Introduction

Social Psychology is the scientific study of how our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are affected by our social environments. Social Psychology Researchers use scientific methods to address issues that have profound importance for individuals and societies. In undergraduate Social Psychology classes, students have the opportunity to learn about diverse topics such as:

One of the central themes of Social Psychology is that we are fundamentally motivated to be accepted by, and liked by, others, and maintain our social relationships with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Further, our sense of self is comprised not only of our own unique traits, aptitudes and abilities, but is also based on the social groups to which we belong at a relational (i.e., our friend groups and families) andcultural level (e.g., institutions that we belong to, our ethnic and national identities; Tajfel, 1979). These themes of needing to belong and social identity speak to the social nature of humans and can also explain why individuals are so very attuned to, and affected by, their social environments.

Indeed, one of the consistently striking (and sometimes surprising) tenets of Social Psychology is the ‘Power of the Situation’. For example, key findings in the literature show that one can engineer a situation where typical, everyday citizens agree to hurt a stranger if they are asked to do so by a perceived authority figure (Milgram, 1965; 1974); people will remain in a room that is filling with smoke if there are others in the room who seem unconcerned about the ostensible fire (Latané & Darley, 1968); or be willing to give what they know to be the wrong answer on a test if others around them are giving the wrong answer (Asch, 1955). These highly-cited and well-known findings within Social Psychology are instructive because they demonstrate the potency of our social environment on our behaviour. However, although the argument for the power of the situation is compelling, it is clear that not everyone reacts in the same way to these situations. Although the majority of participants in the Milgram studies agree to administer electric shocks when directed to do so by an authority, some individuals refuse to administer any shocks at all. The variability in individuals’ responses to strong contextual demands also speaks to the important influence of individual differences in determining our behaviour (Funder, 2008). Thus, our reactions to social situations will vary depending on factors including personality traits (e.g., agreeableness, extraversion), biological factors (e.g., sex, stress reactivity), cultural factors (e.g., the country in which we were raised, our religious beliefs), and other individual differences (e.g., self-esteem, attachment orientation). Further, in addition to these trait differences, our thoughts, feelings, and behaviour can be powerfully affected by the transient states such as mood, cognitive fatigue, or whether specific concepts are cognitively activated at a specific point in time.

Accordingly, the discipline of Social Psychology often adopts an interactionalist perspective. This means social behaviour is interpreted as the product of the interaction between specific individual characteristics that we might call person variables (e.g., personality traits, individual differences, cultural factors, biological factors, and states) and situational variables (such as the context in which the individual operates) to predict how we will think, feel, and behave. To illustrate, we will provide a specific example of an interaction of this sort. In an interesting study, Crocker and colleagues (1987) assessed whether self-esteem (a trait, or individual difference variable) interacts with group status (a situational variable) to predict in-group favouritism (a tendency to evaluate members of one’s own group positively, and derogate members of an outgroup). They predicted that the effect of group status on the tendency to derogate outgroup members would be especially pronounced for individuals high in self-esteem, relative to those low in self-esteem. Members of the same sorority at a large University in the Unites States agreed to participate in the study. In pilot testing, different sororities were rated as being high or low in prestige (status). Approximately half of the participants were from sororities that were rated as low in status, and about half of the participants were from sororities that were rated as high in status. Participants were asked to complete a series of measures including the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965). They were also asked to rank ‘typical members’ of each of six sororities (including their own sororities) on a number of positive (e.g., attractive, friendly, talented) or negative (e.g., arrogant, boring, unintelligent) attributes. For the positive items, the authors found that sorority sisters high in self-esteem were more likely to show ingroup favouritism (i.e., assign higher scores on the positive traits for a typical member of their own sorority, relative to typical members of other sororities). There was no effect of group status, and no interaction between self- esteem and group status. For the negative items, however, a score of ingroup favouritism was derived by subtracting the mean value of negative trait ratings for a typical member of one’s own sorority from the mean value of the negative trait ratings for a typical member of other sororities. In this way, the measure of ingroup favouritism for negative traits meant that participants rated members of other sororities more negatively than they rated members of their own sororities. Crocker and colleagues found an interaction between self-esteem and group status, such that among those with low self-esteem, there was no difference between those from high or low-status sororities in terms of how much ingroup favouritism they exhibited. Among those with high self-esteem, however, those from low-status groups were more likely to exhibit ingroup favouritism than those from high status groups. The authors state that individuals high in self-esteem may be more likely than their low self-esteem counterparts to react to threat by derogating outgroup members in an effort to maintain their own self-esteem (which is consistent with Social Identity Theory, Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

Similarly, a recent study conducted by Iacoviello and Spears (2021) indicated that when members of a group shared a discriminatory attitude towards another group, favoring ingroup norms was associated with higher self-esteem. This study used an imagined audience to compare ingroup and external groups entities. These findings suggest that ingroup favoritism can subjectively enhance group members’ self-esteem. Here, we can see that a behaviour (ingroup favouritism) is dependent on both person variables (in this case, self-esteem, which is a trait) and situational variables (in this case, group status). An interaction is present, such that the relationship between one variable (group status) and the outcome (ingroup favouritism) is dependent on another variable (self- esteem). Put another way, the results of the study show that the answer to the question ‘does ingroup favouritism vary as a function of group status?’ is ‘it depends’. More specifically, it depends on self- esteem. If one was low in self-esteem, then there was no evidence for a relationship between group status and amount of in-group favouritism. However, if one was high in self-esteem, then those from low status groups were more likely to exhibit in-group favouritism than those in high-status groups. This example illustrates the way that Social Psychology Researchers can assess research questions by testing interactions between person variables and situational variables, thereby allowing them to understand how different factors combine in complex ways to influence our affect, cognition, and behaviour.

Methods in Social Psychology

Social Psychology Researchers use scientific methods to test their hypotheses. While a complete review of methodology within Social Psychology would be beyond the scope of this chapter, we will introduce you to some of the primary distinctions among different methodologies used in Social Psychology. One of the advantages of receiving an undergraduate education in Psychology is that students gain insight into the logic underlying research methodology. There is no ‘recipe’ or step-by-step manual that will allow researchers to conduct a valid study. Instead, research methodology entails a series of decisions, and with every decision there will be some advantages and some disadvantages. Learning about research methodology helps students to understand the implications of these decisions, and how those implications will affect the conclusions that they can draw from their studies. Obviously, this is essential training for students who wish to go on to be scientists and conduct their own research. We argue, however, that an education in research methodology is important and beneficial for all students—and for everyone who will go on to be a consumer of information. In our everyday lives, we seek information from science. For example, if a family member is diagnosed with a medical condition, it is very common for people to turn to the internet to find out more about that condition. At times, the information can seem confusing or even contradictory. Having a solid grasp of research methodology will help individuals to assess and evaluate scientific research, allowing them to understand the implications of the research decisions that scientists made, which in turn provides a basis to make an informed decision about the validity of the claims reported, and the generalisability of the research to different contexts and populations.

Measurement

In all research, scientists need to measure the variables of interest in their study. The measurement of some variables is relatively straightforward. For example, if one wishes to assess how tall a person is, one would measure the person and record the person’s height in centimetres. In Social Psychology, however, many of the variables we study are psychological constructs that are not directly observable. For instance, people will likely agree that traits such as shyness, self-esteem, and intelligence vary amongst individuals (e.g., some people have high self-esteem, others feel more negatively toward the self). These traits affect our thoughts and behaviours. However, these constructs are not directly or readily apparent, and so researchers must find a way to measure these variables. There are a number of ways to do so. Very briefly, researchers can create a survey or measure to capture these traits (e.g., in 1965 Rosenberg created a 10-item scale to measure self-esteem that is still widely used today). In many cases, such self-report measures are appropriate to use. However, self-report measures can be biased (i.e., people may not want to accurately report their true beliefs, feelings, or behaviours). For example, if a researcher was interested in assessing attitudes and toward academic integrity, and asked the question ‘Have you ever copied someone else’s work on a test or assignment?’, students who have cheated in this way may be reticent to admit it, either to avoid being viewed negatively by the researchers, or because they do not want to acknowledge this negative behaviour. This is sometimes called the ‘Social Desirability Bias’. Further, sometimes people may not be able to answer a self-report question because they simply lack access to the ‘true’ answer. For instance, if a student were asked ‘What made you decide to study Psychology?’ they may be able to come up with answers that are true in the sense that they are credible reasons that may have influenced their decision. However, that student may lack access to other factors (e.g., response not known or not listed in a multiple choice questionnaire) that could have led to their decision to study Psychology (see Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).

If researchers choose not to employ self-report measures, there are a number of tools at their disposal. First, they can choose to directly assess behaviour, or assess a variable that can serve as a proxy for behaviour. For example, if a researcher was interested in assessing condom use behaviour as a dependent variable (i.e., the outcome of interest or desired response), the researcher could choose to assess intentions to use condoms with a self-report question (e.g., ‘I intend to use condoms the next time that I engage in sexual intercourse’). If the researcher was concerned about the social desirability bias, that person could choose to employ a behavioural measure as well. As it might be impractical and unethical to assess condom use behaviour in a laboratory, researchers can choose a proxy for behaviour instead. For instance, Stone and colleagues tested whether inducing hypocrisy (asking participants to publicly state reasons why condom use is important, and then prompting them to recall instances in the past when they did not use a condom) led to greater condom use than a control condition (participants who neither publicly stated reasons to use condoms or recalled instances where they did not use condoms), a publicly stating reasons to use condoms only condition, or a recalling instances where they did not use condoms only conditions (Stone, Aronson, Crain, Winslow, & Fried, 1994). For their dependent measure, they assessed condom purchasing behaviour. All participants were paid $4.00 for completing the study, and were given the opportunity to buy condoms for 10 cents each (i.e., participants could choose to spend their earnings to buy condoms). Specifically, 140 condoms were placed in a large glass bowl and there was a plate with coins in it so that students could ‘make change’ if necessary. Importantly, participants were left alone in the room so that they would have privacy while they purchased the condoms. Consistent with predictions, participants in the hypocrisy condition were more likely to purchase condoms than participants in the other three conditions (control condition, stating reasons to use condoms condition, or recalling past instances where condoms were not used condition). Here, condom purchasing behaviour was used as a proxy variable for condom use behaviour.

In addition to self-report and behavioural measures (or behavioural proxy measures), researchers can use measures that can make inferences about participants’ cognitive processes. Many of these tasks operate under the assumption that if a concept or construct is accessible, we will be faster to recognise that concept, relative to when it is not primed. For example, in the lexical decision task (Meyer & Schvaneveldt, 1971), participants are presented with words on a computer screen (e.g., apple, fight) and non-words (e.g., lopat, gern), and are simply asked to classify them as words or non-words by pressing keys on the keyboard. Their reaction times to make these classifications are recorded (in milliseconds). The logic of the lexical decision task is that if participants are ‘primed’ with a concept, they should be faster to recognise words related to that concept than words that are unrelated to that concept. As a simple example, if participants are thinking about aggression, they should be faster to recognise the word ‘fight’ than the word ‘apple’.

Social Psychology Researchers can use other techniques that employ reaction time data to make inferences about whether individuals hold positive or negative attitudes towards objects or people. Examples include using techniques such as the Associative Priming Task (APT; Fazio et al., 1995), the Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT: Greenwald et al., 1998), and the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP; Payne et al., 2005). The APT involves showing target images (photos or words) preceding exposure to positively or negatively valenced words. Participants then judge if the word presented was positive or negative. Response times are recorded, with the assumption that responses will be faster if the image and the word were affectively congruent and slower if the target and the words are affectively incongruent. The IAT assesses relative associations between the pairing of a target (in this case, the partner) with positively and negatively valenced words and images, with the logic that if individuals hold a positive attitude toward a target, response speed should be facilitated when the target is associated with positive stimuli, and impeded when the target is associated with negative stimuli. The AMP assesses attitudes toward a target by briefly exposing participants to the target (photos or words) before exposure to ambiguous stimuli (e.g., Chinese characters for non-Chinese readers). Later, participants evaluate the ambiguous stimuli. It has been demonstrated that participants’ attitudes toward the target will be misattributed to the ambiguous stimuli that were paired with the target, such that ratings of these ambiguous stimuli are influenced by their evaluation of the target object.

Sometimes, Social Psychology Researchers are interested in assessing participants’ physiological or neurological reactions to their environment. Put briefly, such measures can be relatively simple such as measuring heart rate or they can require laboratory analysis (e.g., assessing salivary cortisol levels) or complex technology (e.g., neuroimaging techniques such as electroencephalography (EEG, a technique that measures electrical activity in the brain) or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI, a technique that measures changes in blood flow in the brain).

In general, Social Scientists often use questionnaires or surveys to assess their constructs of interest. However, the answers participants provide on these explicit, self- report assessments are quite deliberative, and may reflect what the participant believes to be true at a reasoned, conscious level. Further, through the filters of self-report, one’s answers may also reflect biases. For this reason, researchers can use other measures such as behaviour, proxies for behaviour, cognitive, and/ or physiological measures as assessment tools.

Research Design

Although there are number of ways that one can classify research designs, we will focus on two main types of research methodology that are used in Social Psychology: Non- experimental and Experimental research. Non-experimental research seeks to examine whether two (or more) variables are related. Here, variables are measured, and researchers assess the degree of relationship among the variables. For example, if two measures are positively correlated (e.g., higher scores on one variable are associated with higher scores on the other variable), we know that the measures covary such that as one increases, the other increases (e.g., higher self-esteem scores are associated with higher scores of optimism). In contrast, if two measures are negatively correlated, (e.g., higher scores on one variable are associated with lower scores on the other variable), we know that the measures covary such that as one increases, the other decreases (e.g., higher self-esteem scores are associated with lower scores on a depression inventory).

It is important to recognise, however, that in a non-experimental design, a correlation does not necessarily imply causation. For instance, consider the correlation between playing violent video games (or violent online games) and aggression (see Anderson et al., 2010, for a review of this literature). An example of a non-experimental study might be to recruit a sample of children and measure the frequency with which participants play violent video games (either through self-report measures, or programs that track computer activity) as the predictor variable, and measure aggressive behaviour (e.g., through asking teachers or parents to complete measures of aggressive behaviour exhibited by the children) as the outcome variable. In this type of study, both variables (violent video game playing and aggression) are measured, and then researchers use statistics to assess the direction (positive or negative) and the magnitude (strength) of the statistical association between these two variables. Generally, in studies assessing violent video game playing and aggression, researchers find a positive correlation, indicating that the more violent video games that children play, the more likely they are to exhibit aggressive behaviour (Anderson et al., 2010).

Thus, it is important to understand how to interpret correlation analyses. For instance, what does a positive correlation tell us about the nature of the relationship between playing violent video games and aggression? It may seem that this tells us that playing violent video games causes aggression in children. This may be true, but importantly there are other plausible ways to interpret this relationship. It could also be true that children who are aggressive are more likely to choose to play violent video games than those who are less aggressive. This is another type of causal explanation, but posits that the causality is the other direction (aggressive tendencies lead to greater violent video games). Further, it could be a bi-directional relationship, where both types of causality are true (kids who play violent video games become more aggressive, and kids who are aggressive are more likely to play violent video games). Another possibility is that there is no causal relationship between violent video games and aggression, but that both are linked to a third variable (i.e., the relationship between playing violent video games and aggression is spurious). For example, it could be that compared to children who are more engaged in social activities, those who spend more time alone are more likely to play violent video games, and more likely to engage in aggressive behaviours. If the design of the study is non-experimental (again, this means that the variables are measured, and the researcher assesses the direction and magnitude of the association between the variables), one cannot know whether (a) playing violent video games causes more aggression, (b) kids with aggressive tendencies choose to play violent video games, (c) both causal directions are true, or (d) there is no causal relationship in either direction, but both violent video game playing and aggression are associated with another variable. Students with an education in methodology are trained to evaluate whether the design of a study is non-experimental, and recognise that causality cannot necessarily be inferred.

In experimental research, the goal is typically to identify a causal relationship. Researchers manipulate the independent variable (the presumed causal variable), while holding everything else constant to see if it exerts a change on the dependent variable (the outcome variable). For example, a researcher could select a sample of students from a larger population (e.g., a group of Introductory Psychology students at a University) and recruit them to participate in an experiment. Participants would then be assigned to an experimental condition that allows the researcher to isolate and manipulate the independent variable of interest (in this case, playing violent video games). In this experiment, the researcher might choose to manipulate the independent variable by asking half of the participants to play a violent video game, and the other half of the participants to play a non-violent video game. In an experiment, the researcher would be sure to isolate the independent variable by manipulating only the type of video game (violent or non-violent), while holding everything else constant (e.g., all participants would play in the same room, be greeted by the experimenter in the same way, play the video game for the same amount of time). To be sure that it is truly type of video game (and not anything else) that exerts a difference in the dependent variable, the researcher needs to know that the only difference between the violent video game condition and the non-violent video game condition is the type of game played.

A second critical feature of experiments is that participants are randomly assigned to a condition. Indeed, in our hypothetical experiment, if we gave participants a choice about which game they wished to play, it could be that those who choose to play the violent game are more aggressive than those who choose to play the non-violent game, which would make it impossible to tell whether playing the video game caused differences between the groups, or the groups varied on some other dimension that caused differences between the groups. Instead, through random assignment (where participants are randomly put in one of the two conditions, using a random numbers generator, or some other technique such as flipping a coin to determine which condition the participant will be assigned to), researchers can assume that at the outset of the experiment (i.e., before the manipulation of the independent variable, in this case the type of video game played), the two groups of participants were comparable on all dimensions prior to the experimental manipulation (in this case, playing a violent or non-violent video games). This means that any difference in the dependent variable observed after the manipulation can be attributed to the independent variable. That is, if we randomly assign students to a condition, we can assume that they are comparable on all aspects (including tendency toward aggression) at the start of the experiment. Then, if we manipulate what type of video game they play (half of our sample is randomly assigned to play violent video games, and half of our sample is randomly assigned to play non-violent video games) and hold everything else constant, and we find a difference in our dependent variable, we can infer that playing violent versus non-violent video games causes an increase in aggressiveness.

In this hypothetical study, the researchers would choose a dependent variable that would measure aggressive behaviour. Here, researchers are faced with an interesting challenge—they need to choose an outcome that is a valid operationalization of aggression that can be measured in a realistic and ethical way. Researchers can use self-report measures (such as the Conflict Tactics Scale, Straus, 1979), or scenario completion measures, where participants read about a hypothetical situation and are asked what they would do if faced with that scenario. These types of self-report measures are well-suited for some types of dependent measures, but as discussed above, in the case of aggression, people may be unwilling to say that they would respond with aggression because of the social desirability bias. Instead, researchers may choose to engineer a social situation in a laboratory that allows for the assessment of aggressive behaviour (for reviews see DeWall et al., 2013; McCarthy & Elson, 2018). Social Psychology Researchers studying aggression have employed techniques including administering fake electric shocks to a partner (e.g., Berkowitz & LePage, 1967; Taylor, 1967), administering blasts of loud noise to a partner (e.g., Anderson & Dill, 2000; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998), choosing how long a partner must hold their hand in a tub of very cold water (e.g., Pederson et al., 2014), choosing the difficulty level of yoga poses a partner must hold and the amount of time in these poses (e.g., Finkel et al., 2009), choosing how much hot (as in spicy) sauce to   put on mashed potatoes that a partner must eat (e.g., Lieberman et al., 1999;  Warburton et al., 2006), or counting the number of pins  that participants stick in a doll that represents a partner (e.g., Voodoo doll task, Slotter et al., 2012). Some of these tasks might seem far-fetched at first glance, but many have been demonstrated to be valid and reliable measures of aggression. For instance, DeWall and colleagues (2013) conducted nine studies demonstrating that the Voodoo doll task correlates with measures of trait aggression, self-reported history of aggression, other accepted laboratory measures of aggressiveness such as administering louder and more prolonged blast of noise, and is reasonably consistent over time. Thus, DeWall and colleagues have used scientific method to demonstrate the validity of using this task to measure aggression.

In review, we have focused on how two principles of experimentation, isolation and manipulation of an independent variable and random assignment of participants to experimental condition, allow researchers to determine whether one variable (the independent variable) causes a change in an outcome variable (the dependent variable). It is important to note that finding that a variable causes a change in the dependent variable does not necessarily imply that reverse causality is not true as well. It could be that the causal direction works in both ways. Further, even if researchers do show that one independent variable causes a change in the dependent variable, it is important to note that this does not imply that the independent is the only cause of the dependent variable—there may be many potential variables that can cause a change in the dependent variable.

We have also commented on the challenges posed to researchers as they seek to measure constructs that cannot be directly observed, and as they attempt to manipulate variables in the laboratory. Some variables cannot be experimentally manipulated, because it would not be possible to manipulate the construct of interest. For example, if a researcher is interested in assessing a trait variable such as extraversion as a predictor variable, it is not possible to randomly assign people to be high or low in extraversion. Further, if a researcher is interested in assessing whether the individuals with siblings are more communicative than only children, one cannot randomly assign people to the sibling or non-sibling conditions—we either have siblings or we do not. In other cases, it is not ethical to randomly assign people to condition.  There are many restrictions in place about administering potentially harmful substances to participants (e.g., some universities do  not allow any study involving the administration of alcohol, those that do allow it have procedures and restrictions in place to ensure that the administration is safe). When it is impossible or unethical to manipulate an independent variable, social psychologists rely on non-experimental research, but are careful not to draw conclusions about causality. For a broader discussion on ethics, please refer to Chapter 4.

Students of Social Psychology often enjoy learning about the clever and creative ways that researchers operationalise very dynamic ‘real-world’ experiences in a way that can be concretely and ethically manipulated in the laboratory. As just one example, psychologists have conducted research assessing the profound ways that experiences of ostracism and social rejection affect our mental and physical health (for reviews, see Williams, 2001; DeWall & Bushman, 2011). Most people would agree that empirically studying the effects of social rejection on outcomes is a worthwhile goal. However, how can Social Psychology Researchers manipulate rejection in a way that is (a) powerful enough to simulate the experience of rejection in the ‘real world’ and (b) ethical, so that participants are treated with respect and there is no lasting harm? Researchers have developed a number of clever paradigms to manipulate rejection, so that participants can be randomly assigned to a rejection or non-rejection condition, allowing researchers to assess the extent to which rejection exerts a change in the dependent variable.

This provides an example of a powerful, ‘real world’ phenomenon (rejection and ostracism) that can has been distilled to an experimental manipulation that can be readily employed  in the lab (participants can be randomly assigned to condition). Although the short-term effects of Cyberball are impactful, it is an ethical design to use, as the participants can be easily debriefed (informed of the purpose of the study, and any deception that occurred during the study) and told that they were not actually being excluded.

Applications of Social Psychology

One of the reasons that the scientific study of human behaviour is so appealing and exciting is that what students learn is readily applicable to their own lives.  Students of Social Psychology gain insight into processes and factors affecting our thoughts, feelings, and behaviour.  It is intriguing and instructive to learn about why we systematically (and repeatedly!) make errors in our judgments, attributions, and predictions (how many times do we underestimate how long it will take us to complete a task such as writing an essay?; Buehler et al., 1994). Students can usually relate to examples of how they have been influenced by compliance techniques (Cialdini, 2009), such as the scarcity principle, which is when items seem more valuable when they are viewed as rare or hard to get (e.g., becoming more interested in purchasing a product when told “Act now, they are selling out fast!”). Further, social psychology can often provide students with theoretical frameworks that provide insight to their own social behaviours. For example, learning about adult attachment orientations (see Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012) can help students to understand their own tendencies to react in specific ways within the context of their romantic relationships, and potentially use this increased understanding to improve their own relationships. For example, understanding how attachment can influence conflict behaviour can help students recognise problematic patterns and respond more constructively when conflict arises. Finally, there is some research assessing the effects of “enlightenment” on future behaviour; meaning that learning about findings in Social Psychology can influence how we react to situations in our daily lives. For example, there is evidence to suggest that learning about the Milgram obedience study can lead to greater cognitive moral development among university students (Sheppard & Young, 2007).

Social Psychology is also very useful in its application to society. Much of the basic research that is conducted can have practical benefits. For example, if scientists understand factors that predict a pattern of behaviour, and  identify the mechanisms underlying the relationship between predictors and outcomes, this knowledge can be applied to help encourage positive behaviours (e.g., increasing the efficacy of campaigns designed to encourage people to volunteer, recycle, or exercise) and prevent harmful behaviours (e.g., reduce the likelihood of workplace aggression, bystander apathy, drinking and driving, or academic dishonesty). Social Psychology can be applied to a variety of contexts including the workplace (e.g., what variables predict employee commitment to their organisation?), the classroom (e.g., how can teachers motivate students to persevere when they face challenges?), sports and athletics (e.g., when is a team most likely to exhibit the ‘home-field’ advantage?), and the military and government (i.e., what types of leadership is most effective in different contexts?). Again, a thorough review of all the possible applications of social psychology would be beyond the scope of this chapter, but we will provide you with some illustrative examples (see also Gruman et al., 2016; Myers et al., 2018).

Social Psychology and Health

There are many ways that Social Psychological principles can be applied to health behaviours.  For example, understanding persuasion and social influence can be applied to helping public health associations frame their messages so that their campaigns will be effective in encouraging healthy behaviours. This type of “Social Marketing” expertise is used to apply principles of persuasion and compliance in a way that will benefit individuals and society. For example, researchers have studied individual difference and contextual variables that influence the efficacy of framing a health behaviour in a way that emphasises promotion (e.g., “eating fruits and vegetables can help maintain good health”) or prevention (e.g., eating fruits and vegetables can help prevent various types of cancers”; see Rothman & Salovey, 1997).

Further, many widely applied theories in Health Psychology are based on core findings in Social Psychology. For example, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) is a theoretical model that can be used to predict a variety of behaviours, including health behaviours. It states that one’s attitudes towards a behaviour (whether we think our behaviours will produce certain outcomes, and our evaluation of those outcomes), subjective norms (whether we think that other will approve or disapprove of our behaviour, and our motivation to comply with their preferences), and perceived behavioural control (whether we think it is likely that we will be able to enact the behaviour) combine to form our intentions. Our intentions then predict our behaviour. This theory is readily applied to decisions to engage in a wide range of health behaviours, such as starting an exercise program, quitting smoking, applying sun-protection, condom use, and eating a more healthy diet. The Theory of Planned Behaviour also speaks to social influences on our decision-making, by positing that subjective norms are one of the three primary factors that influence our intentions to engage in behaviours.

Other researchers have applied Social Psychological principles to factors that promote mental health. Students of Social Psychology often find it amusing when they learn about biases, or “Positive Illusions” that individuals tend to hold about themselves (Taylor & Brown, 1988; Taylor, 1991). Indeed, researchers have established that non-depressed individuals make systematic errors when they make judgments about themselves. For example, individuals tend to rate themselves more positively than most other people would rate them (e.g., most people think that they are a better than average driver), they overestimate the degree of control they have over their environments, and they make unrealistically optimistic predictions about their futures (e.g., how long it will take them to complete tasks, how long their romantic relationships will endure). Taylor and colleagues have shown that these “illusions”—these consistent errors in judgment that we make about ourselves and our daily lives—are correlated with greater self-esteem, well-being, and health. In contrast, being realistic about our standing on various attributes or our chances of success is sometimes referred to as ‘depressive realism’ (Alloy & Abramson, 1979; Moore & Fresco, 2012).

Other Social Psychology Researchers have investigated the extent to which health is associated with the presence of, and quality of, our close relationships. There is much evidence to support the hypothesis that people who feel connected to others and report high levels of satisfaction with their close relationships are likely to enjoy better mental health, better physical health, and longer lives (House et al., 1988). This social connectedness plays an important role in protecting health into older adulthood, through reducing stress and improving health behaviours (Umberson et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2015). Interestingly, relative to those who have close and rewarding relationships with others, those who are lonely or isolated with a lack of support are more likely to exhibit poorer self-reported health (Yang et al., 2015), increased risk of heart attack (Carroll et al., 2013; Case et al., 1992), worse blood pressure regulation (Carroll et al., 2013; Uchino et al., 1996), poor sleep efficiency (Cacioppo et al., 2002), worse cardiovascular functioning (Hawkley et al., 2003), and worse immune functioning (Carroll et al., 2013) and other conditions exacerbated by chronic inflammation (Yang et al., 2013). As an illustrative example, Pressman and colleagues (2005) invited 83 healthy first-year university students to participate in a study. The participants completed a variety of self-report measures to assess loneliness, depression, neuroticism, and health behaviours. They were also given a flu shot. The mechanism behind a flu shot is that a dormant version of the virus is injected, and in response, the immune system “kicks in” and produces antibodies, which will then be in place should a person contract the flu virus. Individuals with more healthy immune systems produce more antibodies in response to a vaccine than those with less optimal immune functioning. To test immune function, participants returned to the lab 1 month and 4 months after receiving their flu shot, and their blood was tested for flu antibodies. There was a negative correlation between loneliness and antibodies present in the blood, such those who reported more loneliness had fewer flu antibodies relative to those who were less lonely. Interestingly, the correlation between loneliness and flu antibodies was still evident after controlling for the effects of depression, health behaviours, and neuroticism. Studies such as these demonstrate the importance of social relationships for not just our mental health, but our physical health as well. Further, Social and Health Psychological Researchers have worked to identify the mechanisms underlying the association between satisfying relationships and physical health.

Social Psychology and the Legal System

Social Psychology can be readily applied to many aspects of the legal system including jury decision making and eye-witness testimony.  A jury is a group of citizens tasked with reviewing evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence team, and deciding whether a defendant is guilty. Social Psychological Researchers study relevant concepts such as majority influence (a common phenomenon when a numerical majority can persuade a numerical minority) and minority influence (a less common phenomenon such that when specific conditions are met, a numerical minority can persuade a numerical majority). Indeed, the classic movie “12 Angry Men” (Fonda et al., 1957, a movie which depicts a lone juror eventually persuading his 11 fellow jury members to reconsider their initial decision) is often shown in classes as a demonstration of the processes underlying minority influence.

Eyewitness testimony is when people who witnessed an event describe what they remember, and this is presented as evidence to the court. Social Psychological Researchers study processes such as how our attitudes and expectations can influence what we notice about an event, how we interpret an event, and what we remember about an event. There are many factors that can cause individuals to make errors at each step in this sequence (attention, encoding, and retrieval), and psychologists have studied factors that influence the veracity of eyewitness testimony.  Interestingly, the cues that jurors use to make decisions about the credibility of eyewitnesses are sometimes unrelated, or even inversely related, to their accuracy. For example, Bell and Loftus (2006) found that jurors deem witnesses who can provide extensive details of background variables of the crime scene to be more credible than witnesses less able to provide such descriptions. The relative credibility of the witness was impacted by the relative detail of witness testimony. However, in reality, witnesses who can describe background details have been found to be less accurate at identifying a perpetrator than those who cannot recall background details.

Social Psychology and the Workplace

Social Psychology is closely related to Organisational Psychology. Chapter 10 includes a detailed overview of Industrial, Work and Organisational Psychology (IWOP) field. Principles of Social Psychology can be applied to benefit the organisation (e.g., assessing factors associated with increased productivity, efficiency, and employee commitment and loyalty) and the employees (e.g., assessing factors associated with workplace satisfaction, group morale, and the physical and mental health of employees). Further, the study of personality and individual differences can be applied to employee recruitment and personnel selection.

Many workplaces involve working collaboratively with other individuals or on teams. As such, core topics in Social Psychology such as social influence, conformity, group decision- making, interpersonal relationships, altruism, and aggression can all be applied to the goal of making workplaces effective, satisfying, and safe. For example, Social Psychological Researchers have studied topics such as Social Loafing (the tendency to work less hard on a group task relative to the effort that is expended when people work individually; Latané et al., 1979), Group Polarisation (the tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the individual members’ starting position; Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969) and Groupthink (the tendency for individuals in groups to be concerned with agreeing with the group, instead of raising disparate opinions; Janis, 1971). Importantly, Social Psychological Researchers have not only studied these group processes that can potentially undermine organisational efficiency, but they have studied ways to mitigate and prevent these processes.

Most workplaces employ leaders or managers at different levels who are responsible for motivating their teams to work productively and achieve goals, facilitating communication and positive relationships among group members, and provide performance feedback to their group members. Organisational Psychologists assess factors that make a good leader, different leadership styles (i.e., task leadership, transactional leadership, and transformational leadership) and the types of leadership that are most effective depending on the context (e.g., contingency leadership; Fiedler, 1967). In the workplace, this research can be applied to leadership training and promotion decisions.

Interestingly, some theories  in the Interpersonal Relationships literature can be applied to the workplace. For example, the Investment Model (Rusbult, 1980)      was introduced to the literature to explain commitment to a romantic relationship. Specifically, Rusbult posited that commitment to a relationship is determined by three predictors: Satisfaction, Investments, and Alternatives. Satisfaction refers to the presences of positive aspects, and the absence of negative aspects in our relationship, such that we are more likely to stay in a relationship if we find it satisfying. This is because our individual and social expectations will influence the choice we make when committing to romantic partners or our professional careers.

Accordingly, the seminal work of Sternberg (1986) theorises true love is a product of commitment, intimacy, and passion. But the reality is much more complex. For instance, Fletcher and colleagues (Fletcher & Simpson, 2000; Fletcher et al., 2004) argue that mate selection involves a trade-off of different desirable characteristics, such as kindness, physical attractiveness, and wealth. This is because, in reality, it is highly improbable that one individual will be able meet all these standards. Therefore, expectations are often modified to justify partner selection with compromises made to the “ideal standard” (Karantzas et al., 2019). This finding somewhat explains why people might stay in romantic relationships even though they do not seem entirely satisfied or happy.

Generally speaking, commitment or investment refers to intangible or tangible things that we have put into a relationship that we will not recover if the relationship was to end (e.g., resources such as money, time put into the relationship, sacrifices we have made for the sake of the relationship). People who have invested more in their relationship are more committed. Finally, alternative refers to what we think our life would be like without the relationship (e.g., being single, being with a new [unknown] partner, or being in a relationship with a specific person that we think would be a potential new partner). If people believe that their current relationship is better than other relationships that they are likely to find (or being single), then they are likely to stay committed to the relationship. Interestingly, these same factors can be applied to whether we stay committed to our workplaces (Farrell & Rusbult, 1981; Oliver, 1990). When making stay or leave decisions, we consider our satisfaction with the workplace (e.g., “do I like coming to work? Am I fulfilled by this job”), the investments we have made (e.g., “will I lose my long service leave if I resign? Can I walk away from a place I have worked for 20 years?”), and the alternatives that we have (e.g., “Can I afford to be unemployed for a while? Will I be more fulfilled by taking this new position that has become available?).

Careers in Social Psychology

The scientific study of how our thoughts, feelings, and behaviours are influenced by our social situations can help us understand, and relate to, others.  Moreover, students with an undergraduate degree in Psychology typically receive strong training in research methodology and statistics, which are highly transferrable skills. Further, the study of Psychology entails not only rigorous methodological and statistical competencies, but higher-order conceptual and analytical skills. In particular, psychology students are taught to evaluate findings and observations from larger theoretical frameworks, to question underlying mechanisms for observed relationships, and identify the core underlying principles that guide our thoughts and behaviours. In other words, students of psychology are able to leverage a conceptual understanding of human behaviour, in addition to more specific research-related skillsets. For these reasons, psychology students are ideal candidates for a number of critical industry positions that require an understanding of industry-relevant human behaviour or functioning, using sound methodologies and analyses.

There are number of entry-level positions for students with an undergraduate degree in Psychology. Just a few examples include research analyst, policy analyst, research or lab assistant, human resource administration or in specialty areas (e.g., recruitment), and assistant or associate employment consultant roles with job network agencies. Additionally, with appropriate experience, graduates can pursue careers as probation and parole officers or case workers in fields such as social and human services.

Research Analyst

A number of industry and governmental agencies (e.g., marketing, health) require research analysts to help them conduct research relevant to their field and organisational mandate. Analysts may either assist the research activities of more senior analysts, or may organise and conduct their own research activities including survey development, data collection, data analysis, report writing, and producing or delivering presentations. This may include an assessment of the organisation’s internal database, or the collection of data external to the organisation. Analysts may be asked to use their findings to make policy or program recommendations, depending on the nature of the research, the organisation, and one’s position.

Policy Analyst

The research skills of psychology graduates can also be used to inform policy (e.g., education and health sectors). Policy analysts use evidence-informed research to develop short-term and long-term policies and procedures for the relevant agency. Some of these duties would overlap with those of a research analyst, but with the additional tasks of using research to inform policy development, which could include training materials and guides that support those policies.

Research or Lab Assistant

Students with an undergraduate degree in Psychology can apply their research skills by working in a lab as a research assistant at a university, hospital, or research agency. Research assistants typically work with graduate students and researchers by recruiting participants for research studies, collecting data, analysing data, and helping to summarise the research for presentations or publications.

Human Resources Advisor/ Specialist

There are some positions within human resource departments that do not require an advanced degree, and that utilise many of the skills and competencies acquired by undergraduates in psychology. In particular, psychology students can work as consultants in a human resources department in industry, or within an organisational development firm. Organisational development as a field involves the application of social psychological principles to help improve employee and organisational performance and effectiveness. Specifically, organisational developers help to produce change in an institution’s systems, structures and processes, including the employees working within those systems The process of organizational development typically includes a diagnosis of organisational  problems and current functioning through collection and analysis of data, designing and implementing interventions for change, and evaluating the effectiveness of those  interventions afterwards (Cummings & Worley, 2009). Human resources advisors involve the application of research and statistical competencies in the recruitment and selection of personnel, employee training and development, and performance assessment and management (Boxall et al., 2007).

Human Resources Specialist often include the following titles: human resources assistant, human resources coordinator, human resources manager, human resources officer, human resources services advisor. Human Resource Specialists are involved in the recruitment process within an organisation and screen, interview, and recruit new employees. More recently, there has been a growth in initiatives that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace (Rabenu, 2021) which rely on the principles that have come from social psychological research.

Polling Organisations

As part of an undergraduate education in Psychology, many students learn about survey design and test construction. This skill set can be applied to work at Polling organisations (e.g., AC Neilson Polling, Galaxy Polling, Newspoll, Roy Morgan, YouGov), where employees plan and design surveys and test instruments, conduct research to assess the psychometric properties of the instruments, collect data, and then analyse and summarise the data for presentation to the client. In this way, working at a polling organisation is specific type of consulting, specialising in test and survey construction, validation, and analysis. From this, researchers give marketers reliable and objective information with which to inform marketing and sales programs, or insight into public opinion pertaining to state and federal politics.

Market Research

Market researchers (also known as market research analyst, marketing specialist, marketing officer) use their research training to help companies become more productive and profitable by making sound economic, political, and social decisions. They monitor and forecast sales trends, and collect data about customers. For example, they may design surveys or conduct focus group research to assess customer satisfaction, marketing strategies, corporate branding, or factors that affect customer loyalty. They analyze these data, summarise their findings, and prepare reports to inform businesses how to best market their products or services.

Consulting Careers

Consultants use their skills, expertise, and knowledge to help individuals or organisations with a specific goal. One can work for a large consulting firm as a consultant or project manager (e.g., Bain Australia, KPMG Strategy, and Monitor Deloitte). It is also possible to specialise further to a specific type of consulting work. Specific examples of consultants include (but are not limited to) Trial Consultant, Media Consultant, Market Consultant, Executive Search Consultant, and Organisational Development Consultant.

Career Paths for Those With PhD In Social Psychology

Academic Positions

Many students who graduate with a PhD in Social Psychology go on to work as an Academic or Lecturer at Universities.  Academics conduct and publish research to advance the field of social psychology, supervise graduate and undergraduate student research activities, teach at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and are responsible for administrative duties. Lecturers typically focus on teaching duties, by utilising their knowledge of research methods and social psychological principles to teach courses at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Although many individuals with postgraduate training in Social Psychology go on to work in academic positions within Psychology Departments, others hold Academic or Lecturer positions in other departments, such as Business Schools.

Research Positions Outside of Academia

A PhD  in Social Psychology can prepare students for a wide variety of research jobs outside of universities or colleges. Some examples are described below.

Research Scientists

Research Scientists work for governmental agencies such as the Defence Science and Technology Group, which is part of the Australian Department of Defence, and is tasked with providing science and technology support to protect Australian and its national interests. Additionally, the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation), is Australia’s largest government funded science agency responsible for scientific research. The use of theoretical frameworks, in addition to qualitative and quantitative methodological and statistical competencies, can be appealing and very relevant for this type of research, making graduates with a PhD in Social Psychology desirable candidates for such positions.

Further, the examples of career paths described as possible trajectories for individuals with an undergraduate education in Psychology (e.g., careers in Consulting, Policy Analysis, Market Analysis, Polling, Research Analysis, or Organisational Behavior) are also very good options for those with a PhD  in Social Psychology. A graduate degree makes it possible to apply for positions that are higher than entry-level jobs, so a greater degree of options in these exciting career paths are available to those with a postgraduate degree. 

This chapter has been adapted by Carla Jeffries and Raquel Peel, School of Psychology and Wellbeing, University of Southern Queensland. It has been adapted from MacDonald, T. K., Wood, V., & Refling, E. (2019). Social psychology. In M. E. Norris (Ed.), The Canadian Handbook for Careers in Psychological Science. Kingston, ON: eCampus Ontario. Licensed under CC BY NC 4.0. Retrieved from https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/psychologycareers/chapter/social-psychology/

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Alloy, L. B., & Abramson, L. Y. (1979). Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: Sadder but wiser? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 441-485. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-3445.108.4.441

Australian Psychological Society (APS). (2021a). APS College of Organisational Psychologists. APS.  https://groups.psychology.org.au/cop/

Australian Psychological Society (APS). (2021b). Careers in psychology. APS.  https://psychology.org.au/careers

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772-790. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp784772.pdf

Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., . . . Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151-173. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-2-151.pdf

Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35. https://www.lucs.lu.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Asch-1955-Opinions-and-Social-Pressure.pdf

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (2006). Degree of Detail of Eyewitness Testimony and Mock Juror Judgments, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(14), 1171–1192. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb01200.x

Berkowitz, L., & LePage, A. (1967). Weapons as aggression-eliciting stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 202-207. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0025008

Boxall, P. F., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. M. (2007). The Oxford handbook of human resource management. Oxford University Press.

Buehler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 366-381. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366

Bushman B. J., & Baumeister R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219–229 http://persweb.wabash.edu/facstaff/hortonr/articles%20for%20class/Bushman%20and%20Baumeister.pdf

Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Bernston, G. C., Ernst, J. M., Gibbs, A. C., Stickgold, R., & Hobson, J. A. (2002). Do lonely days invade the nights? Potential social modulation of sleep efficiency. Psychological Science, 13, 384-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00469

Carroll, J. E., Gruenwald, T.L., Taylor, S.E., Janicki-Deverts, D., Matthews, K. A., & Seeman, T.E. (2013). Childhood abuse, parental warmth, and adult multisystem biological risk in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study. PNAS, 110(42), 17149-17153.

Case R. B., Moss A. J., Case N., McDermott M., & Eberly S. (1992). Living alone after myocardial infarction. Impact on prognosis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267, 515–519. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1729573/

Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and Practice. Pearson Education.

Crocker, J., Thompson, L. L., McGraw, K. M., & Ingerman, C. (1987). Downward comparison, prejudice, and evaluations of others: Effects of self-esteem and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 907–916. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1103

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2009) Organization development & change (9th ed.). South Western Cengage Learning.

DeWall, C. N., & Bushman, B. J. (2011). Social acceptance and rejection: The sweet and the bitter. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 256–260. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963721411417545

DeWall, C. N., Finkel, E. J., Lambert, N. M., Slotter, E. B., Bodenhausen, G. V., Pond, R. S., … Fincham, F. D. (2013). The voodoo doll task: Introducing and validating a novel method for studying aggressive inclinations. Aggressive Behavior, 39, 419-439. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21496

Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1981). Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover: The impact of rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 78-95. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/0030-5073(81)90016-7

Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013–1027. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1013

Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.

Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., Oaten, M., & Foshee, V. A. (2009). Self-regulatory failure and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 483-499. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0015433

Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 102-105. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00070

Fletcher, G. J. O., Tither, J. M., O’Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 659-672. doi: 10.1177/0146167203262847

Fonda, H. (Producer), Justin, G. (Associate Producer), Rose, R. (Producer), & Lumet, S. (Director). (1957). 12 angry men [Motion Picture]. Nova Productions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)

Funder, David C. (2008). Persons, Situations, and Person–Situation Interactions. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, Eds. John, Oliver P., Robins, Richard W., & Pervin, Lawrence A. Guilford Press, 568–80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315716463_Persons_situations_and_person-situation_interactions

Gerber, J., Wheeler, L. (2009). On being rejected: A meta-analysis of experimental research on rejection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 468–488. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1745-6924.2009.01158.x

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464- 1480.  https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464

Gruman, J., Schneider, F., & Coutts, L. (Eds.). (2016). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Hartgerink, C. H., van Beest, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (2015) The ordinal effects of ostracism: a meta-analysis of 120 cyberball studies. PLoS ONE 10:e0127002. https://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0127002

Hawkley, L. C., Burleson, M. H., Berntson, G. G., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2003). Loneliness in everyday life: Cardiovascular activity, psychosocial context, and health behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 105-120. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.105

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationship and health. Science, 241, 540-545. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3399889

Iacoviello, V. & Spears, R. (07 June 2021). Playing to the gallery: Investigating the normative explanation of ingroup favoritism by testing the impact of imagined audience. Self and Identity. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2021.1933582

Janis, I. L. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today, 5, 43-46. https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/basics/groupthink

Karantzas, G. C., Simpson, J. A., Overall, N. C., & Campbell, L. (2019). The association between attachment orientations and partner evaluations: An ideal standards perspective. Personal Relationships. doi: 10.1111/pere.12297

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 308–324. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0026570

Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822

Lieberman, J. D., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J. L., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). A hot new way to measure aggression: Hot sauce allocation. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 331-348 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1999)25:5%3C331::AID-AB2%3E3.0.CO;2-1

McCarthy, R. J., & Elson, M. (2018). A conceptual review of lab-based aggression paradigms. Collabra: Psychology, 4, 1-12. http://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.104

Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227-234. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0031564

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). Attachment theory. In P. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology. (pp. 160-180). SAGE Publications.

Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57-76. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872676501800105

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper Collins.

Moore, M. T., & Fresco, D. M. (2012). Depressive realism: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 496-509. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2012.05.004

Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125-135. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0027568

Myers, D. G., Spencer, S. J., & Jordan, C. H. (2018). Social Psychology (7th Canadian ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231

Oliver, N.  (1990). Rewards, investments, alternatives and organizational commitment: Empirical and evidence and theoretical development. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00507.x

Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., & Stewart, B. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 277-293. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277

Pederson, W. C., Vasquez, E. A., Bartholow, B. D., Grosvenor, M., & Truong, A. (2014). Are you insulting me? Exposure to alcohol primes increases aggression following ambiguous provocation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1037–1049 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167214534993

Pressman, S. D., Cohen, S., Miller, G. E., Barkin, A., Rabin, B. S., & Treanor, J. J. (2005). Loneliness, social network size, and immune response to influenza vaccination in college freshman. Health Psychology, 24, 297-306. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.348

Rabenu, E. (2021). Twenty-first century workplace challenges: Perspectives and implications for relationships in new era organizations. Lexington Books.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press.

Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behaviour: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3-19. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4

Sheppard, J. P., & Young, M. (2007) The routes of moral development and the impact of exposure to the Milgram obedience study. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9255-6

Slotter, E. B., Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Pond, R. S., Jr., Lambert, N. M., Bodenhausen, G.  V., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Putting the brakes on aggression toward a romantic partner: The inhibitory influence of relationship commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 291-305. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0024915

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119

Stone, J., Aronson, E., Crain, A. L., Winslow, M. P., & Fried, C. B. (1994). Inducing hypocrisy as a means of encouraging young adults to use condoms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 116-128. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0146167294201012

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/351733

Tajfel, H. (1979). Individuals and groups in social psychology. British Journal of Social, & Clinical Psychology, 18, 183-190. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1979.tb00324.x

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986) The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 5, 7-24. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.4324/9780203505984-16

Taylor, S. (1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression. Journal of Personality, 35, 297–310. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01430.x

Taylor, S. E. (1991). Positive illusions: Creative self-deception and the healthy mind. Basic Books.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193

Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1996). The relationship between social support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 488-531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.3.488

Umberson, D., Crosnoe, R., & Reczek, C. (2010). Social Relationships and Health Behavior Across Life Course. Annual Review Sociology, 36, 139–157. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120011.

Warburton, W. A., Williams, K. D., & Cairns, D. R. (2006). When ostracism leads to aggression: The moderating effects of control deprivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 213–220. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.005

Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. Guilford.

Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K. T., & Choi, W. (2000). CyberOstracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-762. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.748

Williams, K. D., & Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Behavior Research Methods, 38(1), 174–180. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2FBF03192765

Yang, Y.C., Boen, C., Gerken, K., Li, T., Schorpp, K., & Harris, K.M. (2015). Social relationships and physiological determinants of longevity across the human life span. PNAS, 113(3), 578-583.

Yang, C.Y., McClintok, M. K., Kozloski, M & Li, T. (2013). Social Isolation and Adult Mortality: The Role of Chronic Inflammation and Sex Differences. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 54(2), 183–203. doi:10.1177/0022146513485244