In Goffman’s view (1959, cited in Hayes, 1993) the self comprises of a number of different aspects which are adopted during the course of brief ‘episodes’, thus meaning that, for example, the role of a passenger on a bus is as much a part of the self as the role of a student in lectures. As the individual takes their place in society, Goffman argued that the range of roles available to them develops and the different aspects of their 'self’ which they present in everyday living become more highly developed and more sophisticated.
People spend a lot of time thinking about others. We form impressions of people we meet, have described to us or see in the media. According to the Configural Model defined by Asch (1946, cited in Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M., 1998) we latch on to certain pieces of information called central traits, when forming impressions of people. These central traits have a disproportionate influence over our final impression. Other pieces of information, known as peripheral traits, have much less influence on the impression formation process.
Critics, however, have questioned how we decide what is a central trait. Gestalt theorists believe that the centrality of a trait rests on the correlation with other traits. Other theorists have argued that centrality is a function of context, for example; Wishner, 1960 and Zanna and Hamilton, 1972 (cited in Hogg & Vaughan, 1998). There tend to be two main dimensions that people use to evaluate people; Good/ bad social and good/bad intellectual. For example traits such as “generous”, “wise” and “happy” are good/bad social and traits such as “intelligent”, “skilful” and “practical” are good/ bad intellectual.
Kelly, (1955, cited in Hayes, 1993) however, believed that people develop their own individual theories about what others are like. These take the form of bipolar constructs. We develop these on the basis of our own experiences, so the constructs used by one person to make sense of the world may be entirely different to those used by another person. Kelly’s personal construct theory implies that we use implicit personality theories when forming impressions of other people, but also suggests that these theories are individual and unique. Whereas Asch used a nomothetic approach, making general statements about large groups of people, Kelly’s theory is an ideographic approach that focuses on the individuals unique ideas. (Hayes, 1993)
Another important dimension in the way we form impressions of people is stereotyping. Stereotyping involves classifying people according to a set of pre-established criteria, on the basis of a superficial characteristic such as skin colour. Unlike the implicit personality theory, when stereotyping, we take no notice of what the person is really like as an individual, but simply try to fit them into pre-set ‘boxes’. (Hayes, 1993)
Although ethnic and gender stereotyping provide some of the clearest examples, stereotyping can take a number of different forms. For example Harari and McDavid (1973, cited in Hayes, 1993) found that teachers stereotyped children on the basis of their first names. They had different expectations of what a ‘Karen’ or ‘Adele’ would be like. Moreover, these stereotypes affected their marking. Higher grades were given to students with ‘positive’ names than those with names associated with negative stereotypes. (Hayes, 1993)
Fiske and Cox, 1979 (cited in Hayes, 1993) asked subjects to remember what they could about other, named individuals. They found that memories tended to follow a particular sequence; first the subjects would discuss appearance, then they would continue with descriptions of their behaviour and finally discuss the person’s personality and character traits. Rosenberg and Sedlak (1972, cited in Hayes, 1993) found that the types of traits people mentioned when remembering a person could be divided into two groups: those concerned with social desirability and those relating to a person’s competencies.
We frequently talk about our own, and other people’s attitudes and behaviour, but what is meant exactly and how do they affect the way we see the world around us? There have been a number of different attempts to define attitudes. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, cited in Hayes, 1993) defined them as “learned pre-dispositions to respond in a consistently favourable or unfavourable way towards a given object, person or event” This definition highlights three features of attitudes; one, they are learned, two they are consistent and three they are concerned with a response - either good or bad. (Hayes, 1993)
Krech, Crutchfield and Ballachey (1962, cited in Hayes, 1993) presented a similar definition. They suggested that “attitudes are enduring systems of positive or negative evaluations, emotional feelings and pro and con actions with respect to social objectives.” Whichever definition is adopted it is possible to see that attitudes consist of more than just a set of ideas about something – attitudes are thought to be linked to our actions and how we behave.
Lapiere (1934, cited in Hayes, 1993) showed how the attitudes people say they have may be quite different from the attitudes implied by their behaviour. Lapiere and two Chinese friends travelled across America, staying in hotels and eating in restaurants. Over 90% of places accepted them even though anti-Chinese prejudice was a major racial bias in America at that time. Six months later Lapiere contacted the hotels and restaurants to ask if they would accept Chinese guests – almost all of the hoteliers said they would not.
It is suggested that the attitudes that people express don’t necessarily allow us to predict how they will act. But in 1988 Ajzen argued that this was misleading and suggested that people do act consistently with their attitudes in general; but those attitudes can vary in how global or specific they are. Ajzen also pointed out that during investigations of consistency between attitudes and beliefs people may be faced with a conflict between two contradictory attitudes. Ajzen regarded many of the studies into attitude consistency as being naïve, in that they don’t take social pressures and other attitudes into account. (Hayes, 1993).
It is suggested that the attitudes that people express don’t necessarily allow us to predict how they will act. But in 1988 Ajzen argued that this was misleading and suggested that people do act consistently with their attitudes in general; but those attitudes can vary in how global or specific they are. Ajzen also pointed out that during investigations of consistency between attitudes and beliefs people may be faced with a conflict between two contradictory attitudes. Ajzen regarded many of the studies into attitude consistency as being naïve, in that they don’t take social pressures and other attitudes into account. (Hayes, 1993)
When discussing behaviour it is important to look at the way it can be influenced by other people. Studies have shown that people tend to behave differently when others are present than they do if they are unaware of being observed. One of the first studies was conducted by Triplett in 1898 (cited in Hayes, 1993) and showed how children who were asked to turn a fishing reel as fast as they could would spin the wheel faster if there were other children in the room. Allport (1920, cited in Hayes, 1993) demonstrated that college students doing multiplication problems also worked faster alongside other students. This effect was called social facilitation, as it seemed tasks were made easier by the presence of other people.
However, Latane, Williams and Harkins (1979, cited in Hogg & Vaughan, 1998) found that being in a group sometimes meant that people put less effort into completing the task. When students were asked to make as much noise as they could they were much less noisy when with other people than when alone – almost the exact opposite of the social facilitation identified by Triplett. (Hogg & Vaughan, 1998)
In most situations, the behaviour that is expected of us is reasonably clear, either because w are playing clear social roles or because we act in accordance with our self-concept. However, there are often situations in which we are unsure of how to act. One of these types of situation is when we see the need to help a stranger. Although most people realise what they ought to do, quite often no-one intervenes.
Psychologists have studied the behaviour of bystanders. Sometimes people will help a stranger and sometimes they wont. This area of research became known as bystander intervention. Studies of bystander intervention have shown that there seem t be three main factors in whether bystanders will help someone or not; the influence of other people’s presence, the way that other people comprehend what is happening and the effects of other people’s example. (Hayes, N., & Orrell, S., 1998)
Again, the presence of other people seems to play a key part. In this case it is usually because we always expect someone else to do something, or assume that someone has already done it. In the case of Kitty Genovese, reported by Rosenthall (1964, cited in Hayes & Orrell, 1998) her murder was committed in front of forty or so witnesses in a block of flats. Each witness assumed someone else had called the police and so, in the end, no-one did.
The way we understand a situation can also affect our actions. People mentally define situations for themselves. If they define it as an emergency they are far more ready to help than if they have defined it as a non-emergency. This factor is also influenced by other people’s responses. If someone appears calm in a particular situation we assume they have perceived it as a non-emergency, therefore we define it as such ourselves. (Hayes & Orrell, 1998)
From the above evidence it is clear to see that social psychology plays a key part in helping us to understand why humans behave in the way they do. We all have social roles and we have expectations about the behaviour that is appropriate for those roles. People are expected to play a variety of different roles in their everyday lives. Social psychology highlights the fact that humans are very heavily influenced by the people around them. Impressions of people are formed and roles develop according to different situations we find ourselves in.
