Paper

Running head: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 1
Social Psychology: Past, Present, and Future
Katie Morring
Jacksonville State University
April 16, 2015

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 2
Introduction
The history of social psychology is vast and expansive. It began in ancient times and
continues to thrive today. The ancient people were asking questions that we are still asking
today. The uprising of social psychology was recognized in the United States around World War
I. From the end of World War I to the end of World War II, all of the social sciences were
beginning to grow because of the interest in the whys of war. Gordon Allport writes that, during
this time, social psychology was posed an important question: “How is it possible to preserve the
values of freedom and individual rights under conditions of mounting strain and regimentation?”
This began the creative movement in social psychology to find an answer (Allport, 1968).
Past
The past of social psychology was the foundation for the modern social psychological
theories, research, and knowledge that we possess today. F.H. Allport, Stanley Milgram, Leon
Festinger, Solomon Asch, Elliot Aronson, and Muzafer Sherif made substantial contributions to
the history of social psychology. Each one had their own subfield of study, such as cognitive
dissonance or social norms. Some not only gave us a better understanding of a subfield, but also
led us to the ethics we now possess today.
In the 1920’s, Floyd Allport began writing about a new branch of psychology that was
entitled Social Psychology. He wrote about a wide variety of sub-fields, including perception,
ego, groups, and personality in his books and articles, including Social Psychology (Allport,
1924), Theories of perception and the concept of structure (Allport, 1955), Personality Traits:
Their Classification and Measurement (Allport & Allport, 1921), The psychological bases of
social science (Allport, 1925), and The Measurement and motivation of atypical opinion in a

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 3
certain group (Allport & Hartman, 1925). In the first chapter of his book Social Psychology
(1924), Allport begins with the current situation in science. The main focus in psychology at this
time was more on the basics: our biological makeup, the essentials in life, and our actions of
obtaining these essentials. He says that scientists at this time did not recognize the social side of
psychology to be of any importance whatsoever (Allport, 1924). He says that, for some
scientists, it is hard to see that our conscious mind has no place other than helping to obtain what
we need to survive. Allport claims that this is a big mistake and that scientists should never
overlook any theory. He goes on to explain social psychology and social behavior as reactions to
one another or a person and an object.
Elliot Aronson is both a past and modern day psychologist. His book, The Social Animal
(1972) speaks about conformity, self-justification, human aggression, prejudice, attraction, etc.
He also wrote about these same topics in many books and articles (Aronson, 2008) (Pines &
Aronson, 1988) (Pratkanis & Elliot, 2002) (Tavris & Aronson, 2007).
Aggression is defined as a behavior intended to cause harm or pain (Aronson, 1972). He
talks about two different types of aggression: instrumental and hostile. Instrumental aggression is
an intentional violent act to achieve a goal, whereas a hostile aggressive act is a means to an end.
Aggression is important and necessary in the lives of animals for survival, but the importance of
aggression in human lives has been debated for centuries. The need for aggression tends to be in
animals who have low intelligence and low achievement. Humans, who have high intelligence
and achievement, can achieve goals without violence or aggression. On the other hand,
psychologists like Freud have made the argument that we need to express anger instead of
bottling it up. This is a good thing in theory, but in reality expressing our anger does relieve the

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 4
anger. Frustration is the number one cause of aggression. Frustration comes in many different
forms, such as being in a bad mood and little things like waiting in line.
Prejudice includes subjects like stereotypes and attributions. There can be positive and
negative prejudices (Aronson, 1972). To stereotype is to assign a person with a label, such as
gender or race. Stereotyping is most likely not intentionally meaning to hurt someone; it is just a
way that we simplify our world. Stereotyping is a part of attribution. Attribution is when we feel
the need to attribute a cause to some event.
What makes us attracted to another person? Aronson listed some responses he received
from friends and colleagues when asked this question. The top four were those whose beliefs and
interests are similar to their own, those who have some skills, abilities, or competencies, those
with some pleasant or admirable qualities, and those who like them in return (Aronson, 1972).
Aronson agrees with his friends in that these make sense. There are several personal attributes
that attract others to us, such as competence, intelligence, and being energetic.
The last topic, conformity, is a social norm to which we all fall prey. We all want to do
what social construct tells us to do, so that we can fit into a social group. Conformity plays a big
part in this because nonconformity is seen as a deviant action. Not being a team player changes
your social status to being an outcast or looked down upon. It is defined as a change in behavior
based on pressure from an individual or group (Aronson, 1972).
Solomon Asch’s line judgement experiment is the most famous and widely used example
of conformity. Asch took four confederates and one participant in a room and showed them four
lines. The people were to match the line on the left with the line on the right (out of three) that
looked similar in length to line on the left. The experimenter would go around the table, asking

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 5
for each person’s answer, either A, B, or C. The participant was near to the last, and would listen
to each confederate’s answer. The line comparison was easily seen, but the answers the
confederates gave were not the correct answer. For example, if the answer was B, all of the
confederates would say A. By the time the participant was ready to answer, they had a choice.
They could either say the correct answer and not conform or say the wrong answer, knowing it
was the wrong answer, to conform to the group. His findings suggested that 35% of participants
folded to group pressure, which was the opposite of what Asch expected.
There are some variables that can increase and decrease conformity. For example, in the
line judgment test, the majority of the answers were the same. If they had not been the same, the
participant would not have felt obligated to conform to the group’s answer. This is a way to
increase conformity. A way to decrease conformity is by making someone commit to their initial
belief. Obedience is a more extreme version of conformity.
Obedience is a social construct that binds the average person to a position of authority.
Whether it is a worker and a boss or a soldier and his commanding officer, obedience is common
throughout our everyday lives. Thanks to Stanley Milgram, we now have a better understanding
of what obedience means, and how it can be used in evil ways. Stanley Milgram wrote about his
experiment dealing with cognitive dissonance in his book Obedience to Authority (Milgram,
1974). He also wrote about other studies he completed about antisocial behavior in Television
and antisocial behavior (Milgram & Shotland, 1973), and on social psychology itself in The
individual in a social world (Milgram, 1977). Two other examples are Behavioral Study of
obedience (Milgram, 1963), and Liberating effects of group pressure (Milgram, 1965). An
obedience study was conducted by Stanley Milgram after the Holocaust. In his book Obedience
to Authority (1974), Milgram specifically uses the Holocaust as an example to his studies

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 6
(Milgram, 1974). He believes that obedience could be one of the innate behaviors that we all
share, but can take over our senses of right and wrong. Is obedience evil or good? It is hard to
make a decision when you see Adolf Hitler use obedience to authority at his disposal, killing
millions of Jews. Although this is true, the philosophers in Milgram’s day suggest that taking
that risk is better than letting people act however they want. This leads to no authoritative power,
which can be deadly. Milgram saw the importance of this topic and decided to investigate
further. The famous Milgram studies began at Yale University from 1960-1965, when he wrote
many articles on the experiment, and eventually published his findings in book form (Milgram,
1974). Here is a brief summary from his book about his study.
Milgram begins by describing his participants, or teachers; and volunteers, or learners.
The learners are strapped to a chair that is visible to the teacher. The learner is to learn pairs of
words. Whenever the learner forgets a word pair or messes up in any way he will receive a
shock. The teacher is shown 30 switches, each with different voltages and words above that are
from slight shock to severe shock. Remember that the teachers are completely unaware that the
learners are not receiving shocks and they are volunteers of the experiment. As the experiment
continues, the teachers are willing to give the shocks at the low voltage numbers. When the
voltages are higher, however, the teachers are reluctant to throw the switch. When given an order
from the experimenter to continue they throw the switch, even at the highest voltage and through
pleading and screaming of the learners. Almost every participant went to the highest voltage
(Milgram, 1974). Milgram’s experiment became famous for its results that contradicted what the
majority of people, even psychologists, expected. He did not give the participants a chance to
stop the experiment, even when they were under great stress. This experiment gave us insight
into the world of obedience and inspired the social psychologists of today.

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 7
Leon Festinger was one of the psychologists who studied cognitive dissonance. He wrote
about conflict and decisions in Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance (Festinger, 1964) and A
Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957). He also wrote about social pressures and
reward/reinforcement in Social pressures in informal groups (Festinger, 1950) and Deterrents
and reinforcement; the psychology of insufficient reward (Lawrence & Festinger, 1962). Two
other examples include When prophesy fails (Festinger, 1956) and Human Legacy (Festinger,
1983). In his book, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), he talks about the theory of
cognitive dissonance and a few experiments he conducted. Festinger uses dissonance and
consonance when describing his theory. He claims that dissonance is an inconsistency and
consonance is a consistency (Festinger, 1957). He has two basic hypotheses: one is that, because
dissonance makes people feel uncomfortable, that they will try to gain more consonance than
dissonance. Two is that people will try to stay away from certain activities that would cause
more dissonance to occur. Festinger explains cognitive dissonance by breaking the words down
and giving definitions for each. Dissonance is the existence of nonfitting relations among
cognitions and cognition is any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about
oneself, or about one’s behavior (Festinger, 1957). Festinger goes on to explain that dissonance
and consonance are element pairs, and that these elemental pairs lead to cognition. His elements
are called knowledges, which can represent the self or where one lives. He also writes about the
consequences of decisions, and how decisions are affected by dissonance.
He ties the consequences of decisions into dissonance with three points. The first talks
about a possible, but rare occurrence, of two negative choices. He says that, no matter which is
chosen, dissonance between the two choices will still exist. The second point the most common
situation between the three. The two different choices present in this point have both positive and

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 8
negative aspects. The dissonance will be prevalent in both choices because the positive and
negative elements will clash. The third point is probably the most difficult. This point has more
than two choices, which can already be presented or made up through compromises and
combining actions. All of these are dissonant with each other. Concluding his three points,
Festinger decides that cognitive dissonance will always be relevant in decisions (Festinger,
1957).
Muzafer Sherif wrote The Psychology of Social Norms (1936), a book focused on groups,
norms, and values. He also wrote Reference groups; exploration into conformity and deviation of
adolescents (Sherif & Sherif, 1964), Groups in harmony and tension; an integration of studies
on intergroup relations (Sherif & Sherif, 1966), Social judgment; assimilation and contrast
effects in communication and attitude change (Sherif & Hovland, 1961), and Conformity and
deviation (Runkel, Sherif, & Sherif, 1965). Social norms come from our environment: our
parents, friends, teachers, and others that enter our lives. Norms are also developed through our
cultural or social upbringing. These are the external norms that we learn from infancy. As we get
older, these norms are tested by the individual, and then become a part of this person. This
determines how we will react to certain situations, in groups and around other individuals. Sherif
did a study about how a norm is formed in a group setting. He found that, in intense situations,
old norms are left behind and new norms are formed. Norms change throughout time because
some, like slogans, are formed from intense and horrifying situations that are now in the past
(Sherif, 1936).
He also wrote about social values in his book. Social values are a part of every social
norm. Social values and social norms come into existence through groups and interactions with
others. Social values give us social attitudes, or beliefs and feelings toward something that are

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 9
fixated (Sherif, 1936). Once social attitudes are fixated beliefs, these are used for every day
thoughts and decisions. These attitudes help us to determine if we like something or we don’t; or
agree or disagree on a topic.
The last topic are the survival norms. Usually norms are formed through life experiences
and tend to become outdated through the changing world we live in. Some norms, however,
continue to thrive alongside the new norms. These are called survival norms. An example of a
survival norm would be a longstanding belief that has been passed down through many
generations. There are some Oriental countries that still believe that modern medicine used for
illness is unacceptable (Sherif, 1936). Survival norms are seen as a norm that doesn’t fit in to
today’s society and causes friction between other people.
Present
The beginning of social psychology focused on the foundations: cognitive dissonance,
conformity, norms, and values. These are just a few examples of what the past psychologists
researched. Today’s researchers focus on the present problems, like stereotypes and persuasion.
Claude Steele is a modern day psychologist who focuses on stereotypes and how they
affect our lives, mainly race in learning. In 2010, Claude Steele wrote Whistling Vivaldi, a book
about stereotypes (Steele, 2010). He also wrote many other articles and books on gender, race,
and the effects of these in modern day life (Carr & Steele, 2009) (Cheryan, Davies, Plaut, &
Steele, 2009) (Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2008) (Nussbaum & Steele,
2007). Steele’s book is a collection of true short stories that he uses to illustrate what stereotypes
are and how they affect the world around us. Steele starts out by telling about his childhood. He
lived in Chicago in the late 1950’s to early 60’s. He tells us of William Cross’s word for the time

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 10
when Steele saw a racial order in his life. This word was encounter. He goes on to speak about
what he calls identity contingencies. These contingencies come in situations when you have been
given a name, or social identity. This can range from age to the color of your skin or from a
disability to your sexual orientation. This book is centered on the idea of identity contingencies
and how they affect our lives. In Steele’s research he found four general patterns in his findings.
The first is that our social identities shape our lives. The second is that some of society’s
problems come from identity threats. The third is about how the identity threats affect our brain
functions. The fourth and last pattern is that reducing threats in our younger lives, such as
schools, can dramatically reduce underachievement (Steele, 2010). Steele writes that there are
differences socially in the social identities. He uses African-Americans in college as an example.
African-Americans are taught to work twice as hard as others to succeed. Steele found that
African-American students tend to study alone and twice as much than white or Asian students,
who study in groups. They tend toward over-efforting, or putting too much time and effort into a
certain thing, which can cause failure. Most will drop to a community college after failing. The
experiments he studied from Triesman (Fullilove & Treisman, 1990) (Treisman, 1992) and a
comment made by Carol Porter gave him this conclusion and a reason to research over-efforting.
The first part of his experiment was to give anagrams to black and white students to solve. This
experiment was in a laboratory setting and could be stopped at any time. Both black and white
students only did a few before stopping. When changing the experiment to assess cognitive
abilities, however; the black students did twice as many anagrams as the white students. When
they heard “cognitive abilities”, they knew what this meant for their stereotype and were now
under stereotype threat. This caused them to have over-efforting, or work twice as hard to

compensate for their stereotype. Steele gives us a new perspective on stereotyping, and how it
affects our lives.
Robert Cialdini is a modern psychologist focused on influence and persuasion. He has
written books such as Influence (1984) and Social Influence (2011), and many journal articles on
influence and peer pressure (Cialdini, 1984) (Goldstein, Griskevicius, & Cialdini, 2011)
(Griskevicius, Cialdini, & Goldstein, 2008) (Griskevicius & Cialdini, 2011) (Nolan, Schultz,
Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2008). He wrote about the weapons of influence in his book
Influence (1984). The “weapons” are reciprocation, commitment and consistency, social proof,
liking, authority, and scarcity.
Reciprocation is a societal rule in which we are obligated to give back to someone who
has given to us. This can be presents, favors, invitations, etc. Cialdini explains that this
obligation to give back is important in our survival and has been learned throughout time. The
influential aspect of reciprocity comes from people that have learned over the years how to use it
for exploitation and monetary reasons. There are three characteristics that show how reciprocity
is used for profitability. The first is that reciprocity is an overpowering rule. The sense of
obligation that accompanies reciprocity is what makes this rule so powerful, especially when
using it for your own gain. For example, Ciadini talks about the Regan study, in which two sets
of participants were rating paintings along with the confederate named Joe. During the break Joe
left the room. Joe brought the participants in the first group a Coke, saying that he asked the
experimenter and brought one back for the participant. This triggered the reciprocity feeling. The
second group of participants did not receive a Coke. After the experiment was finished, Joe
would ask the participants to buy some raffle tickets at 25 cents each. The participants who
received a Coke from Joe bought twice as many as the group who did not. This act shows how

the first group felt obligated to buy more tickets because of the Coke they received. The other
interesting finding is that the participants who received the Coke and did not like Joe bought just
as many tickets as the ones that did like Joe. They felt obligated from the reciprocity to buy
something from someone they didn’t even like. The second characteristic is that the rule enforces
uninvited debts. In the Regan study, Joe bought some of the participants a Coke. These people
did not ask for a Coke or may very well have not wanted a Coke, but none of them turned it
down. It would have been extremely awkward and impolite to say no to Joe’s favor. Therefore,
the receiving of the Coke invoked reciprocity and the obligation to give back into the
participants. The third and final rule is that reciprocity can trigger unfair exchanges. In the case
of the Regan study, the Coke that Joe bought for the participants was 10 cents in the late 1960’s,
when this study was held. He was selling the raffle tickets at 25 cents apiece, and most
participants bought at least two. Joe received a 500 percent return on his favor. Cialdini explains
that this is taught to us in childhood. It also comes from the fear of being disliked in a social
group.
The next two weapons of influence are commitment and consistency. Consistency,
Cialdini says, is an obsessive desire to stay true to what we have already done (Cialdini, 1984).
Consistency is so powerful that it can make us do things that are contrary to who we are and our
beliefs, just to stay consistent. One reason why consistency is so important is that it is attributed
to intellectual and personal strength and is highly valued in society. There are ways in which
consistency is attractive. For example, consistency can be a shortcut through life. Once we have
made a decision about an issue or a problem, we do not have to think about it anymore. We can
use consistency to solve the problem if it arises again. Cialdini titles the section of commitment
with Commitment is the Key (Cialdini, 1984). He does this because social psychologists believe

that commitment causes consistency. Once you commit to a decision you want to be consistent
with that decision.
Susan Fiske wrote many books and articles, mainly on stereotypes (Fiske, 2014) (Fiske &
Taylor, 1984) (Fiske, 2015) (North & Fiske, 2013). She wrote Envy Up, Scorn Down (Fiske,
2011), which is a book about envy, scorn, and comparison. Fiske begins with saying that
everyone, even some animals, compare with one another. She says that the main comparisons we
have today are through social classes. She shows a table of the BIAS Map, which is a listing of
warmth and competence. It shows that we tend to envy the rich and powerful and scorn the poor
and weak. She shows us what she calls an American opportunity syllogism (Fiske, 2011). There
are three steps to this: equal opportunity as a shared assumption, people get what they deserve,
and the current system is fair. This means that there is an equal opportunity for all Americans to
find a job, work hard, and achieve success. If they achieve this success, then they deserve the
right to have financial and economic success. So, if we have equal opportunities and we get what
we deserve, then the system is fair. Envy combines anger and hurt by seeing that our deserving
self is threatened (Fiske, 2011). Envy stirs a feeling of not only wanting something that someone
else has but also wanting to deprive them of it. It can make us feel inferior to others, especially
since feeling envy is not a social norm. Scorn, on the other hand, is hard to detect and
thoughtless. Scorn can be most seen through ignoring someone, giving them the “silent
treatment”, or disrespect. Fiske also shows that the more powerful you are, the more scorn you
show. The leaders, or those that feel powerful, will forget about the welfare of others and take a
bigger share of something.
John Dovidio wrote a number of articles and books on groups and interactions. (Dovidio,
2013) (Saguy & Dovidio, 2013). In 1985, John Dovidio edited Power, Dominance, and Nonverbal

Behavior. He wrote two of the chapters, Power, Dominance, and Nonverbal Behavior: Basic
Concepts and Issues and Patterns of Visual Dominance Behavior in Humans. His first chapter
talks first about nonverbal behavior, which is defined as something that is not part of verbal
language (Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985A). Nonverbal behavior is in every study, between philosophy
to anthropology to poetry. In psychology, nonverbal behaviors are things such as expressions and
body movements. Dovidio says that nonverbal behaviors are classified into five categories:
paralanguage, facial expressions, kinesics, eye and visual behavior, and proxemics (Ellyson &
Dovidio, 1985A). Paralanguage are implicit behaviors that are not part of language. These include
pitch, loudness, intensity, and amplitude. Facial expressions are movements of the face, such as
smiles or frowns. Kinesics are movements that occur through our torso, head, feet, arms, hands,
and legs. These are nodding, waving, and pointing, to name a few. An example of eye and visual
behavior is dilated pupils or passing glances. Proxemics is about distance and space. An example
would be someone’s personal space. The rest of his first chapter deals with power, dominance, and
status. Dovidio and Ellyson tell us that these three words have not yet been fully defined and are
usually grouped together because of their similarity to each other. Their definitions for power,
dominance, and status are as follows: power is defined as the potential for social influence,
dominance involves the ability to influence others, and status is a central trait that is widely
accepted. It involves one’s relative position in a culture (Ellyson & Dovidio, 1985A).
His second chapter, chapter 7, is about visual dominance behavior (Dovidio & Ellyson,
1985B). A stare can be seen as a representation of dominance in any species, including humans.
Eye contact can become dominating when commanding attention and when no one is talking.
When there is conversation, however; people tend to switch roles throughout the conversation.
Visual dominance behavior is when you look at the other person with the same amount of time in

both speaking and listening. There are two factors in visual dominance behavior: information
overload and the norm of attention. Information overload is correlated with looking while
speaking. That is, when monitoring the listener’s response, you may receive too much information
and have problems with your control of speech (Dovidio & Ellyson, 1985B). It is easier to control
information overload when looking at the person to whom you are speaking. The norm of attention
affects looking while speaking and looking while listening, but mainly affects looking while
listening. This is because the norm of attention is the thought that looking at the person whom you
are speaking shows that you are being attentive. People who are high in personal power are more
likely to be high in visual dominance behavior.
Roy Baumeister wrote Escaping the Self (1986). He also wrote other articles, some of
which are listed here (Baumeister, 2013) (Baumeister & Vonasch, 2015) (Ent & Baumeister, 2014)
(Park & Baumeister, 2015). The self can be defined in many ways. One is to look at pronouns we
use daily: I, me, or my, as evoking a sense of self. Another is that the self has a physical body. The
inner self is complex, containing thoughts and feelings, among other things. The self holds all of
these important things for personal fulfillment and can solve many problems in our lives
(Baumeister, 1991). Escaping from the self, Baumeister says, is “to free oneself of the struggle to
maintain a certain image” (Baumeister, 1991, p. 12). Baumeister says that escape from the self is
protrayed in the wrong light. We think that escaping through drugs, alcohol, etc. is because of low
self esteem issues, but reality is that the main problem is high self esteem and comparing ourselves
to each other. He lists two misunderstandings of escape. The first is that all groups, not just specific
ones, escape together. This hypothesis says that people innately have a tendency to escape from
stressful situations. Escaping from the self deals with how you feel about yourself, not what
happens in the day. The second misunderstanding is that it is bad. Escapism is attributed to drugs

like LSD, and this leads people to believe that escapism is wrong. However, escapism is not
necessarily bad. Escaping from the self can be vital to our health. Taking away the ability to escape
would cause tremendous problems for our lives. Baumeister is not saying that escapism is fine and
safe, because it isn’t. Many people turn to drugs and other dangerous avenues, but he says that we
should not take away the ability to escape (Baumeister, 1991).
Future
Social psychology is advancing in many areas, such as stereotypes and self-control. In my
opinion, social psychology will be the most important branch of psychology in the next 30 years.
This is because, unlike all other fields in psychology, social psychology can be used as a foundation
in any situation, anywhere in the world. Social psychology delves into the basis of humans: the
“why” in our thoughts and actions. If it does begin to thrive as I expect, social psychology will
move into other social aspects on which experts have only touched. Social psychology will
hopefully be understood and used more in the future than it has so far, and it looks to be that way
even now. Margaret Wetherell talks about the future of social psychology in her article The winds
of change: Some challenges in reconfiguring social psychology for the future (Wetherell, 2011).
She explains that, although social psychology is beginning to have a hard time fitting into its place
in psychology, it is gaining a place in other sciences. People are beginning to be interested in
psychology and its many fields, instead of believing that psychology is all clinical. This is opening
places up in humanities, social sciences, and even medical fields for new research, discovery, and
understanding of the psychology in and around every aspect of our lives. Wetherell hopes that the
journal she has written in, the British Journal of Social Psychology, will open the door to other
articles from the psychosocial, cultural geographer, political researcher, and sociologist
(Wetherell, 2011). Like her, I hope to see more fields begin to be interested in the personal side of

their fields. I also believe that social psychology will be used more in places like engineering. The
engineering industry is taking off in the vision of artificial intelligence, and will need some form
of social knowledge to make the AI come to life. Social psychology will not become a branch of
extinction, but a branch of psychology that will carry throughout the sciences from now on. It is
an important piece of psychology and history that has stood through the ages and will continue to
thrive in the future.

References
Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology. Cambridge: The Riverside Press.
Allport, F. H. (1925). The psychological bases of social science. Psychological Bulletin, 22(10),
561-574.
Allport, F. H. (1955). Theories of perception and the concept of structure. New York: Wiley
Press.
Allport, F. H., & Allport, G. W. (1921). Personality traits: Their classification and measurement.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 6-40.
Allport, F., & Hartman, D. (1925). The measurement and motivation of atypical opinion in a
certain group. American Political Science Review, 19(4), 735-760.
Aronson, E. (1972). The social animal. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Aronson, E. (2008). Fear, denial, and sensible action in the face of disasters. Social Research,
75(3), 855-872.
Baumeister, R. (1991). Escaping the self. HarperCollins Publishers.
Baumeister, R. F. (2013). Self-control, fluctuating willpower, and forensic practice. Journal of
Forensic Practice, 15(2), 85-96.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vonasch, A. J. (2015). Uses of self-regulation to facilitate and restrain
addictive behavior. Addictive Behaviors, 44, 3-8.
Carr, P. B., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Stereotype threat and inflexible perseverance in problem
solving. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 853-859.

Cheryan, S., Davies, P. G., Plaut, V. C., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How
stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1045.
Cialdini, R. (1984). Infuence. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
Dovidio, J. F. (2013). Bridging intragroup processes and intergroup relations: Needing the twain
to meet. British Journal Of Social Psychology, 52(1), 1-24.
Dovidio, J. F., & Ellyson, S. L. (1985)B. Patterns of visual dominance behavior in humans. In S.
L. Ellyson, & J. F. Dovidio, Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior (pp. 129-150).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ellyson, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1985). Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior. New York:
Springer Verlag.
Ellyson, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1985)A. Power, dominance, and nonverbal behavior: Basic
concepts and issues. In S. L. Ellyson, & J. F. Dovidio, Power, dominance, and nonverbal
behavior (pp. 1-28). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Ent, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2014). Embodied free will beliefs: Some effects of physical
states on metaphysical opinions. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 147.
Festinger, L. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Festinger, L. (1956). When prophecy fails. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston: Row, Peterson, and Company.
Festinger, L. (1964). Conflict, decision, and dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Festinger, L. (1983). The human legacy. New York: Columbia University Press.
Fiske, S. (2011). Envy up, scorn down. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Fiske, S. (2015). Intergroup biases: a focus on stereotype content. Current Opinion In Behavioral
Sciences, 345-350.
Fiske, S. T. (2014). Social psychology and the great recession: Comment on bridging the gap.
Analysis of Social Issues & Public Policy, 14(1), 214-216.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, Inc.
Fullilove, R., & Treisman, P. (1990). Mathematics achievement among african american
undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley: An evaluation of the
mathematics workshop program. Journal of Negro Education, 59(3), 463-478.
Goldstein, N. J., Griskevicius, V., & Cialdini, R. B. (2011). Reciprocity by proxy: A Novel
influence strategy for stimulating cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(3),
441-473.
Griskevicius, V., & Cialdini, R. (2011). Social influence. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2008). Applying (and resisting) peer
influence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(2), 84-88.
Lawrence, D. H., & Festinger, L. (1962). Detterents and reinforcement; the psychology of
insufficient reward. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal Of Abnormal And Social
Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.

Milgram, S. (1965). Liberating effects of group pressure. Journal Of Personality And Social
Psychology, 1(2), 127-134.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row, Plublishers, Inc.
Milgram, S. (1977). The individual in a social world. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Milgram, S., & Shotland, R. L. (1973). Television and antisocial behavior. New York: Academic
Press.
Nolan, J. M., Schultz, P. W., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2008).
Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,
7, 913.
North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). A perscriptive intergenerational tension ageism scale:
Successopm, identity, and consumption. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 706-713.
Nussbaum, A. D., & Steele, C. M. (2007). Situational disengagement and persistence in the face
of adversity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 127-134.
Park, J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2015). Social exclusion causes a shift toward prevention
motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 153.
Perry, T., Steele, C., & Hilliard, A. G. (2003). Young, gifted, and black: Promoting high
achievement among african-american students. Boston: Beacon Press.
Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1988). Career burnout: Causes and cures. New York: Free Press.
Pratkanis, A. R., & Elliot, A. (2002). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of
persuasion. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Runkel, P. J., Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1965). Conformity and deviation. Educational Forum,
30, 103-109.
Saguy, T., & Dovidio, J. F. (2013). Insecure status relations shape preferences for the content of
intergroup contact. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(8), 1030-1042.
Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of norms. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment; assimilation and contrast efects in
communication and attitude change. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1964). Reference groups; exploration into conformity and deviation
of adolescents. New York: Harper and Row.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1966). Groups in harmony and tension; an integration of studies on
intergroup relations. New York: Octagon Books.
Steele, C. M. (2010). Whistling vivaldi. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes were made (but not by me). Orlando: Harcourt.
Treisman, P. (1992). Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority
mathematics students in college. College Mathematics Journal, 23, 362-372.
Wetherell, M. (2011). The winds of change: Some challenges in reconfiguring social psychology
for the future. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 399-404.

Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (16)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Paper

Similar to Paper (18)

Paper