Social Psychology\u27s Three Little Pigs

Three perspectives on the nature of scientific research are discussed allegorically: (1) basic science, or the study of theoretically meaningful hypotheses through rigorous research; (2) applied science, which focuses on practically significant problems; and (3) action research, which integrates elements of both basic and applied science. The allegory concludes by advocating the unification of basic and applied science

Effective Group Meetings and Decision Making

Single individuals do much to advance the cause of peace, but much of the work - the decisions, advocacy, planning, and organizing - is handled by groups. In groups we pool our knowledge and abilities, give each other feedback, and tackle problems too overwhelming to face alone. Group members give us emotional and social support and can stimulate us to become more creative, insightful, and committed to our goals. When we work with others who share our values and goals, we often come to understand ourselves, and our objectives, more clearly. Not every group, however, realizes these positive consequences. Often we dread going to committee meetings, council sessions, and discussion groups. They waste valuable time as discussions get bogged down in side issues. Jokes about drawbacks abound; meetings are cul-de-sacs to which ideas are lured and then strangled, or sessions where people keep minutes and waste hours. But groups need not be time-wasting interpersonal traffic jams if members remain mindful of four key processes that can make or break groups: leading, communicating, resolving conflict, and solving problems

Reference Group

Any group, including general social groupings based on demographic similarities (e.g., race or culture), that individuals use as a basis for social comparison

Group Dynamics

Engagement-elevating activities used in a course such as group dynamics fall into two broad categories: topic-focused short-term activities and problem-focused, longer-term projects. Topic-focused activities are, in most cases, deliberate applications of a concept or process in a group-based experience and are typically tied to the content of the course in a direct way. For example, when students study group decision-making they may meet in small groups to make a series of decisions. Afterwards, they examine their group’s decisions, and gauge for themselves the extent to which their group reacted as theory and research would suggest. Problem-focused projects, in contrast, ask students to work in small groups over an extended period of time (i.e., weeks or months) on a group project. For example, students may be asked to develop a paper or a class presentation on a specific topic or conduct a research project under the guidance of the course instructor. Both types of activities can help the students gain detailed knowledge of the course topics, experience group processes first hand and perhaps even develop practical skill useful when working with others in groups. Both can falter, however, if the students never grasp the pedagogical purposes of the activities. Students often enjoy the active-learning, experiential phase, but then they fail to make the connection between the experience and the psychological concept (Forsyth, 2003). To help them make this connection, the instructor may need to add description, analysis, and application phases to complete the learning cycle. Students must not only experience the event but must also describe their experiences, tie their experiences back to course-related concepts and findings, and consider the personal and practical implications of the experiences. In consequence, at minimum, extensive discussion is needed following each activity, but ideally students should complete some type of written analysis that helps them translate their experience into psychological knowledge (Forsyth, 2003)

The Big Ball of Blame

In 2005 a Saffir-Simpson Category 5 hurricane, Katrina, passed over Florida, strengthened in the Gulf of Mexico, and then set its sights on New Orleans. The hurricane caused destruction and death, for many residents were unable to evacuate to safety. Then this natural disaster escalated into a man-made catastrophe, as days passed and local, state and federal officials moved at a glacial pace to help. Some called it bureaucracy and poor planning. Others used stronger words: incompetence, injustice, racism and business as usual in an elitist America that takes better care of the wealthy than its poor. But whatever word you like to use, it was wrong: People suffered and died because no one helped

Delphi Therapy

The Delphi technique is a structured forecasting and decision-making method that assesses and summarizes the individually held opinions and judgments of group members with little or no discussion or deliberation among the members. Named for the legendary Delphic oracle, this method involves surveying members repeatedly, with the results of each round of surveys informing the framing of the questions for subsequent rounds. The Delphi technique avoids some of the limitations of traditional group decision-making procedures and is particularly useful when the group members are so widely divided on issues that a face-to-face discussion will not be productive

Foundations and Applications of Group Psychotherapy: A Sphere of Influence (Book Review)

Using groups to help people achieve personal goals and therapeutic change is an old idea. Indeed, Ettin (1992), in his book Foundations and Applications of Group Psychotherapy: A Sphere of Influence, suggests that Socrates was perhaps the first group psychotherapist. After all, he regularly convened small groups of scholars who sought intellectual, ethical, and interpersonal insights. Even the sage Socrates, however, could not have anticipated the widespread use of groups that exists today. When individuals experience problems in adjustment, in behavior, or in health, they often rely on groups to solve these problems

An Attributional Analysis of Students\u27 Reactions to Success and Failure

Like it or not, evaluation is as much a part of education as is learning. In most schools and universities students are regularly tested and evaluated by their teachers, who communicate their appraisals in the form of a grade. When the papers are handed back, the grades are posted, or report cards are sent home, students find out if they have succeeded or if they have failed. How do students react to these academic evaluations? According to a growing number of studies, the answer to this question depends upon their attributions: students\u27 inferences about the causes of their performances and evaluations. Elaborating on theoretical foundations established by Heider (1958), Jones (Jones, 1978; Jones & Davis, 1965), and Kelley (1967, 1971), these investigations assume that students actively strive to understand the origins of their academic outcomes. They ask not only What did I get on the test? but also Why did I get this particular grade? In reviewing the results of these investigations, we will concentrate on four basic areas: (1) the nature and dimensionality of attributions formulated in academic settings, (2) the impact of success and failure on attributions, (3) the mediating role of attributions in determining expectations and affective reactions, and ( 4) the behavioral consequences of various types of. attributions

Social Comparison and Influence in Groups

This chapter is a reminder of social comparison theory\u27s foundations in group processes rather than an extension of social comparison to groups. Social comparison research and theory, by tradition, stress individualistic, psychological purposes of comparison, such as satisfying basic drives, defining and enhancing the self, and alleviating distress or anxiety; but Festinger (1954) used the theory to explain shifts in members\u27 opinions, elevated motivation and competition among members, opinion debates, and the rejection of dissenters in groups (Allen & Wilder, 1977; Goethals & Darley, 1987; Singer, 1981; Turner, 1991; Wheeler, 1991). This chapter revisits the theory\u27s roots in groups before sampling some of the roles played by comparisonlike mechanisms in contemporary accounts of group dynamics