Identify At Least Two Social Psychology Perspectives

identify At Least Two 2 Social Psychology Perspectives That Could

1. Identify at least two (2) social psychology perspectives that could be used to interpret Jared’s date-preparation behavior. 2. Provide a brief explanation of his behavior based on each of the two (2) perspectives you identify. 1. Describe at least two (2) situations in which you have employed self-handicapping in the past. 2. What would the costs have been for appearing incompetent? Describe at least one (1) cost for each situation 1. Describe at least two (2) ways that verbal behavior and nonverbal behavior interact to affect our interpretations. 2. Are we equally able to control each channel (verbal and nonverbal)? Describe at least one (1) example that supports your position. 1. Come up with one (1) example from your own life of an instance when you succumbed to conformity, one (1) example of when you succumbed to compliance, and one (1) example of when you succumbed to obedience. 2. Describe at least two (2) main differences among these different types of social influence.

Paper For Above instruction

Social psychology offers various perspectives to understand human behavior, especially in social contexts such as dating, conformity, and influence. Two prominent perspectives are the social cognitive perspective and the motivational perspective. These frameworks provide insights into Jared’s behavior and broader social interactions.

Interpreting Jared’s Date-Preparation Behavior through Social Psychology Perspectives

The social cognitive perspective emphasizes the role of observational learning, self-efficacy, and cognitive processes in shaping behavior. From this viewpoint, Jared’s efforts to prepare meticulously for his date could stem from learned associations of good preparation with positive social outcomes. He may have observed that individuals who invest in appearance and etiquette tend to receive favorable responses, reinforcing his behavior through modeling and reinforcement (Bandura, 1986). Additionally, his self-efficacy regarding social competence might motivate him to exert effort to ensure a successful date, perceiving his preparation as a means to enhance his confidence and social attractiveness.

Conversely, the motivational perspective focuses on underlying needs and desires, such as the need for affiliation, acceptance, or status. Jared’s behavior could be driven by an intrinsic motivation to be perceived as attractive or desirable. This perspective suggests that his actions aim to fulfill personal or social identity needs, seeking approval and validation from his date (McGregor et al., 2001). His preparation could reflect a desire to conform to societal standards of attractiveness or to project a positive self-image that aligns with his aspirational goals.

Self-Handicapping in Personal Experiences

Self-handicapping involves creating obstacles or excuses to protect one’s self-esteem in case of failure. I have employed this strategy on two occasions. First, before a presentation at work, I might have procrastinated or avoided practicing thoroughly, aiming to have an external excuse if I performed poorly. The potential cost of appearing incompetent was the risk of losing credibility with colleagues and supervisors, which could impact my professional reputation. Second, in a social setting, I might have downplayed my knowledge on a topic during a discussion, deliberately holding back to avoid being perceived as overly confident or knowledgeable. The cost here was that I might have appeared uninformed or disengaged, reducing others’ respect or interest in my opinions.

Interaction between Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior

Verbal and nonverbal behaviors are crucial in conveying meaning and shaping others’ interpretations of our messages. For example, verbal assurances paired with confident body language can reinforce sincerity and conviction. Conversely, verbal expressions of agreement accompanied by sidelong glances or closed posture may create ambiguity and reduce credibility. Both channels are interdependent; effective communication often requires coherence between what is said and how it is expressed physically.

Controlling each channel varies; speaking confidently can be influenced greatly through deliberate practice, but nonverbal cues like microexpressions or gestures are often less consciously controllable. For instance, someone might verbally agree to a plan while internally feeling doubt, with subtle cues like hesitance or eye avoidance revealing insincerity (Burgoon et al., 2016). Therefore, while verbal behavior can be intentionally controlled, nonverbal cues can be subconscious and harder to manipulate fully.

Experiences with Social Influence: Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience

In my own life, I have experienced conformity when I adopted group fashion trends to fit in during college. An instance of compliance occurred when I agreed to do a favor for a colleague despite personal reluctance, primarily to maintain harmony. Obedience was evident when I followed a direct order from a supervisor to complete a task I disagreed with but complied due to authority’s power.

These experiences highlight three key differences in social influence: conformity involves changing behavior to match the group norm; compliance involves agreeing to a request to gain approval or avoid discomfort; and obedience entails following authoritative commands, often due to perceived authority or power differential. Conformity is typically driven by normative social influence, compliance might be motivated by desire to be liked or accepted, and obedience stems from hierarchical authority (Kelman & Hamilton, 1989).

Conclusion

Understanding social psychology perspectives enriches our comprehension of everyday behaviors and interactions. Whether interpreting Jared’s behaviors, reflecting on personal experiences with self-handicapping, or analyzing social influence, these frameworks shed light on the complex motivations and cognitive processes that guide human behavior. Recognizing the interaction of verbal and nonverbal cues and the underlying drivers of conformity, compliance, and obedience can enhance social awareness and interpersonal effectiveness.

References

• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2016). Nonverbal communication. Routledge.
• Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Towards a social psychology of authority and responsibility. Yale University Press.
• McGregor, I., Zanna, M. P., Holmes, J. G., & Ross, L. (2001). Defensive confidence: The effects of self-esteem on attributions of success and failure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 227-238.
• McLeod, S. (2020). Social cognitive theory. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html
• Myers, D. G. (2013). Social psychology (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2002). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Self-categorization theory. In M. A. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.), Social identity processes (pp. 183–204). Psychology Press.
• Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Harper.
• Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357-381.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House.