Find the original Textbook (pdf) in the link below:

CLICK HERE
 1 Theorizing Social Psychology

Social psychology is as relevant today as it was over a

hundred years ago. But academics would argue that
the impetus, and at the core, of any discipline is its
theoretical foundation. The genesis to the maturity of
social psychology from the early twentieth century to
the second decade of the twenty-first century has
seen the creation and development of numerous
theories intended to conceptualize spheres of reality
that were somewhat outside of the range of sociology
or general psychology . Many of these theories still
meaningfully contribute toward the research and
theoretical expansion of the discipline.
Gordon Allport (1968) defined social psychology as
“an attempt to understand and explain how the
thoughts, feelings and behavior of individuals are
influenced by the actual, imagined or implied
presence of others.” As limited as definitions are, this
definition of social psychology captured the
dynamism, focus, and direction of the discipline.
Important to an understanding of social psychological
behavior is taking into consideration not only what is
happening socially to the person but also what is
occurring internally, including cognitively, to the
individual, which, in turn, affects social behavior.
From its genesis rooted in the work of William James’s
Principles of Psychology to the current development
of the discipline, there has always been an emphasis
on the individual within the social interaction
paradigm. Theorization, therefore, in the discipline
has fallen within this paradigm, which is now extended
to include the neurological functioning of human
beings within the social psychological context.
The early works on social psychology by the
psychologist William McDougall (1908) and the
sociologist Edward Ross (1908) weighted social
behavior on instinctual or social factors, respectively.
Later, Floyd Allport (1924) emphasized a behaviorist
stimulus response paradigm for the understanding of
social psychological behavior. Theories of psychology
and sociology during this early period seem to have
been competing to understand a realm that had
neither the theorization nor the research
sophistication to claim discovery status. Much of the
work undertaken in social psychology has been done
within the discipline of psychology, with sociological
social psychology contributions being relatively
sparse. Notably, the discipline of sociology has
contributed tremendously to the early development of
the concept and theorization of self, especially via
theories of symbolic interactionism, phenomenology,
and, later, ethnomethodology. On the other hand,
psychological social psychology’s contributions have
been crucial to the genesis and development of both
the pure and applied branches of the discipline.
Theories often articulate constructs, hypothetical
concepts, that allow us to understand phenomena
that otherwise would have been impossible to
appreciate (see Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). The
human mind in no way can comprehend the
complexities of reality. But the assumptions,
constructs, concepts, abstractions, hypotheses and
propositions within a theory provide a structure to
explain dimensions of reality. As the synthesized
relationship between a theory and research develops,
we gain further understanding into the obscurity of
reality. The theory is, then, strengthened with the
continuous applications and rigors of scientific
testing. The predictive power is often the boast of a
good theory. But Waltz (1997, p. 913) cautioned that:
“the explanation, not the prediction is the ultimate
criterion of a good theory… a theory can be validated
only by working back and forth between its
implications and an uncertain state of affairs that we
take to be the reality against which theory is tested,
and that the results of tests are always problematic.”
As Kuhn (1996) has suggested, theory, and by
extension knowledge, develops within paradigms. The
theories discussed in this volume are evolving within
paradigms and contributing to the growth of scientific
knowledge. As Kuhn states, a paradigm is “universally
recognized scientific achievements that, for a time,
provide model problems and solutions for a
community of researchers” (1996, p. x). The
anomalous research results, vis-à-vis consistent
expanding frontiers, derived from testing of theories
presented in this volume have not, thus far, created
any threats towards a paradigm shift away from the
current paradigms under which these theories
operate. Theories demonstrate the normal scientific
adventure of the movement from pre-paradigm to
normal science to revolutionary changes and finally
the formation of a new paradigm.
Anomalous findings and loss of confidence push
resources from one paradigm into a new and emerging
paradigm leading to the development and rise of new
theorization (Kuhn, 1996).
Many theories are constructed to be tested. But other
theories, because of unmeasura India in 1934. They
review Festinger’s major theoretical constructs and
how these gave rise, early on, to a series of
counterintuitive predictions that were generally
supported by empirical evidence. Most famous is the
finding of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) that research
participants reported a greater liking for boring
laboratory tasks if they were paid $1 as opposed to
$20 for performing them. Harmon-Jones, Nail, and
Boniecki summarize major paradigms that were
created to test dissonance theory, followed by rival
theoretical accounts, such as Bem’s (1967) self-
perception theory. The success of these accounts
caused interest in the theory to wane, but more
recently has led to a flurry of empirical interest in
dissonance and eventually related phenomena,
reviewed by Harmon-Jones, Nail, and Boniecki, which
persists to the present day. One major focus of the
chapter is the “self” theories of dissonance (e.g.,
Aronson, 1968, 2007; Steele, 1988), which hold that
dissonance processes have their origins in the need
for self esteem rather than in a need for logic- like
consistency, as originally conceived by Festinger
(1957). Another focus is individual differences, e.g.,
how the different versions of dissonance theory make
conflicting predictions for those varying in self-
esteem. The chapter evaluates the theory in terms of
its applicability, efficiency, heuristic value, and
originality, discussing new theorization, including the
research of Harmon-Jones et al. (2015) on the action-
based model of cognitive dissonance.
Bertram Malle’s chapter examines the history of
research on behavior explanations, identifies missing
pieces, and introduces a theoretical model that is
meant to account for explanations at the conceptual,
psychological, and linguistic levels. Heider (1958) was
the first to systematically examine how people make
sense of each other’s behavior.
He introduced the idea of personal causality, ordinary
people’s conception of how purposeful behavior
works. When a behavior obeys personal causality, it is
seen as caused by the agent’s intention, whereas
such an intention is absent in behavior that obeys
impersonal causality. Thus, Heider captured what was
later called intentionality, a core distinction in
people’s understanding of human behavior.
Subsequent attribution research turned to different
directions. Jones and Davis (1965) shifted from
considerations of intention inferences toward
considerations of personality and attitude inferences.
Kelley (1967) set aside Heider’s distinction between
personal and impersonal causality and instead
focused on a distinction between person (internal)
and situation (external) causes. This internal–external
dimension, however, applies only to people’s
explanations of unintentional events, not to their
explanations of intentional action.
Decades passed before Heider’s original concern with
intentionality, and people’s inferences of motives and
reasons became a topic of research again. Committed
to these concerns, the second part of the chapter
introduces the folk-conceptual theory of behavior
explanation (Malle, 1999, 2004). It locates
explanations in the network of folk concepts people
use to make sense of human behavior and specifies
the psychological processes and linguistic
manifestations of explanations. For example, people
offer very different kinds of explanations for
intentional and unintentional behavior. Unintentional
behavior is explained by causes, which can be
classified in a variety of ways, including an internal–
external dimension. Intentional behavior, by contrast,
is more complex.
People offer either reason explanations (i.e., referring
to the beliefs and desires in light of which the agent
formed an intention to act) or causal history of reason
explanations (i.e., referring to factors that led to those
reasons in the first place such as upbringing ,
personality, unconscious mental states). People’s
choice between these two explanation modes reflects
both cognitive and motivational processes and is
sensitive to the explainer’s role (actors vs. observers),
the type of agent (group vs. individuals), and the
explainer’s impression management goals.
Thus, the folk-conceptual theory tries to carve out the
concepts and processes that matter when people
construct and respond to explanations; and these
distinctions reveal a rich, sophisticated system of
folk-behavior explanations. Malle’s chapter is a
dynamic contribution to the evolution of the field of
attribution.
Benjamin Wagner and Richard Petty examine the
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), which is a general
theory of persuasion that is also applicable to social
judgment (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The ELM holds
that people’s attitudes can be modified in both
relatively effortful (central route) and non-effortful
(peripheral route) ways. Persuasion via the central
route depends on the strength and cogency of the
arguments contained in the messag comparisons?
While social comparison is mostly understood as a
process that is engaged to fulfill fundamental needs
like self-evaluation, self-enhancement, and self
improvement, the chapter discusses logical reasons
for social comparisons and considers the efficiency
advantage of comparative information-processing.
The second question is: To whom do people compare
themselves? The chapter explores how motivational
concerns influence the selection of comparison
standards and how routine standards can efficiently
fulfill the need to self-evaluate. The third question is:
How do social comparisons influence the self? The
diverse factors that lead to assimilation or contrast of
the self as a consequence of social comparison are
reviewed. Finally, Crusius, Corcoran, and
Mussweilerassess the application of social
comparisons in the area of health psychology and the
impact of idealized media images on self-evaluation.
Their review shows that comparative processes are
marked by striking complexity and multifacetedness
and that consequences of social comparisons span
all core areas of human psychological functioning.
They argue that future research could benefit from a
perspective that integrates cognitive, motivational,
and affective determinants and consequences of
social comparisons.
Underlying the theory of relative deprivation is the
social comparison process. Relative deprivation (RD)
theory helps social scientists predict who will become
dissatisfied and under what conditions. The chapter
proceeds in three parts. First, the authors describe
relative deprivation concept, models, and empirical
research with an emphasis on recent research. Next,
they examine cognate theories and research, and in
the last section the focus is on applications of relative
deprivation. RD theory is a theory of perceived social
inequity that helps to explain why some people with
paltry resources experience contentment while others
with abundant access to a wealth of resources are
dissatisfied. Beverly G. Conrique and Faye J. Crosby
review the history, development, and utility of RD.
After detailing the initial literature on the concept of
RD, they trace the development of various models and
applications of RD articulated from the 1960s to the
present day and assess the more contemporary work
on RD. This chapter presents core concepts, classic
research, current research, and application of RD.
Directions for the future application of RD theory to
social problems are considered.
Part III assesses two social exchange theories that
start with the behavioral premise that human beings
are hedonistic. The theories also assume that actions
are governed by a reinforcement–punishment
structure and extends into interpersonal interaction.
The power dynamics of interpersonal interaction are
absent from equity theory but elaborated in
interdependence theory.
Denise Polk’s chapter provides a useful
understanding of equity theory. The theory stems from
principles of reinforcement and basic principles of
economics. The basic premise of the theory is that
people evaluate their relationships in terms of inputs
and outcomes. The principle of distributive justice is
core to equity theory (Deutsch, 1985).
Imbalances in input–outcome ratios result in inequity.
Two types of inequity can occur.
People may be underbenefited, or they may be
overbenefited. However, according to equity theory,
people are driven to restore equity once they perceive
equity. When people experience inequity, they may
attempt to restore actual equity or psychological
equity. Polk posits that because no magic formula for
equity exists, relational partners must determine
equity for themselves. Equity is a key consideration in
relationships because people's perceptions about
equity shape people's feelings, decisions, and actions
toward their relational partners (Adams, 1965;
Sprecher & Schwartz, 1994), so equity theory is
appropriate to help explain the development,
maintenance, and dissolution of relationships. Polk
explores research that has tested equity for links with
many variables, including relational quality,
personality, emotions, gender, and the distribution of
domestic duties.
The chapter by Ann Rumble explores interdependence
theory, as developed by John Thibaut and Harold
Kelley. Thibaut and Kelley employed outcome
matrices in order to understand an actor’s available
behavior choices and outcomes. The given matrix
represents the choices and outcomes that are
available to the actors in a specific situation, and
through the transformation process develops into the
effective matrix (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). By examining
the components of the given and effective matrix, we
will be able to explain human behavior in a number of
interdependent situations, including close
relationships. Interdependence theory is an important
exchange theory and contributes to an understanding
of the power dynamics within relationships opting the
game-theoretic tool of outcome matrices in order to
analyze an actor’s available behavior choices and
outcomes.
The final part of the book is devoted to theories related
to self and identity and dicusses social identity, social
categorization, symbolic interactionism, and
impression management.
Nils Karl Reimer, Katharina Schmid, Miles Hewstone,
and Ananthi Al Ramiah's chapter provides a general
overview of social psychological theories on social
identity, including social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978;
Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory
(Turner et al. al., 1987). However, this chapter takes a
somewhat more encompassing approach to
portraying what is commonly referred to as the social
identity perspective.
The authors thus not only focus on identity theory and
self-categorization theory but also pay particular
attention to defining the concept of social identity.
They consider the consequences of social identity
phenomena for intergroup relations, above and
beyond the predictions of social identity theory, taking
into consideration the extent to which multiple
categorization processes help explain intergroup
relations.
The chapter is organized into five sections. The first
three of which conceptually define social
categorization, self-categorization and social
identification, whereas the last two examine the
extent to which self-categorization and social
identification are involved in, and help explain,
intergroup relations. The chapter describes the
theoretical foundations of self-categorization theory
and social categorization and provides details of what
is meant by self-categorization, and how, why, and
when individuals make use of social categories. Social
identification is defined as a psychological process
associated with group membership and is a
multidimensional phenomenon. The authors give a
description of social identity theory, with reference to
findings that emerged from the minimal group
paradigm and address, with reference to the
predictions of social identity theory, the extent to
which self-categorization and social identification are
related to intergroup attitudes and behavior. Finally,
the chapter gives an overview of multiple category and
its consequences for intergroup relations, showing
how more complex consideration of others and
oneself in terms of multiple group memberships is
associated with tolerance and improved intergroup
relations.
Richard J. Crisp, Angela T. Maitner, and Andrew J.
Marcinko’s chapter complement the previous
chapter. They argue that in contemporary society the
traditional boundaries that have previously defined
social group memberships are being steadily eroded
and replaced with more complex conceptualizations
of identity. Crisp, Maitner, and Marcinko review
classic and contemporary theories of social
categorization in the context of increasing social and
cultural diversity. They argue that broad-ranging and
pervasive changes to the categorical structure of
society have fundamental implications for how
individuals perceive, represent, and understand their
social environments. They review existing social
cognitive, self-categorization, and situated cognition
accounts, arguing that an increasing focus on the
context-specific nature of social categorization
reflects the more fluid and fluctuating nature of
identity in contemporary society. The authors
conceptualize a diversity-driven social categorization
theory, arguing that the functional nature of human
cognition implies that exposure to diversity must
change how individuals psychologically engage with
their social worlds. To fully understand the evolving
nature of social categorization psychologists should
seek to incorporate a broader multidisciplinary
analysis of the changing nature of culture and society.
Andreas Schneider’s chapter is a comprehensive
overview of symbolic interactionism (SI). Today the
framework of symbolic interactionism has been
delineated into many theoretical approaches using
qualitative and quantitative methods of investigation
that are applied in numerous areas of research. SI has
evolved a long way from early philosophies of North
American pragmatism to the computer simulation of
human interaction. Describing this path, the chapter
overcomes dichotomies such as the Chicago school
versus the Iowa school, or quantitative versus
qualitative, that have been used in the past to
pigeonhole one or the other line of research. Instead,
the author portrays the development from the
grandfathers and their philosophical backgrounds to
explain the different agendas addressed by the
founding fathers of the Chicago school. This historical
context is necessary to understand contemporary
contrasting schools of thought and their roots in social
psychology, as well as sociology.
This chapter then shows how ideas and
methodologies of these qualitative and quantitative
approaches are integrated into the most recent d
Development of cybernetic control models in SI.
Finally, the author discusses the application of SI in
the fields of deviance, sexuality, children, gender,
emotions, organization/management, cross cultural
comparison, and ethnomethodology/conversation
analysis. Descriptions of these applications are
supported by interviews of key researchers in the
respective fields.
Meni Koslowsky, Shani Pindek, and Abira Reizer’s
chapter on impression management (IM) is a
refreshing contribution to the literature. They note that
IM is an activity that takes place in many, if not most,
interactions. In this chapter, they start by exploring the
different definitions of the construct, from a narrow
view of IM as a set of manipulative behaviors,
performed mainly in order to present one self in a
positive light, to a more expansive definition which
assumes that all People unconsciously manage their
impressions in ways that help in achieving goals both
at the individual and group levels. This expansive view
of IM allows for an appreciation of the relationship
between IM and constructs such as the self-concept,
individuals’ social identities, and other social
phenomena.
When applying or measuring IM, behaviors are usually
considered as belonging to one of several distinct
subcategories. These categories include
verbal/nonverbal behaviors, defensive/promotional,
positive/negative, and several other related
taxonomies. The chapter also explores specific
antecedents and outcomes of IM including gender,
self-monitoring, and self-regulation, as well as other
demographic and personality variables.
The work environment supplies the individual with
many incentives as well as opportunities to benefit
from impressions that are well managed, The
workspace has been the focus of much of IM research
in recent years. Finally, the authors identify several
areas for future researchers to consider.
This latest edition of Theories in Social Psychology
provides an updated comprehensive understanding of
important social psychological theories that have
persisted, so far, in the face of rigorous scientific
testing.

Find the original Textbook (PDF) in the link below:

CLICK HERE