Social Psychology

Social psychologists tend to explain human behaviour as a consequence of correspondence between mental state and social instances. Social psychologists take into account certain facets which tend to generate the unleashing of behavioural patterns in a particular manner in the presence of other individuals. They carry out studies over the conditions under which a particular course of action, feeling or behavioural pattern take place. Thus, the field of social psychology is related to the manner in which beliefs, ideologies, feelings, intentions and goals are cognitively created and the way in which such mental states impact upon the correspondence taking place with other individuals. The present project is based upon 2 tasks. The first task explores the several social psychological theories which provide an explanation to the concept of stereotyping. The second task deals with explanation over the development and formation of social groups together with the theories that underpin such development.

If you're working on a similar project and need assignment help, our expert services can guide you through complex social psychology topics and ensure academic success.

QUESTION 1: Using appropriate research evidence, evaluate social psychological theories used to explain stereotyping along with reference to methodological issues and alternative explanations

In traditional times, social psychologists have been quite stereotypical about the stereotypes. In particular, the conventional work carried out within the confines of this field represented stereotypes as misleading, extensive and caustic in relation to inter group relationships. This kind of instance is also supported by the fact that the majority of the investigators earlier emphasized upon study of several antagonistic groups, which had a past full of conflicts, exploitations, and violence (Pettigrew, 2018). This led to the development of a uniform premise in that period stating that inter group harmony could be made better through elimination of stereotype. However, irrespective of this earlier ideology, modern form of researches tend to promote a balanced attitude, somewhat renouncing the consideration of stereotype as simplified error or rigid schemata.

Facts about Stereotypes

In the present time, several studies are being conducted over stereotypes as well as other associated topics. Such researches tends to lay emphasis over ethnic as well as gender issue. Stereotype was one of the many apparent themes of debates at the times of reunions of social scientists owing to their connection with majority of the research subjects related to social psychology. This term was coined by Walter Lippmann (1922) within a book upon public opinion. Thereby, the author anticipated some significant positions within modern form of researches over stereotypes (Ellemers, 2018). These were regarded as their predominant cognitive nature, their utility as cognitive economy and energy-saving instruments and the antagonism underlying within stereotyping as well as individuating procedures. The respective author contrasted stereotype with steady image in human mindsets, which curtails one’s perception. These are considered to be economic in the way that the present perceptions have been developed as a result of past experiences.

With the passage of time, several significant features of stereotype have been illustrated by social psychologists, academicians, researchers and theorists. This results in development of a robust image of nature, role and effects of stereotype over social functioning, as well as interaction taking place between the groups. Usually, stereotypes are recognised to be:

• The accumulation of shared conviction or belief regarding the individuals pertaining to a certain group
• Perception held by a certain interaction taken place within the group members and some specific traits
• Construct, providing an overview of personality traits as well as behavioural patterns
• Standard, steady and preconceived notion
• An innate function of cultural as well as human mind

On the basis of above discussion, it can be said that stereotype is defined through its social, shared, general, contextual, dual and schematic nature. This implies that stereotypes are the assumptions held by a certain group about the internal or external members in relation to their personalities as well as behavioural patterns that are generally developed during the procedure of social correspondence (thus justifying that stereotypes are contextual). Furthermore, stereotypes are simple, essential and general, which together implies that these are schematic.

Stereotypes as collective constructs

Although all of the socially constructed images are not stereotypes, there are several beliefs which are mistakenly regarded as being categorised as being stereotypes. For example, certain individuals think regarding the stereotype that it represents people as well as objects or that it can be only be possessed by an individual and not essentially shared with the other internal participants of the group. Certain theorists also consider stereotypes to be the beliefs which surpass individualistic stage. They are a manifestation of collective constructs, as has been highlighted by Hofmann and predominantly the subtype of “shared constructs” (Holmes and Smith, 2018). As being the latter one, stereotype gains soundness only in an instance whereby the members of the group possess a uniform point of view or perception.

This leads to 2 important criteria for underpinning the definition of stereotypes, namely, generality level as well as analysis level. While the latter is concerned with the question of “Who possesses the stereotypical beliefs”, the former is associated with consideration of “Who the stereotypical beliefs refer to”. In the 2 situations described before, there are 3 different possibilities, namely, an individual, group or the community as a whole.

Figure 1: The analysis and generality level within study of stereotype

Taking into account the level of analysis, a person can just possess a schema of another being or an “individual stereotype” of specific group or community. In addition to this, genuine stereotypes can be considered as the beliefs which are commonly held by the groups and refer to members belonging to another group or category. If stereotypes are possessed by participants of a group or community and refer to individuals pertaining to another group, community or category, it can be regarded as a cultural stereotype (Olsson and Martiny, 2018). Furthermore, taking into consideration the level of generality, all of the stereotypical beliefs of a person need to be regarded as schemata instead of stereotypes. For instance, an individual can possess the schema of a certain neighbor, and all individuals belonging to the same apartment can possess the shared schema of the property owner.

Theoretical Approaches

Among a number of theories that can provide an explanation regarding the emergence as well as functionality of stereotypes, one can discover the psychodynamic model, or authoritarian personality, social learning theory, group conflict theory, and cognitive theories. All things considered, in spite of this assorted variety of specific hypothetical models, three expansive hypothetical and methodological theories rule the investigation of stereotypes. Every theory in this relation is characterized by a special point of view towards the concept of stereotypes and the manner in which they can be examined.

Figure 2: Theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of stereotypes

The social cognition approach centers on the investigation around stereotypes on an individualistic level and takes into use mostly the lab research. Procedures, for example, categorisation, social recognition, and examination are essentially explored, and stereotypes are thereby characterized or defined with respect to schemata or prototypes (Fiske et. al., 2018).

Opposed to the above theoretical perspective, the intergroup relation theory centers on the collaborative level, particularly upon relationships shared within the members of a group, and along these lines it fundamentally includes study. Stereotypes are studied in association with group membership, frames of mind, social character, and confidence, and their association with discrimination and prejudice turns out to be substantially more remarkable. The initial glance portrays that the two viewpoints above seem to repudiate each other and, surely, specialists from the two sides will in general overlook one another. Right now the "dichotomy" is finished by a third approach, which is of social representation. In accordance with this view point, stereotypes are viewed as fundamental or integrated articulations or segments of social representations (Morgenroth and Ryan, 2018). The degree of research this time rises above the individual as well as group level. The community or societal focus as well as a rather balanced positioning between universal and situational claims characterise this last frame.

In any case, it is of immense importance to note that the social representation approach doesn't consolidate or rise above social cognition and inter group relation (Burkitt, 2018). Each of the three is an effective portrayal of the perspectives on stereotypes, and it is regarded as the obligation of social researchers to exhibit adaptability while making selections of the most reasonable theoretical perspective to define stereotypes.

Shift in the role of stereotype

There has been a paradigmatic shift in the concept of stereotype from being considered as damaging and flawed to identifying their social as well as cognitive utility. Truth be told, the three significant methodologies explained above called attention to the manner in which stereotypes may be beneficial, if not unavoidable, in regular circumstances. The cognitive point of view is perhaps the most persuasive in exhibiting the manner in which stereotypes make their contribution to the cognitive economy and the way they help everyone save valuable cognitive resources. When contrasted with versatile social circumstances, stereotypes illustrate rapid as well as versatile "answers" (Burkitt, 2018). Utilizing these encourages individuals to become cognitive specialists and remain intellectually productive.

On the basis of the intergroup relation point of view, positive stereotypes of in-group members and less positive ones for out-group members tend to inflate the “positive social identity” of individuals. This is regarded as an exceptional contribution of European social psychology, i.e., social identity theory (Agarwal, Reddy, and Verma, 2019). Furthermore, it is seen that stereotype tend to provide a sense of control to individuals over their social contacts, thereby providing them assistance in reducing uncertainties and avoidance of riskier circumstances.

Question 2: How successful have been attempts by psychologists to explain how social groups develop along with comparisons between two theories?

The theory of group formation is mainly based upon three different elements that are activities, interaction, and sentiments (THEORIES OF GROUP FORMATION, 2019). There are different types of theories of group formation, which are further defined as follows:-

Theories of Social Group Formation

Propinquity Theory

Proximity is termed the physical closeness of one individual to another. The greater the degree of proximity, the more individuals will be attached to one another and thus come close to becoming friends. The term propinquity is mainly termed as nearness. As per this theory, it has been identified from the organisational context that those individuals who perform their work in organizations tend to form a group with other individuals more easily as compared to those individuals who work relatively in faraway places. This theory mainly states the formation of group is mainly based upon nearness. In addition to this, it has been identified that it does not consider and focuses more upon important issues within the formation of groups that are much more complex than nearness. However, it has been further identified that it is not necessary that groups come forward due to the proximity of the people within the workplace, while there might be some different reason for group formation. Thus, it has been stated that this theory is not analytical as it do not undertake complexities of group behaviour. According to this theory, it has been stated that individuals are affiliated with each other due to geographical or spatial proximity.

Homan Interaction Theory

As per the viewpoint of George C. Homans, it has been stated that the more activities individuals share, the more there will be interaction within them that strongly takes place, which further leads to a significant increase in the number of their shared activities and sentiment. It has been identified that the more sentiments individuals have for each other, the more their activities as well as interactions will exist. This theory significantly contributed towards and deals with having effective understanding related to group formation. Homans theories have been significantly based on three concepts that include sentiments, activities and interaction that are further directly linked to each other. It has been further identified that group member also share activities to accomplish their goals rather than due to physical proximity. The key element of this theory is interaction, due to which individuals develop a sense of common centre for each other in a significant manner. This theory is very comprehensive theory and is further based upon interaction activities and sentiments. All these elements are directly related with each other. It has been further identified that the interaction among individual duly arises because of the common sense that has been developed by them for each other. The sentiments further get expressed via informal group formation (GROUP FORMATION THEORIES, 2017). In addition to this, it has been further identified that if any form of distribution causes these three elements—sentences, activities, and interaction—it further disturbs all the others. Mention below the relationship between these three elements is been shown with the help of diagram:

Figure 4: The Interdependence of Activities, Interactions and Sentiments

Balance Theory

This theory is one of the other comprehensive theories of group formation that has been coined by Theodore Newcomb. According to him, it has been stated that individuals are attracted to each other on the basis of same attitudes towards a common relevant goal as well as objective. Along with this, it has been identified that groups are duly formed on the basis of attraction of individual towards each other with the same values as well as attitudes. In addition to this, it has been signified that individuals try to maintain a systematically form of relationship among the common attitude, attraction and values. With the help of this, they significantly aim towards restoring the balance when their relationship becomes unbalanced. However, it has been further identified that if balance cannot be restored, then in that situation, relationships get towards dissolved. Thus, in balance theory, interaction as well as attraction are the key elements that play most essential role. It has been identified that this theory do not duly explain overall view of group formation, as in this small amount of similarities of values and attitude do not necessarily lead towards formation of group. In addition to this, there are different types of reasons for group formation rather than attitudes as well as similarity. Thus, by identifying this theory, it has been duly determined that this theory is in additive in nature. As it introduce factor of balance to proprietary and interaction factors. As to form group, it must be essential to form a relationship between group members. In addition to this, it has been duly identified that the key point of this theory is that group only formed because of the common attitude and values that have been possessed by individual. Mentioned below, a diagrammatic description of this theory is being duly stated:

Figure 5: A Balance Theory of Group Formation

Exchange Theory

Exchange Theory was established by Thaibaunt and Kelly. It is mainly based upon the fact that reward is the cost outcome of interaction among employees. This theory of group formation mainly states that a person will or will not join a group as per the basis of cost and reward outcome (Bru and et. al.,  2019). This reward is a significant form of joining a group and is mainly in the form of gratifying the needs. While in cost, it is mainly in form of embarrassment, anxiety, frustration and fatigue. In simple terms, the exchange theory states that an individual attracted towards a group by thinking in terms of what in exchange he will get with interaction with group members. In this, if reward is greater than cost, then this outcome effectively attract attention of individuals towards joining the group. Thus, the exchange theory signifies exchanging relationship in terms with cost and rewards as to associate with group members.  Employees within an organisation may join to a group for social reason and economic security. Thus, as per Thaibaunt and Kelly exchange theory, it has been identified that in order to join a group, an individual always look towards exchange of relationship. In this, reward and cost acts as two most important element that attract individual to join a group. Thus, according to exchange theory of group formation, it has been stated that the outcome of interaction acts as the formative base for group formation (Kanitsar, 2019). According to this, it has been signified that outcome of interaction, which is cost and reward, are the two essential factors that attract individuals as to join a group. In addition to this, in exchange theory common attitude, affiliation and interaction play key and significant role.

Other theories related to group formation

According to the stage theory of group development, it has been signified that all team mainly go through via same stage progression. While according to some theories, it has been identified that all teams are not follow the same sequence of state. As per the equilibrium model that has been propounded by Bales in the year 1966, it has been stated that group members of team mainly strive towards maintaining formative balance among task-oriented actions and emotionally expressive behaviour. In addition to this, it has been determined that group is mainly concerned towards maintaining formative set of relationship with team members and completing tasks. The team significantly address two of these concerns as when they take place in sequence, in cycle or even at any stage in a simultaneous manner. In addition to this Punctuated equilibrium model that was coined by Gersick, it states that individuals in group does not progress in an aligned manner from one step to another in a predetermined sequence but alternate in between period of inaction with little noticeable progress towards accomplishment of objectives.

Comparison of Homan Interaction Theory and Exchange Theory

As per the above-mentioned theories, it has been signified that all theories have some certain beliefs of group formation and based upon certain factors that lead individuals to form a group. Mentioned below, a formative comparison in between Homan Interaction Theory and Exchange Theory is been duly undertaken:

According to human interaction theories, it has been identified that the level of interaction gets stronger if individuals share activities in greater numbers. In simple terms, it has been identified that George C. Homans argues that interaction among group and the environment within which they operate effectively shapes the final outcome and behaviour of group. In addition to this, it has been duly signified that the more activities individuals share, the more there will be interactions undertaken within individual that further lead towards increasing sentiments for each other. This theory is been mainly based upon three components that are interaction, activities and sentiments which is directly linked with each other. Along with this, it has been signified that individuals not only interact due to physical proximity but they also interact because to fulfil group goals in the most effective manner. In this theory, the main key element is interaction, as because of this factor, individuals develop common sense for each other (Agarwal, Reddy and Verma, 2019). Within this, the sentiments within individuals get expressed via creation of informal groups.

While if it is being considered about exchange theory, it has been identified that this theory is mainly dependent upon the reward-cost outcome of interaction. In simple terms, individuals attract towards group if they get exchange of interaction. In this, the maximum positive level tends towards reward. Thus, according to the above-mentioned discussion, it has been identified that both of these theories are duly based upon different types of prospects. As in humans, individuals form group because of the number of interaction that have been undertaken within them. While on the exchange theories, it has been identified that individual from groups get any form of exchange with the interaction and group formation. Both of these theories have totally different bases of group formation. In addition to this, it has been signified that Homans theory is very comprehensive theories and are further dependent upon number of activities as well as interactions along with sentiments. While in exchange theory, individual think to form group if they get reward in exchange. If it is being considered in human theory, interaction play key significant role, while in exchange theory common attitude, proprietyand interaction tend to be key significant factors of this theory. Thus, with the help of formative comparison between two different theories of group formation that have been undertaken, it has been duly identified that both of these theories of group formation have different set of prospective that differ their perceptions from each other in number of ways.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the above discussion, it can be said that social psychology plays a crucial role in explaining the meaning, emergence, and contexts of a number of concepts. In this relation, it is determined that social psychology tends to provide theoretical perspective over the concept of stereotypes. There are 3 main theories which underpin the explanation of concept of stereotype, namely, intergroup group relation, social cognition and social representations. These have divergent as well as similar points of views regarding stereotypes. Further, it is determined that propinquity theory, balance theory, and exchange theory are some of the vital theories that are engaged in the formation as well as development of social groups.

You May Also Like To Read:

Importance of Good Relationship of Counsellors and Clients

Social Cognitive Theory Bandura Model

Business Psychology- Reflective Personal Development Report and Action Plan