Social Psychology

Social psychology is the study of how individuals perceive, influence, and relate to others.
According to Gordon All port's classic definition, social psychology is an attempt to understand
and explain how the thought, feeling, and behavior of individuals is influenced by the actual,
imagined, or implied presence of others. By imagined or implied presence, Allport is suggesting
that the effects of social influence are felt even when there are no other people.

Individual Social Behavior

Individual Social behavior is a term used to describe the general conduct exhibited by individuals
within a society. It is essentially in response to what is deemed acceptable by a person’s peer
group or involves avoiding behavior that is characterized as unacceptable. This type of human
behavior primarily determines how individuals interact with one another within a group or society.
While social conduct is often modeled to create a comfortable social environment, anti-social
behavior, such as aggression, scapegoating and group bullying, may also be defined as negative
social behavior, particularly in instances where other individuals within a peer group all behave
accordingly. Just as positive interactions among individuals in a society help create a pleasant
environment for citizens, activities defined by peer groups to be acceptable, even if harmful to
select individuals or subgroups within a society, are also part of social behavior. Studies of
massive rights violations have helped illustrate the extent by which harmful, but socially
acceptable, behaviors have persisted in some societies. Examples of widespread acceptance of
negative behavior within a peer group include historical incidents of mass genocide and human
enslavement.

A. Perceiving Social Phenomena

Social phenomena include all behavior that influences or is influenced by organisms sufficiently
alive to respond to one another.

I. Social Information Processing

Social information processing theory, also known as SIP, is an interpersonal communication

theory and media studies theory developed in 1992 by Joseph Walther.[1] Social information
processing theory explains online interpersonal communication without nonverbal cues and how
people develop and manage relationships in a computer-mediated environment.[1] While the term
has traditionally referred to those communications that occur via computer-mediated formats
(e.g., instant messages, e-mails, chat rooms), it has also been applied to other forms of text-
based interaction such as text messaging.[2] In computer-mediated environments, interpersonal
relationship development may require more time to develop than traditional face-to-face (FtF)
relationships.[3] Social information processing theory argues that online interpersonal
relationships may demonstrate the same relational dimensions and qualities as FtF relationships.
These online relationships may help facilitate interactions that would not have occurred face-to-
face due to factors such as geography and intergroup anxiety.

II. Information Impact and Information Formation

Social Information Processing has become more prominent in today's society with the addition
of using computers in an online setting to communicate with someone. This is also apparent
in the area of leadership and telecommuting. Paul E. Madlock from Texas A&M International
University has conducted a variety of research in organizational communication, where he
also implemented the ideas of Walther into some of his work. In his article titled 'The
Influence of Supervisors' Leadership Style on Telecommuters' he talks about the most
effective style of leadership in today's Digital Age, which is focused on the use of technology.
 SIP can be related to the style and content of the message, as well as the timing that the
message is presented, whether that be synchronously or asynchronously. In this study,
Madlock got organizations that utilize telecommuting to fill out a survey because on their job
satisfaction and the satisfaction that they feel when leadership is communicated through a
computer, whether that be something like Skype, Instant Messaging, cell phones, email and
via voice. Employees were able to develop a better connection with their leadership team
through telecommuting, if it was task orientated and the information was presented in a
realistic format that represented who they were, as opposed to a fake personality.

At the start of the 1990s, after the advent of the Internet and the World Wide Web, interest
grew in studying how the Internet impacted the ways people communicate with each
other. Joseph Walther, a communication and media theorist, said that computer-mediated
communication (CMC) users can adapt to this restricted medium and use it effectively to
develop close relationships. Walther understood that to describe the new nature of online
communication required a new theory.[1] Social information processing theory focuses on the
social processes that occur when two or more people are engaged in communication, similar
to theories such as social presence theory, social penetration theory, and uncertainty
reduction theory. What makes SIP different from these theories is its distinct focus on
communication mediated solely by information and communications technologies. While
other media theories exist, such as media richness theory and uses and gratifications theory,
SIP specifically focuses on relationships entirely mediated online.

This theory takes influence from the theory of managerial media selection, originally titled
Social Information Processing Theory by Salancik and Pfeffer (1978). They state that a
manager's perception of organization is attributed to the social information that is generated
by a coworker in relation to the manager. This variation of the theory is well before the time
of CMC and social media, to it emphasized real life qualities on how managers perceive
reflections of others. This was later applied to the richness of email when that became
available in the late 1980s. The latter part of this later became known as social influence
theory of CMC. 

B. Person Perception

In social psychology, the term person perception refers to the different mental processes that we
use to form impressions of other people. This includes not just how we form these impressions,
but the different conclusions we make about other people based upon our impressions. Consider
how often you make these kinds of judgments every day. When you meet with a new co-worker,
you immediately begin to develop an initial impression of this person. When you visit the grocery
store after work, you might draw conclusions about the cashier who checks you out, even though
you know very little about this person.

I. Self-Perception and Attribution

Self-Perception is the people's attitude toward and beliefs about themselves, largely
formed during childhood and adolescence and often a reflection of other people’s
perceived attitudes. How would you describe yourself? Self-perceptions are greatly
affected by other people's perceived attitudes. Thus, when social psychologists study
self-perceptions, they examine how other perception influences everyday behavior.

Attribution is the process by which someone infers other people's motives and intentions
from observing their behavior and deciding whether the causes of the behavior are
dispositional (internal) or situational (external). Through attribution, people decide how
they will react toward others; they attempt to evaluate and to make sense of their social
 word.

II. Rules Governing the Attribution Process

Attribution is considered to be a three-stage process. First, the behavior of an individual

must be observed. Second, the perceiver must determine that the behavior they have
observed is deliberate. That is, the person being observed is believed to have behaved
intentionally. Finally, the observer attributes the observed behavior to either internal or
external causes. Internal causes are attributed to the person being observed, while
external causes are attributed to outside factors. The two internal attributions one can
make are that a person's ability or a person's effort determined the outcome. Task
difficulty and luck are the external causes of behavior. When perceiving behavior, an
observer will make a judgment as to which of these factors is the cause of behavior.
However, when deciding between internal and external causes of behavior, the perceiver
must examine the elements of consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus.

III. Factors Affecting Judgment

The present study investigated the effects of three situational factors on judgment of
future performance, judgment confidence and judgment-performance correspondence
research participants were familiarized with the performance task under varying
conditions of monetary rewards, perceive internal control, in private/public disclosure of
the judgment. Judgment performance and confidence were highest when individuals
perceive high levels of internal control and monetary rewards (both contingent and non-
contingent) were present. Persistence was greatest under the condition of contingent
reward and high perceive internal control, however, actual performance was not affected
by any of the situational factors. Measures of judgment accuracy and judgment-
performances relations indicated that the correspondence between judgment of future
performance and actual performance varied as a function of the situational factors.
Specifically, individuals overestimated the ir future performance level the least when
perceive internal control was low and when no monetary rewards were involved. The
judgment performance relations were the strongest with no monetary rewards, high
perceived internal control, and public disclosure in the judgments. Satisfaction with the
performance on the almanac task negatively related to degree to which judgment of
future performance exceeded actual performance levels. These results are discussed in
a theoretical frame work that contrast judgment of future.

IV. Stereotyping and Prejudice

Stereotyping - attraction, as we have just seen, is the result of several factors: availability,
similarity, rewards, and so on. But there is a process that can short-circuit the connection
between these factors and attraction. Imagine that your next-door neighbor is similar to
you in attitudes, complementary to you in personality needs, competent in his work, and
handsome as well, to say nothing of being geographically close and thus extremely
available for interaction. But aside from taking note of his physical attractiveness and his
proximity, you never give yourself the chance to find out all the good things about him.
Why? Because you are black and he is white, or you are heterosexual and he is
homosexual. knowing that he belongs to a group different from yours, you assign to him a
number of personality traits that you think "Go with" that group membership (Nisbett and
Ross, 1980). And this set of assigned traits blocks your access to any more accurate
information. You have "placed" him; you don't need to know anything more.
 Prejudice - is a kind of attitude where one has made up his/her mind even before all the
facts are known or has come to one's attention. It is often a matter of prejudgment.
Prejudice is generally (1) highly emotional in character, (2) rigidly or inflexibility felt and
acted on by group members (meaning they will not listen to reason), and (3) negative (the
object of the prejudice is disliked and the group's tendency is to mistreat or discriminate
members of the disliked group.

C. Belief, Attitude, Value System

I. Definition

In our various roles, our beliefs, values and attitudes are constantly interacting
with those of our peers, friends, family or teachers. We seem to instinctively 'like'
the individuals who share our core values and beliefs. Harmonizing our value
systems is what makes a relationship successful, be it personal, educational or
professional.

II. Its Effect on Behavior

Behaviors are how these internalized systems (attitudes, beliefs and values) are
expressed. These factors heavily influence the ability to learn and organize
knowledge and skills. In order to influence performance in a learning context or
an organization (or even at home!), one needs to be aware of the key differences
between these constructs. Feedback on attitudes will always be perceived as
judgmental as it is about others' behavior filtered through our value systems. It is
better, therefore, to provide feedback on behaviors. It is even better to determine
ideal behaviors for an organization, situation or learning environment and set the
scene before the behaviors are being assessed. This way, feedback can be
contextualized on behavior that is observed and factual. This reduces the
potential for conflict and low morale.

III. Attitude Formation and Theoretical Framework

An attitude is a general and lasting positive or negative opinion or feeling about

some person, object, or issue. Attitude formation occurs through either direct
experience or the persuasion of others or the media. Attitudes have three
foundations: affect or emotion, behavior, and cognitions. In addition, evidence
suggests that attitudes may develop out of psychological needs (motivational
foundations), social interactions (social foundations), and genetics (biological
foundations), although this last notion is new and controversial.

The MODE Model

Sometimes people’s attitudes predict their behavior and sometimes they don’t.
Most people have a positive attitude toward donating money to charity, but they
don’t tend to give their hard-earned cash away whenever a charitable
organization requests it. Similarly, many White individuals harbor a negative
prejudice toward Blacks, but they often treat many Black individuals they meet
with kindness and respect. Why do people’s behaviors seem to naturally flow
from their attitudes on some occasions but not on others? The MODE model
 (motivation and opportunity as determinants of the attitude-behavior relationship)
addresses this question.

Key Concepts

Before describing the model, it is important to clarify some concepts.

Attitude means any positive or negative association that one has with a
given object, which can be anything—a person, political issue, food, and
so on. According to the MODE model, one’s attitude toward an object,
say, one’s mother, is an association in memory between the attitude
object (mother), and one’s evaluation of it (positive or negative). Thus, for
many objects in one’s memory, there is an evaluation directly linked to it.
Importantly, the strength of this association can vary. For some attitude
objects, there is a very weak link between the object and its evaluation.
This would be the case for someone who, for example, has weak
attitudes toward various brands of dish detergent. On the other hand,
sometimes the link in memory between an object and its evaluation is
very strong, as when someone has a strong positive attitude toward his
or her mother. Sometimes the link between an object and its evaluation
is so strong that merely seeing the object automatically activates the
attitude. If seeing a picture of your mother immediately produces warm,
positive feelings, then your attitude toward your mother is automatically
activated.

IV. Attitude Change, Obstacles, and Resistance to Persuasion

Attitude Change Definition

 Attitudes are general evaluations of objects, ideas, and people one
encounters throughout one’s life (e.g., “capital punishment is bad”).
Attitudes are important because they can guide thought, behavior, and
feelings. Attitude change occurs anytime an attitude is modified. Thus,
change occurs when a person goes from being positive to negative, from
slightly positive to very positive, or from having no attitude to having one.
Because of the functional value of attitudes, the processes that change
them have been a major focus throughout the history of social
psychology.

Dual Process Approach to Attitude Change

According to dual process models of attitude change, research on this

topic can be organized according to two general types of processes: (1)
those that occur when one puts forth relatively little cognitive effort, and
(2) those that occur with relatively high cognitive effort. The amount of
thought and effort used in any given situation is determined by many
variables, all of which affect one’s motivation or ability to think. Some
examples include one’s personal preference for engaging in complex
thought, the personal relevance of the attitude object, and the amount of
distraction present while attempting to think. Furthermore, both high- and
low-effort processes can operate whether or not a persuasive message
is presented.

Low-Effort Processes

When factors keep one’s motivation and/or ability to think low (such as
when the issue is not personally relevant or there are many distractions
present), attitude change can be produced by a variety of low-effort
processes. These include some largely automatic associative processes
as well as simple inferential processes.

Associative Processes

Classical Conditioning. One way to produce attitude change in the

absence of effortful thought is to repeatedly associate an initially neutral
attitude object with another stimulus that already possesses a positive or
negative meaning. For example, imagine that every time you saw your
uncle as a child he took you to the zoo. Assuming you enjoy going to the
zoo, you will likely start to feel more positively toward your uncle. If,
instead, every time you saw him he took you to the doctor to get your
immunization shots, the opposite result is more likely. Although research
on this process has demonstrated that it is most effective for previously
neutral stimuli (such as novel words or objects), significant attitude
change has also been found for positive and negative attitude objects as
well. One series of studies found that repeatedly pairing words related to
the self (e.g., I and me) with positive stimuli caused significant increases
in a later measure of participants’ self-esteem. Thus, continually
associating an attitude object or message with something you already
like (e.g., an attractive source) can lead to positive attitudes.
Affective Priming. Another process that involves the association of two
stimuli is called affective priming. In this process a positive or negative
stimulus (e.g., words such as love or murder) is encountered just prior to
a novel attitude object (rather than following it, as occurs in classical
conditioning). When this happens, one’s reaction to the positive or
negative stimulus will come to color the evaluation of the new object,
producing attitude change. Imagine, for instance, that you are at an
unfamiliar restaurant and are about to try a totally new dish. If this meal is
brought to you by a very attractive waiter or waitress, your positive
reaction toward this server is likely to influence your initial attitude toward
the food. Although this attitude may change as you interact with the
attitude object (i.e., when you eat the food), the initial positive evaluation
will make it more likely that your final attitude is also positive.

Mere Exposure. In both of the processes discussed so far, an attitude is

altered by the attitude object’s association with a positive or negative
stimulus. In contrast, research on the mere exposure effect has found
that repeated exposure to an object in the absence of association can
also change attitudes. Quite simply, this process requires only that one is
repeatedly exposed to an attitude object. When this occurs, the attitude
toward the object becomes more positive; possibly due to the fact that
the object has actually become associated with the absence of anything
negative. The strongest mere exposure effects occur when the repeated
attitude object is low in meaning (e.g., novel) or is presented outside of
conscious awareness. One intriguing implication of this phenomenon is
that mere exposure might help to account for the preference a newborn
infant show for his or her mother’s voice. As the child develops in the
womb, one stimulus that is repeated every day is the mother’s voice.
Thus, mere exposure to this stimulus should cause the child’s attitude
toward the voice (and subsequently its source) to become positive,
enhancing the mother-child bond.

Inferential Processes

Balance. One simple inferential process of attitude change involves

cognitive balance. Stated simply, balance is achieved when people agree
with those they like and disagree with those they dislike. When this is not
the case, one experiences a state of unease, and attitudes are likely to
shift to bring the system into balance. For instance, suppose you
discover that you and your worst enemy both love the same band. When
this occurs, you are likely to experience an uncomfortable state of
imbalance, and to rectify this inconsistency, one of your attitudes will
likely change. Thus, upon learning the information, you may come to find
your previous enemy much less distasteful or, alternatively, feel less
positively toward the band.

Attribution. At its most general level, attribution concerns the inferences

that people make about themselves and others after witnessing a
behavior and the situation in which it occurred. Although this topic is
highly studied in and of itself, its research has also outlined a number of
processes that can create low-effort attitude change. One attributional
process, which occurs when people are not well attuned to their own
beliefs, is self-perception. In this process, people infer their own attitudes
from their behaviors, just as they would for someone else. Thus, people
can infer that if they are eating a peach or watching a pro-peach
 advertisement, they must like peaches, even if they hadn’t considered
this possibility before. When this inference is made, it produces attitude
change, making their attitude toward peaches more positive.

In a related phenomenon, called the over justification effect, people come

to infer that they dislike a previously enjoyed activity when they are
provided with overly sufficient rewards for engaging in it. Research has
demonstrated this effect by providing children with candy or other
rewards for engaging in an activity they had previously performed merely
for its own sake (e.g., coloring). When this happens, the children infer
that they were performing the activity for the reward, not for its mere
enjoyment, and their attitude toward engaging in the behavior becomes
less positive.

Heuristics. One final process through which low-effort attitude change

can occur is through the use of heuristics, or simple decision rules based
on prior experiences or observations. Although there are countless
heuristics, some examples are “experts are usually correct” and “bigger
is better.” When motivation and ability to think are low, people can use
simple rules like these to form evaluations. For instance, in deciding what
new music is good, someone might simply walk over to the bestseller
section at the local music store and survey the current top selections. By
basing their opinions on the rule that “the majority is usually right,” they
establish positive attitudes toward those artists they discover in this
section and avoid more effortful (and costly) processes such as critically
listening to each performer’s music. Or, instead of thinking carefully
about all of the arguments in a persuasive message about a new pain
reliever, a person might simply count the arguments and reason, “the
more arguments, the better.”

High-Effort Processes

There are also attitude change processes that require a greater use of
mental resources. When a person is motivated and able to invest high
effort in making a judgment about an issue or object, attitude change can
occur due to characteristics of his or her thoughts (e.g., whether the
thoughts are favorable or unfavorable), his or her estimation that good or
bad outcomes will be tied to the attitude object, or the person’s
realization that he or she holds conflicting beliefs about a set of attitude
objects.

Cognitive Responses. When people’s attitudes change through the use

of high cognitive effort, some of the most important aspects to consider
are their actual thoughts (cognitive responses) toward the attitude object
and any persuasive message that is received on the topic. Although
there are a number of different aspects to consider, three components of
thought have proven especially important in producing change. The first,
and most obvious, is whether thoughts about the attitude object or
message are largely favorable or unfavorable. By examining the ratio of
positive to negative thoughts, the likely amount of attitude change
produced can be approximated. If there is a greater proportion of
favorable than unfavorable thoughts, your attitude will change in a
positive direction. The opposite is true if there is a greater proportion of
negative thoughts. A second important dimension concerns how much
thinking is done. For example, the more positive thoughts one has about
an attitude object, the more favorable the attitudes will be. The third, and
final, aspect of thought is related to confidence. When thinking about an
attitude object or persuasive message, people will have varying
confidence in each of their discrete thoughts. To the extent that they are
highly confident in a thought, it will have a great impact on their final
attitude. Those thoughts that are associated with low confidence,
however, will play a relatively minor role in any attitude change. Many
things can affect one’s confidence in a thought, such as how easily it
comes to mind.

Although these three factors are easy to imagine operating in traditional

persuasion settings (e.g., when you view an advertisement for some
commercial product), they also influence attitude change in the absence
of any persuasive message. One way in which this occurs is when
people role play, or imagine what someone else would think about an
issue. Imagine, for instance, that you enjoy smoking cigarettes. Now,
generate as many reasons as you can to stop smoking. Because of the
cognitive responses you’ve created by engaging in this process, you may
change your own attitudes toward smoking. As you can probably guess,
the more thought and effort you put into the role play, the more likely it is
that attitude change will occur. If you did put a great deal of effort into the
exercise, then you’ve probably created a number of negative thoughts
about smoking tobacco. In this case, you might expect that your attitude
has become more negative toward smoking. This may or may not be
true, however, depending on the confidence you have in the thoughts
that were produced. If you generated a large number of antismoking
thoughts but had low confidence in the validity of each one, then they
would have very little impact on your attitude, especially if they were
countered by some very positive thoughts that were held with high
confidence.

Expectancy-Value Processes. According to the reasoned action theory,

attitudes are created through an individual’s assessment of how likely it
is that a given attitude object will be associated with positive (or negative)
consequences or values. The more likely it is that an attitude object (e.g.,
a car) is associated with a positive consequence (being able to travel to
work) or value (staying safe), the more positive the attitude will be.
Although some researchers have argued that all attitudes are determined
in this manner, it is most likely that this process only occurs when people
put sufficient effort into considering all of the possible consequences and
values that may be tied to a given attitude object. Interestingly, when
people engage in this process of effortful consideration of an object or
message, they may actually change their own attitude. If, for instance,
you recently purchased a sport utility vehicle merely for the image it
provides, your attitude toward it may become more negative if you are
prompted to consider all of the consequences (e.g., very expensive fuel
bills) and values (e.g., promoting U.S. independence from foreign oil
supplies) that are associated with it.

Dissonance Processes. According to cognitive dissonance theory,

people are motivated to hold consistent attitudes. Because of this
motivation for consistency, people experience unpleasant physiological
arousal (an increase in heart rate, sweaty palms, etc.) when they willingly
engage in a behavior that is counter to their beliefs or are made aware
that they possess two or more conflicting attitudes. This experience then
 motivates them to change their attitudes so that the unpleasant feelings
can be eliminated. When people make a choice from among alternatives,
dissonance processes will often produce attitude change. Research has
shown that once people make a choice, attitudes toward each of the
potential choices will change such that the chosen alternative will be
viewed more positively and the nonchosen alternative(s) will be viewed
more negatively than prior to the choice. This reduces the aversive
dissonance experience that would have occurred if they still felt very
positively toward an unselected option. If you’ve ever bought a product
that turned out to have flaws, then you’ve probably experienced
dissonance. When a situation like this occurs, your behavior (purchasing
the product) is not consistent with your beliefs about the product (it is
flawed), and this causes dissonance. To resolve this dissonance, you
must change either your attitude toward the product (and decide that it is
actually good) or your behavior (return it to the store).

Attitude Strength

One of the most important characteristics of an attitude is its strength.

Attitude strength is associated with an attitude’s persistence, resistance
to change, and ability to predict behavior. The stronger an attitude, the
more it exhibits these characteristics. As you might expect, attitudes
produced by high-effort cognitive processes are stronger than those
produced by low-effort processes. Because they are the result of greater
cognitive effort, these attitudes are often based on more consistent
information, are supported by a more developed knowledge structure
(e.g., related beliefs and values), and are held with greater certainty than
are attitudes produced by a low-effort process. If, for instance, your
recent car purchase was based on months of research and test-drives,
then you are likely to have a whole host of information that supports your
positive attitude toward the vehicle. This associated information will then
serve to buoy the attitude, allowing it to persist over the life of the vehicle
and resist change (e.g., following negative experiences like breakdowns).
If your attitude was instead based on a low-effort process (e.g., a
heuristic rule, “if it looks good, it is good”), then this attitude may be
easily changed when you experience negative events and become
motivated to think critically about the attitude object.

V. V. Consistency Concepts on Attitudes and Behavior

The study of attitude-behavior consistency concerns the degree to which people’s

attitudes (opinions) predict their behavior (actions). Attitude-behavior consistency
exists when there is a strong relation between opinions and actions. For example, a
person with a positive attitude toward protecting the environment who recycles paper
and bottles shows high attitude-behavior consistency. The study of attitude-behavior
consistency is important because much of the usefulness of the attitude concept is
derived from the idea that people’s opinions help guide their actions.

Common sense would dictate that attitudes should predict behavior. It seems
sensible to predict that a student who strongly supports saving endangered animals
will make an annual donation to the World Wildlife Fund. However, is the link
between attitudes and behavior this simple?
To answer this question, it is helpful to consider some early research on
this topic. Initial research on attitude-behavior consistency was
conducted in the early 1930s. At this time, a college professor named
Richard LaPiere was traveling across America with a young Chinese
couple. At the time, there was widespread anti-Asian prejudice in
America. As a result of this prejudice, LaPiere was concerned whether
he and his traveling companions would be refused service in hotels and
restaurants. Much to his surprise, only once (in over 250 establishments)
were they not served. A few months after the completion of the journey,
LaPiere sent a letter to each of the visited establishments and asked
whether they would serve Chinese visitors. Of the establishments that
replied, only one indicated that it would serve such a customer. While
there are a number of problems with LaPiere’s study (for instance, there
is no guarantee that the person who answered the letter was the same
person who served LaPiere and his friends), the study was taken as
evidence that that people’s behavior might not necessarily follow from
their attitudes.

By the late 1960s, a number of experiments had examined the relation

between attitudes and behavior. In 1969, Allan Wicker reviewed the
findings of these studies. He reached a rather sobering conclusion:
Attitudes were a relatively poor predictor of behavior. Wicker’s conclusion
contributed to a “crisis of confidence” in social psychology and led a
number of researchers to question the usefulness of the attitude concept.
It was argued that, if attitudes do not guide actions, then the construct is
of limited value.

When Do Attitudes Influence Behavior?

Attitude researchers responded to this criticism by devoting greater

attention to the study of when attitudes predict behavior. In the past 30
years, research findings have led to a more optimistic conclusion:
Attitudes do predict behavior, under certain conditions. What are some of
these conditions?

First, attitudes do a better job of predicting behavior when both concepts

are measured in a similar way. Returning to LaPiere’s study, his measure
of attitude asked establishments to indicate whether they would serve
someone of the Chinese race. This measure of attitude is quite broad in
comparison to the measure of behavior, which involved service being
offered to a highly educated, well-dressed Chinese couple accompanied
by an American college professor. Had LaPiere’s attitude measure been
more specific (e.g., if it had read, “Would you serve a highly educated,
well-dressed Chinese couple accompanied by an American college
professor?”), there would have been greater consistency between
attitudes and behavior.

Second, attitude-behavior consistency varies depending upon the topic

being studied. In some areas, attitudes do an excellent job of predicting
behavior, whereas in other areas they do not. At one extreme, a person’s
attitude toward a particular political candidate does a very good job of
predicting whether or not they vote for the candidate. Not surprisingly,
people tend to vote for politicians they like. At the other extreme,
researchers have found a low degree of consistency between a person’s
 attitude toward blood donation and the behavior of donating blood.
Perhaps it is not surprising that this is a domain where there is a low
relation between attitudes and behavior. It may be that a low relation
arises because of other factors that people see as more important than
their positive attitude (they may be extremely squeamish about needles),
or because the behavior of donating blood may be much more difficult to
enact than the simple expression of one’s attitude through a behavior like
voting.

Third, the consistency between attitudes and behavior depends upon the
“strength” of the attitude. Attitudes differ in their strength. Some of
people’s attitudes are very important to them, whereas others are not. A
number of studies have demonstrated that strong attitudes are more
likely to predict behavior than are weak attitudes. For instance, Rob
Holland and colleagues conducted a study in which they asked
participants to indicate the favorability and strength of their attitude
toward the organization Greenpeace. One week later, as part of a
different experiment, these same people were given the opportunity to
donate money to Greenpeace. Holland and colleagues found that when
participants held strong opinions about Greenpeace, the favorability of
their attitude predicted the amount of money they donated one week
later. Among people with weak attitudes toward Greenpeace, how much
they liked the organization did not predict their later behavior.

Fourth, the consistency between attitudes and behavior is affected by

differences across people. For example, research on the personality
factor called “self-monitoring” (which reflects differences across people in
how they vary their behavior across social situations) has found that the
relation between attitudes and behavior is stronger for low self-monitors
than high self-monitors. Further, the likelihood of a person’s attitudes
influencing their behavior is affected by their age. A number of studies
have found that university students show lower attitude-behavior
relations compared to adults. This difference is thought to occur because
university students tend to have less-clear attitudes compared to older
individuals.

D. Value System

I. Definition of Value

The term value has two related yet distinct meanings. The value of an object or activity is
what the object or activity is worth to a person or community; this is the economic or
decision-making meaning of value. In its social-psychological meaning, by contrast, a
value is an abstract, desirable end state that people strive for or aim to uphold, such as
freedom, loyalty, or tradition. Only this second meaning is used in the plural form values,
and public and political discussions refer to such values in many ways, speaking of the
decline of values, a clash of values, or an election being about values. This paper
describes the ways in which human values in the second sense select for certain
attitudes, goals, and preferences that in turn guide concrete actions. Although there is not
yet a consensus on a taxonomy of human values, research is converging on a set of
basic dimensions.

II. The Psychological Process of Value Formation

 Any theorists have pointed out that values are distinct from attitudes, norms, beliefs,
goals, and needs. Values, such as equality, friendship, or courage, are more abstract and
general, and they not only are directed at specific objects (as attitudes are), behaviors (as
norms are), or states of reality (as beliefs are) but also represent very general, and at
times vague, end states. The end states described by many values also benefit the
community, unlike goals or needs, which typically benefit the individual. Compare such
values as honesty, forgiveness, and democracy to the goals of wealth, fame, and
healthiness. Finally, most values are never quite reached, such as equality, national
security, or world peace. In sum, prototypical values refer to abstract states that typically
benefit the community, not just the individual, and that people strive for without ever quite
reaching them.

Talking about values can be hard because the idea of value is so abstract. As long as
people believe they share the same values, there is no need to define those values. But
when people try to ascertain a definition of something like freedom or true friendship,
heated debates can ensue. Likewise, the vagueness of many value concepts (consider
the term family values) subtly removes these concepts from open, shared discourse and
can make them subject to arbitrary and rhetorical use in propaganda. For example,
politicians can try to win votes by saying they stand for family values, even though they
don’t have a very clear idea what family values are.

Even though all values are somehow represented in the individual, the more abstract
among them are less likely to guide directly an individual’s concrete behaviors. How
many decisions and actions can you recall from yesterday that were directly guided by
your values of freedom, democracy, or salvation? Goals are more apt to influence
behavior directly, as people are more aware of their goals, and goals are more imminent
and context-specific than are values. Values that resemble goals, however, such as
excitement, independence, or respect for tradition, can directly influence behaviors.
These considerations are largely supported by empirical research, which shows lower
correlations between concrete behavior and abstract values than between behavior and
specific or goal-like values. Furthermore, values appear to relate to preferences and
attitudes, which themselves predict behavior. So even highly abstract values can have an
impact on concrete behavior when that impact is mediated by less abstract psychological
forces. For example, the value of freedom might make someone study hard for a driver
education test, because getting a driver’s license increases one’s freedom of movement.
The broad, abstract value of freedom leads to the specific, concrete goal of getting a
license, which guides behavior.

Values can strongly influence behavior when they are perceived to be threatened and are
therefore defended. A threat can “activate” a value, and defending and fighting for it
entails a number of concrete behaviors (though rarely of the prosocial variety). For
example, many Americans considered the attacks on New York’s World Trade Center on
September 11, 2001, as a threat to the value of freedom, and numerous actions following
those attacks were directly motivated, and claimed to be justified, by the defense of that
freedom.

III. Measurement of Values

Values scales are psychological inventories used to determine the values that people
endorse in their lives. They facilitate the understanding of both work and
general values that individuals uphold. In addition, they assess the importance of each
value in people's lives and how the individual strives toward fulfillment through work and
other life roles, such as parenting. [1] Most scales have been normalized and can therefore
be used cross-culturally for vocational, marketing, and counseling purposes, yielding
 unbiased results.[2] Psychologists, political scientists, economists, and others interested in
defining values, use values scales to determine what people value, and to evaluate the
ultimate function or purpose of values.[3]

E. Interpersonal Attraction

In interpersonal Attraction, two participants are interdependent, where the behavior of

each affects the outcomes of the other. Additionally, the individuals interact with each
other in a series of interactions that are interrelated and affect each other. Individuals
form many different kinds of relationships with other people, some of which are intimate
and close (e.g., parent–child, spouse–spouse, friendships) and others which are not
intimate and close (e.g., neighbor, teacher–student). Most of the research on
Interpersonal attractions has focused on those relationships that are close, intimate, and
have high interdependence. In an influential book, Kelley and colleagues (1983) define a
close relationship as one that is strong, frequent, and with diverse interdependence that
lasts over a considerable period of time. In sociology, although the classic distinction
between primary and secondary relationships has been expanded in the public realm
(fleeting, routinized, quasi-primary, and intimate secondary relationships), these close
relationships (as described above) also can be categorized as primary groups, which
provide support and nurture and socialize individuals to the norms of society. The
concept of relationship historically has had a central and significant place in social
psychology and other social sciences. Some of the founding sociologists, such as
Simmel and Marx, were concerned with attraction and interpersonal relationship issues

I. Major Determinants of Liking

Dexter Dunphy identified three determinants of liking as proximity, similarity and

reciprocity.

Proximity

The principle of proximity is the tendency for people to form social relationships
with individuals who are physically closer to them. Proximity means how close an
object or person is physically to you. Someone sitting next to you on a bench is
closer in proximity than a person sitting three rows away. The principle of
proximity shows that individuals are more likely to form social relationships with
people who are closer in proximity to them. You are much more likely to befriend
your neighbor or coworker because you are exposed to them more so than a
person who lives further away or who works at another place. People who are
around each other more are more likely to develop a social relationship.

Similarity

Imagine you meet someone for the first time and discover you have a lot in
common. You cheer for the same sports team, enjoy watching the same TV
 shows, and even love the same restaurants. With so much in common, chances
are that you'd be attracted to this person. Similarity, or a match of personal
aspects with those of another person, is one of the most powerful forces behind
attraction and the creation of close relationships. As the old saying goes, and as
you have likely experienced for yourself, birds of a feather do flock together.

Reciprocity of liking (also known as reciprocity of attraction and reciprocal liking)

describes the tendency for individuals to think positively of others who express
positive regard for them. Essentially, we like people who say that they like us.
Individuals are more likely to like someone who expresses that they like them.
When you learn that someone has expressed liking us we are more likely to have
positive feelings for that person. This doesn't work all the time though. Research
has shown that people who don't like themselves (have low self esteem) don't
like people who like them. Another example in which reciprocity of liking backfires
can be with false flattery or 'brown-nosing'. If a person feels as if someone likes
them falsely and is expressing it for ulterior motives then they are more likely to
dislike that person.

II. Factors Affecting Affiliation

Beyond easing fear and satisfying the need for information or social comparison,
mere affiliation with others is not usually a satisfactory form of interaction. Most
people form specific attractions for other individuals, rather than being satisfied
with belonging to a group. These attractions usually develop into friendship, love,
and other forms of intimacy. Interpersonal attraction, the experience of preferring
to interact with specific others, is influenced by several factors. An important
situational or circumstantial factor in attraction is propinquity. Propinquity refers to
the proximity or nearness of other persons. Research by Festinger and his
colleagues has confirmed that people are more likely to form friendships with
those who live nearby, especially if they have frequent accidental contact with
them.

Further research by social psychologist Robert Zajonc indicated that propinquity

increases attraction because it increases familiarity. Zajonc found that research
subjects expressed greater liking for a variety of stimuli merely because they had
been exposed to those stimuli more frequently than to others. The more familiar
a person is, the more predictable that person seems to be. People are reassured
by predictability and feel more strongly attracted to those who are familiar and
reliable in this regard.

Another important factor in attraction and friendship is physical attractiveness.

According to the physical attractiveness stereotype, most people believe that
physically attractive people are also good and valuable in other ways. For
example, physically attractive people are often assumed to be intelligent,
competent, and socially successful. Attraction to physically attractive persons is
somewhat modified by the fear of being rejected. Consequently, most people use
 a matching principle in choosing friends and partners: They select others who
match their own levels of physical attractiveness and other qualities.

Matching implies the importance of similarity. Similarity of attitudes, values, and

background is a powerful influence on interpersonal attraction. People are more
likely to become friends if they have common interests, goals, and pastimes.
Similar values and commitments are helpful in establishing trust between two
people. Over time, they choose to spend more time together, and this
strengthens their relationship.

Another factor in interpersonal attraction is complementarity, defined as the

possession of qualities that complete or fulfill another's needs and abilities.
Research has failed to confirm that "opposites attract," as attraction appears to
grow stronger with similarities, not differences, between two people. There is
some evidence, however, that people with complementary traits and needs will
form stronger relationships. For example, a person who enjoys talking will have a
compatible relationship with a friend or partner who enjoys listening. Their needs
are different but not opposite—they complete each other.

2. Social Influences

Is the change being the change in behavior that one causes in another, intentionally, as a result of the
way the changed person perceives themselves in relationship to the influencer, other people and
society in general. Three areas of social influence are conformity, compliance and obedience.

A. Social Facilitation

Social facilitation is the tendency for people to do perform differently when in the
presence of others than when alone. Compared to their performance when alone, when
in the presence of others, they tend to perform better on simple or well-rehearsed tasks
and worse on complex or new ones. The Yerkes-Dodson law, when applied to social
facilitation, states that "the mere presence of other people will enhance the performance
in speed and accuracy of well-practiced tasks, but will degrade the performance of less
familiar tasks."

B. Deindividuation and Collective Behavior

Deindividuation - is a concept in social psychology that is generally thought of as the loss

of self-awareness in groups, although this is a matter of contention. Sociologists also
study the phenomenon of deindividuation, but the level of analysis is the individual in the
context of a social situation. As such, social psychologists emphasize the role of internal
psychological processes. Other social sciences, such as sociology, are more concerned
with broad social, economic, political, and historical factors that influence events in a
given society.

Collective Behavior - is the expression collective behavior was first used by Robert E.
Park (1921), and employed later by Herbert Bluemer (1939), Ralph Turner and Lewis
 Killian (1957), and Neil Smelser (1962) to refer to social processes and events which do
not reflect existing social structure (laws, conventions, and institution), but which emerge
in a "spontaneous" way. Use of the term has been expanded to include reference to cells,
social animals like birds and fish, and insects including ants. Collective behavior takes
many forms but generally violates societal norms (Miller 2000, Locher 2002). Collective
behavior can be tremendously destructive, as with riots or mob violence, silly, as with
fads, or anywhere in between. Collective behavior is always driven by group dynamics,
encouraging people to engage in acts they might unthinkable under typical social
circumstances (Locher 2002).

C. Transmission of Rumor

Rumors are part of our everyday life, and its spread has a significant impact on human
lives. Hayakawa [1] defines rumor as a kind of social phenomenon that a similar remark
spreads on a large scale in a short time through chains of communication. Rumors may
contain confidential information about public figures or news which concerns important
social issues; they can shape the public opinion of a society or a market by affecting the
individual beliefs of its members, and its spread plays a significant role in a variety of
human affairs   [2]. Research of rumor has become an urgent and serious theory topic
with practical significance.

The transmission of rumor is the social phenomenon that a remark spreads on a large
scale in a short time through chain of communication. To analyze the spread and
cessation of them, rumor transmissions are often modeled as social contagion
processes. The classical models for the spread of rumor were introduced by Daley and
Kendall [3] and Maki and Thompson [4], and then many researchers have used the
model extensively in the past for their quantitative studies [5]. In classical models, people
are divided into three classes: ignorant (those not aware of the rumor; let  be the number
of ignorant individuals at time ), spreaders (those who are spreading it; , the number of
infective individuals at time ), and stiflers (those who know the rumor but have ceased
communicating it after meeting somebody already informed, , the number of stifler
individuals at time ), and they interact by pairwise contacts

D. Conformity to Authority

Conformity is a type of social influence involving a change in belief or behavior in order to

fit in with a group. This change is in response to real (involving the physical presence of
others) or imagined (involving the pressure of social norms / expectations) group
pressure. Conformity can also be simply defined as “yielding to group pressures”
(Crutchfield, 1955).  Group pressure may take different forms, for example bullying,
persuasion, teasing, criticism, etc.  Conformity is also known as majority influence (or
group pressure). The term conformity is often used to indicate an agreement to the
majority position, brought about either by a desire to ‘fit in’ or be liked (normative) or
 because of a desire to be correct (informational), or simply to conform to a social role
(identification).

Kelman (1958) distinguished between three different types of conformity:

Compliance (or group acceptance)

This occurs 'when an individual accepts influence because he hopes to achieve a
favorable reaction from another person or group. He adopts the induced behavior
because.... he expects to gain specific rewards or approval and avoid specific
punishment or disapproval by conformity' (Kelman, 1958, p. 53). In other words,
conforming to the majority (publicly), in spite of not really agreeing with them
(privately). This is seen in Asch’s line experiment. Compliance stops when there
are no group pressures to conform, and is therefore a temporary behaviour
change.

Internalization (genuine acceptance of group norms)

This occurs 'when an individual accepts influence because the content of the
induced behavior - the ideas and actions of which it is composed - is intrinsically
rewarding. He adopts the induced behavior because it is congruent [consistent]
with his value system' (Kelman, 1958, p. 53). Internalization always involves
public and private conformity. A person publicly changes their behavior to fit in
with the group, while also agreeing with them privately.

This is the deepest level of conformity were the beliefs of the group become part
of the individual’s own belief system. This means the change in behavior is
permanent. This is seen in Sheriff’s autokinetic experiment. This is most likely to
occur when the majority have greater knowledge, and members of the minority
have little knowledge to challenge the majority position.

Identification (or group membership)

This occurs 'when an individual accepts influence because he wants to establish
or maintain a satisfying self-defining relationship to another person or group'
(Kelman, 1958, p. 53).

E. Obedience to Authority

One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Stanley
Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University. He conducted an experiment focusing on the
conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram (1963)
examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II,
Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on "obedience" - that they
were just following orders from their superiors. The experiments began in July 1961, a
year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem.
Obedience is a form of social influence where an individual act in response to a direct
order from another individual, who is usually an authority figure. It is assumed that
without such an order the person would not have acted in this way. Obedience occurs
when you are told to do something (authority), whereas conformity happens through
social pressure (the norms of the majority).
 Obedience involves a hierarchy of power / status. Therefore, the person giving the order
has a higher status than the person receiving the order.

F. Human Rights

Human rights are based in the universality of humanity and its social bases. This
foundation has an integral connection to social psychological frameworks that
situate humans as developing within social contexts that define their thinking,
acting, and being (Gergen, 1985; Goffman, 1959; Vygotsky, 1978). The salience
of group membership and socialization can drive individual identity and underlie
interactions between and within collective organization.

As a first support of human rights, the psychology of these group interactions can
bolster recognizing the mechanisms that lead to greater division and devising
strategies to address the resulting issues. For example, over fifty years ago,
Muzafer Sherif and colleagues (1961) developed a framework for how intergroup
conflict emerges in the competition for resources. They found that previously
harmonious coexistence of two fabricated social groups turned contentious and
intense only once resource competition was introduced as a variable in the two
groups’ interactions. This finding is an important insight to understanding how
scarcity can drive human rights violations. Similarly, more recent work draws
direct connections to human rights through studies that specifically investigate
how poverty and environmental depletion underlies particular contexts of
violence and repression (Joop & De Jong, 2002; Mowforth, 2014).

Second, psychology can offer important methodological tools and empirical

evidence to bolster abstract claims inherent to human rights. Forensic
psychologists may be the most prominent examples as they help uncover human
rights abuses and testify at trials (Ward, Gannon, & Vess, 2009). In other ways,
social and cultural psychology also provides critical tools and insights. Judith
Herman’s book (1997) on trauma and recovery reorganized how victims and
traumatic events are understood, bringing attention to cultural and structural
elements to be recognized and considered in diagnoses. For transitional justice
and postconflict societies, this reconceptualization can prove critical to managing
and addressing individual and collective trauma of past violence (Li & Lardner,
2015). Also, other scholars have begun to apply methodological tools from
cultural psychology to the study of human rights, using thematic narrative
analysis to study how conceptions of human rights are constructed by local
groups of people (Grabe & Dutt, 2015). In both cases, psychology provides
support and research possibilities that can develop the field of human rights.

As a third support, psychology can push conceptions of human rights that lead to
clearer and more grounded definitions, as well as provide bases for stronger
advocacy. Beyond the bounds of psychology in the United States, the liberation
psychology movement promoted active involvement in upholding the rights of the
oppressed and working to combat structural injustice. This branch of psychology
first emerged in the 1970s in Latin America as the social psychologist Ignacio
Martin-Baro argued that the discipline should use both theory and action to
address deeply-rooted inequality in many South American societies (Martin-Baro,
1994). More recently, psychologists have similarly pushed the theoretical
understandings of human rights by questioning underlying legal and
 philosophical foundations. Some cultural psychologists have challenged what
constitutes a human rights violation and how cultural practices are to be situated
in reference to Universalist frameworks (Shweder, 2000; Woodhead, 1997).
Others have similarly argued for more socially-constructed foundations for
human rights, such as by reframing rights and duties as arising from social
interactions and contexts (Moghaddam & Finkel, 2005).

Importantly, these three supports do not provide an exhaustive list of the possible
links between psychology and human rights, but rather serve as a reminder of
the organic connections between the two areas. From the theoretical to the
empirical, social and cultural psychology have produced much research and
theory that can inform the field of human rights. Recently, this intersection has
become more explicit as scholars and journals directly draw the two together.
Nevertheless, there are still many gaps in understanding the psychology of
human rights and in applying psychological frameworks of social interaction
(Keita, 2012; Moghaddam & Finkel, 2005).

G. Mass Communication and Persuasion

Mass media refers to a diverse array of media technologies that reach a large audience

via mass communication. The technologies through which this communication takes
place include a variety of outlets.

Persuasion is a method of changing a person’s cognitions, feelings, behaviors, or general

evaluations (attitudes) toward some object, issue, or person. Although any change technique
is sometimes referred to as persuasion regardless of the target of influence, the term more
commonly refers to a method of change in which a person is deliberately presented with a
message containing information intended to alter some general evaluative judgment (e.g.,
capital punishment is bad). Self-persuasion can occur when people generate their own
messages in favor of or against something. Persuasive communication is readily used by
advertisers, salespeople, politicians, ministers, attorneys, and people in everyday situations
to produce change in others. In democratic societies, persuasion has replaced coercion as
the primary means of influence.
`
I. Effects of Propaganda and Counterpropaganda

Counterpropaganda is a reactive method that must be employed rapidly to

effectively contradict a propaganda message. Oliver Carlson explains that
the longer propaganda is perceived as the truth the harder it is to contradict
even when the target audience is exposed to an opposing true message. [8] A
propaganda message that is not contradicted immediately upon its discovery
is likely to become the basis the target audience's actions and beliefs.
Psychology provides additional reasons to rapidly employ
counterpropaganda. The decision making process is influenced by cognitive
biases which shape how a person perceives certain pieces of information
and how they will act upon them. The confirmation bias is especially relevant
when explaining the necessity of employing counterpropaganda rapidly.
Confirmation bias is a tendency for people to favor information confirming
their beliefs or hypotheses.[9][10] If a group based their beliefs or actions upon a
propaganda message they were exposed to over or during a long period of
time it is difficult to counter the propaganda. The group in such a scenario
would be hesitant to assimilate any information from a counterpropaganda
 message that contradicted the propaganda message. Thus, it is important for
counterpropaganda be employed early in a propaganda campaign to prevent
the possibility of confirmation bias resulting from propaganda.
In Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Jacques Ellul suggests
another reason to employ counterpropaganda quickly in response to an
identified propaganda message. He argues that humankind is more
concerned with current events and issues that hold the society's attention.
Propaganda shaped upon current events will invoke the greatest amount of
community passion and interest.[2]:46, 49 Countering propaganda, requires a
quick response to propaganda when it is revealed. Conversely, employing
counterpropaganda against a dated propaganda message that regards an
equally dated issue that society holds no current interest is likely to be less
effective.

II. Common Persuasive Devices

Common media for transmitting propaganda messages include news reports,

government reports, historical revision, junk science, books, leaflets, movies,
radio, television, and posters. Some propaganda campaigns follow a
strategic transmission pattern to indoctrinate the target group. This may
begin with a simple transmission, such as a leaflet or advertisement dropped
from a plane or an advertisement. Generally, these messages will contain
directions on how to obtain more information, via a web site, hot line, radio
program, etc. (as it is seen also for selling purposes among other goals). The
strategy intends to initiate the individual from information recipient to
information seeker through reinforcement, and then from information seeker
to opinion leader through indoctrination.

III. General Principles of Persuasion

Theses 6 principles are reciprocity, consistency, social proof, liking, authority, and
scarcity.

1. Reciprocity

One of the most basic principles of influence is to simply give that which you want
to receive. In other words, doing right by others is a good way to get others to do
the same for you. This idea of reciprocity is a powerful one. There are a couple of
ways to have this reciprocity work for you. Giving others small gifts, treating others
with respect, and doing favors for those in need, are all things that can win you
points with other individuals.

2. Consistency

The principle of consistency is based on the power of active, public, and voluntary
commitments, which results in people actually sticking to their word. Let’s walk
through these requirements in a little more detail. The first part is an active
commitment. By active, Cialdini means something that is written or spoken to
other’s. Having people say they will do something is a start, but when they actively
commit to it they’re much more likely to follow through. The next piece is making it
public. When other’s witness this commitment, it adds a level of accountability to
the statement. And no one wants to go back on their word.

Finally, it has to be voluntary. If you force someone to make an active, public

commitment that they didn’t decide on themselves, you’ve accomplished nothing.
So how do you use this? Once you’ve persuaded someone to do something, get
them to make these types of commitments to implement the principle of
consistency and ensure there is a legitimate commitment to their words.

3. Social Proof

People rely on social cues from others on how to think, feel, and act in many
situations. And not just any people, but peers. People they believe are similar to
them. This is a key point and what is called social proof. So, if you wanted to
influence your interns or a particular team in your department or the new hires,
you need to get one of them to buy in first. When they see an employee like
themselves seemingly acting on their own or following a new directive, they are
more probable to follow suit. Having that first-person act makes all the difference
and unlocks the power of social proof.

4. Liking

People like those who like them or who they perceive as friends. It’s a simple, yet
powerful idea. The principle of liking can be used in a few different ways. One
method is finding common ground with the people you meet. If you can connect
with them on their hobbies or interests, you’ll have a solid ground to build from.
Being observant of people is a great way to pick up on any clues that may lead
you to such common ground.

The other approach is genuine praise. Paying compliments and being charming
can go a long way to building a positive rapport with others. A word of warning
though, don’t go overboard. The key here is genuine praise, don’t manufacture it
to the point that you’re clearly trying to butter them up.

5. Authority

When you are perceived as an expert in an area, other’s will be more likely to
defer to you. Why? Often because experts are able to offer a shortcut to good
decisions that would otherwise take a long time to devise themselves. The idea
then is to establish that credibility of authority and expertise. Many often miss this
opportunity because they assume others will identify their expertise automatically.
You can’t leave it up to interpretation because it will often be overlooked.

There are a number of ways to establish such authority. A quick and easy one is
to make visible all diplomas, credentials, and awards in the office or workplace to
establish your background. Of course, this may not always be an option. Another
approach is to convey expertise through short anecdotes or background
 information shared in casual conversations. Just remember, your expertise isn’t
always a known quantity, so be sure to convey it when you get the chance.

6. Scarcity

People value what is scarce. It’s just basic supply and demand. As things become
scarcer, they becoming more valuable to others. There are a few ways that you
can use the principle of scarcity to persuade others. One is simply to make offers
limited-time, limited-supply, or one-time, which immediately creates a sense of
scarcity. At the same time, how you present such opportunities matters too. If you
focus more on loss language, or language that demonstrates what you will lose
out on rather than gain, your message becomes more powerful.

Finally, is the exclusivity approach. Providing access to information, services, or

other items to a limited set of people creates a sense of exclusiveness. This often
gets translated into being a favor to those people or that you value them more
than others. If you can combine all of these to frame a situation, your powers of
persuasion greatly increase. So, try to utilize limited offers, loss language, and
exclusivity, to create a sense of scarcity.

IV. Brainwashing

Mind control (also known as brainwashing, reeducation, brain sweeping, coercive

persuasion, thought control, or thought reform) is a theory that human subjects
can be indoctrinated in a way that causes ''an impairment of autonomy, an
inability to think independently, and a disruption of beliefs and affiliations. In this
context, brainwashing refers to the involuntary reeducation of basic beliefs and
values''

V. Role of Reference Groups

A reference group is a group to which an individual or another group is compared.

Reference groups are used in order to evaluate and determine the nature of a given individual or
other group's characteristics and sociological attributes. It is the group to which the individual
relates or aspires to relate himself or herself psychologically. It becomes the individual's frame of
reference and source for ordering his or her experiences, perceptions, cognitions, and ideas of
self. It is important for determining a person's self-identity, attitudes. and social ties. It becomes
the basis of reference in making comparisons or contrast and in evaluating one's appearance and
performance.

VI. Resistance to Persuasion

Resistance to persuasion is influenced by a wide variety of factors such as characteristics of the

attitude under attack (e.g., its accessibility or importance, Fazio, 1995; Zuwerink & Devine, 1996),
but also characteristics of the message recipient (e.g., motivation and ability to resist the
persuasive appeal, Briñol & Petty, 2005; Briñol, Rucker, Tormala, & Petty, 2004; DeMarree,
Wheeler, & Petty, 2005; Haugtvedt & Petty, 1992).

3. Psychology at Work
 When we talk about psychology at work, we refer to the application of psychological
principles within the work setting. Studies have shown that using psychology at work can help
solve problems and create improvements in the workplace. Psychology at work is known under
many names such as work psychology, industrial organizational psychology, organizational
psychology, and the like.

We all have to admit that the workplace can be quite a stressful setting. Employers search for
ways to deal with this stress because it is a crucial part of employee productivity and job
satisfaction. Remember, if your workers are discontented, they may choose not to work as hard
as your workers who are satisfied.

Moreover, the discontented workers might choose to miss work, resulting in unscheduled leaves
and absences, even calling in sick. You as a business owner can take several steps to improve
the inner workings of your current and future employees. When you use psychology at work, you
will eventually see its substantial impact in positively lifting your employees and the general
working environment.

a. Group Structure and Dynamics

Group structure is a pattern of relationships among members that hold the group together
and help it achieve assigned goals. Structure can be described in a variety of ways.
Among the more common considerations are group size, group roles, group norms, and
group cohesiveness.

Group dynamics refers to the attitudinal and behavioral characteristics of a group. Group
dynamics concern how groups form, their structure and process, and how they function.
Group dynamics are relevant in both formal and informal groups of all types. In an
organizational setting, groups are a very common organizational entity and the study of
groups and group dynamics is an important area of study in organizational behavior.

b. Effective Leadership

Effective leadership is about executing the company's vision (or redefining and improving
it, in some cases) and setting the tone and the culture for that particular
organization. Leadership means creating and planning, securing resources, and looking
out for and improving errors.

c. Selecting Job and Personnel

When we ask people about the most meaningful parts of their life, family, health and work
often rank as the top three. Choosing the type of work you’ll do, therefore, is arguably
one of the most important decisions you can make.

You can begin choosing a career by taking the following steps:

1. Perform a self-assessment
2. Identify your must-haves
3. Make a list of jobs to explore
4. Research jobs and employers
5. Get training (if you need it) and update your resume
6. Find and apply for jobs
7. Continue growing and learning
 Selecting a career path can take weeks, months or even years as you continue learning
what you want and need in a job. It’s important to note that you may have the option to
change your path multiple times in your life, making the ability to choose a new career a
valuable life skill.

Before making any important decision, it’s a good idea to take time for self-reflection.
Choosing a career is no different. In this step, you’ll reflect on what kind of work
environment you want to be in, what type of work you enjoy, who you want to work with,
and more. As you’re reflecting, you may want to write down your notes. These can be
helpful references as you’re evaluating job descriptions later on.

Here are a few questions to get you started. Try not to dwell on the questions but rather,
write down the first thoughts that come to mind. If you’re not sure of some answers,
trusted friends or family may be able to give guidance.

The procedure of personnel selection includes gathering data about the potential
candidates with the end goal of deciding suitability and sustainability for the employment
in that particular job. This data is gathered utilizing one or more determination devices or
strategies classified as such:[1]

 Interviews
 Personality Tests
 Biographical Data
 Cognitive Ability Tests
 Physical Ability Tests
 Work Samples

Development and implementation of such screening methods is sometimes done by

human resources departments; larger organizations hire consultants or firms that
specialize in developing personnel selection systems. I-O psychologists must evaluate
evidence regarding the extent to which selection tools predict job performance, evidence
that bears on the validity of selection tools. These procedures are usually validated
(shown to be job relevant), using one or more of the following types of  validity: content
validity, construct validity, and/or criterion-related validity.

d. Organizational Psychology
organizational psychology is the branch of psychology that applies psychological theories
and principles to organizations. Often referred to as I-O psychology, this field focuses on
increasing workplace productivity and related issues such as the physical and mental
well-being of employees. Industrial-organizational psychologists perform a wide variety of
tasks, including studying worker attitudes and behavior, evaluating companies, and
conducting leadership training. The overall goal of this field is to study and understand
human behavior in the workplace.

4. Research Methods in Social and Industrial Psychology

 IO psychologists are trained in the scientist–practitioner model. IO psychologists rely on a
variety of methods to conduct organizational research. Study designs employed by IO
psychologists include surveys, experiments, quasi-experiments, and observational
studies. IO psychologists rely on diverse data sources including human judgments,
historical databases, objective measures of work performance (e.g., sales volume), and
questionnaires and surveys.
IO researchers employ quantitative statistical methods. Quantitative methods used in IO
psychology include correlation, multiple regression, and analysis of variance. More
advanced statistical methods employed in IO research include logistic
regression, structural equation modeling,[17] and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; also
known as multilevel modeling).[18] IO research has also employed meta-analysis.[19][20]
[21]
 IO psychologists also employ psychometric methods including methods associated
with classical test theory,[22] generalizability theory, and item response theory (IRT).[23]

IO psychologists have also employed qualitative methods, which largely involve focus

groups, interviews, and case studies. IO research on organizational culture research has
employed ethnographic techniques and participant observation. A qualitative technique
associated with IO psychology is Flanagan's Critical Incident Technique.[24] IO
psychologists sometimes use quantitative and qualitative methods in concert. [25] OHP
researchers have also combined and coordinated quantitative and qualitative methods
within a single study.

5. Environment and Urban Psychology

Environmental psychology is an interdisciplinary field that focuses on the interplay

between individuals and their surroundings. It examines the way in which the natural
environment and our built environments shape us as individuals. The field defines
the term environment broadly, encompassing natural environments, social
settings, built environments, learning environments, and informational environments.
Urban psychology deals with environmental problems only in cities and towns.