Some of the “big ideas” of social psychology proposed by David Myers (2008) are that people think differently from one another, institutions can be dangerous, groups influence individuals, and both biological and environmental factors influence behavior. An outsider who considers the profundities of social psychology might wonder why someone would spend time exploring such common-sense issues; that these ideas might seem new to the young field of social psychology, but seem like common sense to the layperson, while parallels to each exist in traditional ideologies.

The social being as an amateur psychologist

Addressing criticisms that social psychology documents the obvious, Aronson (2008, p. 7) asserted that most people are “amateur social psychologists” (p. 7) who have developed satisfactory models of social psychology through anecdotal experience and observation. However, even when social psychology and folk psychology agree, a fundamental difference is that a layperson is satisfied with the understanding gained through personal experience, while the professional rigorously gathers empirical data to understand how individuals and groups interact (Flick, 1992). Aronson explained this differentiation by saying that conventional wisdom is “based upon shrewd observation that has stood the test of time,” but lacks the “rigor and impartiality of careful scientific investigation” (2008, p. 7).

Scientifically validating conventional wisdom

Lawrence Neuman (2003) argued that social psychology research produces a more accurate picture of social phenomena than alternative methods of understanding because social psychology research provides a methodical process for producing knowledge. Alternative methods of understanding social phenomenon—tradition, authority, media myths, personal experience, common sense, folklore—lack the organized and systematic structure that creates conclusions that “are more likely to be true” (p. 2) than alternatives. The knowledge gained from scientific study is not perfect, but results are less likely to have flaws because of a “slow, incomplete process for reducing untruth” (p. 17).

Aronson argued, “There are no sacred truths in science” (p. 407), meaning that no matter how intuitive the concept if repeated experiments do not support it, the ethical scientist throws it out. Such declarations put significant faith in the scientific process. Truths may not be sacred, but politicized untruths promoted as truth can cause significant harm before they die lingering deaths. For example, the insistence that self-esteem is the epitome of human existence regardless of accomplishment or ability remains doctrine; regardless of significant evidence to the contrary (Smelser, 1989; Baumeister, 1996).

Researching simulated reality

Another differentiation is that the layperson learns by observing social phenomena as it happens. In comparison, a social psychologist makes things happen to observe social reactions to simulated events (Aronson, 2008; Myers, 2008; Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2007). This allows the social psychologist to draw precise conclusions using data not available to the individual experiencing actual phenomena. However, simulated or manipulated events do not necessarily represent reality; the truth learned in a laboratory does not necessarily translate into truth in the real world.