WEEK 1/3–MORALES–PS 1

WEEK 1-3

CHAPTER 1 - DEFINITION OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

1.2 Amplitude of the processes studied by social Psychology

Several authors, among whom G. W. Allport (1968), Jones (1985), Graumann (1995) stand out and
Páez, Valencia, Morales, and Ursúa (1992) point out that 1908 marks the starting point of the
discipline. On that date, the title Social Psychology appears for the first time in a publication, and
he does it in double duty, in a work by McDougall and another by Ross.
Throughout the 20th century, social psychology consolidated as a discipline until it established its boundaries.
current.

Furthermore, the manual does not include group and intergroup processes, a content
fundamental of the discipline studied in another subject of the degree (Psychology of
groups; see Huici and Morales, 2004a, 2004b).
 WEEK 1/3–MORALES–PS 2

What Table 1.1 does show is that the study of some processes dates back
practically at the moments of takeoff of the discipline. The remaining processes are
they were integrating into the discipline gradually.
There are many reasons that lead to new processes continuing to be incorporated into the existing ones.
existing. Some are related to the very nature of the process studied. It is logical
that no psychosocial studies on mass media appear until
the fifties, as it is then when the media truly acquire the
the protagonism they have today. The variety of processes studied is very
great.
The definition of social psychology adopted here is that of G. W. Allport: "An attempt to
understand and explain how people's thinking, feeling, and behavior
individuals are influenced by the real, imagined, or implied presence of others
people.
This is a classic definition that G. W. Allport formulated as early as 1935. This definition places
the emphasis on the person's relationship with their social environment. The key concept is
influence. The psychological processes of individual people (thinking,
feelings, behavior) do not take place in a social vacuum, as there will always be others
people.
BOX: The studies by Mullen and collaborators on ethnofoulisms.
The work of Mullen and collaborators on the ethnofaulisms (Mullen, 2001; 2004; Mullen and Johnson,
1993; Mullen and Rice, 2003; Rice and Mullen, 2005) is a good example of the psychosocial tradition of study
of stereotypes and serves, at the same time, to illustrate the utility of G. W. Allport's definition.
Ethnofulism is a term introduced by Roback in 1944 to designate the ways in which the
members of a group refer to the members of other groups (exogroups), especially when
the latter are of a different ethnic origin. Mullen and colleagues suggest that ethnofascisms
they play an important role in the relationships between groups in a very specific case, which is the one that
it interests these authors, namely, when one of those groups is immigrant in a country.
They start, in their study, from a series of findings from the research conducted in this field:
Ethnofaulisms allow us to know what members of a certain group think and how they think.
welcoming society of the immigrant ethnic groups it hosts. They are, therefore, representations
cognitive.
Ethnofoulism is associated with social distance in a very specific sense: the less complexity there is
the greater the ethnofalism, the greater the social distance that is attempted to be maintained with respect to the members
of the group to which it applies.
Summary of this section
The results of the research by Mullen and collaborators can be formulated in the
terms of the definition of G. W. Allport. In fact, they are results that reveal
that the presence of other people (in this case, immigrant ethnic groups), represented
 WEEK 1/3–MORALES–PS 3

symbolically in ethnofolklorism, influences the behavior (exclusion) of people (in this

case, members of the host society.
1.3 The Complexity of Social Psychology
The influence of stereotypes on exclusionary behaviors, as analyzed in the
Mullen and colleagues' work highlights the joint action of several
processes of different nature that intersect with each other.
Some of them are individual, related to cognitions (for example, the
complexity of ethnofaults) and with emotions (for example, their valence), but
others are structural; that is, they reflect permanent and global dimensions of the
society.
An example of these structural processes is the extent to which the host society
foreigners refer to members of an immigrant ethnic group. As the States
United North America, a country with a predominance of Anglo-Saxon, to an English immigrant,
being also Anglo-Saxon, very different ethnofoulisms will be applied to him than those that are applied,
let's take, for example, a Greek immigrant.
In summary, the research by Mullen and collaborators is evidence that the processes
involved in the influence of stereotypes on exclusionary behaviors are very
varied and of different nature.
This is also characteristic of the processes studied by social psychology and
appreciates a detailed analysis of the content of Table 1.1. The rest of the present
section examines this matter in greater detail, through an analysis of two of the
theories of greatest influence in social psychology: social identity theory and the
Theory of the justification of the system.
Psychosocial processes in Social Identity Theory
The Social Identity Theory was initially formulated by Tajfel in 1972. From the beginning,
sought to establish relationships between several of the psychosocial processes presented in the
Table 1.1 and interconnect them with each other. Several chapters of this volume address various
aspects of Social Identity Theory (what is a good indication of its importance).
The definition of social identity appears in Tajfel's first work on this subject.
... the social identity of a
a person's identity is linked to the knowledge of their belonging to certain social groups and to the
emotional and evaluative meaning that arises from that belonging. It is evident that, in
In any complex society, a person belongs to a large number of social groups and
that belonging to certain groups will be very important to her, while the
belonging to others will not be.
Social identity, therefore, is the consequence of a person defining themselves.
starting from their belonging to a certain social group (see Turner and Haslam, 2001, p. 28).
 WEEK 1/3 - MORALES - PS 4

Several factors intervene in the activation, permanence over time, and change of social identity.
processes of different nature.
Individual processes: among them is the person's motivation for an evaluation.
positive self-esteem (first individual process). It is a type of motivation that arises
in many of the processes studied by social Psychology. Along with this process, there is
to mention the importance that the group has for the person (second process)
individual).
. Tajfel himself, in his definition of social identity cited above, has a good
Be careful to underline that not all groups hold the same importance for
the person. The combination of these two processes (individual motivation for a
positive auto-evaluation more (+) importance of the group for the person) leads to
in the motivation to seek a positive evaluation of the group (third process
individual).
Group processes: none of the three previous individual processes would lead to the
social identity if people did not compare the important group for them with others
groups present in the social context.
. When that comparison achieves its goal, social distinctiveness is produced.
positive,” which is the basis and foundation of social identity. It is what
shown in the central column of Figure 1.1. These processes are group processes because
the person has to put their characteristics and properties in parentheses
individuals and attend to their characteristics as members of a group that
maintains relationships with other groups, within a determined social context.
Macrosocial processes: it is precisely the context that determines that some groups
they are valued more or less positively. It will be seen later in this chapter that
In Italy, being from the North is valued more positively than being from the South (Jost, Burgess and
Mosso, 2001; Schizzerotto, Peri, Sniderman and Piazza, 1994) and that the same happens in
the United States of America.
The Theory of Social Identity establishes various connections between processes of different
nature.
. According to Turner and Haslam (2001), three stand out in particular:
. An antagonistic relationship between personal identity (individual process) and the
social (group process): when people emphasize one of them is at the expense of
the other (although this antagonism needs to be nuanced, as noted in Chapter
29).
. A close mutual dependence between social identity (group process) and
social context (macrosocial process): although the first is linked to belonging
group, the degree to which it is positive is related to the position that the group occupies.
in society as a whole.
 WEEK 1/3–MORALES–PS 5

. People's beliefs about the extent to which the positions of their own
group and the other groups are stable and legitimate also depend on the
context.
. This third connection (between people's beliefs and context) is crucial for the
Social identity theory, as it helps explain why people
they sometimes cling to their social identity, even if it costs them their life (as
check every day in the media) and why, at times,
they try to modify it or even change groups.

Psychosocial processes in the System Justification Theory

The Theory of System Justification, proposed by Jost and Banaji (1994) and summarized by
Jost, Burgess, and Mosso (2001) are rooted in research on the psychology of the
justice.
Part of a finding: people prefer to believe that the social system that
belonging is right, legitimate and justifiable and they resist believing that it is arbitrary, unfair or
illegitimate. And this happens even in social systems that generate great inequalities,
like the capitalist industrial system.
For those who belong to socially or economically privileged groups, accepting that the
the social system is structured fairly, rewarding those who have
diligent and have earned merits, and punishes those who have not, is compatible
with two basic human desires:
Believing that one is a valuable and worthy person.
Believe that the group itself is valuable and respectable.
 WEEK 1/3–MORALES–PS 6

The situation is very different for members of socially or economically disadvantaged groups.
disadvantaged. For them, accepting the justice and legitimacy of the social system (what Jost
what the collaborators call 'system justification' is clearly incompatible with:
The reasons for enhancing self-esteem (justification of the ego).
The enhancement of the status of one's own group (justification of the group).
Indeed, for those who find themselves in a situation of social disadvantage or
economic, to think that the system is legitimate means having to admit that its own
the disadvantaged situation is attributable to deficits of the self or of the group to which they belong.
change, when someone, in that situation, believes that he or his group deserve esteem
high, the conclusion is that the system is illegitimate and takes away what belongs to him
justice.
Therefore, the theory of the justification of the system proposes that the situation to which it
the challenges faced by members of disadvantaged social groups are potentially conflicting
and fosters the mismatch between the self, the group, and the system. The concept of crisis of
legitimization refers, precisely, to the numerous situations in which the person
must face needs that are contradictory to each other, and especially:
The need to feel valuable, justified, and legitimized as an individual actor.
(justification of the ego).
The need to be part of groups that she and others consider valuable and
legitimate (justification of one's own group).
The need to feel that the existing system of social order is fair,
legitimate and justifiable (justification of the system).
The theory aims to establish explicit connections between:
Individual processes: the cognitive and emotional states of individuals.
Group processes: the dynamics of relationships within groups, and between
these two processes (individual and group).
Macrosocial processes: the conditions imposed by material demands and
ideological of the global system.
The theory develops these connections through several phases.
First phase
It sought to demonstrate that a pejorative view of one's own group, combined with a
favoritism or bias towards the out-group is something that happens in the real world (not just in the
psychosocial laboratory). The importance of this demonstration lies in that, for the
members of low-status groups, this pejorative view of the group itself and the bias
favoring the exogroup directly contradicts the justification of the ego and the
justification of the group, two well-documented reasons in Social Psychology.
 WEEK 1/3–MORALES–PS 7

Rubini and Guermandi (2000) used the data from this survey to investigate the hypotheses of
the justification of the system in these groups that differ in status; that is to say, among the Italians
from the North and the South.

Second phase
It is a crucial phase in the development of the System Justification Theory, as it
It is about demonstrating, precisely, that people exhibit stereotypes and prejudices.
because these serve to defend and provide support for the maintenance of the social system
in which they live.
Jost et al. (2001) propose as representative research for this second phase the
study conducted by Jost, Mosso, Rubini and Guermandi (2000) in a city
American.
The object of the study was the stereotypes about Northerners and Southerners in the United States,
two groups that differ in status very similarly to the Northerners and Southerners of Italy.
The participants in the study, when evaluating Northerners and Southerners Americans in a
a series of traits, they stereotyped them in the following way:
Those from the North are more competitive, productive, active, efficient, dominant.
responsible, ambitious, and selfish than those from the South.
Those from the South are more religious, friendly, traditional, cheerful, emotional, and honest.
than those from the North.

. Participants were also asked to answer three questions about

the socioeconomic and status differences between the Southerners and the
North, specifically, they had to evaluate: The magnitude of the differences.
legitimacy of differences. The likelihood of change of those differences in the
future.
. This is interpreted as proof that stereotypes serve to legitimize the
status differences between groups. That is, the simple act of thinking about
the stereotypes of both groups intensified perceptions of legitimacy and the
stability of social inequality, which constitutes direct evidence that the
stereotypy generates a function of legitimization or justification in support of the system
social.
Third phase
It aims to analyze the conflicts and the fluctuations in the reasons for justification of
group and the system. It has already been seen that in the members of high status groups, these two
the reasons are consistent and complementary, but the same does not happen with the
members of low status groups, where they are mutually contradictory and enter into
conflict between themselves.

Therefore, in these low-status groups, there will be ambivalence when evaluating the
endogroup and this ambivalence will be much greater than in high-status groups.
 WEEK 1/3–MORALES–PS 8

What is predicted is that, in important groups for the person, when the reasons for
justification of the system acquires greater strength, the ambivalence towards the in-group:
will increase among members of low-status groups;
it will decrease among members of high-status groups.
Summary of this section
Several of the processes studied in Social Identity Theory and in the Theory of
Justification of the system are of different nature. Some are strictly individual,
it is the case of the 'person's motivation to evaluate themselves positively' in the
Social identity theory and of the
belief that one is a valuable and worthy person in the Theory of
justification of the system. Other processes are of a macrosocial nature, such as the context
social in the first of the theories and the status differences between groups in the second.
It has also been seen that there are processes of a group nature.
The two theories presented in this section need to establish relationships between processes.
of different nature in order to reach an in-depth analysis of the process in which
they are particularly interested in, the "social identity" in the first of the theories, and the
justification of the system in the second.
In both cases, they are complex processes; that is, processes in which they intersect.
many others, some of which are of a different nature.
It is worth noting that both theories fit the definition of G.W. Allport, as
although their content is very different, both focus on how the presence of others
people (for example, the members of their own group and of other groups, in the case of the
Social identity theory influences behavior (search for positive social identity)
of the people (in this case, the members of the group itself.
Given that social Psychology has traditionally paid less attention to the processes of
macrosocial context that is related to the group and individual levels, three are introduced below
boxes that aim to counteract this trend. Two of them focus on the
impact of social structure on psychosocial processes.
The first shows the influence of gender, one of the fundamental dimensions of
any social order; the second addresses the consequences of social class, one
dimension as fundamental as gender (or even more) and the third box addresses the
the role of culture, another important component of the context.
1.4 The nature of the processes studied by Social Psychology
At the beginning of this chapter, it was noted that the variety of processes studied by the
Social psychology is very broad. In a previous section, an attempt has been made to illustrate that.
complexity with the detailed presentation of two contemporary psychosocial theories, that of the
Social Identity and System Justification. Stangor and Jost (1997) take a step further. Those
 WEEK 1/3 – MORALES – PS 9

processes are not all of the same nature. In line with the tradition of the discipline, the
authors propose to group them into three large classes or categories.
Traditional view of the nature of psychosocial processes
As has been noted in a previous section, it is traditional in the discipline to consider that
The processes of interest for social psychology can be classified based on their nature.
Processes of an individual nature
Some examples of research:
Individual stereotyping: a process that organizes and simplifies perception. It defends values.
important social aspects for the person. It plays an important individual psychological function.
(Tajfel, 1981)
Idiosyncratic behaviors: people display behaviors that show their way of being.
individual, its idiosyncrasy (Tajfel and Turner, 1989).
Self-esteem: people have a personal feeling of their own worth as
individual persons (Luhtanen and Crocker, 1992).
Group nature processes
Some examples of research:
Group stereotyping (shared): it serves (Tajfel, 1981) to explain social events and for
justifying collective action and affirming the worth of the group itself. These are group functions.
•Group behaviors (uniform): people engage in behaviors similar or identical to those of
other members of the group to which they belong or identify. These behaviors serve to
show their belonging to groups and do so on the sidelines, or even against, their preferences
individuals (Tajfel and Turner, 1989).
Group self-esteem (shared): people have a sense of the group's worth...
that belong to them, which may or may not align with their self-esteem as individual persons
(Luhtanen and Crocker, 1992).
Processes of a macrosocial nature
Jost and Banaji (1994) argue that in many of the processes studied by Psychology
social structures and macrosocial systems act.
Thus, many times, resorting to the stereotype that people from group X 'are
"lazy ones", is used to explain why people in that group live in situations of
poverty and marginalization. We would find here an ideological justification that tries
to provide legitimacy to the economic and social system.
In general, processes of macrosocial nature are those related to status,
power, politics, ideology, and society as a whole.
It is logical that if there are processes of different nature within the discipline, there will also be
they can classify the psychosocial explanations of the processes based on that same
nature.
The following are examples of these different psychosocial explanations.
 WEEK 1/3–MORALES–PS 10

Explanations centered on individual people

In general, all those that resort to unique properties of the individual person. The example
classic is the explanation that finds the basis of prejudice against minority groups in
characteristics of the personality of those who maintain it (the case of the study 'Personality')
"Authoritarian", which is presented in the chapter on prejudice.)
Group-centered explanations
They are those that resort to properties of group behavior. A good example is provided by the
theories that believe to find the basis of prejudice and stereotyping in social beliefs
shared within a group. It is what, among other things, Social Identity Theory does,
exposed in a previous section of this chapter.
Explanations centered on macrosocial processes
Male dominance, as a result of an asymmetric social structure that condemns the
women to a subordinate position in society, leads to, as seen in a box.
previous to this chapter, a series of consequences such as dominant paternalism,
benevolent paternalism, hostile and benevolent sexism, and the existence of a group
"silenced". These are explanations that focus on macrosocial processes or, to use it.
expression of Stangor and Jost, of a 'systemic' nature,
Another explanation focused on macrosocial processes is the one that argues that systems
Competitive and hierarchical economic systems tend to generate marginalization and exclusion.
The interconnections between processes
The concept of interconnection by Stangor and Jost (1997) is intertwined with what has always been
considered one of the most defining characteristics of Social Psychology. Expressed
In simple terms, talking about interconnection between processes is equivalent to saying to the person.
Summary of this section
In previous sections, the study of ethnofolklorisms, first, and then, the
theories of Social Identity and System Justification have highlighted the
complex nature of the processes studied by social Psychology. In this section, the
Stangor and Jost's (1997) work has shown that the multiple interconnections between
Processes raise their degree of complexity even more.
Through a series of steps, these authors develop a general framework for analysis of
the psychosocial processes. They show, first of all, that not all processes
Psychosocial are of the same nature.
They will now detail the different types of explanation that exist in Psychology.
social, to end the description of the complex interconnections between the processes
psychosocial, especially when such processes are not of the same nature. They
It is about a work that helps to understand the complexity of Social Psychology.
For his part, G.W. Allport's definition of Social Psychology as:
 WEEK 1/3–MORALES–PS 11

"Attempt to understand and explain how thought, feeling, and behavior"

Individual personas are influenced by the real, imagined, or implied presence of others.
The term 'personas' suggests that the psychosocial character of these processes is preserved, not despite
its complexity, but rather thanks to it.
Indeed, the influence referred to in G.W. Allport's definition, by virtue of which the
psychological processes of individual people (thinking, feeling, behavior) not
take place in a social vacuum, introduces increasingly broader and broader contexts
interconnected with each other that must be taken into account.
In this regard, the chapter on social cognition and the one on attribution stand out.
The others can appear here, no longer just as individual people, but as
group members, as representatives of institutions, suprapersonal entities. This
It is particularly appreciated in the chapters on cultural foundations, prejudice, and historical memory.
1.6 Summary
This chapter argues for the need for an explicit definition of Psychology.
social and proposes the use of G.W. Allport's, which emphasizes mutual influence
among people as the core of the discipline.
Since the beginning of the chapter, attention is drawn to two important characteristics of the
Social psychology: the breadth and complexity of its contents.
The breadth is reflected in a table that lists the contents of the present volume.
emphasizes the great differences that exist between those contents and the need for
Social psychology can address them on some common level. To illustrate how G.W.'s definition...
Allport achieves this objective, a line of psychosocial research is selected.
contemporary, the loasethofalisms of Mullen and collaborators. It is shown that this line of
The investigation fully fits the mentioned definition.
To address the issue of the complexity of psychosocial content, two are presented
contemporary psychosocial theories of great influence in the discipline, the Identity Theory
social and the justification of the system. These two theories seek to understand and explain two
crucial psychosocial processes: why people identify with social groups,
even though this may sometimes cause them serious harm, and why people show a
strong tendency to defend the social system in which they live, despite the evidence and proof of
which is profoundly unfair. To achieve their objective, these two theories resort to
various psychosocial processes and, more importantly, they are of different nature.
The following section begins with a discussion of the nature of psychosocial processes and
from the explanations offered by the discipline. The position of Jost and Stangor (1997) is adopted,
authors who establish differences between psychosocial processes (and also between the
explanations) based on whether they are of an individual, group, or macrosocial nature. But, such
the most notable contribution of these authors is their concept of interconnection between
processes. This interconnection is not problematic when the processes are of the same
 WEEK 1/3–MORALES–PS 12

nature, but it could be when they are of different nature. However, the authors
they show that, of all the possible interconnections between psychosocial processes (nine), the
the discipline has made use of them in multiple researches.