The idea that thoughts and feelings are intertwined is
reflected
in Phoebe C. Ellsworth's, Susan Nolen-Hoeksema's, and Barbara Fredrickson's research.
Phoebe and her students have communicated this idea in Appraisal Theory. ?A wonderful description of the theory and a
study supporting? it (among the first of many!) comes from a lovely
scientific paper written by Craig Smith and Phoebe C. Ellsworth (Smith &
Ellsworth, 1985).?
Susan and her students have been studying the relationship between rumination
and depression.? They recently found that dwelling on negative aspects of
one's situation--termed "brooding"--predicts depression (Treynor, Gonzalez, & Nolen-Hoeksema, 2003), suggesting that it is in our
best interest to focus on the positive (or at least on the non-negative!), regardless of the challenges we face.
The idea of cultivating positive emotion in our lives to achieve a sense of
well-being comes from Barbara Fredrickson's "Broaden and Build
Theory" (Fredrickson, 1998; 2001) and from her work with Marcial Losada
(Fredrickson & Losada, 2005), which suggests that
cultivating 3 times as much positive, as compared to negative, emotion in our lives compounds over time, contributing to an optimal sense of well-being.
To learn more, I
encourage you to visit these researchers' websites, which you can access simply by clicking on their names below:
Ellsworth
?
Nolen-Hoeksema
Fredrickson
?
??????????????????????????????? Mentors: Phoebe C. Ellsworth
??????????????????????????????????????????????????? Richard Gonzalez
Socialization Theory: Summary
Understanding Human
Cruelty, Human Misery, and, Perhaps, a Remedy:
A Theory of the Socialization Process
by
Wendy Treynor, Ph.D.
.??
???????? All humans have a fundamental need to see themselves as ?morally
adequate?, as ?good?.?
Milgram?s research (1965; 1974), however, seems to challenge this claim, for it
showcases people?s willingness to endanger another human being?s life to
win social acceptance, suggesting that ?the desire to be accepted? overrides
?the desire to be good?:? If the need to see oneself as ?morally adequate?
is basic, why would one ever choose to engage in an immoral act?
The social psychology
literature provides a self-justification answer to this question, saying that
an excuse was made (by the unethical actor) to preserve one?s self-view of
being ethical.? ??But anybody who
has ever been tempted to engage in an unethical act under social pressure?and
who ultimately resisted this temptation?knows that self-justification is
not the whole story; one becomes aware of powerful social forces at work (such
as pressures toward conformity of action?feeling pressure to behave as the
group does?or uniformity of opinion).
In the 1950?s such a theory
might have emerged.? At the time, Leon Festinger was studying both
processes as separate lines of research.? Festinger addressed self-justification
through his cognitive dissonance theory, and social
influence through his social comparison theory.?
Festinger intuitively knew that these processes were linked somehow, but never formally proved it.? Today, these ideas
remain separate?evidence being that Festinger?s two theories are still
presented in separate chapters in social psychology textbooks today.?
Building on the
contributions of researchers in social
psychology, the theory assumes that the myriad causes of perpetuation of inhumanities that they identify (e.g.,
dehumanization of the victim, attributing blame to others, norms, roles,
deindividuation, etc.) (which address the question of what but less so how
or why), are best understood when distilled to the single, unifying
principle that underlies them all, namely that each is an example, an
instantiation, of the internal conflict reduction (self-justification)
process.? Next, the theory assumes that a complete understanding of the
forces that shape unethical behavior requires adding external conflict
reduction (social influence) to the picture.? Finally, the theory delineates how these two processes?external and internal?combine
with each other, over time, to create unethical action.
According to the theory,
for every individual, there are two groups?an everyday group and
a reference group.? One?s everyday group is
?the social group whose context one generally finds oneself in? whereas one?s reference group is ?the social group whose ethics are implicitly used as a yardstick upon
which others? (and one?s own) conduct is judged.?? ??According to the theory, although, at any
given time, one?s everyday group may? or may not?be one?s reference
group, with long-term contact, one?s everyday group automatically becomes one?s
reference group.
(a)?? The
Lemmings Problem: Why good people do evil things?
?The work resolves
the seeming paradox of ?how ?good? people can be led to do
(b)?? Where does self-esteem
(our sense of self-worth) come from??? The contingencies
our self-worth is
determined by our sense of belonging, and yet social
identity theory says our self-worth is determined by group membership. ??Can all accounts be true?
This work shows how these three seemingly disparate scientific
accounts of the origins of self-esteem are identical:?? Self-esteem
is derived from reference group acceptance (i.e., from the social group whose
values and standards we internalize as our own?their standards being our
own standards means that reference group acceptance corresponds to
self-acceptance).?? Research suggests that one?s reference group is
generally one?s everyday group; thus, as a general
rule, winning belonging (everyday group acceptance) means winning self-esteem
(reference group acceptance).
(c)??? What
is identity? Where does it come from? Why, how, and when does it
(d)?? What might
a social psychological explanation of?and possible remedy for?
depression look like?
Offering a novel, and distinctly social psychological,
hypothesis of a cause of and cure for depression, the work offers a shame
hypothesis of depression. ??According to
the theory, when one is trapped in an everyday group setting to which one
cannot conform, one experiences shame (internal conflict and external
conflict) on a sustained basis, making this conflict seem inescapable: depression
sets in. To escape depression, one is advised to find an everyday group
with attainable standards; overtime, this group will become one?s reference
group, allowing one to obtain both social acceptance (everyday group
acceptance) and self-acceptance (reference group acceptance?with standards the
self shares), thereby eradicating conflict.
Reference group theory may
have remained unfinished (Kelley, 1952) because its founders failed to show the
process by which an ordinary group becomes one?s reference group and by which
one?s reference group (again) becomes an ordinary group?a process this work
terms socialization. This work reveals this process, and thereby
advances, and may complete, reference group theory.? According to a
founder of reference group theory, Harold H. Kelley,? ?A more complete
theory of reference groups must consist of at least two parts, one having to do
with groups as sources and enforcers of standards and the other having to do
with groups as the standards themselves,? (1952, p. 413).?? This work responds to Kelley?s two-part request.?
Responding to the first, it posits that reference groups are the source of
standards and that these standards are enforced through rejection, a property
of all groups, rather than of reference groups, alone (contrary to the
reference group founders? conception, see Kelley, 1952).? Responding to
the second, it communicates how groups can be the standards, themselves, by
positing that it is the reference group, alone, that sets the standards that
are internalized by an individual, and that any group can become one?s
reference group, provided that it best satisfies one?s need for acceptance
(relative to the other groups competing for reference group status, in the
mind?and heart?of an individual).? By answering these basic questions,
this work ?promises to be of central importance to social psychology,? (Kelley,
1952, p. 410).
(f)??? How is dissonance (internal conflict) and dissonance
reduction (internal conflict
reduction) related
to the emotion guilt, and how does guilt relate to the identity shift effect??
(g)??
What might a clinical application of social psychological principles look
like?
(f)
??? Forty years ago, Milgram urged the field to
action: ?Ultimately, social psychology would like to have a compelling theory of
situations which will, first, present a
language in terms of which situations can be defined; proceed to a typology
of situations; and then point to the manner in which definable properties of
situations are transformed into psychological forces in the individual,?
(1965, p. 74)??? This work responds to Milgram?s call.
According
to the theory, there are two types of
social groups?reference and everyday?and four types of social situations, three
entailing conflict: (a) internal conflict, only, (R A = E), (b) external conflict, only,?? (R = A E), or (c) internal
conflict and external conflict, together, (A? R = E), and one peaceful: (A = R = E).? The properties of
these situations are transformed into psychological forces within the
individual by way of emotion: Each situation elicits a different emotion in the
perceiver: guilt, humiliation, or shame, respectively.?? The aversive
nature of each emotion incites short-term (immediate) changes within the
individual, giving rise to new changes within the individual with long-term
consequences.??
According to the theory, cognitive dissonance theory answers the
question of how internal conflict is resolved, whereas social comparison
theory suggests how external conflict is resolved. ??The socialization process begins with external
conflict and its resolution and ends with internal conflict and its
resolution.? Festinger?s life?s work
concerned illuminating these two fundamental sources of psychological conflict:
external (social influence; Festinger, 1950; 1954) and internal (dissonance;
Festinger, 1957).? Both arise from two primary needs being umet: the need
for acceptance (Asch, 1956; Deutsch & Gerard, 1955) (i.e., need to
belong?coming from one?s everyday group) and the need to be good (i.e., need for self-esteem?coming from one?s reference
group).?? These two sources of conflict are resolved either by moving
in and out of social groups (Festinger, 1950) (i.e., a context shift occurs)
or by changing one?s beliefs (Festinger, 1957) about what is good, right, or
true (i.e., an identity shift occurs).? It is this process of
conflict resolution that leads ?good? people to commit ?evil?
acts.???
ii (Aronson, 1972; Tarvis &
Aronson, 2007; for empirical evidence, see Treynor, submitted).?
iii (Bersoff, 1999; Bersoff, 1999b; see
Kunda, 1990; Tsang, 2002; Bandura, 1999; Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959;
Aronson, 1972; Steele, 1988; Milgram, 1974)
vi (1957; see also, Festinger &
Carlsmith, 1959)
viii (see Festinger, Riecken, &
Schachter, 1956)
ix (e.g., Myers, 2005; Brehm, Kassin,
& Fein, 2002; Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2002)
x (e.g., Milgram, 1974; Bandura,
1999; Tsang, 2002; Zimbardo, 2004, 2007)
xi(i.e., Crocker & Wolfe, 2001;
see also James, 1892)
xii(i.e., Leary & Baumeister,
2000; Baumeister & Leary, 1995)
xiii(i.e., Hogg & Abrahms, 1988;
Tajfel & Turner, 1986)
xiv(as shown in Treynor, in
preparation)
xv Using logical argument in support
of its claims, the theory proposes that conflict between one?s action and
reference group standards (A R) corresponds to feelings of guilt
(internal conflict, dissonance), whereas when one?s everyday group is one?s
reference group and one?s action violates both their standards?(A R = E)
this conflict corresponds to feelings of shame (external and internal
conflict).
xvi (e.g., Schachter, 1964; Smith &
Ellsworth, 1985)
xviii (Aronson, 1972; Steele, 1988; as
shown in Treynor, submitted)