Understanding the History of Social Psychology

In my article "The Need for Psychology Understanding,” I discussed how fiction writers need at least a basic understanding of psychology in order to write realistic content, dialogues, characters, and relationships. One such area of psychology that many fiction writers and some nonfiction writers should understand is social psychology. Social psychology is a field that has a long and diverse history, which can be utilized by writers in both fiction and non-fiction stories, especially if one of the writer’s main characters is a social psychologist.
Social psychology is a broad field of study that studies how people observe and interpret their own behavior and the behavior of others; additionally, the field serves to examine the ways in which a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the real or imagined presence of others (Stangor, 2011). This field of psychology does not have an exact creation date or location; some believe that Aristotle was the first social psychologist (eg. Taylor, 1998) while others believe that the origin of the research that led to the formation of this field began in the 1900s with William James and Wilhelm Wundt (Finkel & Baumeister, 2010). Regardless of when the field of social psychology was officially referred to as social psychology, it is clear that the field has had an important impact on history and has grown and changed from the time of Aristotle to the present day.
The field of social psychology has changed greatly over the course of history from Plato’s description of the utilitarian functions of groups, to Socrates creating what is thought to be the first dual-process model of persuasion, to Aristotle’s study of how the social environment can affect an individual (Finkel & Baumeister, 2010). These accomplishments would all be classified as examples of social psychology, yet at the time of these accomplishments, no such field existed. The emergence of social psychology as a recognized field began during 1850–1930 during which time the field was recognized and named as a field of psychology. The first major change began during this time period when the field not only began to get recognition but also definition when Floyd Allport championed the field with laboratory experiments at Syracuse University during the 1920s and defined social psychology as a part of the psychology of the individual (Allport, 1924, p. 4).
One of the largest ways in which social psychology has changed across history is in the focus of the field. For example, during 1930-1945 the field focused on Allport-inspired individualist emphasis; in 1946-1969 the main focus became group dynamics due to the influence of Lewin’s contemporaries, and the 1990-to present-day period shows a focus on interdisciplinary research programs to address important modern-day problems (Finkel & Baumeister, 2010). Throughout history, the focus on social psychology has changed while growing from a small inclusive field of scholars to today’s modern version of the field with unprecedented opportunities for collaboration with other sciences (Taylor, 2004).
Throughout the field of social psychology’s growth from a small inclusive field to today’s open collaboration field, there have been many significant contributors to this evolution. Yet Floyd Allport’s contribution is one of the more significant as his conviction that controlled laboratory experimentation would provide the needed rigor for advancing social psychology as a scientific field led to his championing of the field (Finkel & Baumeister, 2010). This decision served to help propel social psychology to its modern-day status as a respected field of psychology, as without the rigor provided by the experiments, the progress of the field may have slowed or ceased without the provable facts from experiments to provide scientific proof.

References
Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psychology as a science of individual behavior and consciousness.
            Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Finkel, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2010). Advanced Social Psychology : The State of the Science.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=324042&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Stangor, C. (2011). Principles of Social Psychology. College Park, MD: University of Maryland
            Press.
Taylor, S. E. (1998). The social being in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 58–98). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Taylor, S. E. (2004). Preparing for social psychology’s future. Journal of Experimental Social
            Psychology, 40,139-141.

Written by Readers’ Favorite Reviewer Sefina Hawke                   

Understanding Fundamental Attribution Error

In my article "The Need for Psychology Understanding”, I discussed how fiction writers need at least a basic understanding of psychology in order to write realistic content, dialogues, characters, and relationships. One such psychological concept is the fundamental attribution error. The fundamental attribution error was first created by social psychologist Lee Ross in 1977; however, research on the topic dates back to the 1950s when social psychologists investigated the lay perceivers’ understanding of the causes of human behavior (Vohs, Baumeister, & Sage Publications Inc. 2007).
The fundamental attribution error is when people attribute a person's behavior to their personality while ignoring the possible situational factors, which could be the actual cause for the person's behavior (Everyday Psychology Interactive, n.d.). This error occurs when a person underestimates the causal impact of situational factors on human behavior while also overestimating the impact of dispositional factors (Vohs, Baumeister, & Sage Publications inc. 2007). The fundamental attribution error also states that the behaving person, the one attributing another person’s action to the individual’s personality, tends to see his or her own behavior as caused by the situation rather than internal characteristics (Fundamental Attribution Error, 2004).
The fundamental attribution error is something many people experience and examples of it can be found in almost any area of life. For example, if a person is speeding, some people might attribute the speeding to negative personality characteristics like anger or a lack of care. However, the person might be speeding in order to get to the hospital. Another example would be if people attributed an individual’s reason for speaking loudly to that person’s desire to have everyone’s attention on them when, in fact, the individual had recently been in a very loud environment which had temporarily affected their hearing.
The fundamental attribution error can occur to anyone anywhere and can be used in fiction to explain a character’s correct or incorrect reasoning. For instance, if a character is shopping and notices a different character buying a lot of food, the character might just assume the buyer was likely throwing a party based on the number of purchases. However, that would be making a fundamental attribution error, as the character would only be considering the buyer’s personality and not any situational factors. In making, this assumption the character would be ignoring the possibility that the buyer was making a large purchase based on a situational factor like a sale or coupons. The fundamental attribution error can be utilized in any fiction story, though it would likely be most useful for mystery stories as it could be used to explain clues, the detective's reasoning, and to show off ways that the mystery solver avoided making this error.
References
Everyday Psychology Interactive. (n.d.) Everyday Psychology Interactive. Retrieved from
http://snhu-media.snhu.edu/files/imedia/psy530/m2/psy530_m2_everyday_psychology_interactive_output/story.html
Fundamental Attribution Error. (2004). The Concise Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and
Behavioral Science. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edscrc&AN=edscrc.4410430&site=eds-live&scope=site
Ross, L. (n.d.). From the fundamental attribution error to the truly fundamental attribution
error and beyond: my research journey. PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 13(6), 750–769. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1177/1745691618769855
Vohs, K. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Sage Publications, inc. (2007). Encyclopedia of Social
Psychology. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohostcom.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=474305&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Written by Readers’ Favorite Reviewer Sefina Hawke                   

Understanding the Bystander Effect

One concept that writers need to understand when writing fictional works that involve an emergency situation is the bystander effect. Writers sometimes create unrealistic emergency situations because they lack an understanding of the bystander effect. In other cases, writers sometimes struggle to justify why their characters do not provide help to other characters.
The bystander effect is when the presence of other people reduces the probability that people will help in an emergency situation (Darley & Latane, 1968; Chekroun & Brauer, 2002). In an emergency situation, the presence of multiple witnesses to the situation serves to diffuse the sense of responsibility that each witness has to take action due to the belief that someone else will act (Beyer, Sidarus, Bonicalzi, & Haggard, 2017). When it comes to the bystander effect, there are two main variables or forces that influence whether a person responds in an emergency situation.
The first main variable is group size; Darley and Latane (1968) conducted an experiment that a person is less likely to respond or provide assistance in an emergency situation if they perceive there to be a large group of people who also witnessed the emergency. The smaller the group of people who see or are involved in an emergency situation the more likely it is that those people will call 911 and/or take additional action. The second main variable is the lack of knowledge. Regardless of group size, people that have frozen or not acted in an emergency have reported afterward that they took no action because they did not know what to do or what was going on (Darley & Latane, 1968). Those that fail to respond in an emergency have been found to sometimes do so due to indecision and conflict concerning whether they should take action or not. In these situations, often the person or people who witnessed the situation did not consciously choose not to act but rather were caught up in attempting to choose if they should help or not.
A well-known example of the bystander effect is the situation that occurred in New York City where a young woman was stabbed to death in a residential area. The event was witnessed by 38 people who did nothing (Rosenthal, 1964). The bystander effect is not present in only emergency situations, but also in everyday life in the form of bullying. Typically when bullying occurs there are witnesses and it is the action of these witnesses that determines if the bullying is likely to continue or to stop (Kärnä et al., 2008). In bullying situations, bystanders are not just faced with two decisions, but instead three choices: do nothing, provide help, or to join in on the bullying (Takami & Haruno, 2019). If those witnessing the bullying situation join in on the bullying, it makes the situation not only worse but also increases the likelihood of the situation continuing.
References
Beyer, F., Sidarus, N., Bonicalzi, S., & Haggard, P. (2017). Beyond self-serving bias: diffusion of
responsibility reduces sense of agency and outcome monitoring. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 12(1), 138-145. Retrieved from http://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1093/scan/nsw160
Chekroun, P., and Brauer, M. (2002). The bystander effect and social control behavior: the effect
of the presence of others on people’s reactions to norm violations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(6), 853-67
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of
responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4, Pt.1), 377–383. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1037/h0025589
Rosenthal, A. M. (1964). Thirty-eight witnesses. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Takami, K., & Haruno, M. (2019). Behavioral and functional connectivity basis for peer-
influenced bystander participation in bullying. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 14(1), 23–33. https://doi-org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1093/scan/nsy109

Written by Readers’ Favorite Reviewer Sefina Hawke                   

Understanding Long-Term Relationships

Many romance writers struggle when it comes to creating a long-term mate for their main character. One of the best ways for writers to overcome this hurdle is to understand the psychology behind what people look for when looking for a long-term mate and not just a quick hookup.
When a person looks for a long-term mate, there are several key variables that an individual typically looks for. These main variables are:
1. Physical appearance
2. Quality of interactions
3. Common interests
4. Complementary characteristics (characteristics they lack)
It has been found that physical appearance is one of the most influential factors in regards to the initial attraction as it plays an essential role in determining if a person will, in fact, approach the other individual (Sprecher & Reis, 2009). Physical appearance may not matter as much in the long-term, but at that moment it is the most important factor a person looks for as it determines if a person will approach the other person or not. Further, people often draw conclusions about each other concerning character traits based purely on the way a person looks. For instance, a person might think that an individual looks friendly, smart, or mean; these inferences are based only on appearance, yet if a person is looking for someone who is smart they might ignore someone they think does not look smart. If a person chooses to search for a long-term mate using the internet, then the physical appearance becomes less important than the quality of the interaction; the person instead tends to judge the suitability of the other person based on the feelings of similarity, intimacy, and closeness attained (Sprecher & Reis, 2009).
The creation of internet dating has given rise to special interest groups that allow an individual to seek a long-term mate who shares their interests, hobbies, and/or values; relationships formed with such similarities influence not only the success of the relationship and length of the relationship, but also the closeness of their relationship as like attracts like (Rushton, 1989). In contrast, people also seem to seek out long-term mates who possess characteristics that they themselves lack (Winch, 1958). For example, an introvert might seek a long-term mate that is an extrovert to provide them with the characteristics which they lack.
While these four variables accurately portray the key variables that a person looks for when they are searching for a long-term mate, they do not, in fact, guarantee long-term relationship success. The variables indicate what a person looks for when seeking a long-term mate, yet there are numerous other variables that can affect the success of a long-term relationship. Some examples of such variables are:
1. Children
2. Pets
3. Family interferences
4. Behavior changes
5. Finances
6. Evolution of the relationship
These variables can pop up or change at any point during a relationship and they can influence the success of the relationship. For instance, the man might not want children, but if the woman became pregnant and did not want to abort nor adopt out the baby then this could alter the dynamic of the relationship. Financial issues can also cause a relationship to break, especially due to actions like gambling, dishonesty, and bankruptcy.

References
Sprecher, S., & Reis, H. T. (2009). Encyclopedia of Human Relationships. Thousand Oaks,
Calif: SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e000xna&AN=474344&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Rushton, J. P. (1989). Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and
            Brain Sciences, 12, 503-559.
Winch, R. (1958). Mate selection. New York: Harper & Row

Written by Readers’ Favorite Reviewer Sefina Hawke                   

Understanding Groupthink

Groupthink is a concept that many writers are unaware of which makes it harder for fiction writers to write realistic content. Especially if the writer is writing about any sort of group working together or problems solving.
Janis (1972), defined groupthink as a "mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group; when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action" (p. 9). Groupthink typically causes an environment that stifles creativity, impedes the flow of information, and decreases the chance of success (Keebler, 2015). There are four main conditions that when they occur together typically lead to the creation of a groupthink environment, which in turn leads to poor decision making. Ellis and Fisher (1994) as describe these four conditions as:
1. mindless cohesion
2. pressuring nonconformists
3. failing to reward critical thinking
4. a tendency to justify
When these four conditions occur in a group, the group typically functions as a groupthink environment. A groupthink environment can be noticed by observing groups for symptoms of groupthink. The main symptoms of groupthink are:
1. illusion of invulnerability
2. increased optimism and risk-taking
3. belief in the morality of the group without question
4. discouragement of dissent
5. self-censorship by group members
6. protection against information that would threaten the complacency of the group (Janis, 1972).
Groupthink can occur anywhere in society from any organization, company, government, or group that involves people working together in a group. Groupthink can be seen throughout history with the decisions that different Presidents have made like Franklin Roosevelt's choice to focus on training instead of defense at Pearl Harbor and Kennedy’s choice to invade Cuba (Kretchmar, 2019). However, it can also be seen today in companies, stores, and organizations. One such example would be if a family-owned company had a product that was losing the interest of consumers; instead of seeking a new alternative to the item, they choose to keep the product. If this decision were made due to a lack of understanding of why the item is no longer selling and optimism that causes them to refuse to acknowledge the economic reality of their situation, then this would be a case of groupthink.
Groupthink also has a wider implication towards social welfare as when it occurs, it can cause people to ignore logic and instead conform to a group even against their own knowledge and health. Groupthink can cause people to ignore their own knowledge and beliefs in order to conform with the group regardless of the true morality of the group; in fact, in such cases, people can even become convinced in the morality of their group and the needlessness of questioning of the group.
References
Ellis, D., & Fisher, A. (1994). Small group decision making (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-
                Hill.
Keebler, D. (2015). Understanding the Constructs of Groupthink and Learning
Organizations. International Leadership Journal, 7(1), 93–97. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=102325251&site=eds-live&scope=site
Kretchmar, J. (2019). Groupthink. Salem Press Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://search-
ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ers&AN=89185516&site=eds-live&scope=site
Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink: a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and
                fiascos. Hopewell, NJ: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Moorhead, G., Ference, R., & Neck, C. P. (1991). Group Decision Fiascoes Continue: Space
Shuttle Challenger and a Revised Groupthink Framework. Human Relations, 44(6), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679104400601

Written by Readers’ Favorite Reviewer Sefina Hawke                   

The Need for Psychology Understanding

Almost all fiction writers need at least a basic understanding of psychology in order to write realistic content, dialogues, characters, and relationships. Without this basic understanding, readers are often left confused about characters and why the characters made the choices that they did. A lack of psychology understanding also sometimes causes writers to use a psychology word incorrectly or to describe it incorrectly to readers. This confusion and can easily be avoided with a bit of psychology research.
Where to Research
The problem that many writers encounter in using psychology is not knowing where to turn to research the needed terms or content. This lack of knowledge has led many writers to use a quick Google search and the first definition or explanation that pops up. This is a mistake as anyone can write anything online and claim that it is the truth and Google searches will show this type of content.
When Googling, writers should look for websites that end in .edu or .org as these sites tend to be much more reliable than .com and .net. Additionally, Google Scholar is a very useful resource for finding peer-reviewed academic journals. The journals are the best sources as they are peer-reviewed for accuracy, which greatly reduces the chance of false information being provided.
What to Know
The second major problem many writers have is in not knowing what they need to know about psychology in order to make their writing realistic. The best way for a writer to overcome this hurdle is to get in contact with a psychology professional with a request for them to review the writing and provide psychological advice on it. During such a review, a psychology professional can provide the writer with words and topics that the writer should research in order to improve their writing.
Another way to overcome this hurdle is to subscribe to a professional psychology blog, magazine, and/or academic journals. The sources will provide the writer with exposure to different psychological terms and content over time. This method is not as effective as the first, though it would provide the writer with his or her own knowledge of psychology that could be useful both in the present and future writing endeavors.
A third way for a writer to handle this problem would be to take a psychology class at a college or university. Many college and universities will allow people to audit classes for either free or for a small fee. This would not give the writer credit for the class, but then the writer would also not have to do the homework or tests. Additionally, auditing a class would also introduce the writer to both a psychology professor and psychology students, both of which could be helpful sources for any psychology questions the writer has. However, if the writer is a college student then a general psychology class could be taken as an elective, which would provide the writer with both college credits and useful psychological knowledge for his or her own writing.

Written by Readers’ Favorite Reviewer Sefina Hawke