms develop and why they are enforced is important to managers. Group norms are important determinants of whether a group will be productive. A work group with the norm that its proper role is to help management will be far more productive than one whose norm is to be antagonistic to management. Managers can play a part in setting and changing norms by helping to set norms that facilitate tasks, assessing whether a group's norms are functional, and addressing counterproductive norms with subordinates.

Group norms usually develop slowly as groups learn those behaviors that will facilitate their activities. However, this slow development can be short-circuited by critical events or by a group's decision to change norms. Most norms develop in one or more of four ways: (1) explicit statements by supervisors or coworkers; (2) critical events in the group's history; (3) primacy, or by virtue of their introduction early in the group's history; and (4) carryover behaviors from past situations.

Why are group norms enforced? The most important reason is to ensure group survival. They are also enforced to simplify or make predictable the expected behavior of group members. That is, they are enforced to help groups avoid embarrassing interpersonal problems, to express the central values of the group, and to clarify what is distinctive about it.

By Martin Hahn
Editor: Social Psychology

Ways to Prevent Aggressive Children

2011-12-20T16:24:00.000-08:00

Aggression in young children is a common problem and most parents don't understand how to deal with it.

Aggressive children is not an issue that can not be resolved. Though there are ways to take constructive action upon the situation, but the results are not quickly obvious, as it involves young children who lack maturity and self-control skills.

Parenting an aggressive children can be challenging, it is difficult to teach your child new and appropriate ways to interact with other children and with adults.

Analysing possible reasons behind aggressive children

We can analyze aggressive children by common behavior of children. The main reason is children are impulsive, easily irritable, and immature and face difficulty in accepting criticism. Aggressive children can also be because of any personal injury to him or his loved one. This injury can either be psychological or physical.

Aggressive children can result from different psychological issues or it can be a normal stage; part of their growing up. One reason to show aggressive children is that they are seeking for attention. It also can be due to the frustration of daily living especially when there are some obstacles. Due to increase of exposure to mass media, children easily get influenced by the glamorize violence. Also, when their emotional needs like the need for love and security, praise and recognition are not fulfilled.

Ways to prevent aggressive children

The first and foremost thing parents must do is limit children's exposure to violence in television. The other thing to do is to be good role model for your children. Promote ideas of love and respect by yourselves demonstrating them. Parents must remember that there children are constantly observing them - what they are doing and then they there adopt behavior unknowingly. Here the other ways:

Always enforce their good behavior with praise.
Find activities that are relaxing to your child.
Certain children have abundance of energy and they don't have proper channel to release it. This energy can itself take shape of aggression whether intentional or unintentional. One good way to prevent aggressive children is to find a way to drain off their energy and aggressive impulses through physical exercises.
You as parents of aggressive children need to keep yourself cool. Don't Yell or hit child in order to stop him. All this won't curtail his behavior; instead it might anger him more. You teach the very behavior that you are attempting to eliminate. If you will watch your temper and control it, it may be the first step in making him learn his mistake. Never show -"do as I say" attitude to the child.
Restrict child's use of T.V. and video games as a way of entertainment or even while babysitting your kid. Involve him in active in reading, art, music, outdoor games etc.
Don't be afraid to seek help. Sometimes a aggressive children requires more intervention than a parent can provide. If your child seems to be too much aggressive, then seek professional help, counselor or child psychologist. Remember, your child is still very young; you need to work patiently with him.

By Pooja S Sharma
Editor: Social Psychology

The Psychology of Friendship

2011-12-20T16:05:00.000-08:00

On the three levels of friendship and understanding social personality patterns according to friendship styles.

With social networking the very crux of modern virtual living, it is simply not possible to avoid a psychology of friendship. But friendship may not be as simple as it seems as it has got several layers and complexities and friendship can be of many types. Yet friendship like love depends on the single factor of attraction and in this case, it is more of a mental and emotional rather than physical attraction. So when romantic love begins with physical attraction, friendship is more mental, emotional or psychological.

Among maybe thousands of students we meet in school or a few hundred we meet at the workplace, we finally become close and attain a level of friendship with very few or limited people. So like love, friendship also goes through our internal filter and as we choose our lovers unconsciously, even our friends are chosen unconsciously as we intuitively understand who could be our true friends.

Apart from the fact that there is this unconscious and intuitive filter which we exercise when we choose our friends or lovers, we also do get consciously attracted to people with whom we develop long lasting relationships and friendships. This attraction could be sexual but most likely we are attracted to the personality, to someone whose personal style, mannerisms and attitudes seem fascinating, intriguing or simply similar. There could be a narcissistic theory to this as we choose friends who may look, talk or think like we do and usually there is this mental rapport from the very beginning. Just as love could happen at first sight, friendship could also begin with 'like' at first sight.

Now this liking could have several gradations and in some cases you would simply like to remain as contact as in social networking. You simply follow a person on twitter or add someone as friend on face book because there is this basic or unconscious liking or at least a realization that there could be some gain from the virtual relationship. However this is the first superficial layer of friendship just as you would smile at or share a piece of news with a complete stranger in a train without ever keeping in touch or meeting again. This sort of friendship is the 'random friendship' variety.

Most of your social network friends who you do not know would be such random friends and strangers who you meet once and share a random conversation in a flight or a train or a bus would also be such random friends. This is the first layer or stage of friendship and in most cases we do not go beyond this stage. Most people we meet in our lives would be such random friends. This is a friendship of no expectations on both sides. This sort of friendshhp fulfils our basic social interaction and communication needs. Say for example, you give a speech at a conference and some people ask you questions and you answer them, to you these are your listeners but in this basic interaction there is a sense of rapport and almost an initial level of friendship. These, your listeners who choose to communicate with you are your random friends and they fulfil your interaction and communication needs.

The next stage of friendship is the distal friendship stage is which there is some unconscious or conscious expectation from the friendship and there may be a conscious sexual or emotional attraction. This sort of friendship is with people you regularly communicate with and you are also most likely interested in their activities. Distal friends are people you may or may not meet but are people with whom you want to maintain a long term and meaningful relationship and in most cases you have some knowledge of what goes on in their social or personal lives. This is the second level of friendship and second type of friendship and although there is expectation from this sort of relation, there may not be any clear idea as to what expectations there are. You simply know that you want to remain in touch with such friends and they are more than just contacts. These friends fulfil our power and recognition needs as with such friends we are assured that there are people in the world who care about us and are interested in our lives, dreams and achievements.

The third stage and type of friendship is of close proximal variety and this is the friendship between family members, close school friends, close workmates and friendship between spouses and lovers. In this sort of friendship there could be many expectations and there is sometimes an intuitive emotional connection. The initial reason for friendship could be physical attraction as in spouses or simply emotional connection as with family members or there could be a shared life and shared physical activity as in case of school or work friends. The close or proximal friends would know most details of your life and this sort of friendship entails expectations of sharing which may or may not be realistically possible. For example if sons and daughters leave home to work or study abroad, the parents who are still close friends would expect that their children would talk to them every week and this may not always be feasible. These close or proximal friends or stage of friendship fulfils our basic security, love and safety needs.

Thus from these stages or types of friendship you would know that the most essential types of friends are the close friends followed by distal friends and then random friends. Some individuals have more random friends than others and are thus of outgoing extroverted personality. These individuals are generally more curious about the world, have leadership are more open and communicative, they are also possibly very creative. However their primary needs are for social interaction and communication.

The second type of individual has more distal friends or social contacts with whom they are neither too close nor are they completely aloof. Such individuals have a wide range of social contacts with expectations but few random contacts and they are of mixed extroverted-introverted personality pattern. That means on a scale of 10, their extroversion would be 5 to 7. The primary need for such individuals is power or recognition. Of course this could have varied possibilities as with public or social figures and personalities such as writers, actors or politicians, there will naturally be more random contacts, yet as natural preference some public personalities will prefer social recognition as opposed to social communication. This preference is the basis of their social personality and would define the kind of friendship they choose to have.

The third type of individual is completely introverted and these are poets or artists or simply individuals who like to work on their own and lean heavily on their close network of friends and family members. Such individuals may have limited social contacts and very few random contacts and may not enjoy leadership positions. In some cases their introversion or aloofness would overshadow any leadership skills they do have. Such individuals could be very creative as well but this creativity may lead to complex ideas and highlight the subjective. In this case close friendship which fulfils love, safety and security needs are the primary needs of such individuals and such individuals are more emotion and security, or home and family oriented rather than communication or recognition oriented. From these three friendship patterns it is possible to delineate these three types of social personality based on social interactions.

Of course at the moment this is popular psychology and very little research in social psychology has studied levels of friendship, friendship in social networking or friendship styles that could relate to personality. Yet in the future psychology would not be able to avoid such research and with increased importance of social networking and virtual friendship, psychology will have to study how friendships are formed, why certain people become our friends and why different levels of friendship are attained with different individuals. Although there are theories on friendship and group formation in children, more studies into adult relationship formation and friendship would be necessary in psychology. Research studies will also have to be conducted to determine whether people with more random friends are ever curious creative types seeking communication and whether people with more distal friends and fewer random friends seek power and achievement and whether introverted individuals primarily lean on emotional security. With increased technological possibilities and an ever connected world, friendship remains a very fertile area of study in the social sciences.

By Saberi Roy
Editor: Social Psychology

Social Psychology, how it helps understanding relations?

2011-12-20T15:13:00.000-08:00

Psychologists who study social psychology are into understanding behavioral aspects such as aggression, altruism, social influence, cognitive dissonance and attitudes, which are all related to interpersonal behaviors rather than just an individual state of mind.

Social psychology is a form of psychology that studies the relationship between people in a group. They are responsible for studying human behavior at the social level and also check out how people interact with one another in a given environment. Though there is a similarity between sociological researchers and psychological researchers, there is a difference in the way both function, especially in arenas such as approach used, methodology and career goals.

Those who are interested in taking up a career in social psychology must have done a bachelors degree in the subject and having a master degree would be an ideal choice. Having a Doctorate Degree can help them get work faster. Doing a doctorate in psychology is an extensive task, as it involves undertaking a complete one-year research project, writing out a dissertation, passing oral exams, and handling experimental research work.

A career is social psychology is challenging and one that expects the psychologist to make use of latest research techniques to handle problems in the real-world. It is vital to have good communication skills and make use of high level of analytics to carry forward successfully in this career path as the psychologist has to look into various aspect and conduct extensive research to carry out their work activities. Academic social psychologists conduct research and they teach social psychology and also publish articles in academic journals.

Social psychologists are able to tale by work as researchers in universities and private organizations, as consultants, or work in government agencies and non-profit organizations. Organizations employ the services of a social psychologist for the purpose of conducting personality tests, solving problems and in implementing organizational policy changes.

By Chris Cornell
Editor: Social Psychology

How To Deal With The Emotional Ramifications Of Acne

2011-12-19T22:12:00.000-08:00

Few people enjoy the thought of having several huge red bumps on their face. But there's a couple of secrets, or different ways to think about acne that can help you face the world despite how bad your particular condition is.

Acne is a dreaded skin condition that affects almost every person alive. There are billions of dollars spent on acne medication, either over the counter medication, or cures prescribed by doctors. All this for a condition that in reality, is purely cosmetic. Sure, there are dangers from letting acne go untreated for too long, but for most of us, we just want to get those ugly red bumps off our face. In this article, I'd like to address the impact acne can have on your self-esteem, and your self-confidence.

Acne really isn't that bad of a condition, from a purely medical standpoint. Of course, it is possible to develop some extremely serious condition that starts with acne, but it's not all the likely. Most people seek out acne treatment from a purely cosmetic standpoint.

Not that those are bad reasons. Few people enjoy the thought of having several huge red bumps on their face. But there's a couple of secrets, or different ways to think `bout acne that can help you face the world despite how bad your particular condition is. Even the best cures can take a couple weeks, and you still have to leave your room every once in a while.

The first thing to consider is that even the most beautiful people out there are completely self conscious about their looks. In fact, recent studies in social psychology indicate that the more traditionally "attractive" a person is, the more self conscious they are. Which would make sense, as the more attractive a person is, the more attention they usually receive. Most people are average, and those of us that are, know that we don't get any extra attention when we get acne.

Another idea to keep in mind that almost 95% of people suffer from acne at one point in their lives. So if you happen to have a case of it right now, don't worry. You're in good company. You belong to a club that boasts over a hundred million members in the United States right this very moment. And anybody that does mention anything less than polite about your acne is likely terrified of getting it themselves, so all they really are revealing to you is their own internal fears.

One other way to look at acne is like a filter. The people that like you for who you are, and not how you look, won't care that you have acne. They like you for your personality, which is perfectly fine. With a case of acne, as goofy as it sounds, it helps you to understand who your true friends are.

by: George Hutton

Will Power is Over Rated

2011-12-19T21:54:00.000-08:00

Does it seem like your will power is non-existent? Are you having difficulty eliminating bad habits, such as smoking or over eating?

If you are discouraged with your apparent lack of will power, this may be the most important information you could possibly get your hands on. Previously, the medical community believed the human brain consisted of the conscious and subconscious (or non-conscious). More recently, scientific human brain research has proven this to be inaccurate.

Tests done on human subjects actually prove we think in six areas of our brains simultaneously. While asleep our mind still functions in five of these areas. This means our conscious thinking is actually only 1/6th of our brain power and the non-conscious portion is actually 5/6th.

Trying to achieve success or make personal changes is like having a tug of war with your non-conscious beliefs, thoughts and habits. One of you is pulling for self improvement, change and positive outcomes. On the other end of the rope there are 5 of you with hidden, pre-programmed subconscious beliefs keeping you stuck right where you are now.

Which side do you think will win? It’s obvious your pre-conditioned subconscious programming will be victorious. No matter how strong someone’s will power, more than likely you will fail since scientific research has proven the odds are against your success. However, don’t give up hope just yet. There are simple solutions, as I will explain.

Exerting Self-Control Creates Weakness:

The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 74, 1998) published the results of an interesting experiment. Just one act of self-control depletes your ability to have self-control in another unrelated area.

For example, when subjects were told not to eat chocolates sitting right in front of them, their persistence in puzzle solving deteriorated. When they were told to suppress an emotional reaction to a movie, they had problems solving a solvable anagram.

This experiment proves that trying to effect positive change using will power is limited by our conscious ability to consistently focus on only one (or two at best) areas of life. You are not a “failure” simply because you broke a New Year’s resolutions or can’t seem to get past unwanted negative behavior?

You are after all, being human and operating with the same limitations as pretty much everyone else.

How To Accomplish Goals Without Will Power

Imagine automobile traffic speeding along an 8 lane super highway that funnels into a one lane city street. Have you got that picture in your mind’s eye? Can you see the traffic backed up, sitting idle on the super highway, trying to get access to the single lane city street?

Good – now you see exactly what happens inside our brains. The subconscious is processing information over 200,000 times faster than the conscious mind. However the conscious mind, like a single lane street, slows everything down to a crawl.

It’s great you want to make changes in your life. However, unless you change the subconscious programming to be focusing on the same goals as your conscious desires, you are effectively reducing progress down to one lane.

To accelerate achievements (in any area of your life) you need to initiate change at the source – your subconscious mind. Then will power is not even an issue.

Or you can continue using the slow method and consciously focus on one specific area of change until it is mastered and then move on to another area. When programmed with new beliefs, the non-conscious mind will work 24/7 to make these new beliefs become your reality.

I found hypnosis and/or self hypnosis to be one of the easiest and fastest tools to re-program the mind. Many have tried hypnosis and gave up due to apparent lack of success. Understand this - your old habits and beliefs created strong neural pathways which have been reinforced through repetition. Various “triggers” can initiate your thought patterns to travel along these pathways, resurrecting old beliefs you believed to be vanquished.

You therefore need to remain persistent if you plan to successfully remove or neutralize self-limiting beliefs and hypnosis and/or self-hypnosis has been a blessing in helping me eliminate unwanted habits to make permanent changes. Another amazingly effective tool is visualization. With a little research you will discover most pro athletes consistently visualize their performance well in advance of actually playing the game. Affirmations are also a great way to change the mental programming. However, there are a few tricks you need to learn before they are a viable technique.

Do you still think will power is the way to go? How has it served you so far? Give your self a fighting chance and begin utilizing some of the mind tools which have been proven to work.

You want your non-conscious mind working in harmony with your conscious desires. Hypnosis, visualization and affirmations are three of the many effective techniques available to re-program the subconscious. In today’s busy world will power is not a practical option for self improvement as it is unlikely you will be able to consistently remain focused on one specific goal until it is achieved.