LB, Critical Social Psychology, W10 Flashcards
Experimental (traditional) and Critical Social Psychology
• Stainton-Rogers (2011) > There are two approaches to social Psychology (experimental/traditional social + critical social)
• Critical Social Psychology > Scientific method is one way of coming to understand social phenomenon, processes, and events, but there are many other ways to do this > critiques that scientific methods are the only way to experiment social psychology > can understand things in our everyday world differently
• Knowledge is not inert > has a function, consequences + means things
• Social world produced by those within it > it is made meaningful through interactions > people are not passive, they are active and make interactions > the world is the way it is because of the people in it interacting, are not passive consumers
E.g. James, critical of introspection and argued that how we understand our world is more complex than can be deduced through experimental methods
How is the person conceptualised in Social Psychology?
• Stainton-Rogers (2011) > do we understand the person entirely through individual factors from within the individual or think about the social environment they are in?
• Experimental Social Psychology: Sees the person as a product of innate instinct, moulded by social and cultural forces but lacking free will
• We can therefore use scientific enquiry to determine universal laws of human nature
Critical Social Psychology: person is an intentional actor (do things for a purpose/make meaning in their social world) within their social world, has the capacity for free will
• The scientific enquiry, therefore, may not be the most appropriate means to explore human nature, it is more complicated than this
• Experimental psych may not be enough to understand the complexities of human beings in a social light
What is critical social psychology?
• Critical social psych is thought of as a broad way of thinking about people, phenomenon etc through social interaction > e.g. interaction with friends, media, institutions (micro-level + macro-level interaction)
Theoretical approach:
○ Critical social psych is a theoretical approach > A way of conceptualising the person and their experiences of the social world
○ Critical perspective informed through ‘thought’ (philosophical) movements
○ Can explore many different phenomena using this perspective
Deconstructive tool:
○ Useful in evaluating and thinking differently about knowledge, research, and assumptions we make of our social worlds, ourselves, and other people
○ Is useful to unpick assumptions made about the social world + people + see from a critical standpoint
Helpful in developing critical thinking for this and future assessments > involves critical thinking
Berger & Luckmann (1967): The Social Construction of Reality
• Associated with the roots of social constructionist thought + developed key ideas of social constructionism
• Social reality is constructed through three ‘moments’, and these moments constantly interplay with each other
• Through these three moments we build up a sense of the world through primarily language based interaction
• How do we construct reality? Build our social reality through the following process
1. Externalisation: the way cultures make sense of their social world + this is informed by social institutions and constructs
2. Objectification: process of perceiving these constructs as real then we turn this into a thing > thingification where ideas get turned into a ‘thing’ through interaction, + the things which go through thingification become stuff that matters socially. Forge assumptions + ideas together because we make it meaningful to us
3. Internalisation: Where the objectified world becomes known, understood + adopted by individuals so taken up internally > done through socialisation and enculturation with families, peers, media, institutions by incorporating ways of thinking about the world into the subconscious + conscious mind of people > based on interaction
What is Social Constructionism?
Social constructionism is an example of critical social psych > argues that how we come to know the social world is built through blocks of understanding + we create knowledge and system of understanding using social constructs.
E.g. things like gender, race, disability etc are socially constructed thus are not an accurate reflection of reality
Social Constructionist Psychology
- An interpretative approach to understanding how and why people make sense of their social worlds in the way that they do > not something which is innate, we forge our social reality by understanding the social reality + putting it into being through interactions
- Questioning of tacit, or taken-for-granted knowledge-knowledge that is common + assumed to ‘just exist’, be known but cannot put it into words > dangerous because people in positions of power use this to continue doing what they want under the radar because nobody questions this.
- It is a means through which we can question what we assume to be ‘truth’, and question the motives of people who would have us ‘believe’ their accounts
- We are also complicit in the (re)production and maintenance of these ways of understanding our social world because we don’t question things > this theory helps critique what we assume to be true
- In constructing social worlds we have frames of reference which dictate how we see things > e.g. if asked to describe the world, you may do it from a frame of covid-19, pre-pandemic this would seem odd for people to maintain distance etc so this suggests that frames of reference can influence how we perceive the world > frames of references help us understand our reality > can’t not use references so this may not be the reality
Questions to ask of the “truth” from a Critical Social perspective
• The aim of critical social psych is not to ‘get at’ the truth of the reality
• Instead, the focus is on understanding the consequences of the way social reality has been constructed & what this means for how people are treated > there are real consequences to language (gives power to some + takes it away from others)
• Questions which can be asked to see what is normative of standings include:
○ What actions does this version of social reality make possible?
○ Who get’s their own way?
○ Who gets exploited, or constrained?
○ What is the consequence of this?
Example of questions to ask of the “truth” from a Critical Social perspective: Mutant A-level algorithm
○ What actions does this version of social reality make possible? It’s effect is to constitute the grading criteria as “agentless” > make it seem like nobody was behind it when someone made the algorithm
○ Who get’s their own way? Government escape blame + critique by saying the algorithm was “mutant”
○ Who gets exploited, or constrained? Makes public overlook that this algorithm was a political choice benefitting those from high SES areas, neighbourhoods and schools > the algorithm was made with assumptions + certain frame of reference (seeing the richer as more intelligent?)
○ What is the consequence of this? The algorithm doesn’t disrupt the current systemic structure of disadvantage/advantage which marginalise/promote people from certain backgrounds
Tried to say it was mutant and there was no input when there was > critical social psych can be used here to unpack some of the assumptions + consequences of speaking + interacting > shows the influence of this on our social world
Developments in Critical Social Psychology
• Postcolonial Psychology > focus on how social knowledge, and subsequently power, is influenced by colonization and its aftermath
• Psychology, as a discipline, has a very problematic history with researchers who brought with them prejudicial assumptions and views on people based on race (as well as other protected characteristics) which still have power today
• Postcolonial Psychology aims to specifically question and disrupt existent frames of power that still exist within the discipline > doesn’t say this happened in the past but that this happened + still has influence today thus wants to disrupt this influence.
• E.g. MacLeod and Bhatia (2009) who want to disrupt the position of researcher as the ‘steward’ of knowledge of those they are researching > colonial idea that one person can bring about change to other people
New aims to identify and challenge what is postcolonial imperatives
Critical Social Psychology & Concepts in Psychology
• Critical Social Psychologists would argue that social behaviour and phenomena, like aggression/personality, are not things that exist in of themselves, they are always a produce of the social context and interaction, situated in a social context in which they are acted out and made meaningful > There is an assumption that traditional social psych that the phenomena being looked at resides within the individual whereas critical social psych would say people are entirely embedded in their social setting
• E.g. can you be an aggressive person if you’re alone, on a desert island > can this occur or is it a product of culture and social norms > is it innate or dependent on cultural + societal circumstance
Therefore, in using the principles of Critical Social Psychology we can come to question, problematise, and trouble existing theories and research
Deconstructing Personality
• Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psycho-physical systems that determine our unique adjustment to our environment (Allport, 1961)
• Personality is assumed to reside in the individual > Personality questionnaires claim to genuinely tell us things about someone’s personality
• Individual Differences researchers would argue that:
• Aim is to explain observable differences between individuals in terms of underlying psychological differences
• There is one unified self that can be measured and understood (usually on a spectrum of dichotomies)
• There is relative stability in those assessments
• Measures of personality are value-free and objective
• Critical Social Psychologists would argue that:
• ‘personality’ is a construct that is used to categorise people that does not reflect who they are as ‘people’- critical social psych argues there may not be ‘one’ self
• these categories have argued to be informed through problematic ways of thinking like sexist, ableist, classist, and racists lenses which are still present in the measures today
- particularly problematic when these measures are used in hiring, access, or promotion contexts-exacerbates and enhances systems of disadvantage > means personality tests made using these lenses can disadvantage people especially in getting jobs etc..
Deconstructing Personality: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator & Big Five
- MBTI > Developed by non-Psychologists (informed by the principles of Jung - Freudian) in the 1950s
- Wanted to develop a ‘positive’ + supportive approach to personality
- Informed through those who are already “successful” (particularly scientists and CEOs) > people not facing prejudice + white, middle-class men
- Nobody with an IQ under 100 was included, and women were measured on different scales
- MBTI was constructed mainly on the ‘personalities’ of white, middle class men
- Taken up and used in hiring and educational contexts > A point to reflect on: can we ever disentangle ideologies, prejudices, and the social context from the measures? > from a critical social psych view this cannot be done
- Big Five: Used in hiring decisions-identify and replicate ‘good’ employees
- Illegal to discriminate based on disability, i.e. mental health
- Certain traits in the Big five have been shown to predict the presence of mental health conditions (Kotov et al., 2010) > E.g. increased scores in neuroticism associated with depression and anxiety (Karstan et al., 2012)
- E.g. increased scores in neuroticism, low scores in extraversion associated with social anxiety (Kaplan et al., 2015)
- Meta-analysis has suggested that Autism Spectrum Disorder also has patterns of responses (lower scores on all five traits) (Lodhi et al., 2019)
- This can cause discrimination regardless of whether it is conscious or unconscious
Alternative approaches to personality
- The Plural Self (Cooper & Rowan, 1999): There is not one unified sense of self, there is a plurality of positions, voices + self-concepts > Instead people look for coherence and develop a fluid personhood that adapts to, and is informed through interaction > there are multiple senses of self + adapts in interactions
- The Relational Being (Gergen & Gergen, 2003): The ‘self’ (personality) is not fixed (fluid) > we build our sense of self through interactions + relationships
- (re)produce socially constructed understandings + build our sense of self through interactions and language
- We come to understand ourselves and our experiences through interactions, those we hold relationships with provide us with the language we use to make sense of our experiences
- In both approaches, interaction, fluidity and language are important in shaping our sense of self > there isn’t a stable sense of self + people are adaptable to the circumstances they are in whereas traditional social psych would say personality is stable over time + across contexts.
Goffman’s Dramaturgical Approach (1959)
- We perform who we are to others and this depends on those around us (the audience) > adapt who we are to meet certain peoples expectations
- The social outcome we want to achieve
- What performance ‘tools’ we have to hand > e.g. changing clothes, accents, language used etc..
- Argues people have a front + back stage
- Front stage > What you present to others, Masks and prompts, Actioned-get where you want to be > e.g.: uob mask showing your identity as a student > adapt who you are to meet others expectations > here you want to achieve something + doesn’t have to be very conscious + recognises the audience and their assumptions
- Back stage > Where people can shed their public role, Not necessarily a ‘true’ self but just self without things like masks + prompts > stop adapting for others
Deconstructing Aggression
- Aggression is a behaviour intended to harm another individual
- Hostile aggression: Aggressive behaviour performed with the primary goal of intentional injury or destruction
- Proactive aggression or instrumental aggression: Aggressive behaviour whereby harm is inflicted as a means to a desired end.
- Reactive aggression or emotional (affective) aggression : Aggressive behavior where the means and the end coincide; harm is inflicted for its own sake.
- Harm from aggression can result in consequences including (but not limited to) immediate pain, psychological trauma, anxiety self-blame, collateral damage or death.
