Applying Social Psychology
Applying Social
Psychology
EXAMPLE
OF THE APPLICATION OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL
THEORIES
Can social psychology help in solving
societal problems? And if this is the case, how can social psychology do so? Social psychology is a basic science which
tries to build knowledge primarily
through experiments
and surveys (see for example Aronson, Wilson & Akert,
2002; Brehm, Kassin & Fein, 2005; Hewstone, Stroebe & Jonas, 2005; Hogg & Vaughan,
2005; Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 2005; Myers, 2005).
Sometimes, the theories and findings from
social psychology may seem a bit remote from the problems in society. However,
many if not most societal problems have social psychological aspects (for example crime,
racism, environmental pollution), and therefore social psychology may not only help in
clarifying such problems, but also contribute to finding solutions. In this chapter we give
an example of one such problem to illustrate this point, the debilitating
problem of HIV/AIDS in Africa and the lack of support for HIV/AIDS victims. We
also show how social psychological knowledge could lead to the development of a
theoretical model on which an intervention might be based. Finally, we briefly outline the
approach presented in this book, the PATH methodology, through which such models may be
developed. This chapter thus summarizes the entire approach.
Step 1 — Problem:
Formulating a Problem Definition
Whilst the increase in
safe sex practices has meant the growth in the number of HIV infections has levelled
off in the past decade, the number of people with AIDS has been rising all over the
world. According to the World Health Organization in 2005 38.6 million people were
infected with HIV globally, about 2.5 million more than in 2003. HIV/AIDS is especially a problem in
Sub-Saharan Africa, where in 2005 around 26 million
people were infected with HIV (WHO, 2005).
Although the
possibilities for treatment have improved, HIV/AIDS still is an incurable
disease that deeply affects the lives of those involved. In addition, more than
any other
disease, HIV/AIDS is surrounded by taboos and often leads to the stigmatization
and
isolation of patients (Dijker, Koomen & Kok, 1997). Patients are often
abandoned by their families and friends. For adequate forms of medical and
psychosocial help and support
of people with HIV/AIDS in poor countries, considerably more money is required than is currently available. Yet while
the treatment of people with HIV/AIDS
Applying Social Psychology 5
has steadily improved, the willingness to
donate money to help and support people with HIV/AIDS has decreased
(Van Vugt, Snyder, Tyler & Biel, 2000).
Raising
Money to Fight AIDS
A team
of volunteers from a national HIV/AIDS charity foundation wishes to set up a campaign
to raise funds for the purpose of providing medical and psychosocial care for
people with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. Some team members argue that the campaign
should not be too dramatic as it is now generally known how serious it is to be
infected with HIV. They are concerned that showing too many depressing stories
and pictures of people with HIV/AIDS will adversely affect the willingness
to donate money. Others argue that just because there has been less
media interest in HIV/AIDS recently, the campaign should highlight the
severe and incurable nature of the disease. In doing so, there is a
need to emphasize that the victims are not to blame, and that everybody
is potentially at risk of contracting HIV. Accordingly, one part of the team wants
to actively approach the media, whereas the others are concerned about the lack
of media interest in this topic. A related point of debate concerns the
campaign slogan. Should it be something positive, like 'Standing Up Against
AIDS', or something more dramatic like 'Fighting the Horrors of
AIDS'?
One volunteer suggests it would be better as
part of the campaign to develop a product which people can buy, like a music CD
of African artists, because in that case giving money would look less like charity.
Another issue that comes up in the discussion is whether to use television and
newspaper advertisements to raise money for the campaign, or to take a
more personal, door-to-door, approach. Regarding the latter, should
potential donors see a list of contributors and how much they have each contributed?
One of the volunteers suggests showing just one large gift to encourage potential
donors to match this donation. Other volunteers worry that this might put
people off, because it will be difficult to match such an amount.
The
Relevance of Social Psychology
The
volunteer team decides to consult a social psychologist to help them develop
their campaign. What suggestions should the social psychologist
make? This psychologist might have little experience with campaigns
to raise money for the fight against HIV/AIDS. Yet he will have conducted research
on how to influence people and might know how to apply this to cases such as the
HIV/AIDS campaign.
The social psychologist might of course
conclude that more research is needed on why people donate money to charities.
Given the urgency of the issue, however, this might take too
long. Instead, there is an abundant amount of social psychological literature
on people's willingness to donate money for charity that the psychologist can
consult. Based on this, he might come up with specific
suggestions on how to set up the campaign. Yet a better
approach would be to first analyse the issue in greater detail and address the
relevant causes and conditions for charity giving. Therefore, what
he must do first is develop an adequate problem
definition. This is the P-phase of the PATH methodology.
6 Applying Social Psychology
After a series of
discussions with the team, the social psychologist defines the problem as
follows:
Many people in Africa suffer from HIV/AIDS,
and there is insufficient funding to provide adequate forms of medical and psychosocial
help and support for these people. Which factors determine potential donors'
willingness to donate money for this cause? How can we set up a
campaign that would raise money to help people with HIV/AIDS in Africa?
Step 2 — Analysis:
Finding Explanations for the Problem
To identify what
factors affect people's willingness to donate money for people with HIV/AIDS in
Africa, the social psychologist formulates a broad set of questions that could
be answered by the social psychological literature. There are two entries in
the literature that immediately flash before him. The first is the
literature on helping, altruism, cooperation and prosocial
behaviour (see for example Batson & Powell, 2003; Van Vugt et
al., 2000) which can tell
him what motivates people to help others and give money for a good cause. The second is the literature on social influence, that can tell him what
influence strategies are most effective in getting people to do
what you want (see for example Prislin & Wood, 2005), in this case,
donating money for people with HIV/AIDS in Africa.
The Altruism and Prosocial Literatures
The social psychologist decides to focus on
the prosocial literature first, and formulates the problem in terms of two general
questions:
1.
When
are people most inclined to help others?
2.
What
attributes of victims elicit the most helping responses?
He states these questions quite
broadly because it is better at this stage to explore the literature more
globally in order not to miss any relevant knowledge. Next, he conducts a
search on the intemet for books on helping
with key words such as 'helping', 'altruism', 'cooperation', and 'prosocial behaviour', and finds a
number of recent titles, including The
Altruism Question by the American
psychologist Dan Batson (1991), The Psychology
of Helping and Altruism by the American
social scientists David Schroeder, Jane Piliavin, Jack Dovidio, and Louis Penner
(2006), the German social psychologist Hans Werner Bierhoff's Prosocial Behaviour (2002), and Cooperation in Modern Society: Promoting the welfare of
communities, states, and organizations by the Dutch,
American, and Swedish psychologists Mark Van Vugt, Mark Snyder, Tom Tyler and Anders
Biel (2000). These books are all available in the local university library. After consulting the
literature, the social psychologist concludes that there are, in fact, three
different types of helping:
1.
Emergency intervention, for
example helping someone who is the victim of a robbery or accident
2.
Organizational helping, for
example volunteering to take on an administrative job at the request of a
manager.
3.
Sharing
and donating resources, for example donating money to a charity.
,Applying Social Psychology 7
It is quite
obvious that the present problem, raising money for people with HIV/AIDS, concerns the third
prosocial behaviour. Yet, after reading the relevant literature, the social psychologist
concludes that most of the prosocial literature deals with emergency helping
and organizational helping. There is much less known about raising money for good
causes. He explores the literature further, now by consulting PsychINFO — the
electronic database that comprises all scientific articles and books in the
field of psychology between 1872 and the present day. There he finds a
theoretical model belonging to the Israeli social psychologist Shalom Schwartz,
published in Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology in 1977, which can be applied to all kinds of helping.
The social psychologist decides to use Schwartz's model as a basis for
understanding the problem that underlies the campaign, that is, how to increase
people's
willingness to donate money for people with HIV/AIDS in Africa. He presents this model to
the team of volunteers and outlines the implications of the model for their campaign.0p-
The Schwartz Model
In Schwartz's
(1977) model there are various steps that affect people's prosocial behaviour. We present the most important
here:
1.
Awareness There must be an awareness that others need help.
The perceived need has to
be prominent, clear and serious. We therefore need to draw attention to the
fact that people with HIV/AIDS in many African countries
face severe physical and mental distress, and need more medical,
financial, and psychological support than is currently provided.
2.
Opportunities to help: People must be aware that there are genuine
opportunities for relieving
the needs of people with HIV/AIDS. Therefore, the campaign must convey that there
are various concrete
actions that could improve the situation of victims.
3.
Ability to help: People
have to recognize their own ability to provide relief. If people feel helpless, their awareness of the problem is
reduced, and they will not feel very motivated to offer help. Therefore it should be
emphasized, for instance, that even small donations make a difference (for example, a one euro
contribution means a family of five can eat for two days).
4.
Personal norms A
major factor affecting helping behaviour is personal norms. These are feelings of moral
obligation that one should help specific needy others. Emphasizing
the needs of people with HIV/AIDS in Africa
is an effective way to activate personal norms.
5.
Responsibility Finally, people also need to accept some responsibilityfor the
problem in order to become involved and offer aid. As we will
discuss later on, this is an obstacle in the case of
the African HIV/AIDS problem.
Further, the
literature suggests that people are more inclined to help when the recipients are considered
blameless. In general, people with an illness evoke more sympathy if they are not held
responsible for their fate (Graham, Weiner, Giuliano & Williams, 1993; Weiner,
1993). Also, the more sympathy individuals evoke the more help they receive (Rudolph et
al., 2004). Knowing this, the social psychologist concludes that one of the
primary aims of the campaign should be to eradicate the (erroneous) belief
8 Applying
Social Psychology
that people with HIV/AIDS in
Africa are always themselves to blame for their illness.
Finally, helping is more likely when people
are able to identify with the victims, for example, because they are
similar in age, profession and values. Similarity leads to empathy
— seeing oneself in someone else's place — which in turn leads to helping (Levy,
Freitas, & Salovey, 2002; Sturmer et al., 2002; Batson, 1991). Although
this may not be easy to achieve when the victims are in a remote
place, this could nevertheless be accomplished by providing potential donors
with personal reports from HIV/AIDS victims
in Africa. This reduces the distance between helper and recipient and encourages
people to empathize with victims.
Belief in a Just World
In the
team meeting to discuss the campaign, someone suggests that people may respond
differently to victims of disasters abroad rather than at home. The social psychologist
tries to find out more about this possibility. He explores the literature further,
and comes across a chapter in a German book that explicitly deals with this theme.
This chapter — Solidaritat mit der Dritten Welt [Solidarity with the Third
World] — is written by the German psychologist Leon Montada. In this chapter
Montada discusses the determinants of helping people in Third World countries, including
giving to charity and political activities. From Montada's study it appears that
helping is not related to empathy but to personal norms and one feeling a
responsibility to do something. This sense of responsibility is
caused by guilt about one's privileged situation, anger about the
injustice/unfairness of the situation of people in poor
countries, and the perception that people in poor countries are not responsible
for their fate.
When the social psychologist reports this
information to the team, the team decides to focus on the injustice that HIV/AIDS
victims in the Third World receive and that due to the poverty and
insufficient health care, help for people with HIV/AIDS is desperately
needed. The issues of justice and fairness lead the psychologist to consider a theory — about the belief
in a just world — formulated
by the Canadian social psychologist Melvin Lerner (1980) which assumes that
people have a natural tendency to believe they live in a just world in which
everyone gets what they deserve. This belief is a common world view but
while this belief is a universal phenomenon, there are presumably
considerable differences between people as to the degree to which they share it.
For someone who strongly adheres to the just world belief, events that shake
this belief are threatening. People are especially upset by the unexplained
suffering of others, for example, someone who has been working hard getting
fired, or parents losing their child in an accident. For someone who
strongly believes in a just world, such events are so upsetting that they will try
to reduce this threat, sometimes by helping the victim to relieve their
own suffering.
The social psychologist therefore concludes
that the campaign would have to emphasize the unfairness of the plight of people with
HIV/AIDS in Africa. Yet he also discovers
Applying Social Psychology 9
that helping a victim is not the only way to
deal with a threat to the just world belief. Lerner (1980) suggests
that people also sometimes cognitively reinterpret an unjust event
by holding victims responsible for their fate ('he could have used a condom')
or derogating them (`he is morally irresponsible'). In addition, the social
psychologist finds out about several studies which show that as
individuals believe more strongly in a just world they are less likely to donate
to charity goals in Third World countries (Campbell, Carr, & MacLachlan, 2001).
Contrary to his initial thoughts he therefore concludes that the team
should be careful to stress the injustice of the fate of people with
HIV/AIDS in Africa.
Further scrutiny of the social psychological
literature suggests a number of other fac-
tors that may influence attitudes towards people with HIV/AIDS in Africa. In
general, people have more sympathy for victims the
greater their belief a similar event might happen to them (Montada, 1992;
Silver, Wortman & Crofton, 1990). More specifically,
as
individuals have more HIV/AIDS related experiences (such as knowing people who have
HIV/AIDS) they are more willing to help people with HIV/AIDS (Cassel, 1995). Also,
the greater the sympathy, the more social pressure there is to help the victims
(Batson & Powell, 2003). On the basis of these and other findings,
obtained in the social psychological literature, the social psychologist
then builds a process model, an example
of which is presented in Figure 1.1.
Step 3 — Test: Developing and
Testing the Process Model
In the
model, the key outcome variable is the willingness to donate money to help people
with HIV/AIDS in Africa. There are a number of processes that influence this willingness,
according to the model. One factor is the attitude towards people with HIV/AIDS.
Based on the just world hypothesis, the more people believe that being infected
with HIV is preventable, and the more they believe in a just world, the more they will hold people with
HIV/AIDS responsible for their own fate and donate less. Thus, a potential problem for the campaign is that some people
will feel that HIV/AIDS could be
prevented by having safe sex, and that, as a result, many feel that people with HIV/AIDS somehow brought it upon
themselves (For example, by living promiscuously).
Furthermore, research has shown that bad
events happening to others evoke anger rather than compassion if they could
have been prevented. More specifically, research shows that illnesses and
diseases that are seen as controllable and preventable, such as AIDS
and obesity, lead to a more negative attitude towards the patient and less
helping than uncontrollable diseases, such as Alzheimer's
(Weiner, Perry & Magnusson, 1988). This is especially the case among people who
strongly believe in a just world (Mantler, 2001). As a consequence,
people with HIV/AIDS are often negatively stereotyped,
for instance, as having low moral worth (Walker et al.,
1990). A social psychologist who has done significant work in the area of prejudice and stereotyping
is Professor Susan Fiske of Princeton University (see Box 1.1).
Applying
Social Psychology 11
Box 1.1
Interview with Professor Susan Fiske of Princeton
University (USA)
University (USA)
'I always wanted to make the world a better place. My grandmother and great grandmother were suffragists (never suffragettes!►. And my mother worked full-time as a civic volunteer for citizens' participation, urban neighbourhood organizations, cleaner air, and better parks. My father was a psychologist, so I put the two lines together, wanting to use psychology to improve things, especially for underdogs. But I realized, early on, that if you do not have the methodological tools to make a convincing scientific argument, no one will listen. My father was a methodologist, so that probably helped to drive that point home. Social psychology was the logical choice.
What I love about social psychology is that it argues for the importance of the social situation, the impact of people on other people. If you think the important variance is in the situation (as opposed to, say, genes, or the first year of life►, then to improve people's lives, you change the situation. This is an inherently progressive perspective.
'My most exciting professional impact was being cited by the Supreme Court. Ann Hopkins had been the star of her cohort at Price Waterhouse, billing more hours and respected by clients and colleagues alike. She was tough and exacting and effective. Unfortunately, she was also the only female partner candidate out of about 90 that year, and in a business utterly dominated by men at that point People who didn't know her well, but who nevertheless voted, disliked this aggressive female manager. She was turned down for partner on the basis of allegedly deficient social skills, being advised that she could improve her chances by walking, talking, and dressing more femininely. Instead of going to charm school, she sued.
'Social psychology had a lot to offer Ann Hopkins, so I agreed to be an expert witness. I explained how perfectly well-intentioned PW partners could end up prescribing make-up and hair styling to a top-earning manager. Gender roles are intrinsically prescriptive, and this makes sexism ambivalent. Let me explain. People love the stereotypic homemaker but would not want her to run a company. At the same time, people respect the stereotypic businesswoman, but they tend to dislike her. Peter Glick and I captured this Catch-22 in our Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, which picks up on the benevolence toward traditional women and the hostility toward nontraditional women. Hostile sexism is not a new idea, but subjectively benevolent sexism is. And it goes a long way toward explaining certain kinds of barriers to women in the workplace.'
Interested in Susan Fiske's work? Then read, for instance:
(Continued)
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P. & Xu, J.
(2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype
content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 878-902. Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (in press). Social cognition: From
brains to culture (3rd edn). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Glick, P. & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent
alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism
as complementary justifications of gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118.
12 Applying
Social Psychology
As we have seen, any
willingness to help people with HIV/AIDS in Africa is also affected by feelings
of moral obligation (Schwartz, 1977). Two factors, in particular, activate feelings of
moral obligation. First, the perceived needs of thcse people with HIV/AIDS in Africa. A
second factor is the perceived injustice of the poverty in Africa, but such feelings are
weaker when people believe in a just world (Lerner, 1980). A willingness to donate money will, in addition to
feelings of moral obligation and the attitude
towards people with HIV/AIDS in Africa, also be affected by social pressure
from relevant others and by the perceived effectiveness of helping
(Batson, 1990; Van Vugt et al., 2000). The latter implies that the campaign
must convince the public that the donated money is going to be spent wisely.
Research
The social psychologist
could further suggest to the campaign team that some relationships in the process
model are not yet clear in the literature and require further testing through research. For
example, people might be willing to donate money out of sympathy with the
victims, but also because of feelings of guilt (Cialdini & Trost, 1998; Huhmann & Brotherton, 1997). Therefore,
what would be the result if the campaign were
focused on the role of the West in causing poverty-related problems in sub-Saharan
Africa, which would elicit guilt among potential donors? One consequence might be that people would feel personally
responsible and give more to relieve their guilt. Another likely effect might be that this suggestion would
infuriate people and that, out of dissent, they would contribute nothing. The
social psychologist therefore
Applying
Social Psychology 13
decides that it would be wise to conduct some
further research on the relationship between guilt and helping, before
incorporating these ideas into the model.
Step
4 — Help: Towards an Intervention Programme
On the
basis of the social psychologist's model, the team of volunteers decides that a
number of factors, such as the belief in a
just world, are difficult to change, but that a number of factors that may increase helping behaviour can
possibly be influenced by a campaign. In particular, one aspect
considered to be important is undermining people's tendency to devalue others with HIV/AIDS (`They have brought it
upon themselves'). Another key point
is that people are much keener to contribute money if they think their gift
could 'make a difference' (Kerr,
1989; Oskamp, Burkharolt, Schultz, Hurin & Zelezny, 1998). It is
thus worthwhile showing what even a small gift can do to relieve the problem.
Further, more people will donate if they can
do so easily and quickly and therefore donations over the internet
should be made possible. Finally, too much negative information may cause
people to devalue the victims or avoid paying attention to the campaign
altogether, and, therefore, the message of
the campaign will need to be decidedly positive.
After extensive discussion and an
additional consultation of the social psychological literature, it is decided the campaign will have the following features:
1. Personal profiles of people with HIV/AIDS in Africa will
be presented, who, despite their illness,
are trying to make the best of their situation, but who clearly need medical
and psychological help that is currently
unavailable. Possible personal profiles could be:
·
a child who has been infected since birth and is
now sick; without proper medication the child will die within a few months;
·
a woman who has been
infected because she was raped; out of shame for the rape, her husband
had left both her and their five children.
2.
The tendency to blame
people with HIV/AIDS in Africa will be tackled by the above examples, namely the fate of children born with HIV/AIDS and women
who have suffered rape. Also to be emphasized is that due
to poor information, poverty, and a lack of availability of contraceptives, people with HIV/AIDS in Africa are often unaware
of the risks of unsafe sex and ways to
prevent infection and therefore cannot be held personally accountable for
contracting the disease.
3.
Feelings of moral
obligation will be induced by both showing that people with HIV/AIDS in Africa
are in desperate need of help and also by making a subtle appeal to feelings of
injustice with respect to the poverty in Africa.
4.
The messages will be
predominantly positive to prevent a negative attitude towards people with
HIV/AIDS in Africa ('With a little gift, this person may have a long and
productive life ahead of them').
5. It will be made clear that every gift no matter how small
will help (for example, feeding a family
for two days for as little as one euro), and it will be clearly stated for what
purpose the donations will be used.
6.
To lower the threshold to
donate money, people will be able to donate money over the internet.
14 Applying Social Psychology
OTHER
RELEVANT DECISIONS
Using
the PATH methodology as a helpful tool, we have introduced you to the main
steps in moving from a problem (how to raise money for people with HIV/AIDS in
Africa) to the development of an intervention programme to tackle
this same problem. We have formulated the details of a campaign to raise
money for this worthy cause. Although the general approach of the
campaign has now been formulated by the team with the help of an applied
social psychologist, many more decisions still need to be made.
First, a decision must be made regarding the
communication channel (McGuire, 1985). For example, the team will have to
decide whether to run a media campaign (television, radio, internet), a door-to-door
campaign, or a combination of the two. Each has its own logistical
problems. The media will not easily provide broadcast time for free, especially
if they consider the topic to be of insufficient interest to the public at large.
For a door-to-door campaign one needs to recruit, organize and coordinate a
large group of reliable volunteers throughout the country,
which might be cumbersome.
Another issue is whether donors receive
something in exchange for their gift, for example, a music CD by African artists for
every donation over 50 euros. The helping literature suggests that this may be a good
thing to do. The norm of reciprocity states that individuals feel
best when they receive something in return for what they give (Buunk
& Schaufeli, 1999; Cialdini & Trost, 1998). As a consequence, and
considering the tendency to blame the victims, people might be more
willing to give if they know they will receive something in return. Gifts
are more likely associated with an acute disaster such as a drought or Tsunami. With
the HIV/AIDS problem — a situation of prolonged suffering — people might be more
willing to donate if they are to get something in return which will have intrinsic
value to them, while at the same time they are doing something good.
People can engage in such a transaction without having to take a
position about the causes of the problem. They may think they are just getting
a good deal.
Many other details will have to be decided,
for example which product to offer, which media channels to use, and a slogan for the
campaign. For many of these questions, there is relevant social psychological
literature that could be consulted, for example, on persuasion
(O'Keefe, 1990), communication (McGuire, 1985) and social influence (Schultz
and Oskamp, 2000). In addition, there is an applied literature on how to set
up fundraising campaigns (Clarke, Botting & Norton, 2001).
APPLYING SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY: THE PATH FROM PROBLEM TO
INTERVENTION
We
believe that the PATH method helps social scientists to develop a
theoretically-based intervention programme relatively quickly and smoothly.
There is no denying that there are sometimes important obstacles
in the way. For instance, it may take some time to formulate the
problem, and some deliberation to focus on the most pressing elements
of the problem. The problem may seem so complex that one cannot see 'the
Applying Social Psychology 15
wood
for the trees'. In addition, gathering the relevant social psychological
literature might take time (although the internet has clearly
facilitated the search process). There may be little relevant research on the
topic or alternatively, there may be too many relevant social psychological
theories and it will prove difficult to choose between them. Finally,
it is difficult to tell whether or not an intervention is going to be
successful. Even if interventions have been successful in the past,
there is no guarantee one will work this time.
The
PATH method offers a simple, systematic, step-by-step, easy-to-use methodology
for applying social psychological theories to tackle a diversity of social
issues. In sum, we can identify four essential steps in this methodology:
1.
PROBLEM — from the problem to a problem
definition; identifying and defining the problem;
2.
ANALYSIS — from a problem
definition to analysis and explanation; formulating appropriate concepts and developing theory-based explanations;
3.
TEST — from explanations to
a process model; developing and testing an explanatory process model;
4.
HELP — from a process
model to interventions; developing and evaluating a programme of interventions.
We briefly describe below each of these four steps of the PATH
method. In each of the chapters that follow, these steps will be
outlined in greater detail and with plenty of illustrative examples.
Step 1 —
Problem: From the Problem to a Problem Definition
Arriving
at an adequate problem definition requires much consideration and deliberation.
Usually, the problem definition is more extensive than the one we formulated
earlier in this chapter where the team knew already that they wanted to set
up a fundraising campaign to help people with HIV/AIDS in Africa. Often
there is just a general feeling within a team, community, or
organization that there is a problem and something must be done without much further
thought being involved. In the example of an HIV/AIDS fundraising campaign, the team
of volunteers may have simply been frustrated about a lack of attention towards
the plight of people with HIV/AIDS in Africa within their country. Getting this
attention would require quite a different approach than that required in setting up a
fundraising campaign. Further, an internal controversy on policy
priorities within a charity organization is often better dealt with by
organizational psychologists and consultants.
As will be addressed in Chapter 2, it is
very important to describe precisely what the problem is (for example, 'How can we raise
money to help people with AIDS in Africa?'). But even when the problem is
presented clearly, other questions also need to be asked. We must assess
if the problem is sufficiently concrete rather than it being a general
scientific question like: 'How can we make people more altruistic?' Also, why is it a problem at all
(for example, 'People with HIV/AIDS in Africa suffer greatly and
have few opportunities for treatment') and for whom it is a problem (for example,
16 Applying Social Psychology
`people
with HIV/AIDS in Africa, their families, and their countries')? In addition, we
must specify the main causes of the
problem, in this case why we think people might be reluctant to give
money to this particular charitable cause, for example because they find it
difficult to empathize with people in Africa or there is competition coming
from other charity organizations. Further, we should specify the population we
aim to target with our intervention (target group). Who do
we need to convince that this problem has to be solved? Who must help solve
this problem? In the example of an HIV/AIDS fundraising campaign, the
volunteer team should determine who they want to encourage to
donate money; the general public or specific subgroups (such as families with high
incomes), private persons or organizations and companies? Because they want to convince
as many people as possible to donate money, the team in the above example chose
to target the general public.
Finally, the key
aspects of the problem need to be considered. That is, a good
problem definition makes clear that the problem has an applied rather than a basic nature, and is
formulated in concrete terms.
In the example of an HIV/AIDS fundraising campaign, this would give answers to the
question of why people may be reluctant to give money to HIV/AIDS
charities. Last but not least, there must be a feeling that the problem has social psychological aspects and that it is
potentially solvable or
relievable.
In the first discussions with the AIDS team
of volunteers, the focus might be on the irresponsible attitude of some
political leaders in Africa with respect to HIV/AIDS, or the attitude of the
Roman Catholic Church towards condom use. It is obvious that these issues are not
problems that social psychologists can easily solve (or should even want to
solve). Changing the attitudes of political and religious
leaders may be done by using social psychological knowledge, but it probably
requires a sustained political and diplomatic effort.
In contrast, changing the attitudes of the
general public towards people with HIV/AIDS in Africa is a good
example of the type of issue to which social psychologists may contribute.
Such attitudes are social psychological constructs, and there is a wealth of
theorizing and research on how such attitudes may be changed. In
general, social psychological factors concern behaviours (for example,
giving money), attitudes (say, a negative evaluation of people with
HIV/AIDS), cognitions (for example, negative perceptions of people with
HIV/AIDS), and affective/emotional responses (say, a fear of AIDS). When the
problem cannot be defined along one or more of these terms — behaviours,
attitudes, cognitions, affective responses — it is probably not suitable
for a PATH analysis.
Step 2 —
Analysis: From a Problem Definition to Analysis and
Explanation
Once
the problem has been defined in terms of one or more social psychological constructs,
the second step is to come up with social psychological explanations for the
problem. Before doing so, one first has to decide what the outcome variable is, that is, which
variable eventually needs changing. In the example of an HIV/AIDS fundraising campaign,
it is a willingness to donate money for people with HIV/AIDS in Africa. As will be
described in Chapter 3, after having defined this variable, in the divergent stage,
Applying Social Psychology
17
one starts looking for explanations through techniques such as 'free
association' and through applying relevant social psychological theories.
In the development of a process model to explain a willingness to donate
money for people with HIV/AIDS in Africa, the psychologist in the example knew right
away that he had to look in the literature on helping behaviour and
prosocial behaviour. Through a search in the helping literature, he found the
model by Schwartz (1977) that seemed quite relevant.
In retrospect it might seem evident to
look into this literature, but someone without a background in social
psychology might not have known where to look. Moreover, even
when confining oneself to the social psychological literature on helping, one
might have found many different models and theories. There are
for example social exchange g and
reciprocity theories, emphasizing the role of egotistic concerns in helping
(Buunk & Schaufeli, 1999; Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006). By
performing acts of kindness individuals may receive many benefits. They may, for
instance, feel happier (Lyubomirsky, Sheldon & Schkade, 2005),
experience positive self-evaluations and a boost in self-esteem (for example,
'I did something good today!', 'I am a caring person'), receive praise, or experience
the joy of seeing the needy person experience relief. In addition, helpers may
avoid negative feelings, such as shame or guilt (Batson &
Powell, 2003). There are also theories that emphasize truly altruistic
motivations, for example, empathy-altruism
theory (Batson, 1991; Bierhoff & Rohmann, 2004). The basic
idea of this theory is that empathic concern motivates altruistic behaviour
aimed at relieving a victim's suffering. This theory suggests,
for example, that people will support HIV/AIDS victims in Africa if they can
easily see themselves in their shoes (namely, high empathy). After generating
many different explanations, one must then reduce the
explanations based on their relevance, validity and plausibility. In the example
of an HIV/AIDS fundraising campaign, the social psychologist disregards
the empathy factor as people may not feel very similar to people with
HIV/AIDS in Africa.
To determine the validity of the social psychological
theories, it is important to assess the extent to which the typical experiments
on which the theory is based represent the real world. Many
theories in their abstract form may seem readily applicable in a given situation,
but what people often tend to forget is that most theories in social psychology
are usually based upon a specific research paradigm that may only be
generalized to a limited number of situations in real life. This concern
refers to the external validity of an
experiment. It is possible that research findings, because of the specific
research paradigm or limitations in samples or settings, can only be
applied to a limited number of real-life situations. In that case the
external validity of an experiment is low.
For example, in a typical example of the
experiments that form the basis of Batson's (1991) empathy-altruism
theory, people observe another person (`the worker') who they
think is suffering from a series of uncomfortable electric shocks that have
been administered to them by the experimenter for failing to
give correct answers. They are given a chance to help the worker by taking
the shocks themselves. There are at least two major differences between this
situation and the situation of donating money to people with HIV/AIDS in
Africa. First, it concerns others who are close in proximity, and,
second, one is asked to take on the suffering of the victim oneself. Thus,
Batson's theory may have limited relevance for this particular
problem.
18 Applying Social Psychology
Step
3 — Test: From Explanations to a Process Model
On the basis of a limited set of variables
resulting from the previous stage, a process model can be formulated
like the one presented in Figure 1.1. (How to build such a model is described
in much more detail in Chapter 4.) The model contains the outcome variable that
must be influenced, in this case a willingness to donate money for people with HIV/AIDS.
In addition, the model should primarily contain variables that can be influenced,
at least to some extent, and should describe the relationship between the
variables in the form of a process model. This process model is at
the core of PATH methodology. Although the model in Figure 1.1 seems
plausible, this is by no means the only model that could
have been formulated on the basis of the selected variables. Why, for example,
does the belief in a just world not directly affect a negative
attitude towards people with HIV/AIDS in Africa? Why does the way in
which people with HIV/AIDS in Africa cope with the situation not lead to
feelings of moral obligation? Why is a willingness to donate money
not directly affected by the perceived injustice of poverty in Africa?
In
general, the process model specifies just a few possible relationships between
its variables. Any given variable should not affect more than
two or three other variables. This forces practitioners to be selective
and specific about the causal relationships in the model. By including
too many relationships, it may become a model in which `everything
is explained by everything', and it would be difficult to formulate specific interventions
based on it.
In
the example of an HIV/AIDS fundraising campaign, the social psychologist formulated
his model on the basis of existing empirical research. However, often one is forced
to formulate a model in which it is not yet clear to what extent the various
paths between the variables are empirically supported.
Ultimately, a model is only complete if there is sufficient evidence from
research for the relationships between the variables. (In
Chapter 4 we discuss how to assess the empirical support for the model.) Of
course, because we aim to develop explanations and interventions
based on social psychological knowledge, in the present approach we
need to use as much existing knowledge as possible. This knowledge can be derived
from basic social psychological research as well as from other
research more or less directly applied to the problem (Fliszar & Clopton,
1995; Montada, 2001).
Frequently,
however, one can only find empirical evidence that validates parts of the process model, and not
the entire model. In the example of an HIV/AIDS fundraising campaign,
there is, for instance, little research on willingness to donate money for people
with HIV/AIDS in Africa, or on charity donation in general. If one cannot find research
on the specific problem (for example, charity donation) to support (parts of) the
model, one may look for evidence in research on the generic behaviour (for example,
altruism). The social psychologist that advised the volunteer team, for
instance, found support for (parts of) his model in the general
literature on helping.
Step
4 — Help: From a Process Model to Intervention
Applying
Social Psychology 19
intervention programme, it is important that
the model contains primarily factors that can be influenced through
intervention. Most social psychological variables, such as attitudes
and social norms, can be
targeted by interventions, but factors such as gender, personality
or other deeply rooted traits and
values cannot (at least not by a social psychologist). Of course, it
might seem obvious to include gender or personality in the model,
because for instance women have more empathy or are more agreeable, and thus are
more inclined to donate money. However, although such factors may be very important,
it is difficult to build an intervention programme around them. Even factors
that may seem less deeply rooted in human nature, such as prejudice towards
gay people, may be difficult to change, especially via media
campaigns.
The
step from the Test to the Help phase is huge. The social psychologist must first
come up with as many interventions as possible, aimed at the most promising and
important factors in the model. Often this intervention will contain
behavioural training, a programme of education, information, rules
or prescriptions. Shaping the programme in such detail that it can be
implemented usually takes a lot of time, energy, and creativity.
PROBLEMS WITH APPLYING THEORIES
It is not easy to apply social psychological
theories to social problems. Most general knowledge in social psychology is derived
from laboratory experiments (see any social psychology text), and
these have several important limitations (Aronson, Wilson & Akert,
2002). We will now discuss three of the most important limitations of this type
of research: oversimplification, external validity, and contradictory
evidence.
Oversimplification
The situation examined in
experiments is virtually, by definition, a reduction and simplification of reality. A single laboratory
experiment can never examine the complex interplay of variables that affect human social behaviour in the real
world and can examine at most two or
three factors. For example, the social psychologist assisting the AIDS team concluded from laboratory research on
emergency helping (Latane & Darley,
1970) that often bystanders do not
intervene when they see another person is in need. One could come up with numerous
factors that may affect a willingness to help in such situations,
including the bystander's personality, family
background, mood, g preoccupation
with other issues, fear, embarrassment, lack of control, and the age and sex of
the victim. Yet in the classic 'bystander experiment' Latane and Darley (1970) only
examined one factor, that is, the number of other people present. They showed
that a willingness to help someone allegedly experiencing a seizure was
reduced the more other people were present. Although Latane and Darley's
experiment is a very interesting one, it did not show how important this
factor was in comparison with other factors that may influence
willingness to help, such as the victim's age or sex, or how it interacted
with other factors.
20
Applying Social Psychology
Another example of the limitation of
laboratory experiments is a research programme by the American social
psychologist Donn Byrne (1971) on the effect of attitude similarity on
attraction. In a typical similarity experiment participants fill out an
attitude questionnaire. They are then presented with a second
questionnaire that has allegedly been completed by another participant.
However, the experimenter has fabricated this questionnaire in such a
way that it has either 25 per cent or 75 per cent of the attitudes in common
with the participant's attitudes. In general, it appears that the more
attitudes one has in common with the other person, the more one likes the other
individual, and this is a quite strong effect. However, in real life,
such as when a dating agency wants to match people, other factors such as
physical attractiveness, status, or educational level may be more
important than attitude similarity. It is, of course, possible to examine
such factors as these in experiments. For example, Byrne, Ervin and Lamberth (1970)
showed that attitude similarity and physical attractiveness determined to a similar
degree the attraction to someone of the opposite sex. Although researchers can include
a second, third or even fourth variable in their experiments, it is impossible
to include all potentially relevant factors in a laboratory experiment. The
social psychologist must assess what the most important variables are,
for example, through a survey among the target population.
External Validity
A second limitation is that all kinds of
factors in real life may obscure the impact of the variables
that are so clearly manipulated in experiments. For instance, in the
experiments by Byrne (1971), participants knew exactly the real
attitudes of the other person. In real life one seldom knows how other people think
about certain issues. Several studies on the relation between attitude
similarity and attraction show that, unlike what Byrne's experiments suggest, actual attitude similarity scarcely affects initial
feelings of attraction. What really counts is one's perception
of attitude similarity, that is, the degree to which individuals believe another person to have similar attitudes.
This determines attraction, not the degree to which attitudes actually are similar. Buunk and Bosman (1986), for
instance, found that whereas spouses showed a low degree of actual
attitude similarity, they showed a high degree of perceived attitude
similarity (for a review, see Sunnafrank, 1992). Thus, if one
had been asked by an organization how to make cohesive teams, and one had proposed
to form teams on the basis of the actual attitude similarity among the members,
the results would have been quite disappointing.
Another
example of this limitation comes from research on unconscious priming. There is considerable evidence that priming
individuals with stimuli that are offered subliminally, that is without being
consciously perceived, may affect behaviour. In a study
by the American social psychologist John Bargh and his colleagues (Bargh, Chen &
Burrows, 1996), participants were primed on politeness or rudeness through a
so-called scrambled sentence task. When they were primed on politeness,
participants in a later, unrelated situation, interrupted the
experimenter who was talking with someone else less often than participants primed on
rudeness. Despite the striking results of such experiments, in real life
the success of these interventions may be weak or there may be
ethical concerns.
Applying
Social Psychology 21
Contradictory
Evidence
Another limitation of social psychological
research is that studies often produce contradictory findings. For
instance, Griffith (1970) found that participants who waited in a room
with uncomfortable environmental conditions (high temperature, high humidity level)
liked the person with whom they were waiting less than participants who waited in a
room with comfortable environmental conditions (normal temperature and low humidity
level). Yet Bell and Baron (1974) failed to replicate this effect. Other social
psychological research shows that people tend to like others more when they meet them in
fear-arousing, uncomfortable situations (Dutton & Aron, 1974).
Findings
like these may be confusing and difficult to interpret. Fortunately, researchers
are sometimes able to reconcile contrasting findings. Often, contradictory
results stem from the fact that on numerous occasions studies have subtly
different methods. Kenrick and Johnson (1979) found, for instance, that
negative feelings which are due to uncomfortable circumstances will
induce aversion for another person, a stranger, even when those being studied
do not interact with this person. In contrast, when individuals
actually interact with someone uncomfortable circumstances can often
increase liking.
This illustrates that one should not take the conclusions from experiments
as general truths, but that one should carefully examine the experimental paradigm
on which a particular finding is based before applying it to the real world.
From
a broader perspective, seemingly contradictory conclusions from experiments support
the idea that humans are complex social beings with many different behavioural tendencies.
For example, they will seek out factual confirmation of who they are as well as
flattering information on how good they are; they are egoistical as well as
altruistic; they are rational as well as emotional. There are
numerous theories in social psychology, and each theory tends to emphasize a
distinct human tendency. For instance, Batson's (1991) empathy-altruism theory
emphasizes that people have a basic tendency to respond with
altruistic empathy to others, whereas social exchange theory emphasizes
that people first and foremost pursue their self-interest in helping relations (Thibaut
& Kelley, 1959). Swann's self-confirmation theory (see, for example, Swarm,
Stein-Seroussi & Giesler, 1992) suggests that people tend to seek
out information that confirms their self-image, be it positive
or negative, whereas self-esteem theory (Baumeister & Tice, 1990) would suggest
that people simply prefer all information to make them feel good
about themselves.
CONCLUSION
This book introduces the PATH model, a
step-by-step approach for addressing and resolving societal problems through the
application of social psychological theory and knowledge, from the
formulation of the problem to the shaping of interventions. Although
every practitioner can potentially benefit from PATH methodology, some background
in social psychological theory is desirable.
The
PATH model should not be used in a rigid way. Going from a problem to intervention
is usually an iterative process, and one frequently moves back and forth
22 Applying Social Psychology
between the different
steps in the model. For instance, one may start with defining the problem, but when exploring the literature, one
can discover that there are certain aspects
of the problem that one has overlooked. In that case, one first has to redefine
the problem. Or one may see explanations and solutions before having formulated
a clear problem definition. There is
nothing wrong with adapting the problem definition after having explored the research literature. It
is even advisable to do so. What counts is not strictly following the steps of the PATH model, but developing a
clear problem definition, a process model that fits the empirical findings as
closely as possible, and an effective intervention.
SUGGESTED FURTHER
READING
Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder,
D. A. & Penner, L. A. (2006). The social
psychology of pro-social behaviour.
Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Omoto, A. &
Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: motivation, longevity
of
service, and perceived
attitude. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 671-686.
Schultz, P. W. & Oskamp, S. (2000). Social psychology: An applied perspective. Upper Saddle
Schultz, P. W. & Oskamp, S. (2000). Social psychology: An applied perspective. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Van Vugt, M., Snyder, M., Tyler, T. & Biel, A. (2000). Cooperation in modern society: Promoting the welfare of communities, states, and organisations, p. 245. London: Routledge.
Box
1.2 A case study: Social comparison in adjustment
to breast cancer
Patients who have a
serious illness, such as cancer, often feel fearful and uncertain about their future and worry that they are
coping poorly or losing their grip on reality. This type of stress may lead to a longer recovery period and
increase both the emotional as well as the financial burden of the disease.
Helping patients to cope optimally
with their disease is therefore an issue of great concern.
Patients
often cope with their illness by comparing themselves with other patients, namely by making so-called social
comparisons (Festinger, 1954). Social comparisons
may contribute to adjustment through two functions. First, by comparing
themselves to others in the same situation, patients may learn to what extent
their reactions are reasonable and normal (self-evaluation). Second,
serious illness can pose a great threat
to patients' self-esteem since it often brings a great deal of changes that
are critical to their identity (for instance, with regard to body image, occupation, valued activities, and
close relationships). By comparing themselves
to other patients, they may restore and enhance their self-esteem (for example, 'It could have been much worse'; self-enhancement).
|
Applying
Social Psychology 23
To make accurate self-evaluations patients may best
compare themselves with similar others, namely patients who are about equally
ill, because these patients provide the most useful information about how to
cope. In contrast, when individuals are motivated to enhance their
self-esteem, they are best served by comparisons
with patients who are either worse (downward comparisons) or better off (upward comparisons).
The question that arises
is whether patients benefit more from social comparisons through
self-evaluations or self-enhancement. In others words, in adjusting to their illness, with whom do patients prefer to
compare themselves: with similar others,
or with patients who are better or worse off? To answer this question the American psychologists Joanne Wood, Shelley Taylor
and Rosemary Lichtman* interviewed 78
breast cancer patients about their illness and the ways they coped,
including the type of social comparisons they made. These researchers found
that over 60 per cent of respondents said that another patient was coping less well than she was; 80 per cent said that
they adjusted at least somewhat better
than other women. In other words, the researchers found a preponderance of downward comparison, indicating that, among breast
cancer patients, self-enhancement is the most dominant motive for social
comparison.
Findings like these are important for interventions that
aim to help patients adjust (see Buunk, Gibbons & Visser,
2002). Consistent with patients' preference for
downward comparisons, they may, for instance, point out what patients are still able to do (rather than what they cannot do
any more).
*
Wood, J.V., Taylor, S.E. & Lichtman, R.R. (1985). Social comparison in
adjustment to breast cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1169-1183.
24
Applying Social Psychology
ASSIGNMENT 1
Read Box 1.2 (pp. 22-3) Imagine you are
asked to develop an intervention programme to enhance the well-being of cancer patients on the basis of the
study described in this box (Wood, Taylor & Lichtman, 1985).
(a) Describe in this context:
·
what exactly the problem is that you aim
to solve with the intervention programme;
·
whythe
problem is a problem (in, among others, emotional, financial and societal
terms) and
since wherr,
·
for
whom it is a problem (for patients or also, for instance, for
their relatives and/or for taxpayers);
·
what
are the possible causes of the problem (for instance, relevant behaviours, emotions or cognitions, lack of information);
·
whom you aim to target with your
intervention (target group);
·
the
key aspects of the problem (applied, concrete, social psychological, is the problem solvable or relievable).
(b)
Discuss
to what extent the belief in a just world, as described in this chapter, may influence cancer patients' well-being when
they socially compare themselves with other patients. To what extent do you think that the
belief in a just world is relevant to
the intervention programme?
(c)
Design
an intervention on the basis of the results of Wood, Taylor and Lichtman's study (see Box 1.2) to relieve the problem
you have described in (a) above. Describe specifically the social psychological variables
you aim to manipulate by intervention and by
what means you aim to do so and why.
You may read the following articles to come up with ideas
about interventions for
cancer patients:
Bennenbroek, F.T.C., Buunk, B.P.,
Stiegelis, H.E., Hagedoorn, M., Sanderman, R., Van den Bergh, A.C.M. &
Botke, G (2003). Audiotaped social comparison information for cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy:
Differential effects of procedural, emotional and coping information. Psycho-Oncology,
12(6), 567-579.
Bennenbroek, F.T.C.,
Buunk, B.P., Van der Zee, K.I. & Grol, B. (2002). Social
comparison and patient information: What do cancer patients want?
Patient Education and Counselling, 47(1), 5-12.
Stiegelis, H.E.,
Hagedoorn, M., Sanderman, R., Buunk, B.P., Van den Bergh, A.C.M., Botke, G. &
Ranchor, A.V. (2004). The impact of an informational self-management intervention on the
association between control and illness uncertainty before and psychological
Komentar
Posting Komentar