Social psychology lacks a definition because practitioners view the world through different philosophical frameworks, just like religion, philosophy, and politics. Perspectives in social psychology can be as numerous and diverse as the observers (Aronson, 1972); but generally fall into the following main categories: sociocultural, evolutionary, social learning, and social-cognitive. After summarizing each type, this section will
- Propose that each perspective provides valuable insight into the same phenomena rather than mutually exclusive, and;
- Consider how the emerging field of social neuroscience offers a fresh perspective on the brain's physiological processes that influence social behavior.
Sociocultural perspective
Analyzing the mob mentality that drives lynching, economic fads, and religious fervor, Edward Ross (1919) argued in the early 1900s that groups drive individual social behavior. This became the central concept of the sociocultural perspective, which sees that the social environment has the most substantial impact on social behavior. The environment includes social structures and normative systems. Social structures are the group formations in which the individual exists, like family and work. Normative systems are the values and beliefs that groups develop to control members (Pepitone, 1981). Nationality, social class, membership, and other factors at the group level drive individual social thoughts and actions.
A central concept of the sociocultural perspective is “culture,” meaning the “beliefs, customs, habits, and language shared by people living in a particular time and place” (Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007, p. 6). Such shared ways of doing and thinking are features of the environment that humans develop through interaction; the emerging norms dictate appropriate social behavior. The sociocultural perspective focuses mainly on variances in different cultures' behaviors (Synthegrate, 2020).
Evolutionary perspective
Writing from a biologist's perspective, William McDougall (1919) proposed an evolutionary perspective on social behavior. McDougall proposed that the psychological predispositions that contribute to the survival of the human species drive social behavior. While the biologist looks for evidence of evolution by digging for bones, the fossils the evolutionary psychologist looks for are the “inherited psychological mechanisms we still carry around inside our heads” (Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007, p. 495). Considering Darwin’s theory of evolution to understand how natural selection influences social behavior, evolutionary social psychology assumes that people inherit brains and genetics that help them deal with social situations.
The central concept of the evolutionary perspective is natural selection, the process by which animals pass survival and reproductive characteristics to offspring. Adaptability is a product of natural selection. The capacity for social interaction and the flexibility for adapting to a dynamic physical and social environment result from natural selection (McDougall, 1919; Pepitone, 1981; Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007).
Evolutionary psychology initially gave credence to the nature side of the nature-versus-nurture debate by arguing that instinct is innate, hard-wired. However, in light of emerging discoveries in genetics and neurology, the evolutionary perspective is shifting to recognize that biological influences of behavior are flexible, responsive to the environment, and individual choice (Gangestad, Haselton, & Buss, 2006; Sinha, 2004). Though scientists are still seeking connections between specific genes and specific behaviors, genetics interact with internal and external forces to modulate behavior (Pepitone, 1981).
Evolutionary psychologists conduct cross-cultural and cross-species research to identify universal human behavior characteristics, not just differences in people. Beneath cultural differences and diversity classifications, evolutionary social psychologists see a “core of similarity” (Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007, p. 495) that connects all human beings. The evolutionary perspective focuses on these shared characteristics to find general patterns in social behavior universal among all cultures. Differences also fall within the evolutionary lens. For example, the evolutionary perspective might explore how all cultures have developed marriage to strengthen families while also having an interest in the different strategies for survival and reproduction that exist within and among cultures. Evolutionary psychology proposes that, despite many variations across cultures, monogamous marriage between a single man and a single woman is a nearly universal feature of all cultures. Similarly, reciprocity rules are universal across cultures, while each culture has different variations for gift giving.
The evolutionary perspective also provides insights into the source of prejudice as an evolved psychological reaction that was a useful strategy for helping ancestors respond to strangers (Öhman, Lundqvist, & Esteves, 2001). Of course, believing the evolutionary premise for prejudice does not excuse prejudicial behavior in a modern context. The evolutionary perspective now realizes that human behavior is influenced by individual choice and environmental factors.
In short, although humans may seem dazzlingly different, the evolutionary social perspective provides insight into how all people have similar goals and concerns.
Social learning perspective
Through the social learning perspective, the combination of individual experience with reward and punishment drive social behavior. Social learning is both direct and indirect. Direct learning is what parents and authority figures tell us what to do. Indirect learning is how the people around us influence our decisions and behaviors. Direct and indirect influences can positively and negatively impact behavior (Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007; Myers, 2008). On the negative side, in the 1960s, Albert Bandura (1961) observed something that may seem obvious to any parent: children imitate aggressive behavior. Similarly, Craig Anderson and Karen Dill (2000) found that violent video games increase players' aggressive behavior and delinquency while lowering academic achievement.
The social learning perspective is like the sociocultural perspective. It looks for causes of behavior in the environment and assumes that an objective reality exists. A key difference is that the social learning perspective takes a micro view that focuses on an individual’s unique experience. Social learning assumes that habits learned by the individual in early life are difficult to break. In comparison, the sociocultural perspective takes a macro view that considers how the forces of the group influence individual behavior, assuming that norms change quickly (Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007).
Social cognitive perspective
Starting in the 1930s, Kurt Lewin proposed a social cognitive perspective through which personal attention to and interpretation of events drives social behavior. Through Lewin’s view, individual behavior is a function of the individual in the environment, as represented by the formula, B=ƒ(P, E) (1951). For example, individual traits interact with the environment to influence behavior at work, making job behavior a consequence of the person and the situation. Here lies a vital differentiation from the social-cognitive perspective. The sociocultural, evolutionary, and social learning perspectives assume an objective reality. The social-cognitive view sees reality as an individual construct, a dynamic interaction between inner experience and the outside world.
Proposing that individuals create their own reality does not mean that objective reality does not exist. Instead, Lewin emphasized that the individual’s perception of events and the individual’s goals drive individual behavior in social settings. In other words, the groups with which the individual associates influence the individual’s thoughts and actions.
The interaction between inner experience and the outside world means a close connection between social psychology and cognitive psychology (Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007). Emphasizing the “socially structured mind” (Turner & Penelope, 1997, p. 355), this approach explores the connection between society and cognition, paying particular attention to how individuals select, interpret, and remember events. A problem here is that people have limited capacity to process social information, so they base social decisions on superficial detail that can lead to bad actions. Another problem is that people have difficulty being objective about social information and tend to process only the information that portrays them positively (Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007).
Researchers typically use quantitative research in controlled environments to test a theory-based hypothesis using statistical techniques. The laboratory is the primary place for conducting social cognitive research. However, researchers in this area also conduct field research using surveys, questionnaires, case studies, and observation. Because the psychological processes that create an individual’s reality occur within that individual, the individual is the primary analysis unit.
Still, social cognitive researchers study how the social context influences individual psychology by exploring the group relationships and social structures that interact with the individual to influence psychological processes. Researchers in this field focus on the interactions between people to determine how the context affects individual behavior; how society structures the individual mind.
Neurological perspective
The emerging field of social neuroscience provides a fresh perspective into the neurobiological factors that influence social emotions, perceptions, and behavior to show how the brain adapts to social interactions. “Influence” is an important concept here because a fundamental assumption in neurology is that the brain is malleable; it is capable of changing and adapting until it dies (Johns Hopkins Medicine, 2008; Fischer, 2008; Valenzuela, 2005). In other words, humans can learn, adapt, and develop throughout their lifespan (Cohen, 2006).
Rather than reducing complex behaviors to biological mechanics in the brain, social neuroscience sees humans as “psycho-social organisms” (Myers, 2008, p. 8). From this perspective, the brain and the mind belong to the same system, making the dynamic interplay among biological, psychological, and social influences key considerations for research. By integrating neurology with social psychology, social neuroscience has the “potential to advance the study of intergroup phenomena by providing overlapping insights one cannot glean from behavioral data alone” (Dovidio, Pearson, & Orr, 2008, p. 260).
For example, observing brain images, neuroscientists think they have found an overlap between the brain's social pain and physical pain centers. This indicates that social isolation or social injury causes a cognitive sensation similar to physiological pain. Geoff MacDonald (2009) proposed that social rejection triggers a primitive psychological emergency that motivated human ancestors to develop and maintain social connections required for survival. MacDonald concluded that
“It appears increasingly clear that one of the most important proximal motivators of such social approach and avoidance tendencies is the genuine feeling of pain that helps protect our connections to others” (p. 22).
This process can also be contributing to the peer pressure that drives individuals to commit acts against their interests so that they can be part of the group. For example, participate in gang activities or commit unethical acts at work to be a team player.
Neuroanatomist John Allman (2000) proposed that the complexity of the adult brain has evolved as a direct result of social interaction, particularly the interaction that exists “with the establishment of the human family as a social and reproductive unit” (p. 2). Further, neurophysiologist William Calvin (1996) said that the challenges of social life are of “primary importance” in evolution because the “innovative problem solving” necessary for dealing with social encounters have influenced the brain to evolve to its current state.
Social intelligence allows humans and other social beings to build sensory templates for understanding oneself in relation to others, develop the memory capacity necessary to track social interactions and adapt behaviors to attract mates, and build the relationships needed for survival. Allman (2000) identified a specialized cell—the von Economo neuron—that governs social interplay among social beings, like humans, elephants, and whales. The von Economo neuron is in an area of the brain associated with social activities. It directly connects to self-monitoring functions and social emotions. This connection gave primitive humans a survival edge by allowing them to determine friend or foe in a fraction of a second. The von Economo neuron may also be central to wiring for social intelligence, enabling individuals to understand correctly and interact within a social context (Chen, 2009).
Integrative perspective
An ideologue who embraces one perspective may see divergent, mutually exclusive philosophies. Our opportunity is to develop an integrative perspective that recognizes seemingly conflicting views offer us different perspectives of the same complex picture. The answer to the question about which view is correct becomes “all of them.”
Restricting views through a single lens can provide a limited and distorted picture. In contrast, combining perspectives can provide a more complete and accurate perspective of how individuals and groups interact. Considering multiple perspectives provides a more comprehensive and accurate picture of social phenomena. In other words, understanding social psychology becomes clearer when viewing phenomena through various perspectives.
Kenrick et al. (2007) provided an integrated framework for understanding social phenomena by placing the perspectives on a continuum between proximate and ultimate. The proximate represents the here and now. The ultimate represents ancestral environments. Individual experience lies between the proximate and ultimate.
The cognitive perspectives, social-cognition and social-learning, explore the immediate causes of behavior--what happens here and now--connecting them to the individual’s memory and experience with reward and punishment. Sociocultural and evolutionary perspectives explore how culture and evolution influence social learning and behavior. The model proposed by Kenrick et al. (2002) includes neither neurological nor systems perspectives. Still, both can integrate throughout their proposed framework. Even considering these and numerous other perspectives, none alone provides an adequate understanding of human social interaction. As a fluctuating consequence of dynamically interacting factors within the individual and the context, understanding social behavior requires developing understanding through multiple perspectives and adjusting perspectives as dynamics interact and adapt.
###