short essay on social behaviour

Social Influences on Behavior Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Social influences are things that alter or influence an individual’s feelings, conduct, opinions, or actions. Both sociologists and psychologists find this concept of great value, for example, social influence is a pivotal tool for marketing, smoking and many more.

Among the very many things under focus when handling the concept of social influence is how external factors affect behavior of certain faction or discrete individuals. In other words, nobody is exclusive of social influence as it can occur in any social condition. For instance, let us take prejudice, attraction and love as examples of social influences. It is quite apparent that prejudice develops feelings of misery or hate.

On the other hand, love and attraction brings feelings that an individual can help one up. Whether positive or negative, these conditions can light a rollercoaster ride in the brain and make an individual change from being irate to blissful or from cheerful to fuming, within a split second. Thus, undoubtedly, love and prejudice remains two paramount circumstances that induce sturdy feelings in humans-the chieftains of human behavior in society (Ainette & Carmella, 2011, p.1).

According to Kowalski and Westen (2009), schemas are the vital blueprint of thoughts, which systematize experience and direct the processing of information about human beings and situation. They go on saying that for this to occur, an impression of a person is necessary before anything else. Their work shows people that develop the first impression by observing the behavior of outgoing and attractive individuals.

Thus, if a person appears shy and reticent, the observer will have a shoddier first impression. In short, the first impression, either good or bad, forms the source of social behaviors. For instance, prejudice can make people behave imperfectly bearing in mind many people do not like the idea of becoming outcasts due to stereotype. It is thus important to note that the first impressions are the antecedent from where love and prejudice emanate.

Ordinarily, prejudice comes when a certain faction of people discriminate an individual either by race or color. Interestingly, the group has a leader who forces others to believe in discrimination. Although some members may be aware that what they are doing is wrong, they find themselves in a sorry state, as any resistance to what the group believes will makes them outcasts. Additionally, it is important to note that the group has an influencing power to facilitate socially how every member conducts himself or herself.

At the same time, no member of the group risks being an outcast by opposing others. Such cases are more common in children as compared to adults. As Kowalski and Westen notes, no substantive amount of salutary intercession can stop people from practicing prejudice and stereotyping. This is because many people follow the crowd irrespective of whether he crowd is doing the right thing or not. Perhaps this is the reason why in the contemporary world; altruism is something hard to come across (pp. 8-27).

Another component of social influence is the sensation of attraction and falling in love. The two, love and attraction, can develop as a first impression, in this case, directed towards a certain individual.

Noticeably, the foremost thing that a person keenly observes in a person of the opposite sex is of course, the physical appearance of that individual. Depending on personal preferences and even culture, each person has different assertions on the characteristics that attract him or her most. Nevertheless, it is important to note that at first sight, the first impression about someone is the paramount thing.

Any behavior of the sensation of attraction or love towards someone comes later. Undoubtedly, social researchers quickly assert that love is brings out the feeling of contentment and self-assurance in human beings. In most cases, where love exists, altruism comes into action, since the persons involved ends up being happy and better than they were (Schueler, 1997, p.1).

Studies show that love as complex as it is, exhibits itself as evolutionary and biological. In most cases, the studies explain the genesis of love as biological. However, it is important to note that due to social interactions, social groupings, social loafing and groupthink; the nature of love has made it easier to modify it into an assortment of cultures.

On the other hand, love exhibits itself when human beings protect their progeny. Nevertheless, some instances can make love plummet amid its disassociation from intervention of any type. For example, if one person becomes abusive due to stress or jealousy, then the concept of love as an ingredient of social influence ceases.

Captivatingly, some people may choose to remain in an abusive relationship just because they love their partners. Apparently, such situations require a certain therapy to deal with. In other words, love and prejudice are paramount circumstances that we cannot do without, simply because each one of them tries to accomplish various genuses of biological and evolutionary demands. For instance, prejudice pleads for inclusivity in major social groupings.

On the other hand, no human being likes being alone. All human being desires to associate with other people hence, the concept of love. It is also important to note that love is a fundamental necessitate for reproduction and survival. Perhaps this is the reason why people appear to care for others and making sure that the lineage survives (Kowalski & Westen, 2009, pp. 31-76).

In conclusion, so far, love and prejudice remain the strongest social influences on how human beings conduct themselves. From the two emanate an assortment of motions that range from irritation to hopelessness to self-assurance and happiness. Without any doubt, the behavior of people can affect the attitude and self-esteem of other people in social loafing. Social influence can also affect individual personality and behavior, and sometimes lead to discrimination.

Reference List

Ainette, M. & Carmella, W. (2011). Social Influence. Behavioral Research . Web.

Kowalski, R., & Westen, D. (2009). Psychology . (5th ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley and Sons.

Schueler, G. (1997). Social Influence on Behavior. Web.

• Actions Speaks Louder than Words
• An integrated model of personality based upon the various models
• Media Violence and Altruism
• Altruism and social behavior
• Leadership Style: Reflection and Analysis
• Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection
• Social Imagination Theory
• Towards Evaluating the Relationship Between Gender Stereotypes & Culture
• Psychological Aspect of Generosity Acts
• Muammar Gaddafi's Personality Matrix
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, February 20). Social Influences on Behavior. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-influences-on-behavior/

"Social Influences on Behavior." IvyPanda , 20 Feb. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/social-influences-on-behavior/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Social Influences on Behavior'. 20 February.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Social Influences on Behavior." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-influences-on-behavior/.

1. IvyPanda . "Social Influences on Behavior." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-influences-on-behavior/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Social Influences on Behavior." February 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-influences-on-behavior/.

Social Psychology: Definition, Theories, Scope, & Examples

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Social psychology is the scientific study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, beliefs, intentions, and goals are constructed within a social context by the actual or imagined interactions with others.

It, therefore, looks at human behavior as influenced by other people and the conditions under which social behavior and feelings occur.

Baron, Byrne, and Suls (1989) define social psychology as “the scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behavior in social situations” (p. 6).

Topics examined in social psychology include the self-concept , social cognition, attribution theory , social influence, group processes, prejudice and discrimination , interpersonal processes, aggression, attitudes , and stereotypes .

Social psychology operates on several foundational assumptions. These fundamental beliefs provide a framework for theories, research, and interpretations.

• Individual and Society Interplay : Social psychologists assume an interplay exists between individual minds and the broader social context. An individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are continuously shaped by social interactions, and in turn, individuals influence the societies they are a part of.
• Behavior is Contextual : One core assumption is that behavior can vary significantly based on the situation or context. While personal traits and dispositions matter, the circumstances or social environment often play a decisive role in determining behavior.
• Objective Reality is Difficult to Attain : Our perceptions of reality are influenced by personal beliefs, societal norms, and past experiences. Therefore, our understanding of “reality” is subjective and can be biased or distorted.
• Social Reality is Constructed : Social psychologists believe that individuals actively construct their social world . Through processes like social categorization, attribution, and cognitive biases, people create their understanding of others and societal norms.
• People are Social Beings with a Need to Belong : A fundamental assumption is the inherent social nature of humans. People have an innate need to connect with others, form relationships, and belong to groups. This need influences a wide range of behaviors and emotions.
• Attitudes Influence Behavior : While this might seem straightforward, it’s a foundational belief that our attitudes (combinations of beliefs and feelings) can and often do drive our actions. However, it’s also understood that this relationship can be complex and bidirectional.
• People Desire Cognitive Consistency : This is the belief that people are motivated to maintain consistency in their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Cognitive dissonance theory , which posits that people feel discomfort when holding conflicting beliefs and are motivated to resolve this, is based on this assumption.
• People are Motivated to See Themselves in a Positive Light : The self plays a central role in social psychology. It’s assumed that individuals are generally motivated to maintain and enhance a positive self-view.
• Behavior Can be Predicted and Understood : An underlying assumption of any science, including social psychology, is that phenomena (in this case, human behavior in social contexts) can be studied, understood, predicted, and potentially influenced.
• Cultural and Biological Factors are Integral : Though earlier social psychology might have been criticized for neglecting these factors, contemporary social psychology acknowledges the roles of both biology (genes, hormones, brain processes) and culture (norms, values, traditions) in shaping social behavior.

Early Influences

Aristotle believed that humans were naturally sociable, a necessity that allows us to live together (an individual-centered approach), whilst Plato felt that the state controlled the individual and encouraged social responsibility through social context (a socio-centered approach).

Hegel (1770–1831) introduced the concept that society has inevitable links with the development of the social mind. This led to the idea of a group mind, which is important in the study of social psychology.

Lazarus & Steinthal wrote about Anglo-European influences in 1860. “Volkerpsychologie” emerged, which focused on the idea of a collective mind.

It emphasized the notion that personality develops because of cultural and community influences, especially through language, which is both a social product of the community as well as a means of encouraging particular social thought in the individual. Therefore Wundt (1900–1920) encouraged the methodological study of language and its influence on the social being.

Early Texts

Texts focusing on social psychology first emerged in the 20th century. McDougall published the first notable book in English in 1908 (An Introduction to Social Psychology), which included chapters on emotion and sentiment, morality, character, and religion, quite different from those incorporated in the field today.

He believed social behavior was innate/instinctive and, therefore, individual, hence his choice of topics.  This belief is not the principle upheld in modern social psychology, however.

Allport’s work (1924) underpins current thinking to a greater degree, as he acknowledged that social behavior results from interactions between people.

He also took a methodological approach, discussing actual research and emphasizing that the field was a “science … which studies the behavior of the individual in so far as his behavior stimulates other individuals, or is itself a reaction to this behavior” (1942: p. 12).

His book also dealt with topics still evident today, such as emotion, conformity, and the effects of an audience on others.

Murchison (1935) published The first handbook on social psychology was published by Murchison in 1935.  Murphy & Murphy (1931/37) produced a book summarizing the findings of 1,000 studies in social psychology.  A text by Klineberg (1940) looked at the interaction between social context and personality development. By the 1950s, several texts were available on the subject.

Journal Development

• 1950s – Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology

• 1963 – Journal of Personality, British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology

• 1965 – Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

• 1971 – Journal of Applied Social Psychology, European Journal of Social Psychology

• 1975 – Social Psychology Quarterly, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

• 1982 – Social Cognition

• 1984 – Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Early Experiments

There is some disagreement about the first true experiment, but the following are certainly among some of the most important.

Triplett (1898) applied the experimental method to investigate the performance of cyclists and schoolchildren on how the presence of others influences overall performance – thus, how individuals are affected and behave in the social context.

By 1935, the study of social norms had developed, looking at how individuals behave according to the rules of society. This was conducted by Sherif (1935).

Lewin et al. then began experimental research into leadership and group processes by 1939, looking at effective work ethics under different leadership styles.

Later Developments

Much of the key research in social psychology developed following World War II, when people became interested in the behavior of individuals when grouped together and in social situations. Key studies were carried out in several areas.

Some studies focused on how attitudes are formed, changed by the social context, and measured to ascertain whether a change has occurred.

Amongst some of the most famous works in social psychology is that on obedience conducted by Milgram in his “electric shock” study, which looked at the role an authority figure plays in shaping behavior.  Similarly,  Zimbardo’s prison simulation notably demonstrated conformity to given roles in the social world.

Wider topics then began to emerge, such as social perception, aggression, relationships, decision-making, pro-social behavior, and attribution, many of which are central to today’s topics and will be discussed throughout this website.

Thus, the growth years of social psychology occurred during the decades following the 1940s.

The scope of social psychology is vast, reflecting the myriad ways social factors intertwine with individual cognition and behavior.

Its principles and findings resonate in virtually every area of human interaction, making it a vital field for understanding and improving the human experience.

• Interpersonal Relationships : This covers attraction, love, jealousy, friendship, and group dynamics. Understanding how and why relationships form and the factors that contribute to their maintenance or dissolution is central to this domain.
• Attitude Formation and Change : How do individuals form opinions and attitudes? What methods can effectively change them? This scope includes the study of persuasion, propaganda, and cognitive dissonance.
• Social Cognition : This examines how people process, store, and apply information about others. Areas include social perception, heuristics, stereotypes, and attribution theories.
• Social Influence : The study of conformity, compliance, obedience, and the myriad ways individuals influence one another falls within this domain.
• Group Dynamics : This entails studying group behavior, intergroup relations, group decision-making processes, leadership, and more. Concepts like groupthink and group polarization emerge from this area.
• Prejudice and Discrimination : Understanding the roots of bias, racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice, as well as exploring interventions to reduce them, is a significant focus.
• Self and Identity : Investigating self-concept, self-esteem, self-presentation, and the social construction of identity are all part of this realm.
• Prosocial Behavior and Altruism : Why do individuals sometimes help others, even at a cost to themselves? This area delves into the motivations and conditions that foster cooperative and altruistic behavior.
• Aggression : From understanding the underlying causes of aggressive behavior to studying societal factors that exacerbate or mitigate aggression, this topic seeks to dissect the nature of hostile actions.
• Cultural and Cross-cultural Dimensions : As societies become more interconnected, understanding cultural influences on behavior, cognition, and emotion is crucial. This area compares and contrasts behaviors across different cultures and societal groups.
• Environmental and Applied Settings : Social psychology principles find application in health psychology, environmental behavior, organizational behavior, consumer behavior, and more.
• Social Issues : Social psychologists might study the impact of societal structures on individual behavior, exploring topics like poverty, urban stress, and crime.
• Education : Principles of social psychology enhance teaching methods, address issues of classroom dynamics, and promote effective learning.
• Media and Technology : In the digital age, understanding the effects of media consumption, the dynamics of online communication, and the formation of online communities is increasingly relevant.
• Law : Insights from social psychology inform areas such as jury decision-making, eyewitness testimony, and legal procedures.
• Health : Concepts from social psychology are employed to promote health behaviors, understand doctor-patient dynamics, and tackle issues like addiction.

Example Theories

Allport (1920) – social facilitation.

Allport introduced the notion that the presence of others (the social group) can facilitate certain behavior.

It was found that an audience would improve an actor’s performance in well-learned/easy tasks but leads to a decrease in performance on newly learned/difficult tasks due to social inhibition.

Bandura (1963) Social Learning Theory

Bandura introduced the notion that behavior in the social world could be modeled. Three groups of children watched a video where an adult was aggressive towards a ‘bobo doll,’ and the adult was either just seen to be doing this, was rewarded by another adult for their behavior, or was punished for it.

Children who had seen the adult rewarded were found to be more likely to copy such behavior.

Festinger (1950) –  Cognitive Dissonance

Festinger, Schacter, and Black brought up the idea that when we hold beliefs, attitudes, or cognitions which are different, then we experience dissonance – this is an inconsistency that causes discomfort.

We are motivated to reduce this by either changing one of our thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes or selectively attending to information that supports one of our beliefs and ignores the other (selective exposure hypothesis).

Dissonance occurs when there are difficult choices or decisions or when people participate in behavior that is contrary to their attitude. Dissonance is thus brought about by effort justification (when aiming to reach a modest goal), induced compliance (when people are forced to comply contrary to their attitude), and free choice (when weighing up decisions).

Tajfel (1971) –  Social Identity Theory

When divided into artificial (minimal) groups, prejudice results simply from the awareness that there is an “out-group” (the other group).

When the boys were asked to allocate points to others (which might be converted into rewards) who were either part of their own group or the out-group, they displayed a strong in-group preference. That is, they allocated more points on the set task to boys who they believed to be in the same group as themselves.

This can be accounted for by Tajfel & Turner’s social identity theory, which states that individuals need to maintain a positive sense of personal and social identity: this is partly achieved by emphasizing the desirability of one’s own group, focusing on distinctions between other “lesser” groups.

Weiner (1986) – Attribution Theory

Weiner was interested in the attributions made for experiences of success and failure and introduced the idea that we look for explanations of behavior in the social world.

He believed that these were made based on three areas: locus, which could be internal or external; stability, which is whether the cause is stable or changes over time: and controllability.

Milgram (1963) – Shock Experiment

Participants were told that they were taking part in a study on learning but always acted as the teacher when they were then responsible for going over paired associate learning tasks.

When the learner (a stooge) got the answer wrong, they were told by a scientist that they had to deliver an electric shock. This did not actually happen, although the participant was unaware of this as they had themselves a sample (real!) shock at the start of the experiment.

They were encouraged to increase the voltage given after each incorrect answer up to a maximum voltage, and it was found that all participants gave shocks up to 300v, with 65 percent reaching the highest level of 450v.

It seems that obedience is most likely to occur in an unfamiliar environment and in the presence of an authority figure, especially when covert pressure is put upon people to obey. It is also possible that it occurs because the participant felt that someone other than themselves was responsible for their actions.

Haney, Banks, Zimbardo (1973) – Stanford Prison Experiment

Volunteers took part in a simulation where they were randomly assigned the role of a prisoner or guard and taken to a converted university basement resembling a prison environment. There was some basic loss of rights for the prisoners, who were unexpectedly arrested, and given a uniform and an identification number (they were therefore deindividuated).

The study showed that conformity to social roles occurred as part of the social interaction, as both groups displayed more negative emotions, and hostility and dehumanization became apparent.

Prisoners became passive, whilst the guards assumed an active, brutal, and dominant role. Although normative and informational social influence played a role here, deindividuation/the loss of a sense of identity seemed most likely to lead to conformity.

Both this and Milgram’s study introduced the notion of social influence and the ways in which this could be observed/tested.

Provides Clear Predictions

As a scientific discipline, social psychology prioritizes formulating clear and testable hypotheses. This clarity facilitates empirical testing, ensuring the field’s findings are based on observable and quantifiable phenomena.

The Asch conformity experiments hypothesized that individuals would conform to a group’s incorrect judgment.

The clear prediction allowed for controlled experimentation to determine the extent and conditions of such conformity.

Emphasizes Objective Measurement

Social psychology leans heavily on empirical methods, emphasizing objectivity. This means that results are less influenced by biases or subjective interpretations.

Double-blind procedures , controlled settings, and standardized measures in many social psychology experiments ensure that results are replicable and less prone to experimenter bias.

Empirical Evidence

Over the years, a multitude of experiments in social psychology have bolstered the credibility of its theories. This experimental validation lends weight to its findings and claims.

The robust body of experimental evidence supporting cognitive dissonance theory, from Festinger’s initial studies to more recent replications, showcases the theory’s enduring strength and relevance.

Limitations

Underestimates individual differences.

While social psychology often looks at broad trends and general behaviors, it can sometimes gloss over individual differences.

Not everyone conforms, obeys, or reacts in the same way, and these nuanced differences can be critical.

While Milgram’s obedience experiments showcased a startling rate of compliance to authority, there were still participants who resisted, and their reasons and characteristics are equally important to understand.

Ignores Biology

While social psychology focuses on the social environment’s impact on behavior, early theories sometimes neglect the biological underpinnings that play a role.

Hormones, genetics, and neurological factors can influence behavior and might intersect with social factors in complex ways.

The role of testosterone in aggressive behavior is a clear instance where biology intersects with the social. Ignoring such biological components can lead to an incomplete understanding.

Superficial Snapshots of Social Processes

Social psychology sometimes offers a narrow view, capturing only a momentary slice of a broader, evolving process. This might mean that the field fails to capture the depth, evolution, or intricacies of social processes over time.

A study might capture attitudes towards a social issue at a single point in time, but not account for the historical evolution, future shifts, or deeper societal underpinnings of those attitudes.

Allport, F. H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 3(3), 159.

Allport, F. H. (1924). Response to social stimulation in the group. Social psychology , 260-291.

Allport, F. H. (1942). Methods in the study of collective action phenomena. The Journal of Social Psychology , 15(1), 165-185.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67(6), 601.

Baron, R. A., Byrne, D., & Suls, J. (1989). Attitudes: Evaluating the social world. Baron et al, Social Psychology . 3rd edn. MA: Allyn and Bacon, 79-101.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social processes in informal groups .

Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews , 9(1-17).

Klineberg, O. (1940). The problem of personality .

Krewer, B., & Jahoda, G. (1860). On the scope of Lazarus and Steinthals “Völkerpsychologie” as reflected in the. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft, 1890, 4-12.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social Psychology , 10(2), 269-299.

Mcdougall, W. (1908). An introduction to social psychology . Londres: Methuen.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67(4), 371.

Murchison, C. (1935). A handbook of social psychology .

Murphy, G., & Murphy, L. B. (1931). Experimental social psychology .

Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology (Columbia University).

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European journal of social psychology , 1(2), 149-178.

Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American journal of Psychology , 9(4), 507-533.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion . New York: Springer-Verlag.

Frontiers for Young Minds

• Download PDF

How Does Social Context Influence Our Brain and Behavior?

When we interact with others, the context in which our actions take place plays a major role in our behavior. This means that our understanding of objects, words, emotions, and social cues may differ depending on where we encounter them. Here, we explain how context affects daily mental processes, ranging from how people see things to how they behave with others. Then, we present the social context network model. This model explains how people process contextual cues when they interact, through the activity of the frontal, temporal, and insular brain regions. Next, we show that when those brain areas are affected by some diseases, patients find it hard to process contextual cues. Finally, we describe new ways to explore social behavior through brain recordings in daily situations.

Introduction

Everything you do is influenced by the situation in which you do it. The situation that surrounds an action is called its context. In fact, analyzing context is crucial for social interaction and even, in some cases, for survival. Imagine you see a man in fear: your reaction depends on his facial expression (e.g., raised eyebrows, wide-open eyes) and also on the context of the situation. The context can be external (is there something frightening around?) or internal (am I calm or am I also scared?). Such contextual cues are crucial to your understanding of any situation.

Context shapes all processes in your brain, from visual perception to social interactions [ 1 ]. Your mind is never isolated from the world around you. The specific meaning of an object, word, emotion, or social event depends on context ( Figure 1 ). Context may be evident or subtle, real or imagined, conscious or unconscious. Simple optical illusions demonstrate the importance of context ( Figures 1A,B ). In the Ebbinghaus illusion ( Figure 1A ), rings of circles surround two central circles. The central circles are the same size, but one appears to be smaller than the other. This is so because the surrounding circles provide a context. This context affects your perception of the size of the central circles. Quite interesting, right? Likewise, in the Cafe Wall Illusion ( Figure 1B ), context affects your perception of the lines’ orientation. The lines are parallel, but you see them as convergent or divergent. You can try focusing on the middle line of the figure and check it with a ruler. Contextual cues also help you recognize objects in a scene [ 2 ]. For instance, it can be easier to recognize letters when they are in the context of a word. Thus, you can see the same array of lines as either an H or an A ( Figure 1C ). Certainly, you did not read that phrase as “TAE CHT”, correct? Lastly, contextual cues are also important for social interaction. For instance, visual scenes, voices, bodies, other faces, and words shape how you perceive emotions in a face [ 3 ]. If you see Figure 1D in isolation, the woman may look furious. But look again, this time at Figure 1E . Here you see an ecstatic Serena Williams after she secured the top tennis ranking. This shows that recognizing emotions depends on additional information that is not present in the face itself.

• Figure 1 - Contextual affects how you see things.
• A,B. The visual context affects how you see shapes. C. Context also plays an important role in object recognition. Context-related objects are easier to recognize. “THE CAT” is a good example of contextual effects in letter recognition (reproduced with permission from Chun [ 2 ]). D,E. Context also affects how you recognize an emotion [by Hanson K. Joseph (Own work), CC BY-SA 4.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0 ), via Wikimedia Commons].

Contextual cues also help you make sense of other situations. What is appropriate in one place may not be appropriate in another. Making jokes is OK when studying with your friends, but not OK during the actual exam. Also, context affects how you feel when you see something happening to another person. Picture someone being beaten on the street. If the person being beaten is your best friend, would you react in the same way as if he were a stranger? The reason why you probably answered “no” is that your empathy may be influenced by context. Context will determine whether you jump in to help or run away in fear. In sum, social situations are shaped by contextual factors that affect how you feel and act.

Contextual cues are important for interpreting social situations. Yet, they have been largely ignored in the world of science. To fill this gap, our group proposed the social context network model [ 1 ]. This model describes a brain network that integrates contextual information during social processes. This brain network combines the activity of several different areas of the brain, namely frontal, temporal, and insular brain areas ( Figure 2 ). It is true that many other brain areas are involved in processing contextual information. For instance, the context of an object that you can see affects processes in the vision areas of your brain [ 4 ]. However, the network proposed by our model includes the main areas involved in social context processing. Even contextual visual recognition involves activity of temporal and frontal regions included in our model [ 5 ].

• Figure 2 - The parts of the brain that work together, in the social context network model.
• This model proposes that social contextual cues are processed by a network of specific brain regions. This network is made up of frontal (light blue), temporal (orange), and insular (green) brain regions and the connections between these regions.

How Does Your Brain Process Contextual Cues in Social Scenarios?

To interpret context in social settings, your brain relies on a network of brain regions, including the frontal, temporal, and insular regions. Figure 2 shows the frontal regions in light blue. These regions help you update contextual information when you focus on something (say, the traffic light as you are walking down the street). That information helps you anticipate what might happen next, based on your previous experiences. If there is a change in what you are seeing (as you keep walking down the street, a mean-looking Doberman appears), the frontal regions will activate and update predictions (“this may be dangerous!”). These predictions will be influenced by the context (“oh, the dog is on a leash”) and your previous experience (“yeah, but once I was attacked by a dog and it was very bad!”). If a person’s frontal regions are damaged, he/she will find it difficult to recognize the influence of context. Thus, the Doberman may not be perceived as a threat, even if this person has been attacked by other dogs before! The main role of the frontal regions is to predict the meaning of actions by analyzing the contextual events that surround the actions.

Figure 2 shows the insular regions, also called the insula, in green. The insula combines signals from within and outside your body. The insula receives signals about what is going on in your guts, heart, and lungs. It also supports your ability to experience emotions. Even the butterflies you sometimes feel in your stomach depend on brain activity! This information is combined with contextual cues from outside your body. So, when you see that the Doberman breaks loose from its owner, you can perceive that your heart begins to beat faster (an internal body signal). Then, your brain combines the external contextual cues (“the Doberman is loose!”) with your body signals, leading you to feel fear. Patients with damage to their insular regions are not so good at tracking their inner body signals and combining them with their emotions. The insula is critical for giving emotional value to an event.

Lastly, Figure 2 shows the temporal regions marked with orange. The temporal regions associate the object or person you are focusing on with the context. Memory plays a major role here. For instance, when the Doberman breaks loose, you look at his owner and realize that it is the kind man you met last week at the pet shop. Also, the temporal regions link contextual information with information from the frontal and insular regions. This system supports your knowledge that Dobermans can attack people, prompting you to seek protection.

To summarize, combining what you experience with the social context relies on a brain network that includes the frontal, insular, and temporal regions. Thanks to this network, we can interpret all sorts of social events. The frontal areas adjust and update what you think, feel, and do depending on present and past happenings. These areas also predict possible events in your surroundings. The insula combines signals from within and outside your body to produce a specific feeling. The temporal regions associate objects and persons with the current situation. So, all the parts of the social context network model work together to combine contextual information when you are in social settings.

When Context Cannot be Processed

Our model helps to explain findings from patients with brain damage. These patients have difficulties processing contextual cues. For instance, people with autism find it hard to make eye contact and interact with others. They may show repetitive behaviors (e.g., constantly lining up toy cars) or excessive interest in a topic. They may also behave inappropriately and have trouble adjusting to school, home, or work. People with autism may fail to recognize emotions in others’ faces. Their empathy may also be reduced. One of our studies [ 6 ] showed that these problems are linked to a decreased ability to process contextual information. Persons with autism and healthy subjects performed tasks involving different social skills. Autistic people did poorly in tasks that relied on contextual cues—for instance, detecting a person’s emotion based on his gestures or voice tone. But, autistic people did well in tasks that didn’t require analyzing context, for example tasks that could be completed by following very general rules (for example, “never touch a stranger on the street”). Thus, the social problems that we often see in autistic people might result from difficulty in processing contextual cues.

Another disease that may result from problems processing contextual information is called behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia . Patients with this disease exhibit changes in personality and in the way they interact with others, after about age 60. They may do improper things in public. Like people with autism, they may not show empathy or may not recognize emotions easily. Also, they find it hard to deal with the details of context needed to understand social events. All these changes may reflect general problems processing social context information. These problems may be caused by damage to the brain network described above.

Our model can also explain patients with damage to the frontal lobes or those who have conditions such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder [ 7 ]. Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by atypical social cognition and inability to distinguish between real and imagined world (as in the case of hallucinations). Similar but milder problems appear in patients with bipolar disorder, which is another psychiatric condition mainly characterized by oscillating periods of depression and periods of elevated mood (called hypomania or mania).

In sum, the problems with social behavior seen in many diseases are probably linked to poor context processing after damage to certain brain areas, as proposed by our model ( Figure 2 ). Future research should explore how correct this model is, adding more data about the processes and regions it describes.

New Techniques to Assess Social Behavior and Contextual Processing

The results mentioned above are important for scientists and doctors. However, they have a great limitation. They do not reflect how people behave in daily life! Most of the research findings came from tasks in a laboratory, in which a person responded to pictures or videos. These tasks do not really represent how we act every day in our lives. Social life is much more complicated than sitting at a desk and pressing buttons when you see images on a computer, right? Research based on such tasks doesn’t reflect real social situations. In daily life, people interact in contexts that constantly change.

Fortunately, new methods allow scientists to assess real-life interactions. Hyperscanning is one of these methods. Hyperscanning allows measurement of the brain activity of two or more people while they perform activities together. For example, each subject can lie inside a separate scanner (a large tube containing powerful magnets). This scanner can detect changes in blood flow in the brain while the two people interact. This approach is used, for example, to study the brains of a mother and her child while they are looking at each other’s faces ( Figure 3A ).

• Figure 3 - New techniques to study processing of contextual cues.
• A. A mother and her infant look at each others’ facial expression while their brain activity is recorded (reproduced with permission from Masayuki et al. [ 8 ]). B. Hyperscanning of people interacting with each other during a game of Jenga (reproduced with permission from Liu et al. [ 9 ]). C. A new method of studying brain activity, called mobile brain/body imaging (MoBI) (reproduced with permission from Makeig et al. [ 10 ]). D. Virtual reality simulations of a virtual train at the station and a virtual train carriage (reproduced with permission from Freeman et al. [ 11 ]).

Hyperscanning can also be done using electroencephalogram equipment. Electroencephalography measures the electrical activity of the brain. Special sensors called electrodes are attached to the head. They are hooked by wires to a computer which records the brain’s electrical activity. Figure 3B shows an example of the use of electroencephalogram hyperscanning. This method has been used to measure the brain activity in two individuals while they are playing Jenga. Future research should apply this technique to study the processing of social contextual cues.

One limitation of hyperscanning is that it typically requires participants to remain still. However, real-life interactions involve many bodily actions. Fortunately, a new method called mobile brain/body imaging (MoBI, Figure 3C ) allows the measurement of brain activity and bodily actions while people interact in natural settings.

Another interesting approach is to use virtual reality . This technique involves fake situations. However, it puts people in different situations that require social interaction. This is closer to real life than the tasks used in most laboratories. As an example, consider Figure 3D . This shows a virtual reality experiment in which participants traveled through an underground tube station in London. Our understanding of the way context impacts social behavior could be expanded in future virtual reality studies.

In sum, future research should use new methods for measuring real-life interactions. This type of research could be very important for doctors to understand what happens to the processing of social context cues in various brain injuries or diseases. These realistic tasks are more sensitive than most of the laboratory tasks that are usually used for the assessment of patients with brain disorders.

Empathy : ↑ The ability to feel what another person is feeling, that is, to “place yourself in that person’s shoes.”

Autism : ↑ A general term for a group of complex disorders of brain development. These disorders are characterized by repetitive behaviors, as well as different levels of difficulty with social interaction and both verbal and non-verbal communications.

Behavioral Variant Frontotemporal Dementia : ↑ A brain disease characterized by progressive changes in personality and loss of empathy. Patients experience difficulty in regulating their behavior, and this often results in socially inappropriate actions. Patients typically start to show symptoms around age 60.

Hyperscanning : ↑ A novel technique to measure brain activity simultaneously from two people.

Virtual Reality : ↑ Computer technologies that use software to generate realistic images, sounds, and other sensations that replicate a real environment. This technique uses specialized display screens or projectors to simulate the user’s physical presence in this environment, enabling him or her to interact with the virtual space and any objects depicted there.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by grants from CONICYT/FONDECYT Regular (1170010), FONDAP 15150012, and the INECO Foundation.

[1] ↑ Ibanez, A., and Manes, F. 2012. Contextual social cognition and the behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 78(17):1354–62. doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182518375

[2] ↑ Chun, M. M. 2000. Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4(5):170–8. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01476-5

[3] ↑ Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., and Gendron, M. 2011. Context in emotion perception. Curr. Direct Psychol. Sci. 20(5):286–90. doi:10.1177/0963721411422522

[4] ↑ Beck, D. M., and Kastner, S. 2005. Stimulus context modulates competition in human extrastriate cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 8(8):1110–6. doi:10.1038/nn1501

[5] ↑ Bar, M. 2004. Visual objects in context. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 5(8):617–29. doi:10.1038/nrn1476

[6] ↑ Baez, S., and Ibanez, A. 2014. The effects of context processing on social cognition impairments in adults with Asperger’s syndrome. Front. Neurosci. 8:270. doi:10.3389/fnins.2014.00270

[7] ↑ Baez, S, Garcia, A. M., and Ibanez, A. 2016. The Social Context Network Model in psychiatric and neurological diseases. Curr. Top. Behav. Neurosci. 30:379–96. doi:10.1007/7854_2016_443

[8] ↑ Masayuki, H., Takashi, I., Mitsuru, K., Tomoya, K., Hirotoshi, H., Yuko, Y., and Minoru, A. 2014. Hyperscanning MEG for understanding mother-child cerebral interactions. Front Hum Neurosci 8:118. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00118

[9] ↑ Liu, N., Mok, C., Witt, E. E., Pradhan, A. H., Chen, J. E., and Reiss, A. L. 2016. NIRS-based hyperscanning reveals inter-brain neural synchronization during cooperative Jenga game with face-to-face communication. Front Hum Neurosci 10:82. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00082

[10] ↑ Makeig, S., Gramann, K., Jung, T.-P., Sejnowski, T. J., and Poizner, H. 2009. Linking brain, mind and behavior: The promise of mobile brain/body imaging (MoBI). Int J Psychophys 73:985–1000

[11] ↑ Evans, N., Lister, R., Antley, A., Dunn, G., and Slater, M. 2014. Height, social comparison, and paranoia: An immersive virtual reality experimental study. Psych Res 218(3):348–52. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2013.12.014

Module 1: Introduction to Social Psychology

Module Overview                              

In our first module we will examine the field of social psychology and how it relates to personality psychology and differs from sociology by clarifying the level of analysis and differences in methods used. We will then embark upon a historical journey to see where the field has come from and where it is going. Finally, we will examine professional societies and journals as they relate to social psychology and share links to blogs and newsfeeds on current research in this subfield.

Module Outline

1.1. What is Social Psychology?

1.2. social psychology…then, 1.3. social psychology…now, 1.4. connecting with other social psychologists.

Module Learning Outcomes

• Clarify similarities and differences between social psychology, personality psychology, and sociology.
• Outline the history of social psychology.
• Describe the status of the subfield today….and in the future.
• Identify ways in which social psychologists can connect with one another.

Section Learning Objectives

• Define psychology and deconstruct the definition.
• Define social.
• Contrast social psychology and sociology.
• Clarify how social and personality psychology intersect.
• Describe general methods used by social psychologists.
• Distinguish between basic and applied science.
• Compare and contrast how social psychology, sociology, and personality psychology tackle the same general issue by evaluating empirical articles from a journal in each field.

1.1.1. Defining Terms

Our discussion of social psychology will start by defining a few key terms, or what social and psychology mean separately. We will tackle the latter, then the former, and then put it all together. First up, the latter. Psychology is the scientific study of behavior and mental processes.  Yes, that is correct. Psychology is scientific . Psychology utilizes the same scientific process and methods used by disciplines such as biology and chemistry. We will discuss this in more detail in Module 2 so please just keep this in the back of your mind for now. Second, it is the study of behavior and mental processes. Psychology desires to not only understand why people engage in the behavior that they do, but also how. What is going on in the brain to control the movement of our arms and legs when running downfield to catch the game winning touchdown, what affects the words we choose to say when madly in love, how do we interpret an event as benign or a threat when a loud sound is heard, and what makes an individual view another group in less than favorable terms? These are just a few of the questions that we ask as psychologists.

Now to the former – social. According to Oxford Dictionaries online, social is defined as relating to society or its organization. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as “tending to form cooperative and interdependent relationships with others” ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social ). Another form of the word implies a desire to be around people such as being a social butterfly. Really, both forms of the word are useful for the discussion to come in this textbook.

We now address their combination. Social psychology is the scientific study of behavior and mental processes as they relate to how people interact with, or relate to, others. Our starting point is on the person, and not society. The latter is the focus of the field called sociology , or the study of society or groups, both large and small. According to the American Sociological Association ( http://www.asanet.org/ ), sociology is a social science which involves studying the social lives of people, groups, and societies; studying our behavior as social beings; scientifically investigating social aggregations; and is “an overarching unification of all studies of humankind, including history, psychology, and economics.”

In contrast, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (Division 8 of the American Psychological Association; https://www.apa.org/about/division/div8.aspx ; SPSP) defines social psychology as the “scientific study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others.” The study of social psychology occurs in a social context meaning the individual as they relate to others and is affected by others.

Personality and social psychology go hand-in-hand and so we should define personality psychology too. Simply, personality psychology is the scientific study of individual differences in people’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior, and how these come together as a whole.  A social psychologist may investigate whether an individual helped another person due to a situational or personal factor, while a personality psychologist would examine whether a certain personality type is more likely to make situational or dispositional attributions or look for traits that govern helping behavior.

1.1.2. How Social Psychologists Do Their Work?

The answer to the question guiding this section is really quite simple – observation . Psychology, as most fields in science, operates by observing the world around the observer. We take note of the actions of others in relation to tragic events such as a natural disaster or school shooting, how lovers behave in public and query them about their actions behind close doors, and a person’s reaction to the opening of a new restaurant or receiving poor service (and subsequent tipping behavior).  Observation alone is not enough.

Once we take note of these different types of behaviors, we have to find a way to measure it and eventually record the behavior. If we want to study public displays of affection (PDAs) we have to clearly state what these displays are or how they will appear so we know for sure that they have occurred. This might be a gentle touch, an embrace, a passionate kiss or maybe just a quick one. Once we know what it is we are observing, we can record its occurrence in a notebook, through the use of a video recorder, in conjunction with another observer, or with a golf stroke counter.

Finally, scientists seek to manipulate the conditions in which people experience the world to see what the effect is on their social behavior. This is the hallmark of experimentation as you will come to see in Module 2.

So how do social psychologists do what they do? They observe the world, measure and record behavior, and then manipulate the conditions under which such behavior may occur so that they can make causal statements about social behavior.

1.1.3. Two Forms Their Work Might Take

Science has two forms – basic/pure and applied. Basic science is concerned with the acquisition of knowledge for the sake of the knowledge and nothing else while applied science desires to find solutions to real-world problems. You might think of it like this – the researcher decides on a question to investigate in pure science, but an outside source identifies the research question/problem in applied science. Of course, this is not always the case. A social psychologist doing basic research may focus on questions related to people’s thoughts, behaviors, and feelings such as why do people treat outgroup members differently than ingroup members, why do first impressions matter so much, why do we help people in some situations but not others, and why are we attracted to some people but not others? Applied social scientists would in turn use this research to develop K-12 programs to promote the toleration of those who are different than us, help people interviewing for a job to make a good first impression, develop stealthy interventions that encourage altruistic behavior, or encourage people to interact favorably with all regardless of our attraction to them.

As the Society for Personality and Social Psychology states on their website, “Of course, the distinction between basic and applied research is often a fuzzy one. One can certainly perform basic research in applied domains, and the findings from each type of research enrich the other. Indeed, it would be fair to say that most personality and social psychologists have both basic and applied interests” ( http://www.spsp.org/about/what-socialpersonality-psychology ).

1.1.4. Comparing the Approach to Research Across Three Disciplines

1.1.4.1. Exploring a social issue. One way to really understand the differences between the seemingly inter-related disciplines of social psychology, personality psychology, and sociology is to explore how each deal with a specific social issue. For the purposes of our discussion, we will tackle the obesity epidemic.

1.1.4.2. Sociology . Our focus will be on the article “Obesity is in the eye of the beholder: BMI and socioeconomic outcomes across cohorts” written by Vida Maralani and Douglas McKee of Cornell University in 2017 and published in the journal Sociological Science . The study begs the question of whether the threshold for being “too fat” is a static or fluid concept as it pertains to socioeconomic outcomes. The researchers used two nationally representative birth cohorts of Americans from the 1979 and 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. The sample from 1979 included 5,890 respondents aged 14 to 22 and the 1997 sample included 6,082 participants aged 12 to 17. The relationship between body mass and the socioeconomic outcomes of wages, the probability of being married, and total family income were studied across the domains of work and marriage. In the two cohorts the authors analyzed the outcomes separately for each of four social groups (white men, black men, white women, and black women).

The results showed that the patterns for those who are considered “too fat” or “too thin” differ systematically by gender, race, and social outcome, and “…the association between BMI and social outcomes is often not constant within the ranges of the standard cutoffs…” (pg. 310). For white men, outcomes were worse at higher BMIs while at low and lower-middle BMIs outcomes improved. For white women, meaningful patterns emerged for being quite thin rather than excessively or moderately fat. As the authors say, “The patterns for all women in the 1979 cohort and white women in the 1997 cohort remind us that norms of thinness dominate women’s lives at work and at home. But, we are also struck by the evidence that a body ideal operates for white men in multiple domains as well” (pg. 313).

For all groups the researchers found that the association between BMI and being married weakens across the two cohorts. It may be that as BMI has increased for all groups, we have become accepting of marrying partners who are larger. One stereotype of black men is that they are more accepting of larger women than are white men. The results did not support this notion and in fact, the data suggested that a body ideal of thinness existed for both white and black women in the 1979 cohort.

And finally, the authors end the article by saying, “The relationship between body size and socioeconomic outcomes depends on who is being judged, who is doing the judging, and in which social domain. Rather than using the medical conceptualization of obesity, it is important to recognize that “too fat” is a subjective, contingent, and fluid judgment in the social world” (pg. 314).

Source: Maralani, V., & McKee, D. (2017). Obesity is in the eye of the beholder: BMI and socioeconomic outcomes across cohorts. Sociological Science , 4 , 288-317.

1.1.4.3. Social psychology . Our focus for social psychology will be on the article entitled, “Disgust predicts prejudice and discrimination toward individuals with obesity” written by Lenny Vartanian and Tara Trewarth of UNSW Australia and Eric Vanman of The University of Queensland and published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology in 2016. The authors start by pointing out that there has been a recent shift toward studying the emotions underlying prejudicial beliefs toward individuals with obesity, with a focus on the intergroup emotions of disgust, contempt, and anger. The authors cited research suggesting that the specific emotion elicited by a group was dependent on the threat posed by another group. Since obese individuals are not generally seen as threatening to others or as infringing on the freedom of others, they are less likely to elicit anger as an emotion and more likely to elicit disgust and maybe contempt.

The study by Vartanian et al. (2016) included 598 participants who were predominantly male and Caucasian, had a mean age of 35.88, and a BMI of 26.39. They were randomly assigned to view a photograph of either an obese female or a female with a healthy weight. Information was also given about the target and her daily activities such as being age 35, owning a pet, and enjoying shopping. Participants indicated to what extent they felt disgust, contempt, and anger toward the target individual on a visual analogue scale with possible scores ranging from 0 or Not at all to 100 or Extremely. Attitude was measured on a 7-point scale, the target individual was measured on a series of common obesity stereotypes such as being lazy or lacking self-discipline, social distance or how willing the participant would be to approach the target individual was measured on a 4-point scale, and participants completed an online version of the Seating Distance task as a measure of avoidance.

Results showed that disgust was expressed primarily toward the obese target, and participants held more negative attitudes, negative stereotypes, and saw this person as less competent than the healthy target. There was a greater desire for social distance from the obese target as well. The authors note that obese individuals often report being excluded or ignored, and previous bias-reduction efforts have largely failed. One explanation for these trends might be disgust. In terms of the failed interventions, modifying people’s cognitions are unlikely to change their emotional experiences. Hence a future challenge for researchers will be to find ways to change people’s emotional reactions to individuals with obesity.

Note that this article is a great example of the overlap many researchers have in terms of doing basic and applied research mentioned at the end of Section 1.1.3.

Source: Vartanian, L. R., Trewartha, T., & Vanman, E. J. (2016). Disgust predicts prejudice and discrimination toward individuals with obesity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 46 (6), 369-375.

1.1.4.4. Personality psychology. And finally, we will examine the article, “Personality traits and body mass index: Modifiers and mechanisms” written by Angelina Sutin and Antonio Terracciano of Florida State University and published in Psychological Health in 2016. The authors start by noting there is growing evidence that personality traits contribute to body weight with Conscientiousness related to a healthier BMI and Neuroticism having a positive association with BMI (meaning as one becomes more neurotic one weights more – higher BMI). Of course, physical activity is linked to lower body weight and individuals high in Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability tend to be more active.

The researchers obtained a sample of 5,150 participants who were on average 44.61 years old and mostly non-Hispanic European American. They completed the Big Five Inventory as an assessment of personality; reported their height and weight as an indicator of BMI; completed a behavioral questionnaire about their eating and physical activity habits over the past 30 days; and reported whether they had ever been diagnosed with chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer, stroke, or high blood pressure.

Consistent with previous research, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness were most strongly related to BMI but more so for women than men, and in the expected direction. Additionally, those scoring higher on Activity, a facet of Extraversion, had a lower BMI. In terms of age, older participants who scored higher on Agreeableness had a lower BMI and though the protective effects of Conscientiousness were present for all, the association was slightly stronger for older participants. The authors explained, “Participants who were more emotionally stable, extraverted, open, agreeable, and conscientious reported eating healthier food, and less convenience food, engaging in more physical activity, and eating at regular intervals at the same time each day” (pg. 7). The study showed that as obesity goes, personality leads people to engage in specific behaviors that increases or decreases their risk of becoming obese and gaining weight.

Source: Sutin, A. R., & Terracciano, A. (2016). Personality traits and body mass index: modifiers and mechanisms. Psychology & health , 31 (3), 259-275.

For Further Consideration

Now that you have read about the three different articles, what differences do you notice in how social psychology, personality psychology, and sociology approach the same phenomena (i.e. obesity)? Are there methodological differences? How do they talk about the topic? Is the focus top down or bottom up? How do the different subfields (really psychology and sociology though you can distinguish between personality and social) frame their conclusions and the implications of what they discovered?

If possible, please read the articles. If you cannot obtain the article from your school library, your instructor may be able to.

• Define philosophy.
• Outline the four branches of philosophy.
• Hypothesize possible links between psychology and philosophy based on the four branches.
• Contrast the methods used by philosophy and psychology.
• List and describe philosophical worldviews that have impacted the field of psychology and clarify how.
• Clarify the importance of physiology for the development of psychology as a separate field.
• Identify the founder of psychology and the importance of his work.
• Clarify why identifying a clear founder for social psychology is difficult.
• List and describe the work of noteworthy social psychologists throughout history.

1.2.1. Unexpected Origins

1.2.1.1. Philosophy. Psychology arose out of philosophy, which is defined as the love and pursuit of knowledge. Philosophy divides itself into four main branches, each posing questions psychology addresses today as well. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, what reality is like, what exists in the world, and how it is ordered. Key questions center on the existence of a higher power, what truth is, what a person is, whether all events are governed by fate or we have a free will, and causality or whether one event causes another. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and seeks to understand how we know what we know. Ethics concerns matters related to what we ought to do or what is best to do and asks what is good, what makes actions or people good, and how should we treat others. Finally, logic focuses on the nature and structure of arguments and determining whether a piece of reasoning is good or bad.

So how do these four branches link to psychology? Well, our field tries to understand people and how their mind works. We wonder why they do what they did (as you will come to see we call this an attribution) and look for causal relationships. In terms of fate vs. free will, we ask if what we will be throughout life is determined in childhood, and during a time when we cannot make many choices for ourselves. Consider an adult who holds prejudicial views of another group. Did growing up in a house where such attitudes were taught and reinforced on a near daily basis make it for certain a person would express the same beliefs later in life? Issues such as this show how psychology links to philosophy. As well, we study the elements of cognition such as schemas and propositions, how we learn, and types of thinking which falls under epistemology. As you will see, schemas are important to social identity theory and the assignment of people into groups or categories. Psychologists also study the proper and improper use of punishment, moral development, and obedience all of which fall under the branch of philosophy called ethics as well as decision making and the use of heuristics which involves logic.

The main difference, and an important one, between philosophy and psychology is in terms of the methods that are used. Philosophy focuses on speculation, intuition, and generalization from personal observation while psychology relies on experimentation and measurement, both of which were mentioned in Section 1.1.2, and in Module 2 we will discuss its main research methods of observation, case study, correlation, survey, and the experiment.

Philosophy has several worldviews which have played a direct role in the development of our field and some of its key ideas. First, dualism is the idea that questions whether the mind and body are distinct from one another and Rene Descartes (1596-1650) tackled this issue. Before Descartes it was believed that the mind influenced the body but the body had little effect on the mind. Descartes, on the other hand, said that both mind and body affected one another. This brought about a change in what was studied and how it was studied. Attention shifted away from the soul to the scientific study of the mind and mental processes.

Next, mechanism was the underlying philosophy of the 17th century and remained influential until the mid-1900s. It proposed that the world is a great machine. All-natural processes were thought to be mechanically determined and so could be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry. Due to mechanism, observation and experimentation became key features of science, with measurement following closely behind. People were thought to be like machines and mechanical contraptions called automata were created to imitate human movement and action. These machines were incredibly precise and regular.

Determinism is another philosophical worldview that has been important to psychology. It is the idea that every act is determined or caused by past events and so it is possible to predict changes that will occur in the operation of the universe. Why might this be important for science? Simply, determinism leads us to causal statements and in research, we seek to make such statements. It tells us that if A occurs, B follows. Prediction is the key here. Also important is reductionism or breaking things down to their basic components which is the hallmark of science itself.

Though other philosophical ideas are important too, we will conclude by mentioning empiricism or the idea that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience. Several famous empiricists were influential on psychology to include Locke, Berkley, Hartley, and John Stuart Mill. Empiricism includes the idea of the tabula rasa or the blank slate upon which experience is written. Hence, there are no innate ideas that we are born with. Mill proposed the interesting idea of a creative synthesis in which there is a combining of mental elements such that the product yields some distinct quality not present in the individual elements themselves. He said it is like a mental chemistry.

1.2.1.2. Physiology. It is important to note that psychology did not just rise out of philosophy, but also from physiology. The mid to late 1800s provided many remarkable findings about the functioning of the human brain. During this time we discovered what the cerebrum, midbrain, cerebellum, and medulla did thanks to the work of Flourens, began using electrical stimulation and the extirpation method (determining function by destroying a specific structure in the brain and then observing changes in behavior), discovered white and gray matter courtesy of Franz Josef Gall, realized that the nervous system was a conductor of electrical impulses, and determined that nerve fibers were composed of neurons and synapses. Key figures included people like von Helmholtz who studied the speed of neural impulse and correctly determined it to be 90 feet per second, Weber who proposed the concepts of two-point thresholds and the just noticeable difference (jnd), and Fechner who founded the field of psychophysics and proposed the absolute and difference thresholds. These figures showed how topics central to the new science of psychology could be studied empirically, provided a method for investigating the relationship between mind and body, and gave psychology precise and elegant measurement techniques.

1.2.2. The Birth of a Field

The field of psychology did not formally organize itself until 1879 when Wilhelm Wundt founded his laboratory at Leipzig, Germany. Wundt studied sensation and perception and began experimental psychology as a science.  He employed the use of introspection , or the examination of one’s own mental state, which is used today after being almost discarded as a method by the behaviorists throughout the first half of the 20th century. This method gave him precise experimental control over the conditions under which introspection was used. He established rigorous training of his observers and focused on objective measures provided by the use of sophisticated laboratory equipment, in keeping with the traditions of physiology. Wundt’s brand of psychology would give rise to the school of thought called Structuralism in the United States under Titchener and eventually stirred a rebellion in the form of Behaviorism and Gestalt psychology, though a discussion of how this occurred is beyond the scope of this book.

1.2.3. The Birth of Social Psychology

So, who might be considered the founder of social psychology? A few different answers are possible, starting with Norman Triplett who late in the 19th century published the first empirical research article in social psychology. He was interested in whether the presence of others might affect a person’s performance on a task. To answer the question, he compared how fast children would reel when alone and when competing with another child. His study showed that the “ bodily presence of another contestant participating simultaneously in the race serves to liberate latent energy not ordinarily available.” To read Triplett’s 1898 article, please visit: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Triplett/

Another candidate for founder is Maximilien Ringelmann, a French agricultural engineer, who conducted some of the earliest experiments in social psychology dating back to the 1880s. He found that people become less productive as the size of their group increases. He called this the “Ringelmann effect.”

The findings of these two individuals are interesting, and contradictory. In the case of Triplett, the presence of others improves performance but Ringelmann showed that the presence of others hinders performance. So which is it? As you will come to see it is both. What Triplett described is today called social facilitation while Ringelmann’s work is called social loafing . We will discuss this further in Module 8.

The production of research articles usually does not merit receiving the distinction of being a founder. Sometimes, a better indicator is the production of a textbook bearing the name of that area and to that end, it is necessary to give credit to William McDougall who wrote his textbook, An Introduction to Social Psychology in 1908, Edward Ross who also wrote a book in 1908, and Floyd Allport who completed his book in 1924. Though Allport’s book was written 16 years after Ross and McDougall’s books, it is especially important since it emphasized how people respond to stimuli in the environment, such as groups, and called for the use of experimental procedures and the scientific method which contrasted with Ross and McDougall’s more philosophical approaches.

One final individual is worth mentioning. Kurt Lewin, a noted Gestalt psychologist, proposed the idea of field theory and the life space, and is considered the founder of modern social psychology. He did work in the area of group dynamics and emphasized social action research on topics such as integrated housing, equal employment opportunities, and the prevention of prejudice in childhood. He promoted sensitivity training for educators and business leaders.

1.2.4. Noteworthy Social Psychologists

To round out our discussion of the history of social psychology, we wish to note some of the key figures in the subfield and provide a brief historical context as to when they worked. With that in mind, we begin with Francis Sumner (1895-1954) who was the first African American to receive a Ph.D. in psychology, which he earned from Clark University in 1920. Sumner went on to establish the field of Black psychology.

Solomon Asch (1907-1996) is most well-known for his studies on conformity and the finding that a large number of people will conform to the group even if the group’s position on an issue is clearly wrong. He also published on the primacy effect and the halo effect. Gordon Allport (1897-1967) , younger brother to the aforementioned Floyd Allport, conducted research on prejudice, religion, and attitudes, and trained famous psychologists such as Milgram and Jerome Bruner. He also helped to form the field of personality psychology.

From 1939 to 1950, Mamie (1917-1983) and Kenneth (1914-2005) Clark conducted important research on the harmful effects of racial segregation and showed that Black children preferred not only to play with white dolls but also “colored the line drawing of the child a shade lighter than their own skin.” Their research was used by the Supreme Court in the Brown vs. Board of Education decision of 1954 that ended the racial segregation of public schools and overturned the 1892 decision in Plessy vs. Ferguson which legitimized “separate but equal” educations for White and Black students. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote:

Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has the tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.

Kenneth Clark was also the first African American to be elected President of the American Psychological Association. For more on the landmark case, please visit: https://www.apa.org/research/action/segregation.aspx

Leon Festinger (1919-1989) is best known for his theory of cognitive dissonance and social comparison theory while Irving Janis (1918-1990) conducted research on attitude change, groupthink, and decision making. Stanley Schachter (1922-1997) proposed the two-factor theory of emotion which states that emotions are a product of physiological arousal and the cognitive interpretation of that arousal. Carolyn (1922-1982) and Muzafer (1906-1988) Sherif are known for the Robbers Cave experiment which divided boys at a summer camp into two groups who overcame fierce intergroup hostility by working towards superordinate goals.

During the Nuremberg trials after World War II, many German soldiers were asked why they would do many of the unspeakable crimes they were accused of. The simple response was that they were told to. This led Stanley Milgram (1933-1984) to see if they were correct. Through a series of experiments in the 1960s he found that participants would shock a learner to death, despite their protests, because they were told to continue by the experimenter. He also did work on the small-world phenomenon, lost letter experiment, and the cyranoid method.

To learn about other key figures in the history of social psychology, please visit: https://www.socialpsychology.org/social-figures.htm

• Describe current trends in social neuroscience as they relate to social psychology.
• Describe current trends in evolutionary psychology as they relate to social psychology.
• Describe current trends in cross-cultural research as they relate to social psychology.
• Describe current trends in technology as they relate to social psychology.

Social psychology’s growth continues into the 21st century and social neuroscience, evolutionary explanations, cross-cultural research, and the internet are trending now. How so?

1.3.1. Social Neuroscience

Emerging in the early 1990s, there is a new emphasis on cognitive processes which has led to the formation of the interdisciplinary field of social neuroscience or how the brain affects our social behavior and is affected by it (Lieberman, 2010). So how do social psychology and social neuroscience form their own separate identities? Cacioppo, Berntson, and Decety (2010) state that social neuroscience studies “neural, hormonal, cellular, and genetic mechanisms and, relatedly, to the study of the associations and influences between social and biological levels of organization” and where human beings fit into the broader biological context.” Though social psychology does study biological factors, its emphasis has traditionally been on situational factors and dispositional factors through its collaboration with personality psychologists. Both social neuroscience and social psychology focus on social behavior and so can be aligned and make meaningful contributions to constructs and theories presented in the other. The authors clear up any concern about overlap by saying, “The emphasis in each is sufficiently different that neither field is in danger of being reduced to or replaced by the other, but articulating the different levels of analysis can provide a better understanding of complex social phenomena.”

Specific contributions of social neuroscience include imaging the working human brain through such methods as “multi-modal structural, hemodynamic, and electrophysiological brain imaging acquisition and analysis techniques; more sophisticated specifications and analyses of focal brain lesions; focused experimental manipulations of brain activity using transcranial magnetic stimulation and pharmacological agents; and emerging visualization and quantitative techniques that integrate anatomical and functional connectivity.” These methods have paved the way for increased understanding of the greatest asset human beings have and move us away from having to make analogies from animals to humans courtesy of brain lesion studies and electrophysiological recording and the postmortem examinations of human brains.

Social neuroscience is an effort of biological, cognitive, and social scientists to collaborate in a more systematic way and all share “a common belief that the understanding of mind and behavior could be enhanced by an integrative analysis that encompasses levels of organization ranging from genes to cultures.”  From it, several subareas have emerged to include cultural neuroscience, social developmental neuroscience, comparative social neuroscience, social cognitive neuroscience, and social affective neuroscience.

Cacioppo, Berntson, and Decety (2010) conclude, “The field of social neuroscience, therefore, represents an interdisciplinary perspective that embraces animal as well as human research, patient as well as nonpatient research, computational as well as empirical analyses, and neural as well as behavioral studies.”

To read the whole article, please visit: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3883133/

Citation: Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., & Decety, J. (2010). Social neuroscience and its relationship to social psychology. Social Cognition , 28 (6), 675-685.

1.3.2. Evolutionary Explanations

Any behavior that exists today does so because it offers an evolutionary advantage to the species as a whole. Though not its own distinct branch of psychology, evolutionary psychology is impacting all subfields. So what is it? According to David Buss, Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, it is based on four premises:

• Evolutionary processes have affected and shaped both body and brain, in terms of psychological mechanisms and the behaviors that are produced
• Many of these mechanisms are adaptations to solve problems that contribute to the survival of the species
• These adaptations are activated in modern environments that differ in important ways from ancestral environments
• Psychological mechanisms having adaptive functions is a critical and necessary ingredient for psychology to be comprehensive

Buss goes on to describe specific ways evolutionary psychology has informed the various subfields. In relation to our discussion of social psychology he says it has “produced a wealth of discoveries, ranging from adaptations for altruism to the dark sides of social conflict.” Evolutionary psychology is also helping to discover adaptive individual differences through its interaction with personality psychology. In relation to our previous discussion of social neuroscience, Buss says, “Cognitive and social neuroscientists, for example, use modern technologies such as fMRI to test hypotheses about social exclusion adaptations, emotions such as sexual jealousy, and kin recognition mechanisms.”

For more on Buss’ comments, and those of other researchers in relation to evolutionary theory and psychology, please visit the APA science briefs:

https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2009/05/sci-brief.aspx

1.3.3. Cross-Cultural Research

Quite possibly the most critical trend in social psychology today is the realization that it is completely cultural.  In 1972, the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology was founded and today has a membership of over 800 individuals in over 65 countries. The group’s primary aim is to study the intersection of culture and psychology. The group publishes the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (to learn more about them, visit: http://iaccp.org/ ). In 1977, Harry Trandis published the article, “Cross-cultural Social and Personality Psychology” and outlined the study of cultural influences on social behavior.

Singelis (2000) predicted a continued and increasing interest in cross-cultural social psychology due to a rise of a multi-cultural Zeitgeist in the United States courtesy of the civil rights movement, more sophisticated quantitative methods in cross-cultural research which have proven to be more acceptable to those trained in social psychology’s scientific tradition, and a greater acceptance of qualitative methods which is necessary to understanding cultural meanings. This will lead to a redefining of what the self means (the topic of Module 3) since it is shaped by cultural context and influences social behavior through a person’s values, evaluations, and perceptions. The self now includes the East Asian conception of it being interdependent.

Additionally, Singelis (2000) predicts new constructs will emerge that “combine seemingly opposite orientations in an integrative synthesis that is contrary to the typical Cartesian-like dichotomy” and a “shift away from individually oriented constructs toward those that capture social relationships.” Examples include the autonomous-relational self which synthesizes autonomy and human relationships, relational harmony or the degree of harmony in the person’s five most important relationships, and social oriented achievement motivation which includes the Western concept of self-realization and the non-Western idea of achievement motivation including others whose boundaries are not distinct from the self.

Singeleis (2000) concludes, “The increasing interest in culture, the rise in the number of psychologists outside the United Stated, and the willingness to consider many variables and points of view will keep cross-cultural social psychology vital and dynamic into the 21st century.” A more recent trend is multi-cultural research which focused on racial and ethnic diversity within cultures.

1.3.4. The Internet

In Section 1.2.3, and later in this book, we described early work on social loafing. Did you know that employers have recognized that social loafing in the workplace is serious enough of an issue that they now closely monitor what their employees are doing, in relation to surfing the web, online shopping, playing online games, managing finances, searching for another job, checking Facebook, sending a text, or watching Youtube videos? They are, and the phenomenon is called cyberloafing . Employees are estimated to spend from three hours a week up to 2.5 hours a day cyberloafing. So what can employers do about it? Kim, Triana, Chung, and Oh (2015) reported that employees high in the personality trait of Conscientiousness are less likely to cyberloaf when they perceive greater levels of organizational justice. So they recommend employers to screen candidates during the interview process for conscientiousness and emotional stability, develop clear policies about when personal devices can be used, and “create appropriate human resource practices and effectively communicate with employees so they feel people are treated fairly” (Source: https://news.wisc.edu/driven-to-distraction-what-causes-cyberloafing-at-work/ ). Cyberloafing should be distinguished from leisure surfing which Matthew McCarter of The University of Texas at San Antonio says can relieve stress and help employees recoup their thoughts (Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160120111527.htm ).

Myers (2016) points out that human beings have a need to belong and when we are alone, we suffer. Today, technology connects us in new and very important ways. He cites research showing that a teenager in the U.S. sends and receives 30 text per day, most teens prefer to use “fingered speech” over talking on the phone, and nearly half of all people in the world use the internet on a daily basis. So what is good about the internet? E-commerce, telecommuting, finding love, and obtaining information are clear benefits. In fact, online romances have been found to last longer since both individuals engage in greater levels of self-disclosure and share values and interests (Bargh & McKenna, 2004; Joinson, 2001a; Joinson, 2001b). How likely are people to give out personal information to someone they do not know? Research shows that trust is key. When we trust we are more likely to accede to a request for personal information (Joinson, Reips, Buchanan, & Schofield, 2010). Costs include deindividuation or faceless anonymity, time lost from face-to-face relationships, self-segregation which leads to group polarization, and what Myers (2016) calls “slacktivism” or, “the effortless signing of online petitions or sharing of prosocial videos may substitute feel-good Internet clicks for real, costly helping.” This ties into the cyberloafing information presented above.

For more on the Myers (2016) article, please visit: http://www.davidmyers.org/davidmyers/assets/SocialPsychologyInternet.pdf

Additional Resources:

• Psychology Today – Introduction to Internet Psychology – https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-social-net/201302/introduction-internet-psychology
• APA – Children and Internet Use – https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/12/jackson.aspx
• Psychology and the Internet (book) – https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123694256/psychology-and-the-internet
• Clarify what it means to communicate findings.
• Identify professional societies in social psychology.
• Identify publications in social psychology.

One of the functions of science is to communicate findings. Testing hypotheses, developing sound methodology, accurately analyzing data, and drawing cogent conclusions are important, but you must tell others what you have done too. This is accomplished via joining professional societies and submitting articles to peer reviewed journals. Below are some of the societies and journals important to social psychology.

1.4.1. Professional Societies

• Website – https://www.apa.org/about/division/div8.aspx
• Mission Statement – “Division 8: Society for Personality and Social Psychology seeks to advance the progress of theory, basic and applied research, and practice in the field of personality and social psychology. Members are employed in academia and private industry or government, and all are concerned with how individuals affect and are affected by other people and by their social and physical environments.”
• Publication – Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (monthly) and Personality and Social Psychology Review (quarterly)
• Other Information – “ Membership in SPSP is open to students and those whose work focuses largely in social/personality psychology. Members receive discounts to the SPSP Convention, access to three journals, access to the SPSP Job Board, and much more.”
• Website – https://www.sesp.org/
• Mission Statement – “The Society of Experimental Social Psychology (SESP) is an international scientific organization dedicated to the advancement of social psychological research. Our typical members have Ph.D.s in social psychology, and work in academic or other research settings.”
• Publication – Social Psychological and Personality Science
• Other Information – “ One of the main ways that SESP furthers its goal is by holding an annual scientific meeting in the early fall of each year, publishing the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, supporting the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , and contributing to advocacy efforts as a member of FABBS (the Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences). SESP was founded in 1965 by a group of social psychologists led by Edwin Hollander and W. Edgar Vinacke, as described in Hollander (1968). SESP currently boasts over 1000 elected members.”
• Website – https://www.easp.eu/
• Mission Statement – “The overarching aim of the European Association of Social Psychology is straightforward: to promote excellence in European research in the field of social psychology. As the history of the Association demonstrates, the objectives of those who founded the Association were to improve the quality of social psychological research in Europe by promoting greater contact among researchers in different European countries.”
• Publication – European Journal of Social Psychology
• Other Information – “ It is a tradition of the EASP to honour members who make an outstanding contribution to the discipline. Every three years, on the occasion of the General Meeting, one member receives the Tajfel Medal and is invited to deliver the Henri Tajfel Lecture. This recognizes the contribution of a senior researcher to the field of social psychology over the course of their lifetime. In 2017 we will, for the first time, grant a Moscovici award to honour the author(s) of an outstanding theoretical contribution to the field.”
• Website – http://www.personality-arp.org/
• Mission Statement – “Founded in 2001, ARP’s mission is a scientific organization devoted to bringing together scholars whose research contributes to the understanding of personality structure, development, and dynamics. From 2001 through 2008, ARP met annually as an SPSP preconference. Since 2009, we have held a stand-alone biennial conference.”
• Publication – ARP is a co-sponsor of Social Psychological and Personality Science
• Other Information – “ The ARP Emerging Scholar Award is presented biennially to recognize exceptionally high quality work from emerging personality psychologists. To be eligible for the award, nominees must be a graduate student or postdoctoral member of ARP. The ARP Executive Board established this award in 2018.”

1.4.2. Publications

• Website: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
• Published by: Taylor and Francis
• Description: “Since John Dewey and Carl Murchison founded it in 1929, The Journal of Social Psychology has published original empirical research in all areas of basic and applied social psychology. Most articles report laboratory or field research in core areas of social and organizational psychology including the self and social identity, person perception and social cognition, attitudes and persuasion, social influence, consumer behavior, decision making, groups and teams, stereotypes and discrimination, interpersonal attraction and relationships, prosocial behavior, aggression, organizational behavior, leadership, and cultural psychology.”
• Website: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/
• Published by: American Psychological Association
• Description: “ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.” The journal has three independently edited sections: Attitudes and Social Cognition, Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, and Personality Processes and Individual Differences.”
• Website: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/psp
• Published by: Division 8 of APA: Society for Personality and Social Psychology
• Description: “ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin ( PSPB ), published monthly, is an official journal for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. PSPB offers an international forum for the rapid dissemination of original empirical papers in all areas of personality and social psychology.”
• Website: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/psr
• Description: “Personality and Social Psychology Review ( PSPR ) is the premiere outlet for original theoretical papers and conceptual review articles in all areas of personality and social psychology. PSPR offers stimulating conceptual pieces that identify exciting new directions for research on the psychological underpinnings of human individuality and social functioning, as well as comprehensive review papers that provide new, integrative frameworks for existing theory and research programs.”
• Website: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/journal/social-psychological-and-personality-science
• Published by: Wiley
• Description: “ SPPS is a unique short reports journal in social and personality psychology. Its aim is to publish concise reports of empirical studies that provide meaningful contributions to our understanding of important issues in social and personality psychology. SPPS strives to publish innovative, rigorous, and impactful research. It is geared toward a speedy review and publication process to allow groundbreaking research to become part of the scientific conversation quickly.”
• Website: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-experimental-social-psychology/
• Published by: Elsevier
• Description: “The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (JESP) aims to publish articles that extend or create conceptual advances in social psychology. As the title of the journal indicates, we are focused on publishing primary reports of research in social psychology that use experimental or quasi-experimental.”

For a complete list of journals in social and personality psychology, please visit: https://www.socialpsychology.org/journals.htm#social

1.4.3. Online Social Psychology News

If you are interested in keeping up with current research in the field of social psychology, visit SPSP’s Character and Context blog by visiting http://spsp.org/news-center/blog/2018-December-14-ICYMI or take a look at Science Daily’s Social Psychology News page at https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/mind_brain/social_psychology/ .

Module Recap

Psychology is the scientific study of behavior and mental processes and when we apply a social lens, we examine how people interact with, or relate to, others. Social psychology differs from sociology in terms of its level of analysis – individual people and not the larger group – and is allied with personality psychology which examines how traits affect our social behavior. The history of social psychology is relatively short though many meaningful contributions have already been made. Still more are on the horizon as we branch out into cross-cultural and evolutionary psychology, forge a separate identity from social neuroscience, and engage in a deeper understanding of the effects of technology, and specifically the internet, on us. A snapshot of important professional societies and journals was offered as ways to communicate what individual researchers or teams are learning about social behavior with the broader scientific community and at times the general public.

This discussion will lead us into Module 2 where we discuss research methods used in social psychology. This will be the final module of Part I: Setting the Stage.

2nd edition

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Psychoanalytic theories

• Piaget’s theory
• Learning theory
• The newborn infant
• Determinants of attention
• Piaget’s observations
• Vocalizations
• Physical growth and development
• Temperament
• Symbolic ability and imitation
• The makeup of intelligence
• Personality traits
• Self-awareness and empathy
• A moral sense
• Self-concept, or identity
• Peer socialization
• Problems in development
• Parents and the socialization of the child
• Physiological aspects
• The social context
• Personality
• Central nervous system processing
• Personality and social development
• Conclusions

human behaviour

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Atlantic International University - Open Courses - Human Psychology Behavior
• University of Wolverhampton - Understanding human behaviour
• Frontiers - Human Behavior Analysis Using Intelligent Big Data Analytics
• Social Sciences LibreTexts - Human Behavioral Ecology
• Academia - Human Behavior
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - Sugar and Human Behaviour
• Internet Archive - The encyclopedia of Human Behaviour
• Live Science - Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors
• Table Of Contents

human behaviour , the potential and expressed capacity for physical, mental, and social activity during the phases of human life.

Humans, like other animal species, have a typical life course that consists of successive phases of growth, each of which is characterized by a distinct set of physical, physiological, and behavioral features. These phases are prenatal life, infancy , childhood , adolescence , and adulthood (including old age). Human development , or developmental psychology , is a field of study that attempts to describe and explain the changes in human cognitive , emotional, and behavioral capabilities and functioning over the entire life span , from the fetus to old age.

Most scientific research on human development has concentrated on the period from birth through early adolescence, owing to both the rapidity and magnitude of the psychological changes observed during those phases and to the fact that they culminate in the optimum mental functioning of early adulthood. A primary motivation of many investigators in the field has been to determine how the culminating mental abilities of adulthood were reached during the preceding phases. This essay will concentrate, therefore, on human development during the first 12 years of life.

This article discusses the development of human behaviour. For treatment of biological development, see human development . For further treatment of particular facets of behavioral development, see emotion ; learning theory ; motivation ; perception ; personality ; and sexual behaviour, human . Various disorders with significant behavioral manifestations are discussed in mental disorder .

Theories of development

The systematic study of children is less than 200 years old, and the vast majority of its research has been published since the mid-1940s. Basic philosophical differences over the fundamental nature of children and their growth occupied psychologists during much of the 20th century. The most important of such controversies concerned the relative importance of genetic endowment and environment , or “nature” and “nurture,” in determining development during infancy and childhood. Most researchers came to recognize, however, that it is the interaction of inborn biological factors with external factors, rather than the mutually exclusive action or predominance of one or the other force, that guides and influences human development . The advances in cognition , emotion , and behaviour that normally occur at certain points in the life span require both maturation (i.e., genetically driven biological changes in the central nervous system ) and events, experiences, and influences in the physical and social environment. Generally, maturation by itself cannot cause a psychological function to emerge; it does, however, permit such a function to occur and sets limits on its earliest time of appearance.

Three prominent theories of human development emerged in the 20th century, each addressing different aspects of psychological growth. In retrospect, these and other theories seem to have been neither logically rigorous nor able to account for both intellectual and emotional growth within the same framework. Research in the field has thus tended to be descriptive, since developmental psychology lacks a tight net of interlocking theoretical propositions that reliably permit satisfying explanations.

Early psychoanalytic theories of human behaviour were set forth most notably by Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud . Freud’s ideas were influenced by Charles Darwin ’s theory of evolution and by the physical concept of energy as applied to the central nervous system . Freud’s most basic hypothesis was that each child is born with a source of basic psychological energy called libido . Further, each child’s libido becomes successively focused on various parts of the body (in addition to people and objects) in the course of his or her emotional development . During the first postnatal year, libido is initially focused on the mouth and its activities; nursing enables the infant to derive gratification through a pleasurable reduction of tension in the oral region. Freud called this the oral stage of development. During the second year, the source of excitation is said to shift to the anal area, and the start of toilet training leads the child to invest libido in the anal functions. Freud called this period of development the anal stage . During the period from three through six years, the child’s attention is attracted to sensations from the genitals, and Freud called this stage the phallic stage . The half dozen years before puberty are called the latency stage . During the final and so-called genital stage of development, mature gratification is sought in a heterosexual love relationship with another. Freud believed that adult emotional problems result from either deprivation or excessive gratification during the oral, anal, or phallic stages. A child with libido fixated at one of these stages would in adulthood show specific neurotic symptoms, such as anxiety .

(Read Sigmund Freud’s 1926 Britannica essay on psychoanalysis.)

Freud devised an influential theory of personality structure. According to him, a wholly unconscious mental structure called the id contains a person’s inborn, inherited drives and instinctual forces and is closely identified with his or her basic psychological energy (libido). During infancy and childhood, the ego , which is the reality-oriented portion of the personality, develops to balance and complement the id. The ego utilizes a variety of conscious and unconscious mental processes to try to satisfy id instincts while also trying to maintain the individual comfortably in relation to the environment. Although id impulses are constantly directed toward obtaining immediate gratification of one’s major instinctual drives (sex, affection, aggression, self-preservation), the ego functions to set limits on this process. In Freud’s language, as the child grows, the reality principle gradually begins to control the pleasure principle ; the child learns that the environment does not always permit immediate gratification. Child development , according to Freud, is thus primarily concerned with the emergence of the functions of the ego, which is responsible for channeling the discharge of fundamental drives and for controlling intellectual and perceptual functions in the process of negotiating realistically with the outside world.

Although Freud made great contributions to psychological theory—particularly in his concept of unconscious urges and motivations—his elegant concepts cannot be verified through scientific experimentation and empirical observation. But his concentration on emotional development in early childhood influenced even those schools of thought that rejected his theories. The belief that personality is affected by both biological and psychosocial forces operating principally within the family, with the major foundations being laid early in life, continues to prove fruitful in research on infant and child development.

Freud’s emphasis on biological and psychosexual motives in personality development was modified by German-born American psychoanalyst Erik Erikson to include psychosocial and social factors. Erikson viewed emotional development over the life span as a sequence of stages during which there occur important inner conflicts whose successful resolution depends on both the child and his or her environment. These conflicts can be thought of as interactions between instinctual drives and motives on the one hand and social and other external factors on the other. Erikson evolved eight stages of development, the first four of which are: (1) infancy, trust versus mistrust, (2) early childhood, autonomy versus shame and doubt, (3) preschool, initiative versus guilt, and (4) school age, industry versus inferiority. Conflicts at any one stage must be resolved if personality problems are to be avoided. (Erikson’s developmental stages during adulthood are discussed below in the section Development in adulthood and old age .)

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Social media literacy

Course: social media literacy   >   unit 4, how does social media impact our behavior.

• Reflection activity: Redesigning to respect the brain

• How have you been shaped by these places and communities?
• How have these people shaped your life?
• How did you learn it?
• When we are bombarded with notifications, it compromises our ability to attend to what is important.
• When endless content creates an overwhelming amount of want, we can end up addicted to seeking satisfaction, clicking and scrolling, mindlessly consuming content, often with minimal oversight from cognitive control regions of the brain. Ultimately, this behavior drains our energy.
• When social media forces us to constantly engage in social comparison, we’re filled with negative emotions: envy, shame, anxiety, or conceit.
• When we’re frequently exposed to negative content, fear and outrage can become the norm, eroding our sense of goodness and shared humanity.
• When algorithms tell us what we want to believe, we become more polarized and shared understanding across society breaks down.

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

An Overview of Social Psychology

asiseeit/Getty Images

What Is Social Psychology?

History of social psychology.

• Social Psychology and Other Disciplines

Social psychology is the study of the interplay between an individual and social groups. Social psychologists tackle issues that significantly affect people's health and well-being, such as bullying.

According to psychologist Gordon Allport , social psychology uses scientific methods "to understand and explain how the thoughts , feelings, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied the presence of other human beings." Essentially, social psychology is about understanding how each person's individual behavior is influenced by the social environment in which that behavior takes place.

You probably already realize that other people can have a dramatic influence on the way you act and the choices you make. Consider how you might behave in a situation if you were all alone versus if there were other people in the room.

The decisions you make and the behaviors you exhibit might depend on not only how many people are present but exactly who you are around. For example, you are likely to behave much differently when you are around a group of close friends than you would around a group of colleagues or supervisors from work.

Social psychology encompasses a wide range of social topics, including:

• Group behavior
• Social perception
• Nonverbal behavior

​ It is important to note that social psychology is not just about looking at social influences. Social perception and social interaction are also vital to understanding social behavior.

The way that we see other people (and the way we think they see us) can play a powerful role in a wide variety of actions and decisions. Just think for a moment about how you sometimes act differently in a public setting than you might if you were at home by yourself. At home, you might be loud and rambunctious, while in public you might be much more subdued and reserved.

Why is this? Because the people around us shape our thoughts, feelings, moods, attitudes, and perceptions. The presence of other people can make a difference in the choices we make and the actions we take.

While social psychology tends to be an academic field, the research that social psychologists perform has a powerful influence on our understanding of mental health and well-being. For example, research on conformity helps explain why teenagers sometimes go to such great lengths to fit in with their social group—sometimes to the detriment of their own health and wellness.

Understanding this helps psychologists develop public health programs and treatment approaches for adolescents. These can help teenagers resist potentially harmful behaviors such as smoking, drinking, and substance use.

Plato referred to the idea of the "crowd mind," and concepts such as social loafing and social facilitation were introduced in the late 1800s. But it wasn't until after World War II that research on social psychology began in earnest.

The horrors of the Holocaust led researchers to study social influence, conformity , and obedience. What could explain why people participated in such evil actions? Were people following orders and bowing to social pressure, or were there some other forces at work? By investigating these questions, social psychologists were able to gain a greater understanding of the power of societal forces such as authority, compliance , and obedience.  

Social psychologist Stanley Milgram, for example, was able to demonstrate just how far people are willing to go to obey authority figures. In a series of now infamous experiments , Milgram and his colleagues ordered study participants to deliver what they believed was a potentially dangerous shock to another person.

In reality, the shocks were not real and the other individual was only pretending to be hurt by the electrical pulses. But 65% of those who took part in the study delivered the maximum level of shock simply because an authority figure told them to do so.  

Social psychology has continued to grow throughout the twentieth century, inspiring research that has contributed to our understanding of social experience and behavior. Our social world makes up such a tremendous part of our lives, so it is no wonder that this topic is so fascinating to many.

How Social Psychology Differs From Other Disciplines

Social psychology is often confused with folk wisdom, personality psychology , and sociology. Unlike folk wisdom, which relies on anecdotal observations and subjective interpretation, social psychology employs scientific methods and empirical study. Researchers do not make assumptions about how people behave; they devise and carry out experiments that help point out relationships between different variables.

Personality psychology focuses on individual traits, characteristics, and thoughts. Social psychology is focused on situations. Social psychologists are interested in the impact that the social environment and group interactions have on attitudes and behaviors.

Finally, it is important to distinguish between social psychology and sociology. While there are many similarities between the two, sociology tends to look at social behavior and influences at a very broad-based level. Sociologists are interested in the institutions and cultures that influence how people behave.

Psychologists instead focus on situational variables that affect social behavior. While psychology and sociology both study similar topics, they are looking at these questions from different perspectives.

A Word From Verywell

What makes social psychology such an important topic? Social psychologists focus on societal concerns that have a powerful influence on individual well-being as well as the health of society as a whole, including problems such as substance use, crime, prejudice, domestic abuse, public health, bullying, and aggression.

Social psychologists typically do not work directly in the field of mental health, but the results of their research influence how mental health professionals treat behaviors that are influenced by social factors. Public health programs, for example, often rely on persuasion techniques identified by social psychologists to encourage people to engage in healthy behaviors while avoiding potentially dangerous ones.

Uldall BR. Social psychology . In: Runehov ALC, Oviedo L., eds. Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions . New York: Springer; 2013. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8265-8_1047

Knoll LJ, Magis-Weinberg L, Speekenbrink M, Blakemore SJ. Social influence on risk perception during adolescence .  Psychol Sci . 2015;26(5):583-592. doi:10.1177/0956797615569578

Martin J. Ernest Becker and Stanley Milgram: Twentieth-century students of evil . Hist Psychol. 2016;19(1):3-21. doi:10.1037/hop0000016

Milgram S. Behavioral study of obedience .  J Abnorm Psychol . 1963;67(4):371-378. doi:10.1037/h0040525.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Psychology Discussion

Essay on human behaviour: top 5 essays | psychology.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Here is an essay on ‘Human Behaviour’ for class 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on ‘Human Behaviour’ especially written for school and college students.

Essay on Human Behaviour

Essay Contents:

• Essay on the Controversies in the Study of Human Behaviour

1. Essay on the Introduction to Human Behaviour:

After all, Homo sapiens has a science all its own, namely anthropology, and the other “social sciences” are almost exclusively concerned with this one species too. Nevertheless, many animal behaviour researchers, undaunted by all these specialists, have made Homo sapiens one of their study species, a choice justified by the fact that theories and methods developed by students of nonhuman animals can often illuminate human affairs in ways that escape scientists whose training and focus is exclusively anthropocentric.

The continuity of anatomy, physiology, brain, and human behaviour between people and other animals clearly implies that nonhuman research can shed light on human nature. Medical researchers rely on this continuity, using “animal models” whenever human research would be premature, too intrusive, or too risky. The same is true in basic behavioural research.

Consider, for example, the study of hormonal influences on human behaviour. The “activating” effects of circulating steroid hormones on sexual motivation aggression, persistence, and other behavioural phenomena were first established in other species and only then investigated in human beings.

Similarly, non-human research on the “organizing” (developmental) effects of these same gonadal hormones has motivated and guided human research on the behavioural consequences of endocrine disorders. In a more recent example, discoveries concerning the role of androgens in mediating tradeoffs between mating effort and male parental effort in animals with biparental care have inspired studies of the same phenomena in human fathers.

The situation is similar, but much more richly developed, in behavioural neuroscience, where virtually everything now known about the human brain was discovered with crucial inspiration and support from experimental research on homologous structures and processes that serve similar perceptual and cognitive functions in other species.

The fact that Homo sapiens is a member of the animal kingdom also means that it is both possible and enlightening to include our species in comparative analysis. A famous example is the association between testis size and mating systems. If a female mates polyandrously, i.e., with more than one male, and if she does so within a sufficiently short interval, then the different males ejaculates must “compete” for the paternity of her offspring.

Thus, although human testes are smaller than those of the most promiscuous primates, they are nevertheless larger than would be expected under monogamy; this observation has substantially bolstered the notion that ancestral women were not strictly monogamous in their sexual behaviour and hence that selection may have equipped the human female with facultative inclinations to cuckold their primary partners by clandestine adultery, or maintain multiple simultaneous sexual relationships, or both.

These ideas, which run contrary to the previous notion that only males would be expected to possess adaptive tendencies to mate polygamously, have had substantial impact on recent research into women’s sexuality.

2. Essay on the Research of Human Behaviour:

Getting involved in human research appears to be an occupational hazard for animal behaviour researchers. In his 1973 Nobel Prize autobiography, Niko Tinbergen revealed that he had long harbored a “dormant desire to make ethology apply its methods to human behaviour,” a desire that he acted upon, late in his research career, by studying autistic children.

Others made the move earlier in their careers, with greater impact. The British ethologist Nicholas Blurton Jones, one of the founders of “human ethology” and now a major figure in hunter-gatherer studies, did his PhD work on threat displays in the great tit (Parus major) but then began almost immediately to study human children.

He writes: “I studied at Oxford with Niko Tinbergen [who] shared the Nobel Prize with Konrad Lorenz for their demonstration that human behaviour should be studied in the same way as any other feature of an animal – as a product of evolution by natural selection.”

Just as they had done in their studies of other animals, Blurton Jones, Eibl-Eibesfeldt, and others who had begun to call their field of research human ethology initially concentrated on categorizing overt motor patterns and counting how often each behavioural act was executed.

Indeed, other scientists without animal behaviour training were coming to similar views about the need for a more objective observational approach at about this time, and a few even turned to Darwin for inspiration. An interesting example is the work of Paul Ekman, an American psychologist who traveled to highland New Guinea and other remote places to prove that facial expressions of emotion and their interpretations by observers is cross- culturally universal rather than exhibiting arbitrary cultural variation from place to place, as many anthropologists had supposed.

This research program was akin to that of Eibl- Eibesfeldt in its questions, its theoretical foundations, and its results, but perhaps because Ekman was trained in psychology, he was less reluctant than the ethologist to use elicited verbal data as his test of universality.

Of course, one might say that the classical ethological approach has withered in nonhuman research too, with the ascendancy of behavioural ecology, but the hallmark of classical ethology, namely observational study of human behaviour in its natural context, has not been forsaken.

3. Essay on the Uniqueness of Human Behaviour:

Another reason why treating human beings as “just another animal” can be problematic is that in many ways we are very exceptional animals indeed. Although other creatures can learn from conspecifics and may even have local traditions, human cultural transmission and the diversity of practices that it has engendered are unique, and how we should approach the study of human behaviour from an evolutionary adaptationist perspective is therefore controversial.

One approach to the issue of cultural diversity is to attempt to make sense of the distinct practices of people in different parts of the world as representing facultative adaptation to the diversity in local ecological circumstances.

A nice example is provided by demonstrations that cross- cultural variation in the use of spices is partly to be understood as response to variation in local and foodstuff- specific rates at which unrefrigerated foods spoil and in the antimicrobial effectiveness of particular spices.

Presumably, such cultural adaptations are usually the product of an “evolutionary” process that does not entail cumulative change in gene pools but only in socially transmitted information and practices, although there are certainly some cases in which there has been gene-culture coevolution. The best-known example of the coevolution of human genes and human culture concerns the variable prevalence of genes that permit people to digest milk and milk products beyond early childhood.

In populations that lack dairying traditions, most adults are lactose-intolerant and suffer indigestion if they drink milk, because they no longer produce lactase, the enzyme that permits us to metabolize lactose. But in populations with a long history of dairying, genotypes that engender persistent lactase production into adulthood predominate, apparently as a result of natural selection favouring those able to derive nutrition from their herds.

Enlightening as such approaches may be, however, they can never make functional sense of every particular cultural phenomenon, for it is certain that a great deal of cultural variability is functionally arbitrary in its details, and at least a few culturally prescribed practices have disastrous fitness consequences.

A famous example, of such a disastrous cultural practice is the transmission of kuru, a fatal prion- induced brain disease akin to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, among the Fore people of highland New Guinea. Like other prion-induced diseases, kuru is not easily transmitted under most circumstances, but as a result of funerary practices that included intimate handling of corpses and ritual cannibalism of parts of deceased kinsmen, the Fore suffered an epidemic resulting in high levels of mortality.

4. Essay on the Measurement of Human Behaviour

It is true that over the decades psychology has moved towards becoming a quantitative science which tries to introduce measurements with precision and accuracy comparable to measurements in exact sciences such as physics, chemistry, etc. There is no doubt that the acceptance of model of the exact sciences has contributed very much to the growth and development of scientific psychology.

It must be stated that modern psychologists have gone far ahead of other social and behavioural sciences. In fact other social sciences such as sociology and political science have tried to adopt the tools and techniques of psychology for their own research and study.

However, the particular problem of quantifying and measuring behaviour still has its own peculiarities. While we may accept the standards and norms of accuracy and prediction set by the exact sciences, nevertheless, psychologists have had and will have to develop their own approaches to measurement and quantification of behaviour because of the very nature and characteristics of human behaviour.

Some of the peculiarities of human behaviour are given below:

Firstly all types of human behaviour are not explicit or visible. Only some aspects of behaviour are capable of being measured with instruments and gadgets directly. Thus, the inner needs and motives are difficult to measure directly.

Secondly, the individuals themselves would not be willing or ready to reveal certain aspects of human behaviour such as inner conflicts, problems of adjustments etc.

Thirdly the psycho-analytic school demonstrated the importance of unconscious processes which are not open to the awareness of the behaving individuals themselves. Such aspects have to be mostly inferred or measured through indirect methods. Thus, we may broadly categories measurements in psychology into indirect and direct measures.

Early attempts at measurement in psychology were simple and direct and were concerned with those aspects of human behaviour that could be directly measured. Later, with the enthusiasm of psychologists to measure other aspects of human behaviour, indirect approaches were developed.

By and large, sensations, learning, remembering, perception and similar variables are measured through direct means whereas indirect measures are largely used in studying motivational, personality and attitudinal variables.

Most intelligence tests are direct measures of intelligence while all the projective tests are indirect measures. Direct measures have the advantage in that they are simpler or more objective and are easy to handle, whereas indirect measures, to a large extent, depend on the interpretation of the individual’s behaviour and inference based on certain guidelines.

Yet another point that may be borne in mind is that direct measures are largely independent of specific theories of behaviour or personality. In fact, psychologists with different theoretical approaches and biases employed the same direct measures.

Indirect measures are largely associated with specific theories. Thus, projective tests such as the Rorschach test and TAT rest on certain basic assumptions about human behaviour and personality. Therefore, it can be said that direct measures give us measures of behaviour as they occur, while indirect measures give us scores which are arrived at on the basis of inferences and interpretations based on particular theories. Indirect measures are based on particular rationales.

It is also possible to consider psychological measures as empirical measures and rational measures. Empirical measures are based on the occurrence of certain behavioural patterns and are statistically arrived at. They are not based on any theory. Logical measures are based on certain theories. The best instance of convergence of the two traditions is found in the construction of attitude scales.

Errors in Measurement of Human Behaviour:

It is apparent that there are many instances where behavioural measures can be contaminated by errors. The requisites of accuracy, validity and reliability were explained. Naturally, when a number of errors creep in, the characteristics are affected adversely.

Errors in psychological measures are of two types; systematic errors and random errors. Systematic errors are those which occur repeatedly and are constant. For example, if while measuring the intelligence of a person, we employ a test which is too easy, then the individual’s intelligence is overestimated. Such an error is called a systematic error.

On the other hand, even if we employ a proper test and measure the individual’s intelligence on different occasions it is possible that the measured IQ on these different occasions will not be the same. Such variations are occasional examples of random errors which result from factors such as the subject’s mood, motivation, skills of the tests, etc.

Whenever we measure human behaviour we should be aware of the presence of such errors. Systematic errors are avoided by a very careful choice and usage of the test.

Random errors are taken care of by making repeated measurements and taking the average of all these scores. Errors in measurement, therefore, result from the defects in the measuring tools, defects in the measuring conditions and also certain factors in the subject as well as the experimenter.

5. Essay on the Controversies in the Study of Human Behaviour:

There are a number of current controversies in the study of human behaviour from an evolutionary perspective, and most of them closely parallel ongoing controversies in animal behaviour more generally.

One perennial point of discussion is whether measures of reproductive success are essential for testing adaptationist hypotheses. Evolutionary anthropologists who reported that wealth and/or status is positively related to reproductive success in certain societies presented these correlations as testimony to the relevance of Darwinism for the human sciences, and this invited the rejoinder that a failure to find such a correlation in modern industrialized societies must then constitute evidence of Darwinism’s irrelevance.

Anthropologist Donald Symons then entered the fray with a forceful counterargument to the effect that measures of reproductive attainment are virtually useless for testing adaptationist hypotheses, which should instead be tested on the basis of “design” criteria.

These arguments are sometimes read as if the issue applies only to the cultural animal Homo sapiens but, as Thornhill has pointed out, the same debate can be found in the nonhuman literature, with writers like Wade and Reeve and Sherman arguing that fitness consequences provide the best test of adaptationist hypotheses, whereas Thornhill and Williams defend the opposing view.

A related point of contention concerns the characterization of the human behaviour “environment of evolutionary adaptedness” (EEA). This concept is often invoked in attempts to understand the prevalence of some unhealthy or otherwise unfit practice in the modern world, such as damaging levels of consumption of refined sugar or psychoactive drugs.

The point is simply that these substances did not exist in the selective environment that shaped the human adaptations they now exploit, and that this is why we lack defenses against their harmful effects.

Essentially the same point can be made about more benign modern novelties, such as effective contraceptive devices, telephones, and erotica- there is little reason to expect that we will use these inventions in ways that promote our fitness, since they have, in a sense, been designed to “parasitize” our adaptations, and there has not been sufficient time for natural selection to have crafted countermeasures to their effects.

The EEA concept has become controversial because several writers believe that it entails untestable assumptions about the past; presupposes that human evolution stopped in the Pleistocene; and is invoked in a pseudo-explanatory post-hoc fashion to dispose of puzzling failures of adaptation.

Yet it is surely not controversial that a world with novel chemical pollutants, televised violence, internet pornography, and exogenous opiates is very different from that in which the characteristic features of human psychophysiology evolved.

Once again, these debates about the utility of the EEA concept are read as if the issue were peculiar to the human case. But in fact, any adaptation in any species has its “environment of evolutionary adaptedness,” and the notion that some adaptations are tuned to aspects of past environments which no longer exist is as relevant to the behaviour of other animals as it is to our own.

Byers, for example, has argued that various aspects of the human behaviour of the pronghorn, a social ungulate of North American grasslands, can only be understood as adaptations to predators that are now extinct.

Similarly, Coss et al. have demonstrated that California ground squirrels from different populations, none of which presently live in sympatry with rattlesnakes, may or may not exhibit adaptive anti-predator responses to introduced snakes and that the difference reflects how many millennia have passed since the squirrel populations lost contact with the rattlesnakes.

Yet another issue of current controversy concerns the reasons why there is so much genetic diversity affecting behavioural diversity within human populations. Personality dimensions in which there are stable individual differences consistently prove to have heritabilities of around 0.5, which means that about half the variability among individuals in things like extroversion, shyness, and willingness to take risks can be attributed to differences in genotype.

The puzzle is why selection “tolerates” this variability- if selection works by weeding out suboptimal variants and thereby optimizing quantitative traits, how can all this heritable diversity persist? One possibility is that the diversity is a functionless byproduct of the fact that selection on many traits is weak relative to mutation pressure; in finite populations, not all attributes can be optimized by selection simultaneously.

Another possibility is that heritable diversity in personality represents the expression of formerly neutral, variants in evolutionary novel environments. Still another view, argued by Tooby and Cosmides, is that heritable personality diversity is indeed functionless “noise” but is nevertheless maintained by frequency-dependent selection favouring rare genotypes in a never-ending “arms race” with polymorphic rapidly evolving pathogen strains.

Finally, Wilson has defended the possibility that there is a substantial prevalence of adaptive behavioural polymorphisms maintained by selection on the behavioural phenotypes themselves.

The “evolutionarily stable” state in game-theory models of social behaviour is often a mix of different types. If most individuals are honest reciprocators, for example, this creates a niche for exploitative “cheaters” whose success is maximal when they are extremely rare and declines as they become more prevalent.

Once again, this is obviously an issue of relevance in other species as well as human beings, and it is not an easy issue to resolve. However, the right answer will influence how we should look at matters ranging from sexual selection to psychopathology. Gangestad has argued that there is an evolutionarily stable mix of women with distinct sexualities such that some are inclined to long-term monogamy and others are not.

Lalumière et al. present evidence that “psychopaths,” socially exploitative people who are lacking in empathy for others, are not suffering from pathology but are instead a discrete type of person that is maintained at low frequencies by selection. How such ideas will fare in the light of future theorizing and research is an open question.

Related Articles:

• Essay on Stress: Top 7 Essays | Human Behaviour | Psychology
• Essay on Motivation: Top 9 Essays | Human Behaviour | Psychology
• Essay on Attitude: Top 8 Essays | Human Behaviour | Psychology
• Essay on Parenting: Top 5 Essays | Human Behaviour | Psychology

Essay , Psychology , Human Behaviour , Essay on Human Behaviour

Essay On Social Issues

500 words essay on social issues.

Social Issues is an undesirable state which opposes society or a certain part of society. It refers to an unwanted situation that frequently results in problems and continues to harm society . Social issues can cause a lot of problems that can be beyond the control of just one person. Through an essay on social issues, we will learn why they are harmful and what types of social issues we face.

Drawbacks of Social Issues

Social issues have a lot of drawbacks that harms our society. They are situations that have an adverse and damaging result on our society. They arise when the public leaves nature or society from an ideal situation.

If you look closely, you will realize that almost all types of social issues have common origins. In the sense that they all are interconnected somehow. Meaning to say, if one solves the other one is also most likely to resolve.

Social issues have a massive lousy effect on our society and ultimately, it affects all of us. In order to solve some social issues, we need a common approach. No society is free from social issues, almost every one of them has some social issue or the other.

For instance, in India, you will find a lot of social issues which the country is facing. It ranges from the caste system to child labour and gender inequality to religious conflicts. Thus, we are going through a critical time where we all must come together to free our society from undesirable social evils.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Major Social Issues

There are a lot of social issues we are facing right now, some more prominent than the others. First of all, poverty is a worldwide issue. It gives birth to a lot of other social issues which we must try to get away with at the earliest.

Further, countries like India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and more are facing the issue of the caste system since times unknown. It results in a lot of caste violence and inequality which takes the lives of many on a daily basis.

Moreover, child labour is another major social issue that damages the lives of young children. Similarly, illiteracy also ruins the lives of many by destroying their chances of a bright future.

In developing countries mostly, child marriage still exists and is responsible for ruining many lives. Similarly, dowry is a very serious and common social issue that almost all classes of people partake in.

Another prominent social issue is gender inequality which takes away many opportunities from deserving people. Domestic violence especially against women is a serious social issue we must all fight against.

Other social issues include starvation, child sex abuse, religious conflicts, child trafficking, terrorism , overpopulation, untouchability, communalism and many more. It is high time we end these social issues.

Conclusion of the Essay on Social Issues

A society can successfully end social issues if they become adamant. These social issues act as a barrier to the progress of society. Thus, we must all come together to fight against them and put them to an end for the greater good.

FAQ on Essay on Social Issues

Question 1: What is the meaning of social problem?

Answer 1: A social problem refers to any condition or behaviour which has a negative impact on a large number of people. It is normally recognized as a condition or behaviour that needs to be addressed.

Question 2: What are the effects of social issues?

Answer 2: Social issues affect our society adversely. Most importantly, it disturbs the harmony of society and gives rise to hostility and suspicion. Moreover, it creates large-scale social dissatisfaction, suffering and misery.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 30 April 2020

Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response

• Jay J. Van Bavel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2520-0442 1 ,
• Katherine Baicker   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5960-3058 2 ,
• Paulo S. Boggio   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6109-0447 3 ,
• Valerio Capraro 4 ,
• Aleksandra Cichocka   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1703-1586 5 , 6 ,
• Mina Cikara   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6612-4474 7 ,
• Molly J. Crockett   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8800-410X 8 ,
• Alia J. Crum 9 ,
• Karen M. Douglas   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0381-6924 5 ,
• James N. Druckman 10 ,
• John Drury   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7748-5128 11 ,
• Oeindrila Dube 2 ,
• Naomi Ellemers 12 ,
• Eli J. Finkel 13 ,
• James H. Fowler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7795-1638 14 ,
• Michele Gelfand   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9780-9230 15 ,
• Shihui Han   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3350-5104 16 ,
• S. Alexander Haslam   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9523-7921 17 ,
• Jolanda Jetten   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7588-5355 18 ,
• Shinobu Kitayama   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9147-7936 19 ,
• Dean Mobbs   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1175-3772 20 ,
• Lucy E. Napper 21 ,
• Dominic J. Packer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8420-6548 22 ,
• Gordon Pennycook   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1344-6143 23 ,
• Ellen Peters   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0702-6169 24 ,
• Richard E. Petty   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2870-8575 25 ,
• David G. Rand   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8975-2783 26 ,
• Stephen D. Reicher 27 ,
• Simone Schnall   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4672-7534 28 , 29 ,
• Azim Shariff   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4444-460X 30 ,
• Linda J. Skitka 31 ,
• Sandra Susan Smith 32 ,
• Cass R. Sunstein   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4194-3008 33 ,
• Nassim Tabri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7085-9350 34 ,
• Joshua A. Tucker   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1321-8650 35 ,
• Sander van der Linden   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0269-1744 28 ,
• Paul van Lange 36 ,
• Kim A. Weeden   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9975-8457 37 ,
• Michael J. A. Wohl   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6945-5562 34 ,
• Jamil Zaki 9 ,
• Sean R. Zion   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0802-2066 9 &
• Robb Willer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3404-6472 38  

Nature Human Behaviour volume  4 ,  pages 460–471 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

687k Accesses

2908 Citations

3262 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behaviour with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.

Similar content being viewed by others

Social and moral psychology of COVID-19 across 69 countries

COVIDiSTRESS diverse dataset on psychological and behavioural outcomes one year into the COVID-19 pandemic

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

In December 2019, a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) emerged, sparking an epidemic of acute respiratory syndrome (COVID-19) in humans, centred in Wuhan, China 1 . Within three months, the virus had spread to more than 118,000 cases and caused 4,291 deaths in 114 countries, leading the World Health Organization to declare a global pandemic. The pandemic has led to a massive global public health campaign to slow the spread of the virus by increasing hand washing, reducing face touching, wearing masks in public and physical distancing.

While efforts to develop pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19 are under way, the social and behavioural sciences can provide valuable insights for managing the pandemic and its impacts. We discuss topics that are broadly relevant to numerous stages of the current pandemic to help policy-makers, leaders and the public better understand how to manage threats, navigate different social and cultural contexts, improve science communication, align individual and collective interests, employ effective leadership and provide social and emotional support (see Fig. 1 for summary). For each area, we highlight relevant insights, discuss implications for policy makers, leaders and the public (Box 1 ) and note areas for future research.

Infographic depicting a selection of topics from the social and behavioural sciences relevant during a pandemic. Topics covered here include threat perception, social context, science communication, individual and collective interests, leadership, and stress and coping.

Due to space constraints, this paper provides a brief summary of each topic. Research topics discussed here were identified by the corresponding authors as potentially relevant to pandemic response and thus are not exhaustive (for a review of research on specific actions, such as handwashing, face-touching and self-isolation, see ref. 2 ). Furthermore, research on these topics is ongoing and, in many cases, far from settled. We have highlighted relevant findings in each area as well as critical gaps in the literature. Insights and implications for policy should be interpreted with caution because there is very little published social science research on the current pandemic. Thus, our discussion often draws from different circumstances than the current pandemic (for example, laboratory experiments examining hypothetical scenarios), and the quality of the evidence cited varies substantially (for example, correlational studies vs field experiments; single studies vs systematic reviews of substantial evidence). In the sections that follow, we try to describe the quality of evidence to facilitate careful, critical engagement by readers. We call for the scientific community to mobilize rapidly to produce research to directly inform policy and individual and collective behaviour in response to the pandemic.

Threat perception

Historically, infectious diseases have been responsible for the greatest human death tolls. For example, the bubonic plague killed approximately 25% of the European population 3 . In this section, we discuss how people are likely to perceive and respond to threats and risk during a pandemic and downstream consequences for decision-making and intergroup relations.

Box 1 Social scientific insights for COVID-19 pandemic response

We highlight some insights for public health experts, policy makers, and community leaders.

A shared sense of identity or purpose can be encouraged by addressing the public in collective terms and by urging ‘us’ to act for the common good.

Identifying sources (for example, religious or community leaders) that are credible to different audiences to share public health messages can be effective.

Leaders and the media might try to promote cooperative behaviour by emphasizing that cooperating is the right thing to do and that other people are already cooperating.

Norms of prosocial behaviour are more effective when coupled with the expectation of social approval and modelled by in-group members who are central in social networks.

Leaders and members of the media should highlight bipartisan support for COVID-related measures, when they exist, as such endorsements in other contexts have reduced polarization and led to less-biased reasoning.

There is a need for more targeted public health information within marginalized communities and for partnerships between public health authorities and trusted organizations that are internal to these communities.

Messages that (i) emphasize benefits to the recipient, (ii) focus on protecting others, (iii) align with the recipient’s moral values, (iv) appeal to social consensus or scientific norms and/or (v) highlight the prospect of social group approval tend to be persuasive.

Given the importance of slowing infections, it may be helpful to make people aware that they benefit from others’ access to preventative measures.

Preparing people for misinformation and ensuring they have accurate information and counterarguments against false information before they encounter conspiracy theories, fake news, or other forms of misinformation, can help inoculate them against false information.

Use of the term ‘social distancing’ might imply that one needs to cut off meaningful interactions. A preferable term is ‘physical distancing’, because it allows for the fact that social connection is possible even when people are physically separated.

One of the central emotional responses during a pandemic is fear. Humans, like other animals, possess a set of defensive systems for combating ecological threats 4 , 5 . Negative emotions resulting from threat can be contagious 6 , and fear can make threats appear more imminent 7 . A meta-analysis found that targeting fears can be useful in some situations, but not others: appealing to fear leads people to change their behaviour if they feel capable of dealing with the threat, but leads to defensive reactions when they feel helpless to act 8 . The results suggest that strong fear appeals produce the greatest behaviour change only when people feel a sense of efficacy, whereas strong fear appeals with low-efficacy messages produce the greatest levels of defensive responses.

Another challenge is that people often exhibit an ‘optimism bias’: the belief that bad things are less likely to befall oneself than others. While optimism bias may be useful for avoiding negative emotions 9 , it can lead people to underestimate their likelihood of contracting a disease 10 and to therefore ignore public health warnings 11 . Communication strategies must strike a balance between breaking through optimism bias without inducing excessive feelings of anxiety and dread.

Emotion and risk perception

Sound health decisions depend on accurate perceptions of the costs and benefits of certain choices for oneself and for society 12 , 13 . Emotions often drive risk perceptions, sometimes more so than factual information 14 , 15 . An emotional response to a risky situation can influence thinking in two stages 16 . First, the emotion’s quality (for example, positive vs negative) focuses people on congruent information (for example, negative information when feeling negative). That information, rather than the feeling itself, is then used to guide judgment at the second stage. For example, smokers exposed to more negative emotional health warnings experienced more negative emotion toward warnings and smoking, spent more time examining warnings and recalled more risks, with subsequent effects on risk perception and quitting intentions 17 , 18 . As negative emotions increase, people may rely on negative information about COVID-19 more than other information to make decisions.

In the case of strong emotional reactions, people may also ignore important numeric information such as probabilities 19 and a problem’s scope 20 . Negative framing captures attention, especially for people who are less mathematically skilled 21 . The media usually report on COVID-19 negatively—for example, by reporting the number of people infected and those who die—as opposed to those who recover or experience only mild symptoms. This may increase negative emotion and sensitize people to otherwise neglected risks for themselves or others. Research is needed to determine whether a more positive frame could educate the public and relieve negative emotions while increasing public health behaviours.

Prejudice and discrimination

The experience of fear and threat has ramifications not only for how people think about themselves, but also how they feel about and react to others—in particular, out-groups. For instance, being threatened with disease is often associated with higher levels of ethnocentrism 22 ; greater fear and perceived threat are associated with greater intolerance and punitive attitudes toward out-groups 23 , 24 , 25 . Highlighting group boundaries can undermine empathy with those who are socially distant 26 , 27 and increase dehumanization 28 or punishment 29 .

The bubonic plague, for example, unleashed massive violence in Europe, including the murder of Catalans in Sicily, clerics and beggars in some locations, and pogroms against Jews, with over a thousand communities eradicated 30 . Although not every pandemic leads to violence, disease threat can nonetheless give rise to discrimination and violence against stigmatized or scapegoated groups. Already, there have been reports of physical attacks on ethnic Asian people in predominantly White countries, and some government officials mis-characterize SARS-CoV-2 as the ‘Wuhan’ or ‘Chinese virus’ 31 .

Conversely, a global pandemic may also create opportunities to reduce religious and ethnic prejudice. Coordinated efforts across individuals, communities and governments to fight the spread of disease can send strong signals of cooperation and shared values, which could facilitate reorganization of previously considered out-groups and in-groups into a single community with a common destiny. This ‘superordinate categorization’ is most effective when everyone is of equal status 32 . These cooperative acts are already unfolding in the current pandemic. For example, 21 countries donated medical supplies to China in February, and China has reciprocated widely. Highlighting events like these could improve out-group attitudes 33 and foster further international cooperation.

Disaster and ‘panic’

There is a common belief in popular culture that, when in peril, people panic, especially when in crowds. That is, they act blindly and excessively out of self-preservation, potentially endangering the survival of all 34 . This idea has been used to explain responses to the current COVID-19 outbreak, most commonly in relation to the notion of ‘panic buying’. However, close inspection of what happens in disasters reveals a different picture. Certainly, some people do act selfishly and some, especially those who are particularly vulnerable, may experience more distress. But cooperation and orderly, norm-governed behaviour are common across a range of emergencies and disasters; and there are many instances when people display remarkable altruism 35 . There is already evidence that mutual aid groups among the public have become widespread in response to Covid-19 36 . Indeed, in fires 37 and other natural hazards 38 , people are less likely to die from over-reaction than from under-reaction, that is, not responding to signs of danger until it is too late.

In fact, the concept of ‘panic’ has largely been abandoned by researchers because it neither describes nor explains what people usually do in disaster 39 . Instead, the focus has shifted to the factors that explain why people cooperate rather than compete in response to a crisis 35 . One of these factors is an emerging sense of shared identity and concern for others, which arises from the shared experience of being in a disaster 40 . This feeling can be harnessed by addressing the public in collective terms and by urging ‘us’ to act for the common good 41 .

Conversely, the sense of shared identity can be undermined by representing others as competitors. This can happen with images of empty shelves and stories of panic buying, which suggest that others are only looking out for themselves, thus prompting a desire for doing the same. Stocking up on supplies is adaptive in preparation for potential self-isolation 42 . However, use of the notion of panic can be actively harmful. News stories that employ the language of panic often create the very phenomena that they purport to condemn. They can foster the very individualism and competitiveness that turns sensible preparations into dysfunctional stockpiling and undermine the sense of collective purpose which facilitates people supporting one another during an emergency.

Social context

Slowing viral transmission during pandemics requires significant shifts in behaviour. Various aspects of social and cultural contexts influence the extent and speed of behaviour change. In this section, we describe how aspects of the social context, such as social norms, social inequality, culture and polarization, may help decision-makers identify risk factors and effectively intervene.

Social norms

People’s behaviour is influenced by social norms: what they perceive that others are doing or what they think that others approve or disapprove of 43 . A large literature has distinguished different motives for conformity to norms, including the desire to learn from other people and to gain affiliation or social approval 43 , 44 . Although people are influenced by norms, their perceptions are often inaccurate 45 . For example, people can underestimate health-promoting behaviours (for example, hand washing 46 ) and overestimate unhealthy behaviors 47 .

Changing behaviours by correcting such misperceptions can be achieved by public messages reinforcing positive (for example, health-promoting) norms. Providing accurate information about what most people are doing is likely to be helpful if what most people are doing is desirable (health-promoting). But if what most people are doing is not desirable, providing purely descriptive normative information can backfire by reducing positive behaviours among people who already engage in them, unless it is accompanied by information signalling that most people approve of these actions (prescriptive as opposed to descriptive norms) 48 , 49 . Perceived norms are also most influential when specific to others with whom common identities are shared 50 , including for the spread of health behaviors 51 . Therefore, messages that provide in-group models for norms (for example, members of your community) may therefore be most effective.

Social networks can amplify the spread of behaviours that are both harmful and beneficial during an epidemic, and these effects may spread through the network to friends, friends’ friends and even friends’ friends’ friends 52 . The virus itself spreads from person to person, and since people centrally located in networks come into contact with more people, they are often among the first to be infected 53 . But these very same central people may be instrumental in slowing the disease because they can spread positive interventions like hand washing and physical distancing by demonstrating them to a wide range of people 54 . Some research suggests that a larger proportion of interventions can come not from direct effects on people who receive the intervention, but from indirect effects on their social contacts who copied the behavior 55 . We may therefore leverage the impact of any behaviour change effort by targeting well-connected individuals and making their behaviour change visible and salient to others.

Another way to leverage the impact of norms falls under the general category of ‘nudges’ 56 , 57 , which influence behaviour through modification of choice architecture (i.e., the contexts in which people make decisions). Because people are highly reactive to the choices made by others, especially trusted others, an understanding of social norms that are seen as new or emerging can have a positive impact on behavior 58 . For instance, a message with compelling social norms might say, ‘the overwhelming majority of people in your community believe that everyone should stay home’. Nudges and normative information can be an alternative to more coercive means of behaviour change or used to complement regulatory, legal and other imposed policies when widespread changes must occur rapidly.

Social inequality

Inequalities in access to resources affect not only who is at greatest risk of infection, developing symptoms or succumbing to the disease, but also who is able to adopt recommendations to slow the spread of the disease. The homeless cannot shelter in place 59 , families in housing without running water cannot wash their hands frequently 60 , people who are detained by a state (for example, in jails, prisons, immigrant detention centres or refugee camps) may lack space to implement physical distancing, people without health insurance may delay or avoid seeking testing or treatment, people who rely on public transportation cannot always avoid large crowds and low-wage workers are often in occupations (for example, service, retail, cleaning, agricultural labour) where remote work is impossible and employers do not offer paid sick leave 61 . Economic disadvantage is also associated with the pre-existing conditions associated with higher morbidity rates once infected, such as compromised immune systems, diabetes, heart disease and chronic lung diseases like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 62 . We expect that, as in natural hazards, the economically disadvantaged will be most likely to be exposed to the hazard, most susceptible to harm from it and most likely to experience negative outcomes from it 63 , 64 .

Issues of economic disadvantage intersect with issues of race and ethnicity. Members of minority communities (such as blacks, Latinos and American Indians/Alaska Natives in the US) are disproportionately found among the homeless 59 , the detained, the workers in high public contact but low-benefit occupations 65 , and those with prior health conditions that make them more vulnerable 66 , 67 . Because social networks tend to be racially differentiated 68 , members of minority communities who contract the disease may become vectors of transmission to others in their racial and ethnic communities 69 .

Economic position and racial inequality are also associated with levels of trust in social institutions, including the healthcare system. Racial and ethnic minority communities, in particular, have both historical and contemporary experiences of discrimination, leading to distrust 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 . Members of these communities may be more likely to be wary about the public health information they receive, less willing to adopt recommended safety measures and potentially more susceptible to ‘fake news’. This suggests the need for more targeted public health information and for partnerships between public health authorities and trusted organizations that are internal to these communities.

A sense of the self as independent versus interdependent with others is a dimension of cultural variation 75 . Western European and North American cultures that endorse individualism 76 are considered independent, whereas most other cultures share a stronger commitment to collectives such as country, tribe and family and are considered interdependent 77 , 78 . While medical policies are different across societies, some differences in the response to the pandemic may be better described as cultural, and many of those have a linkage to the dimension of independence vs interdependence. First, the priority given to obligations and duties in Asian societies may motivate individuals to remain committed to social norms while suppressing personal desires 79 . Second, Asians may more readily recognize unobservable situational influences on viral infection, like herd immunity 80 . Third, social norms and conventions in North America and much of Western Europe tend to positively value the expressivity of the self (for example, kissing, hugging, direct argumentation), relative to Asia 81 . This is another reason why interpersonal transmission of the virus could be more likely in independent cultures than in interdependent cultures.

Another, related, dimension of cultural variance is a society’s ‘tightness’ vs ‘looseness’. Research has found that tight cultures, such as those of Singapore, Japan and China, have strict social norms and punishments for deviance, while loose cultures, such as the US, Italy and Brazil, have weaker social norms and are more permissive 82 , 83 . Tight nations often have extensive historical and ecological threats, including greater historical prevalence of natural hazards, invasions, population density and pathogen outbreaks 82 , 84 . From an evolutionary perspective, when groups experience collective threats, strict rules may help them to coordinate to survive 82 , 85 . Therefore, the spread of COVID-19 infections may tighten communities. Cultures accustomed to prioritizing freedom over security may also have more difficulty coordinating in the face of a pandemic. It may also be relevant that communities negotiate social norms so that there is a balance between freedom and constraint, or ‘tight–loose ambidexterity’ 86 . Tight rules regarding social distancing are critical, yet looseness within these constraints may also help to spawn the development of creative technical solutions that are needed to contain the pandemic, as well as creating novel tools to help people feel connected. The cumulative evidence here suggests that very different strategies might be called for in varying cultural contexts in the fight against COVID-19.

Political polarization

One cultural barrier for coordinated action within countries is political polarization. Polarization among citizens comes in two varieties. ‘Attitudinal polarization’ concerns partisans taking extreme opposing issue positions, whereas ‘affective polarization’ refers to partisans disliking and distrusting those from the opposing party(ies) 87 , 88 . Affective polarization has political consequences, such as decreasing trust 89 , privileging partisan labels over policy information 90 and believing false information 91 , that can undermine social and economic relationships 88 and impair public health.

One issue with polarization during a pandemic is that it might lead different segments of the population to arrive at different conclusions about the threat in the situation and appropriate actions. Partisans may receive different news because individuals can self-select polarized news sources or partisan ‘echo chambers’ 92 , 93 or can communicate in ways that are associated with less cross-partisan information sharing 94 . But in-person political interactions can provide more opportunity for cross-partisan communication 95 (that produce a shared understanding). The decrease in in-person contact due to COVID-19 may reduce cross-partisan interactions and information sharing.

However, there are actionable steps that could reduce polarization. First, the pandemic not only highlights a common identity with individuals all facing the same risk, but could also foster a sense of shared fate. By highlighting an overarching identity, politicians, the media and opinion leaders could help reduce political division around the issue. Second, a growing body of work shows that misperceptions of the other side underlie polarization 96 , 97 . Therefore, it is likely important to combat misinformation that could generate partisan motivated reasoning and inaccurate beliefs (see “Fake news and misinformation” below). Finally, leaders can highlight bipartisan support for COVID-19-related measures, when they exist, as such endorsements in other contexts have reduced polarization and led to less biased reasoning 98 .

Science communication

The information environment around a pandemic underscores the importance of effective science communication. The COVID-19 pandemic has already seen a rise in conspiracy theories, fake news and misinformation 99 . In this context, it is hard for the public to distinguish scientific evidence and facts from less reliable sources of information. In this section, we discuss the challenges associated with different forms of misinformation during a pandemic, as well as strategies for engaging in effective science communication and persuasion around public health.

Conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories emerged shortly after the first news of COVID-19 and have continued to persist 99 . Some concerned the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for example, that it was a bioweapon created by the Chinese to wage war on the US or vice versa 100 . Others focused on prevention and cure, for instance, that conventional medical treatment should not be trusted and that people should use alternative remedies to ward off the virus 101 . It is not surprising that conspiracy theories have flourished at this time. Research suggests that people feel the need to explain large events with proportionally large causes 102 and are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories about events with serious consequences 103 and in times of crisis 104 . This is likely because people are more drawn to conspiracy theories when important psychological needs are frustrated 105 . Thus, conspiracy theories may gain more traction as COVID-19 spreads and more people isolate themselves 106 .

These conspiracy theories can have harmful consequences. For example, belief in conspiracy theories has been linked to vaccine hesitancy 107 , climate denial 108 , extremist political views 109 and prejudice 110 , 111 . COVID-19 conspiracy theories may be similarly problematic. For instance, people who believe that alternative remedies can help them fight off the virus may be less likely to follow health officials’ advice and instead opt for less effective (at best) or lethal (at worst) alternatives. Conspiracy beliefs may also fuel hostility toward groups seen as responsible for the virus 112 . Some evidence suggests that giving people factual information before exposure to conspiracy theories can reduce conspiracy theory beliefs 113 , and this strategy might work in efforts to combat conspiracy theories relevant to the current pandemic (see "Fake news and misinformation" below for similar findings). However, because some people tend to consume information within like-minded ‘echo chambers’, combating conspiracy theories remains a challenge 114 .

Fake news and misinformation

Fake news and misinformation about COVID-19 have proliferated widely on social media, with potentially dangerous consequences 115 . Emerging research is using social science to understand and counter the spread of fake news 116 , 117 , 118 . One approach is to debunk using fact-checking and correction 119 , 120 , 121 . Source expertise, co-partisanship, exposing denial, and corrections that provide causal explanations all tend to increase the effectiveness of countering misinformation 122 , 123 , 124 . However, fact-checking may not keep up with the vast amount of false information produced in times of crisis like a pandemic. Moreover, there is mixed research regarding whether corrections may actually increase belief in the original misinformation 121 , 124 , 125 , 126 or in other misleading claims that fail to get corrected 127 . Thus, other approaches beyond debunking are needed.

One ‘prebunking’ approach involves psychological inoculation 128 , 129 . Inoculation follows the biomedical analogy: people are exposed to a severely weakened dose of a persuasive argument, strong enough to trigger the immune system but not so strong as to overwhelm it. A meta-analysis has found inoculation effective in protecting attitudes from persuasion 130 . The fake news game Bad News is a real-world inoculation intervention ( https://www.getbadnews.com ) used by schools and governments that finds that pre-emptively exposing people to small doses of misinformation techniques (including scenarios about COVID-19) can reduce susceptibility to fake news 131 , 132 and could be embedded directly on social media platforms 133 .

Another preventative approach involves subtle prompts that nudge people to consider accuracy. Evidence suggests that deliberation is associated with 134 , 135 , 136 and causes 137 reduced belief in false news headlines that circulated on social media. Platforms could nudge users to think about accuracy by, for example, periodically asking users to rate the accuracy of randomly selected posts. The crowdsourced accuracy ratings generated by this process may also be useful for identifying misinformation, as has been found for crowd ratings of source trustworthiness 138 , 139 .

To effectively counter fake news about COVID-19 around the world, governments and social media companies must rigorously develop and test interventions. This includes identifying treatments that effectively reduce belief in misinformation, while not undermining belief in accurate information 140 .

In the domain of science communication, scholars have explored a host of messaging approaches, including providing information in evidence-based ways that increase understanding and action 141 . Decades of research has found that, whether recipients are motivated to think carefully or not 142 , sources perceived as credible are more persuasive 143 . The credibility of sources stems from how trustworthy and expert they are perceived to be 144 . Enlisting trusted voices has been shown to make public health messages more effective in changing behaviour during epidemics. During the West African Ebola crisis, for example, religious leaders across faiths in Sierra Leone advocated for practices such as handwashing and safe burials. The engagement of the faith-based sector was considered a turning point in the epidemic response 145 . Therefore, finding credible sources for different audiences who are able to share public health messages might prove effective.

Once a credible source is identified, what message should be delivered? Several messaging approaches may be effective, including emphasizing the benefits to the recipient 146 , focusing on protecting others (for example, ‘wash your hands to protect your parents and grandparents’ 147 ), aligning with the recipient’s moral values 148 , appealing to social consensus or scientific norms 149 , 150 , 151 and/or highlighting social group approval 152 , 153 . Which of these messages work best depends on the audience’s motivations 154 . Beyond finding effective messages for attitude change is the issue of inducing behavioural change. This occurs when people feel confident about their attitudes 155 . Methods to increase certainty include helping people feel knowledgeable about their new attitude 156 and making them feel that their new attitude is the ‘moral’ one to have 157 . It may therefore be useful to identify which messages work best on which populations not only to generate policy support but also to ensure individuals’ actions needed to combat the spread of the virus.

Aligning individual and collective interests

The behaviour of individuals living in communities is regulated by moral norms and values 158 , 159 , 160 , 161 , 162 . People who do what is ‘right’ are respected and publicly admired, while those who do what is ‘wrong’ are devalued and socially excluded 163 . These mechanisms of social enforcement encourage people to embrace and internalize shared guidelines, making them motivated to do what is considered right while avoiding behaviours that seem wrong 164 , and do not rely on legal agreements and formal sanctions 165 . In this section, we consider how research on morality and cooperation can encourage prosocial behaviours by individuals and groups.

Zero-sum thinking

People often default to thinking that someone else’s gain—especially someone from a competing group—necessitates a loss to themselves, and vice versa 166 , 167 . Zero-sum thinking fits uneasily with the non-zero-sum nature of pandemic infection, where someone else’s infection is a threat to oneself and everyone else 168 . Zero-sum thinking means that while it might be psychologically compelling to hoard protective materials (sanitizer, masks, even vaccines) beyond what is necessary, doing so could be self-defeating. Given the importance of slowing infections, it may be helpful to make people aware that others’ access to preventative measures is a benefit to oneself.

Whereas reducing infections across the population is non-zero-sum, the provision of scarce health care resources to the infected does have zero-sum elements. For example, when the number of patients needing ventilators exceeds capacity, health care providers are often forced to make life-for-life trade-offs. How well the policies enacted match the local norms can help determine how much support they receive. While some people are willing to sacrifice the elderly to save the young 169 , there are cultural differences on this preference 170 . Who is perceived to be making those decisions may also impact the public’s and patients’ trust. In experiments, people who make utilitarian judgments about matters of life and death are less trusted 171 . American’s trust in medical doctors remains high 172 , and compared to public health officials, doctors are less utilitarian in their ethical decision-making, opting instead for deontic ‘do no harm’ rules 173 . As such, it may be best to have decisions behind life-for-life trade-offs perceived as systematic and coming from governmental agencies rather than from physicians themselves.

Moral decision-making

Moral decision-making during a pandemic involves uncertainty. It’s not certain whether social interactions will infect others. People may be less willing to make sacrifices for others when the benefits are uncertain 174 , 175 . For instance, in hypothetical scenarios about deciding whether to go to work while sick, American and British participants reported they would be less willing to stay home when it was uncertain they would infect a co-worker. However, when going to work risked infecting an elderly co-worker who would suffer a serious illness, participants reported they would be more willing to stay home 176 . Thus, focusing on worst-case scenarios, even if they are uncertain, may encourage people to make sacrifices for others.

When people make moral decisions, they often consider how others would judge them for behaving selfishly 177 , 178 . Harmful actions are judged more harshly than harmful inactions 179 , 180 , and causing harm by deviating from the status quo is blamed more than harming by default 181 , 182 . Therefore, reframing decisions to carry on with ‘business as usual’ during a pandemic as active decisions, rather than passive or default decisions, may make such behaviours less acceptable.

Cooperation within groups

Fighting a global pandemic requires large-scale cooperation. The problem is that, by definition, cooperation requires people to bear an individual cost to benefit other people 183 . In particular, there is a conflict between short-term self-interest vs longer-term collective interest 184 . Moreover, in this pandemic, there are several collectives (for example, family, community, national and international) which can make decisions to cooperate challenging. From an evolutionary perspective, extending self-interest to protect and promote the welfare of family members should be a small step, as it increases genetic fitness. Indeed, laboratory research has found that people prioritize local over global (or international) interests 185 , 186 . One major question, then, is how to promote cooperation.

Several techniques, such as sanctioning defectors 187 or rewarding cooperators 188 , tend to increase cooperative behaviour in laboratory experiments using economic games. Providing cues that make the morality of an action salient (such as having people read the Golden Rule before making a decision or asking them to report what they think is the morally right thing to do) have also been shown to increase cooperation 189 , 190 . People are also more likely to cooperate when they believe that others are cooperating 191 . Accordingly, interventions based on observability and descriptive norms are highly effective at increasing cooperative behaviour in economic games as well as in the field 192 . This suggests that leaders and the media can promote cooperation by making these behaviours more observable.

Crises like the COVID-19 pandemic create an opportunity for leadership across groups of varying levels: families, workplaces, local communities and nations. Leadership can coordinate individuals and help them avoid behaviours that are no longer considered socially responsible. In this section, we discuss the roles of trust and compliance with leaders, effective identity leadership and supporting group members.

Trust and compliance

During a pandemic, health officials often need to persuade the population to make a number of behaviour changes and follow health policies aimed at containment—e.g., honouring quarantine or reporting voluntarily for medical testing. By their nature and the scope of the population, such measures can be difficult to enforce. Research from the West Africa Ebola crisis of 2014–2015 suggests that enlisting local voices to help build engagement and trust in health officials can increase the success of such public health measures. For instance, specialized Ebola treatment facilities that employed community liaisons and social mobilizers to raise awareness and resolve misconceptions were associated with increases in reporting Ebola cases 193 . Correlational evidence from Liberia also suggests that explicit government efforts to reach out to the population, like door-to-door canvassing, are associated with compliance with crisis management policies like bans on gatherings 194 .

Trust in institutions and governments also may play an important role. For example, trust in the Liberian government was correlated with decisions to abide by mandated social distancing policies 195 and using clinics for care during the Ebola outbreak 196 . Trust was also related to decisions to adopt preventive measures such as Ebola vaccinations in the Democratic Republic of Congo 197 . Conversely, a lack of trust in public health officials may lead to negative effects on utilization of health services 198 . Reliable information and public health messages are needed from national leaders and central health officials. But local voices can amplify these messages and help build the trust that is needed to spur behavioural change.

Identity leadership

Experimental studies clarify what leaders can do to promote trust leading to cooperation. A priority for leaders is to create a sense of shared social identity amongst their followers 199 . A large body of research suggests that people tend to prefer leaders who cultivate a sense that ‘we are all in this together’ 200 . In part, such leadership gives people a sense of collective self-efficacy and hope 201 . More importantly, though, it provides a psychological platform for group members to coordinate efforts to tackle stressors 202 . Without leadership, there is a risk that people will avoid acts of citizenship and instead embrace a philosophy of ‘everyone for themselves’.

Leaders who are seen as prototypical of the group (‘one of us’) and as acting for the interest of the group as a whole (‘working for us’), rather than for themselves or for another group, tend to gain greater influence 203 , 204 . Actions that divide the leader from followers or that suggest that the leader is not prepared to share the burdens of followers can be corrosive to their ability to shape followers’ behaviour 205 . For instance, leaders who threaten people with sanctions as a way to deter undesired behaviour may make people feel distrusted and paradoxically reduce their willingness to do as they are told 206 . Leaders and authorities who treat people with respect, and who communicate that they trust people to do as they are told, tend to be more successful in eliciting cooperation 207 .

Elevating the in-group without demeaning others

Building a strong sense of shared social identity can help coordinate efforts to manage threats 202 and foster in-group commitment and adherence to norms 208 . Leaders can do this, for instance, by being a source of ‘moral elevation’. Visibly displaying prosocial and selfless acts can prompt observers to also act with kindness and generosity themselves 209 . In this way, leaders can function as role models and motivate people to put their own values into action 210 , 211 . Having respected politicians, celebrities and community leaders model exemplary behaviour and sacrifice could help promote prosocial behaviour and cooperation.

Excessive efforts to foster a sense of national unity by promoting the image of the nation as handling the situation exceptionally well can backfire, especially if there is no objective basis for this. An inflated belief in national greatness (i.e., ‘collective narcissism’ 212 ) can be maladaptive in a number of ways. For instance, it is associated with a greater focus on defending the image of the country than on caring for its citizens 213 , 214 . It is also correlated with seeing out-groups as a threat and blaming them for in-group misfortunes 215 . To increase people’s willingness to take a pandemic seriously and engage with other nations to defeat it, citizens and leaders may need to accept that their country is at risk, just like others, and find ways to share resources and expertise across national boundaries.

Stress and coping

Even for households free from the virus, the pandemic is likely to function as a major stressor, especially in terms of chronic anxiety and economic difficulties. Such effects may be exacerbated by self-isolation policies that can increase social isolation and relationship difficulties. In this section, we consider some strategies to mitigate the virus-linked threats to social connection, intimate relationships and stress.

Social isolation and connection

In the absence of a vaccine, one of the most vital strategies for slowing the pandemic is social distancing. However, distancing clashes with the deep-seated human instinct to connect with others 216 . Social connection helps people regulate emotions, cope with stress and remain resilient during difficult times 217 , 218 , 219 , 220 . By contrast, loneliness and social isolation worsen the burden of stress and often produce deleterious effects on mental, cardiovascular and immune health 221 , 222 . Older adults, who are at the greatest risk of severe symptoms from COVID-19, are also highly susceptible to isolation 223 . Distancing threatens to aggravate feelings of loneliness and could produce negative long-term health consequences.

Scholars have identified strategies that could mitigate these outcomes. First, in psychological terms, loneliness is construed as the subjective state that one is not experiencing enough social connection, whereas isolation is an objective lack of social interactions 224 . This means one can be isolated but not lonely, or lonely in a crowd. Thus, the term ‘social distancing’ might imply that one needs to cut off meaningful interactions. A useful alternative term might be ‘physical distancing’, to help highlight the fact that social connection is possible even when people are physically separated.

Online interactions can also foster a sense of connection. Both receiving and giving support online can bolster psychological well-being 225 . However, we caution against enhanced passive use of social media, as research suggests that it may not contribute to one’s sense of social connection 226 , 227 . Instead, technologies that are informationally rich, dyadic and temporally synchronous appear better suited to generating empathy and connection 228 , 229 . Special attention should be placed on helping people who are less familiar with these technologies to learn how to take advantage of digital connections.

Intimate relatinships

The social effects of the pandemic also extend to the inside of our homes, where many people find themselves in sudden forced proximity with their immediate family. People subject to quarantine or self-isolation are at risk for confusion and anger 230 , emotional tendencies that can be explosive when multiple household members simultaneously endure them for weeks or months on end. Indeed, some studies suggest that forced proximity is a risk factor for aggression 231 , 232 and domestic violence 233 .

Even without forced proximity, stress, including economic stress 234 , is linked to relationship difficulties. It often changes the content of social interactions (for example, more focus on unpleasant logistics, less focus on emotional connection) and undermines the psychological resources, like empathy and patience, that make challenging interactions go smoothly 235 . A study of the effects of Hurricane Hugo in 1989, for example, revealed that harder-hit areas experienced a spike in the divorce rate 236 . The news is not all bad, however: the hurricane study also documented surging marriage and birth rates 236 .

Major stressors, it seems, alter the trajectories of our intimate relationships, but researchers are still unpacking when, why and for whom these effects are harmful vs beneficial. But one factor underlying success is for individuals to calibrate their expectations to the circumstances, a process that will vary from couple to couple and from partner to partner 237 . The recalibration process involves both (i) lowering broad expectations that the course of true love in the time of COVID-19 will run smoothly while also (ii) sustaining high expectations in those domains where the relationship can deliver in these conditions.

Healthy mind-sets

In the face of a global pandemic, avoiding stress altogether is simply not an option. Fortuitously, the past twenty years of research on coping and stress suggest that it’s not the type or amount of stress that determines its impact. Rather, mind-sets and situation appraisals about stress can alter its impact 238 , 239 . For instance, some research finds these mind-sets can increase the possibility of ‘stress-related growth’, a phenomenon in which stressful experiences serve to increase physiological toughening 240 , 241 , 242 , help reorganize our priorities and can help lead to deeper relationships and a greater appreciation for life 243 .

Preliminary research suggests that mind-sets about stress can be changed with short and targeted interventions. These interventions do not focus on viewing the stressor (such as the virus) as less of a threat 244 . Instead, they invite people to recognize that we tend to stress about things we care deeply about and that we can harness the stress response for positive gain. A number of studies found that inducing more adaptive mind-sets about stress could increase positive emotion, reduce negative health symptoms and boost physiological functioning under acute stress 244 , 245 . Research is needed to see if adopting these mind-sets can help some people harness the stress during a pandemic for positive growth.

Over 100 years ago, Science magazine published a paper on lessons from the Spanish Flu pandemic 246 . The paper argued that three main factors stand in the way of prevention: (i) people do not appreciate the risks they run, (ii) it goes against human nature for people to shut themselves up in rigid isolation as a means of protecting others, and (iii) people often unconsciously act as a continuing danger to themselves and others. Our paper provides some insights from the past century of work on related issues in the social and behavioural sciences that may help public health officials mitigate the impact of the current pandemic. Specifically, we discussed research on threat perception, social context, science communication, aligning individual and collective interests, leadership, and stress and coping. These are a selection of relevant topics, but readers may also be interested in other relevant work, including on psychological reactance 247 , 248 , collective emotions and social media 249 , 250 , and the impact of economic deprivation and unemployment 251 , 252 .

Urgent action is needed to mitigate the potentially devastating effects of COVID-19, action that can be supported by the behavioural and social sciences. However, many of the implications outlined here may also be relevant to future pandemics and public health crises. A recent report 253 from the World Health Organization declared that “health communication is seen to have relevance for virtually every aspect of health and well-being, including disease prevention, health promotion and quality of life.”

Zhou, F. et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 395 , 1054–1062 (2020).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lunn, P. et al. Using behavioural science to help fight the coronavirus . ESRI Working Paper No. 656 March 2020. http://aei.pitt.edu/102644/ (2020).

Scott, S. & Duncan, C.J. Biology of Plagues: Evidence from Historical Populations . (Cambridge University Press, 2001).

LeDoux, J. Rethinking the emotional brain. Neuron 73 , 653–676 (2012).

Mobbs, D., Hagan, C. C., Dalgleish, T., Silston, B. & Prévost, C. The ecology of human fear: survival optimization and the nervous system. Front. Neurosci. 9 , 55 (2015).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E. & Hancock, J. T. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 8878–8790 (2014).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Cole, S., Balcetis, E. & Dunning, D. Affective signals of threat increase perceived proximity. Psychol. Sci. 24 , 34–40 (2013).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Witte, K. & Allen, M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ. Behav. 27 , 591–615 (2000).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Strunk, D. R., Lopez, H. & DeRubeis, R. J. Depressive symptoms are associated with unrealistic negative predictions of future life events. Behav. Res. Ther. 44 , 861–882 (2006).

Sharot, T. The optimism bias. Curr. Biol. 21 , R941–R945 (2011).

Wise, T., Zbozinek, T. D., Michelini, G., Hagan, C. C. & Mobbs, D. Changes in risk perception and protective behavior during the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://osf.io/dz428 (2020).

Fischhoff, B. The sciences of science communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110 (Suppl 3), 14033–14039 (2013).

Slovic, P. Perception of risk. Science 236 , 280–285 (1987).

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. & MacGregor, D. G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 24 , 311–322 (2004).

Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. & Welch, N. Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull. 127 , 267–286 (2001).

Peters, E., Lipkus, I. & Diefenbach, M. A. The functions of affect in health communications and in the construction of health preferences. J. Commun. 56 , S140–S162 (2006).

Article   Google Scholar  

Evans, A. T. et al. Graphic warning labels elicit affective and thoughtful responses from smokers: results of a randomized clinical trial. PLoS One 10 , e0142879 (2015).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Noar, S. M. et al. Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tob. Control 25 , 341–354 (2016).

Rottenstreich, Y. & Hsee, C. K. Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychol. Sci. 12 , 185–190 (2001).

Hsee, C. K. & Rottenstreich, Y. Music, pandas, and muggers: on the affective psychology of value. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 133 , 23–30 (2004).

Peters, E. et al. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol. Sci. 17 , 407–413 (2006).

Schaller, M. & Neuberg, S. L. Danger, disease, and the nature of prejudice(s). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 46 , 1–54 (2012).

Google Scholar  

Feldman, S. & Stenner, K. Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Polit. Psychol. 18 , 741–770 (1997).

Jackson, J. C. et al. Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice. PLoS One 14 , e0221953 (2019).

Marcus, G. E., Sullivan, J. L., Theiss-Morse, E. & Wood, S. L. With Malice Toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments . (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995).

Cikara, M., Bruneau, E. G. & Saxe, R. R. Us and them: intergroup failures of empathy. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20 , 149–153 (2011).

Han, S. Neurocognitive basis of racial ingroup bias in empathy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22 , 400–421 (2018).

Kteily, N., Hodson, G. & Bruneau, E. They see us as less than human: metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 110 , 343–370 (2016).

Han, X. et al. A neurobiological association of revenge propensity during intergroup conflict. eLife 9 , e52014 (2020).

Cohn, S. K. Pandemics: waves of disease, waves of hate from the Plague of Athens to A.I.D.S. Hist. J. 85 , 535–555 (2012).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Russell, A. The rise of coronavirus hate crimes. The New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/the-rise-of-coronavirus-hate-crimes (2020).

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L. & Saguy, T. Another view of “we”: majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 18 , 296–330 (2007).

Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T. & Ropp, S. A. The extended contact effect: knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73 , 73–90 (1997).

Clarke, L. Panic: myth or reality? Contexts 1 , 21–26 (2002).

Drury, J. The role of social identity processes in mass emergency behaviour: an integrative review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 29 , 38–81 (2018).

Booth, R. Community aid groups set up across UK amid coronavirus crisis. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/16/community-aid-groups-set-up-across-uk-amid-coronavirus-crisis (16 March 2020).

Canter, D. Fires and Human Behaviour . (David Fulton, 1990).

Tierney, K.J., Lindell, M.K. & Perry, R.W. Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States . (Joseph Henry Press, 2001).

Quarantelli, E.L. Sociology of panic. in International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (eds. Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B.) 11020–11023 (Pergamon Press, 2001).

Drury, J., Cocking, C. & Reicher, S. The nature of collective resilience: survivor reactions to the 2005 London bombings. Int. J. Mass Emerg. Disasters 27 , 66–95 (2009).

Carter, H., Drury, J., Rubin, G. J., Williams, R. & Amlôt, R. Applying crowd psychology to develop recommendations for the management of mass decontamination. Health Secur. 13 , 45–53 (2015).

Stiff, C. The game theory of panic-buying – and how to reduce it. The Conversation http://theconversation.com/the-game-theory-of-panic-buying-and-how-to-reduce-it-134107 (2020).

Cialdini, R. B. & Goldstein, N. J. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55 , 591–621 (2004).

Wood, W. Attitude change: persuasion and social influence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51 , 539–570 (2000).

Miller, D.T. & Prentice, D.A. The construction of social norms and standards. in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles 799–829 (Guilford Press, 1996).

Dickie, R., Rasmussen, S., Cain, R., Williams, L. & MacKay, W. The effects of perceived social norms on handwashing behaviour in students. Psychol. Health Med. 23 , 154–159 (2018).

Berkowitz, A.D. An overview of the social norms approach. in Changing the Culture of College Drinking: A Socially Situated Health Communication Campaign (eds. Stewart, L. & Lederman, L. C.) 193–214 (Hampton Press, 2005).

Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A. & Reno, R.R. A focus theory of normative conduct: a theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 24 , 201–234 (1991).

Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. & Griskevicius, V. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychol. Sci. 18 , 429–434 (2007).

Abrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M. A. & Turner, J. C. Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 29 , 97–119 (1990).

Centola, D. An experimental study of homophily in the adoption of health behavior. Science 334 , 1269–1272 (2011).

Christakis, N. A. & Fowler, J. H. Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Stat. Med. 32 , 556–577 (2013).

Christakis, N. A. & Fowler, J. H. Social network sensors for early detection of contagious outbreaks. PLoS One 5 , e12948 (2010).

Kim, D. A. et al. Social network targeting to maximise population behaviour change: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386 , 145–153 (2015).

Bond, R. M. et al. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489 , 295–298 (2012).

Halpern, D. Inside the Nudge Unit: How Small Changes Can Make a Big Difference (Random House, 2015).

Thaler, R.H. & Sunstein, C.R. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health , Wealth, and Happiness . (Yale University Press, 2008).

Sparkman, G. & Walton, G. M. Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychol. Sci. 28 , 1663–1674 (2017).

HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations . https://files.hudexchange.info/reports/published/CoC_PopSub_NatlTerrDC_2019.pdf (US Department of Housing & Urban Development, 2019).

Deitz, S. & Meehan, K. Plumbing poverty: mapping hot spots of racial and geographic inequality in U.S. household water insecurity. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 109 , 1092–1109 (2019).

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Higher wage workers more likely than lower wage workers to have paid leave benefits in 2018. The Economics Daily https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2018/higher-wage-workers-more-likely-than-lower-wage-workers-to-have-paid-leave-benefits-in-2018.htm (2018).

Cockerham, W. C., Hamby, B. W. & Oates, G. R. The social determinants of chronic disease. Am. J. Prev. Med. 52 (1S1), S5–S12 (2017).

Fothergill, A. & Peek, L. A. Poverty and disasters in the United States: a review of recent sociological findings. Nat. Hazards 32 , 89–110 (2004).

Bolin, B. & Kurtz, L.C. Race, class, ethnicity, and disaster vulnerability. in Handbook of Disaster Research (eds. Rodríguez, H., Donner, W. & Trainor, J. E.) 181–203 (Springer International Publishing, 2018).

Kristal, T., Cohen, Y. & Navot, E. Benefit inequality among American workers by gender, race, and ethnicity, 1982–2015. Sociol. Sci. 5 , 461–488 (2018).

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity . (National Academies Press, 2017).

Quiñones, A. R. et al. Racial/ethnic differences in multimorbidity development and chronic disease accumulation for middle-aged adults. PLoS One 14 , e0218462 (2019).

Marsden, P. V. Core discussion networks of Americans. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52 , 122–131 (1987).

Granovetter, M. S. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78 , 1360–1380 (1973).

Demaris, A. & Yang, R. Race, alienation, and interpersonal mistrust. Sociol. Spectr. 14 , 327–349 (1994).

Brehm, J. & Rahn, W. Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 41 , 999–1023 (1997).

Smith, T. W. Factors relating to misanthropy in contemporary American society. Soc. Sci. Res. 26 , 170–196 (1997).

Claibourn, M. P. & Martin, P. S. Trusting and Joining? An empirical test of the reciprocal nature of social capital. Polit. Behav. 22 , 267–291 (2000).

Alesina, A. & La Ferrara, E. Who trusts others? J. Public Econ. 85 , 207–234 (2002).

Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98 , 224–253 (1991).

Triandis, H.C. Individualism And Collectivism . (Westview Press, 1995).

Kitayama, S., Park, H., Sevincer, A. T., Karasawa, M. & Uskul, A. K. A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97 , 236–255 (2009).

San Martin, A. et al. Self-assertive interdependence in Arab culture. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 , 830–837 (2018).

Kitayama, S. et al. Behavioral adjustment moderates the link between neuroticism and biological health risk: a U.S.-Japan comparison study. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 44 , 809–822 (2018).

Betsch, C., Böhm, R., Korn, L. & Holtmann, C. On the benefits of explaining herd immunity in vaccine advocacy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1 , 56 (2017).

Kraus, B. & Kitayama, S. Interdependent self-construal predicts emotion suppression in Asian Americans: an electro-cortical investigation. Biol. Psychol. 146 , 107733 (2019).

Gelfand, M. J. et al. Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study. Science 332 , 1100–1104 (2011).

Gelfand, M. J., Harrington, J. R. & Jackson, J. C. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12 , 800–809 (2017). The strength of social norms across human groups.

Harrington, J. R. & Gelfand, M. J. Tightness-looseness across the 50 United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 7990–7995 (2014).

Roos, P., Gelfand, M., Nau, D. & Lun, J. Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: an evolutionary basis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 129 , 14–23 (2015).

Gelfand, M. Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire Our World. (Scribner, 2018).

Westwood, S. J. et al. The tie that divides: cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 57 , 333–354 (2018).

Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N. & Westwood, S. J. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 22 , 129–146 (2019).

Hetherington, M.J. & Weiler, J.D. Authoritarianism and polarization in American politics, still? in American Gridlock: The Sources, Character, and Impact of Polarization (eds. Thurber, J. A. & Yoshinaka, A.) 86–112 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

Abramowitz, A. I. & Webster, S. The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Elect. Stud. 41 , 12–22 (2016).

Van Bavel, J. J. & Pereira, A. The partisan brain: an identity-based model of political belief. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22 , 213–224 (2018).

Bakshy, E., Messing, S. & Adamic, L. A. Political science. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348 , 1130–1132 (2015).

Lelkes, Y., Sood, G. & Iyengar, S. The hostile audience: the effect of access to broadband internet on partisan affect. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 61 , 5–20 (2017).

Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A. & Van Bavel, J. J. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , 7313–7318 (2017).

Minozzi, W., Song, H., Lazer, D. M. J., Neblo, M. A. & Ognyanova, K. The incidental pundit: who talks politics with whom, and why? Am . J. Pol. Sci. 64 , 135–151 (2020).

Ahler, D. J. & Sood, G. The parties in our heads: misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. J. Polit. 80 , 964–981 (2018).

Lees, J. & Cikara, M. Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4 , 279–286 (2020).

Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N. & Cook, F. L. The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Polit. Behav. 36 , 235–262 (2014).

Ellis, E.G. The coronavirus outbreak is a petri dish for conspiracy theories. Wired https://www.wired.com/story/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories/ (2020).

Gertz, B. Coronavirus may have originated in lab linked to China’s biowarfare program. The Washington Times https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/26/coronavirus-link-to-china-biowarfare-program-possi/ (2020).

Sommer, W. QAnon-ers’ magic cure for coronavirus: just drink bleach! The Daily Beast https://www.thedailybeast.com/qanon-conspiracy-theorists-magic-cure-for-coronavirus-is-drinking-lethal-bleach (2020).

Leman, P. & Cinnirella, M. A major event has a major cause: evidence for the role of heuristics in reasoning about conspiracy theories. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 9 , 18–28 (2007).

McCauley, C. & Jacques, S. The popularity of conspiracy theories of presidential assassination: a Bayesian analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37 , 637–644 (1979).

van Prooijen, J.-W. & Douglas, K. M. Conspiracy theories as part of history: the role of societal crisis situations. Mem. Stud. 10 , 323–333 (2017).

Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M. & Cichocka, A. The psychology of conspiracy theories. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26 , 538–542 (2017).

Graeupner, D. & Coman, A. The dark side of meaning-making: how social exclusion leads to superstitious thinking. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 69 , 218–222 (2017).

Jolley, D. & Douglas, K. M. The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PLoS One 9 , e89177 (2014).

Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E. & Oberauer, K. The robust relationship between conspiracism and denial of (climate) science. Psychol. Sci. 26 , 667–670 (2015).

van Prooijen, J.-W., Krouwel, A. P. M. & Pollet, T. V. Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 6 , 570–578 (2015).

Jolley, D., Meleady, R. & Douglas, K. M. Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups. Br. J. Psychol. 111 , 17–35 (2020).

Kofta, M., Soral, W. & Bilewicz, M. What breeds conspiracy antisemitism? The role of political uncontrollability and uncertainty in the belief in Jewish conspiracy. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000183 (2020).

Marchlewska, M., Cichocka, A., Łozowski, F., Górska, P. & Winiewski, M. In search of an imaginary enemy: Catholic collective narcissism and the endorsement of gender conspiracy beliefs. J. Soc. Psychol. 159 , 766–779 (2019).

Jolley, D. & Douglas, K. M. Prevention is better than cure: addressing anti‐vaccine conspiracy theories. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 47 , 459–469 (2017).

Zollo, F. et al. Debunking in a world of tribes. PLoS One 12 , e0181821 (2017).

Frenkel, S., Alba, D. & Zhong, R. Surge of virus misinformation stumps Facebook and Twitter. The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/technology/coronavirus-misinformation-social-media.html (2020).

Allen, J., Howland, B., Mobius, M., Rothschild, D. & Watts, D. J. Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem. Sci. Adv. 1 , eaay3539 (2020).

Allcott, H. & Gentzkow, M. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econ. Perspect. 31 , 211–236 (2017).

Guess, A., Nagler, J. & Tucker, J. Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Sci. Adv. 5 , u4586 (2019).

Berinsky, A. J. Rumors and health care reform: experiments in political misinformation. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 47 , 241–262 (2017).

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 13 , 106–131 (2012).

Guess, A. & Coppock, A. Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. Br . J. Polit. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000327 (2018).

Schmid, P. & Betsch, C. Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nat. Hum. Behav. 3 , 931–939 (2019).

Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. Displacing misinformation about events: an experimental test of causal corrections. J. Exp. Political Sci. 2 , 81–93 (2015).

Wittenberg, C. & Berinsky, A.J. Misinformation and its correction. in Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field (eds Persily, N. & Tucker, J. A.) (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).

Swire, B. & Ecker, U.K.H. Misinformation and its correction: Cognitive mechanisms and recommendations for mass communication. in Misinformation and Mass Audiences (eds. Southwell, B. G., Thorson, E. A. & Sheble, L.) 195–2011 (University of Texas Press, 2018).

Wood, T. & Porter, E. The elusive backfire effect: mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Polit. Behav. 41 , 135–163 (2018).

Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y. & Rand, D. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy nudge intervention. Preprint at PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/uhbk9 (2020).

McGuire, W. J. Some contemporary approaches. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1 , 191–229 (1964).

van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S. & Maibach, E. Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Glob. Chall. 1 , 1600008 (2017).

Banas, J. A. & Rains, S. A. A meta-analysis of research on inoculation theory. Commun. Monogr. 77 , 281–311 (2010).

Basol, M., Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. Good news about bad news: gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news. J. Cogn. 3 , 2 (2020).

Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Commun. 5 , 65 (2019).

Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S. & Nygren, T. Prebunking interventions based on “inoculation” theory can reduce susceptibility to misinformation across cultures. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. https://doi.org/10.37016//mr-2020-008 (2020).

Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188 , 39–50 (2019).

Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. J. Pers. 88 , 185–200 (2020).

Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G. & Cannon, T. D. Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 8 , 108–117 (2019).

Bago, B., Rand, D. G. & Pennycook, G. Fake news, fast and slow: deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen . https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xge0000729 (2020).

Dias, N., Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-001 (2020).

Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 2521–2526 (2019).

Clayton, K. et al. Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Polit. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0 (2019).

Trevena, L.J. et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak . 13 Suppl 2, S7 (2013).

Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19 , 123–205 (1986).

Briñol, P. & Petty, R. E. Source factors in persuasion: a self-validation approach. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 20 , 49–96 (2009).

O’Keefe, D.J. Persuasion: Theory and Research . (SAGE, 2016).

Greyling, C. et al. Lessons from the faith-driven response to the West Africa Ebola epidemic. Rev. Faith Int. Aff. 14 , 118–123 (2016).

Teeny, J., Siev, J., Briñol, P. & Petty, R.E. A review and conceptual framework for understanding personalized matching effects in persuasion. J. Consum. Psychol . (in the press).

Grant, A. M. & Hofmann, D. A. It’s not all about me: motivating hand hygiene among health care professionals by focusing on patients. Psychol. Sci. 22 , 1494–1499 (2011).

Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. Moral reframing: a technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 13 , e12501 (2019).

Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E. & Vaughan, S. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3 , 399–404 (2013).

Linden, S. V., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 , 2–3 (2018).

van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. The gateway belief model: a large-scale replication. J. Environ. Psychol. 62 , 49–58 (2019).

Drummond, C. & Fischhoff, B. Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , 9587–9592 (2017).

Kahan, D. M. et al. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2 , 732–735 (2012).

Druckman, J. N. & McGrath, M. C. The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9 , 111–119 (2019).

Rucker, D., Tormala, Z. L., Petty, R. E. & Briñol, P. Consumer conviction and commitment: an appraisal-based framework for attitude certainty. J. Consum. Psychol. 24 , 119–136 (2014).

Barden, J. & Petty, R. E. The mere perception of elaboration creates attitude certainty: exploring the thoughtfulness heuristic. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95 , 489–509 (2008).

Luttrell, A., Petty, R. E., Briñol, P. & Wagner, B. C. Making it moral: merely labeling an attitude as moral increases its strength. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 65 , 82–93 (2016).

Greene, J. Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap between Us and Them (Penguin Press, 2013).

Haidt, J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol. Rev. 108 , 814–834 (2001).

Haidt, J. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion . (Vintage, 2012).

Tomasello, M. Why We Cooperate . (MIT Press, 2009).

Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. Groups in mind: the coalitional roots of war and morality. in Human Morality and Sociality (ed. Høgh-Olesen, H.) 191–234 (2010).

Leach, C.W., Bilali, R. & Pagliaro, S. Groups and morality. in APA handbook of Personality and Social Psychology , Volume 2 : Group Processes 123–149 (American Psychological Association, 2015).

Ellemers, N. Morality and the Regulation of Social Behavior . (Routledge, 2017).

Ellemers, N. & van den Bos, K. Morality in groups: on the social-regulatory functions of right and wrong. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 6 , 878–889 (2012).

Boyer, P. & Petersen, M. B. Folk-economic beliefs: an evolutionary cognitive model. Behav. Brain Sci. 41 , 1–51 (2017).

Meegan, D. V. Zero-sum bias: perceived competition despite unlimited resources. Front. Psychol. 1 , 191 (2010).

Folch, E., Hernandez, I., Barragan, M. & Franco-Paredes, C. Infectious diseases, non-zero-sum thinking, and the developing world. Am. J. Med. Sci. 326 , 66–72 (2003).

Goodwin, G. P. & Landy, J. F. Valuing different human lives. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143 , 778–803 (2014).

Awad, E. et al. The Moral Machine experiment. Nature 563 , 59–64 (2018).

Everett, J. A. C., Pizarro, D. A. & Crockett, M. J. Inference of trustworthiness from intuitive moral judgments. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145 , 772–787 (2016).

Funk, C., Hefferon, M., Kennedy, B. & Johnson, C. Trust and Mistrust in Americans’ Views of Scientific Experts . Pew Research Center Science & Society https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/ (2019).

Ransohoff, K.J. Patients on the Trolley Track: The Moral Cognition of Medical Practitioners and Public Health Professionals . (Harvard Univ. Press, 2011).

Gino, F., Norton, M. I. & Weber, R. A. Motivated Bayesians: feeling moral while acting egoistically. J. Econ. Perspect. 30 , 189–212 (2016).

Garcia, T., Massoni, S. & Villeval, M. C. Ambiguity and excuse-driven behavior in charitable giving. Eur. Econ. Rev. 124 , 103412 (2020).

Kappes, A. et al. Uncertainty about the impact of social decisions increases prosocial behaviour. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 , 573–580 (2018).

Barclay, P. & Willer, R. Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans. Proc. Biol. Sci. 274 , 749–753 (2007).

Milinski, M., Semmann, D. & Krambeck, H.-J. Reputation helps solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Nature 415 , 424–426 (2002).

Cushman, F. & Young, L. Patterns of moral judgment derive from nonmoral psychological representations. Cogn. Sci. 35 , 1052–1075 (2011).

Ritov, I. & Baron, J. Reluctance to vaccinate: omission bias and ambiguity. J. Behav. Decis. Making 3 , 263–277 (1990).

Ritov, I. & Baron, J. Status-quo and omission biases. J. Risk Uncertain. 5 , 49–61 (1992).

Tetlock, P. E. & Boettger, R. Accountability amplifies the status quo effect when change creates victims. J. Behav. Decis. Making 7 , 1–23 (1994).

Nowak, M. A. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314 , 1560–1563 (2006).

Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J. & Milinski, M. Climate change: what psychology can offer in terms of insights and solutions. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27 , 269–274 (2018).

Milinski, M., Hilbe, C., Semmann, D., Sommerfeld, R. & Marotzke, J. Humans choose representatives who enforce cooperation in social dilemmas through extortion. Nat. Commun. 7 , 10915 (2016).

Reinders Folmer, C. P. et al. One for all: what representing a group may do to us. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48 , 1047–1056 (2012).

Yamagishi, T. The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51 , 110–116 (1986).

Rand, D. G., Dreber, A., Ellingsen, T., Fudenberg, D. & Nowak, M. A. Positive interactions promote public cooperation. Science 325 , 1272–1275 (2009).

Dal Bó, E. & Dal Bó, P. “Do the right thing:” the effects of moral suasion on cooperation. J. Public Econ. 117 , 28–38 (2014).

Capraro, V., Jagfeld, G., Klein, R., Mul, M. & de Pol, I. V. Increasing altruistic and cooperative behaviour with simple moral nudges. Sci. Rep. 9 , 11880 (2019).

Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S. & Fehr, E. Are people conditionally cooperative? evidence from a public goods experiment. Econ. Lett. 71 , 397–404 (2001).

Kraft-Todd, G., Yoeli, E., Bhanot, S. & Rand, D. Promoting cooperation in the field. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 3 , 96–101 (2015).

Christensen, D., Dube, O., Haushofer, J., Siddiqi, B. & Voors, M. Community-based crisis response: evidence from Sierra Leone’s Ebola outbreak. Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc . (in the press).

Tsai, L.L., Morse, B.S. & Blair, R.A. Building credibility and cooperation in low-trust settings: persuasion and source accountability in Liberia during the 2014–2015 Ebola crisis. Comp. Polit. Stud . https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019897698 (2020).

Blair, R. A., Morse, B. S. & Tsai, L. L. Public health and public trust: survey evidence from the Ebola virus disease epidemic in Liberia. Soc. Sci. Med. 172 , 89–97 (2017).

Morse, B., Grépin, K. A., Blair, R. A. & Tsai, L. Patterns of demand for non-Ebola health services during and after the Ebola outbreak: panel survey evidence from Monrovia, Liberia. BMJ Glob. Health 1 , e000007 (2016).

Vinck, P., Pham, P. N., Bindu, K. K., Bedford, J. & Nilles, E. J. Institutional trust and misinformation in the response to the 2018-19 Ebola outbreak in North Kivu, DR Congo: a population-based survey. Lancet Infect. Dis. 19 , 529–536 (2019).

Alsan, M. & Wanamaker, M. Tuskegee and the health of black men. Q. J. Econ. 133 , 407–455 (2018).

Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A. & Hopkins, N. Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadersh. Q. 16 , 547–568 (2005).

Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S.D. & Platow, M.J. The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity , Influence, and Power . (Routledge, 2011).

Fransen, K. et al. Believing in “us”: exploring leaders’ capacity to enhance team confidence and performance by building a sense of shared social identity. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 21 , 89–100 (2015).

Haslam, S. A. & Reicher, S. Stressing the group: social identity and the unfolding dynamics of responses to stress. J. Appl. Psychol. 91 , 1037–1052 (2006). Stressing the group.

Haslam, S. A. & Platow, M. J. The link between leadership and followership: how affirming social identity translates vision into action. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 27 , 1469–1479 (2001).

Hogg, M. A. A social identity theory of leadership. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5 , 184–200 (2001).

Nielsen, J.S. The Myth Of Leadership: Creating Leaderless Organizations . (Davies-Black Publishing, 2004).

Mooijman, M., van Dijk, W. W., van Dijk, E. & Ellemers, N. On sanction-goal justifications: How and why deterrence justifications undermine rule compliance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 112 , 577–588 (2017).

Tyler, T.R. Why People Cooperate: The Role of Social Motivations . (Princeton Univ. Press, 2011).

Ellemers, N., Spears, R. & Doosje, B. Self and social identity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53 , 161–186 (2002).

Schnall, S., Roper, J. & Fessler, D. M. T. Elevation leads to altruistic behavior. Psychol. Sci. 21 , 315–320 (2010).

Schnall, S. & Roper, J. Elevation puts moral values into action. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 3 , 373–378 (2012).

Yang, X.-F., Pavarini, G., Schnall, S. & Immordino-Yang, M. H. Looking up to virtue: averting gaze facilitates moral construals via posteromedial activations. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 13 , 1131–1139 (2018).

de Zavala, A. G., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R. & Jayawickreme, N. Collective narcissism and its social consequences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97 , 1074–1096 (2009).

Cichocka, A. Understanding defensive and secure in-group positivity: the role of collective narcissism. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 27 , 283–317 (2016).

Cichocka, A. & Cislak, A. Nationalism as collective narcissism. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34 , 69–74 (2020).

Cichocka, A., Marchlewska, M., Golec de Zavala, A. & Olechowski, M. ‘They will not control us’: ingroup positivity and belief in intergroup conspiracies. Br. J. Psychol. 107 , 556–576 (2016).

Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117 , 497–529 (1995).

Jetten, J., Haslam, C., & Haslam, S. A. (eds.) The Social Cure: Identity , Health and Well-being . (Psychology Press, 2012).

Jetten, J. et al. Advancing the social identity approach to health and well-being: progressing the social cure research agenda. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 47 , 789–802 (2017).

Rimé, B. Emotion elicits the social sharing of emotion: theory and empirical review. Emot. Rev. 1 , 60–85 (2009).

Williams, W. C., Morelli, S. A., Ong, D. C. & Zaki, J. Interpersonal emotion regulation: Implications for affiliation, perceived support, relationships, and well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 115 , 224–254 (2018).

Haslam, C. et al. The New Psychology of Health: Unlocking the Social Cure . (Routledge, 2018).

Hawkley, L. C. & Cacioppo, J. T. Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Ann. Behav. Med. 40 , 218–227 (2010).

Luo, Y., Hawkley, L. C., Waite, L. J. & Cacioppo, J. T. Loneliness, health, and mortality in old age: a national longitudinal study. Soc. Sci. Med. 74 , 907–914 (2012).

Cacioppo, J.T. & Patrick, W. Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection . (Norton, 2009).

Doré, B. P., Morris, R. R., Burr, D. A., Picard, R. W. & Ochsner, K. N. Helping others regulate emotion predicts increased regulation of one’s own emotions and decreased symptoms of depression. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43 , 729–739 (2017).

Helliwell, J. F. & Huang, H. Comparing the happiness effects of real and on-line friends. PLoS One 8 , e72754 (2013).

Verduyn, P. et al. Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: experimental and longitudinal evidence. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144 , 480–488 (2015).

Schroeder, J., Kardas, M. & Epley, N. The humanizing voice: speech reveals, and text conceals, a more thoughtful mind in the midst of disagreement. Psychol. Sci. 28 , 1745–1762 (2017).

Waytz, A. & Gray, K. Does online technology make us more or less sociable? a preliminary review and call for research. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13 , 473–491 (2018).

Brooks, S. K. et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet 395 , 912–920 (2020).

Ellemers, N. & Jetten, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 17 , 3–21 (2013). The many ways to be marginal in a group.

Greenaway, K. H., Jetten, J., Ellemers, N. & van Bunderen, L. The dark side of inclusion: undesired acceptance increases aggression. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 18 , 173–189 (2015).

Owen, L. Five ways the coronavirus is hitting women in Asia. BBC News https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51705199 (2020).

Karney, B.R. Socioeconomic status and intimate relationships. Annu. Rev. Psychol . (in the press).

Karney, B.R. & Neff, L.A. Couples and stress: how demands outside a relationship affect intimacy within the relationship. in The Oxford Handbook of Close Relationships (eds. Simpson, J. A. & Campbell, L.) 664–684 (Oxford Univ.Press, 2013).

Cohan, C. L. & Cole, S. W. Life course transitions and natural disaster: marriage, birth, and divorce following Hurricane Hugo. J. Fam. Psychol. 16 , 14–25 (2002).

Finkel, E.J. The All-or-Nothing Marriage: How the Best Marriages Work . (Dutton, 2017).

Crum, A. J., Jamieson, J. P. & Akinola, M. Optimizing stress: an integrated intervention for regulating stress responses. Emotion 20 , 120–125 (2020).

Jamieson, J. P., Crum, A. J., Goyer, J. P., Marotta, M. E. & Akinola, M. Optimizing stress responses with reappraisal and mindset interventions: an integrated model. Anxiety Stress Coping 31 , 245–261 (2018).

Dienstbier, R. A. Arousal and physiological toughness: implications for mental and physical health. Psychol. Rev. 96 , 84–100 (1989).

Epel, E. S., McEwen, B. S. & Ickovics, J. R. Embodying psychological thriving: physical thriving in response to stress. J. Soc. Issues 54 , 301–322 (1998).

Hazeldine, J., Arlt, W. & Lord, J. M. Dehydroepiandrosterone as a regulator of immune cell function. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 120 , 127–136 (2010).

Tedeschi, R. G. & Calhoun, L. G. Posttraumatic growth: conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychol. Inq. 15 , 1–18 (2004).

Crum, A. J., Akinola, M., Martin, A. & Fath, S. The role of stress mindset in shaping cognitive, emotional, and physiological responses to challenging and threatening stress. Anxiety Stress Coping 30 , 379–395 (2017).

Crum, A. J., Salovey, P. & Achor, S. Rethinking stress: the role of mindsets in determining the stress response. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104 , 716–733 (2013).

Soper, G. A. The lessons of the pandemic. Science 49 , 501–506 (1919).

Byrne, S. & Hart, P. S. The boomerang effect a synthesis of findings and a preliminary theoretical framework. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 33 , 3–37 (2009).

Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E., Grandpre, J. & Voulodakis, M. Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance: Communicating threats to attitudinal freedom. in The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice (eds. Dillard, J. P. & Pfau, M.) 213–232 (SAGE, 2002).

Garcia, D. & Rimé, B. Collective emotions and social resilience in the digital traces after a terrorist attack. Psychol. Sci. 30 , 617–628 (2019).

Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. & Van Bavel, J. J. The MAD model of moral contagion: the role of motivation, attention and design in the spread of moralized content online. Persp. Psychol. Sci. (in the press).

Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J. & Klebanov, P. K. Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child Dev. 65 , 296–318 (1994).

Jin, R. L., Shah, C. P. & Svoboda, T. J. The impact of unemployment on health: a review of the evidence. CMAJ 153 , 529–540 (1995).

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rimal, R. N. & Lapinski, M. K. Why health communication is important in public health. Bull. World Health Organ. 87 , 247–247a (2009).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology & Neural Science, New York University, New York, NY, USA

Jay J. Van Bavel

University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, Chicago, IL, USA

Katherine Baicker & Oeindrila Dube

Social and Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Center for Health and Biological Sciences, Mackenzie Presbyterian University, São Paulo, Brazil

Paulo S. Boggio

Department of Economics, Middlesex University London, London, UK

Valerio Capraro

School of Psychology, University of Kent, Kent, UK

Aleksandra Cichocka & Karen M. Douglas

Department of Psychology, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland

Aleksandra Cichocka

Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA

Mina Cikara

Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

Molly J. Crockett

Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Alia J. Crum, Jamil Zaki & Sean R. Zion

Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

James N. Druckman

Department of Social Psychology, University of Sussex, Sussex, UK

Faculty of Social Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Naomi Ellemers

Department of Psychology and the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

Eli J. Finkel

Division of Infectious Diseases and Global Public Health and Department of Political Science, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA

James H. Fowler

Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Michele Gelfand

School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, PKU-IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Peking University, Beijing, China

University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

S. Alexander Haslam

School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

Jolanda Jetten

Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Shinobu Kitayama

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences and Computation and Neural Systems Program, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA

Department of Psychology and Health, Medicine & Society Program, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA

Lucy E. Napper

Department of Psychology, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA

Dominic J. Packer

Hill/Levene Schools of Business, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

Gordon Pennycook

School of Journalism and Communication, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA

Ellen Peters

Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Richard E. Petty

Sloan School and Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, USA

David G. Rand

School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St. Andrews, St Andrews, UK

Stephen D. Reicher

Department of Psychology University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Simone Schnall & Sander van der Linden

Bennett Institute for Public Policy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Simone Schnall

Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Azim Shariff

Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

Linda J. Skitka

Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

Sandra Susan Smith

Harvard Law School, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, United States

Cass R. Sunstein

Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Nassim Tabri & Michael J. A. Wohl

Department of Politics, New York University, New York, NY, USA

Joshua A. Tucker

Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam, Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Paul van Lange

Department of Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Kim A. Weeden

Department of Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Robb Willer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The corresponding authors (J.V.B and R.W.) came up with the idea for the paper, invited authors to collaborate, and wrote and edited the manuscript. All other contributing authors (K.B., P.S.B., V.C., A.C., M.C., M.J.C, A.J.C., K.M.D., J.N.D., J.D., O.D., N.E., E.J.F., J.H.F., M.G., S.H., S.A.H., J.J., S.K., D.M., K.E.N., D.J.P., G.P., E.P., R.E.P., D.G.R., S.D.R., S.S., A.S., L.J.S., S.S.S., C.R.S., N.T., J.A.T., S.V.L., P.A.M.V.L., K.A.W., M.J.A.W., J.Z. and S.R.Z.) wrote and edited the paper and are listed in alphabetical order. We thank J. Rothschild for his help in inserting citations and organizing the list of biographical references.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jay J. Van Bavel or Robb Willer .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Editor recognition statement:

Primary handling editor: Stavroula Kousta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bavel, J.J.V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P.S. et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav 4 , 460–471 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z

Download citation

Received : 24 March 2020

Accepted : 09 April 2020

Published : 30 April 2020

Issue Date : May 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Norwegian “dugnad” as a rhetorical device in public health communication during the covid-19 pandemic. a qualitative study from immigrant’s perspectives.

• Raquel Herrero-Arias
• Irina Vladimirovna Halbostad
• Esperanza Diaz

Archives of Public Health (2024)

Naive skepticism scale: development and validation tests applied to the chilean population

• Rodrigo Ferrer-Urbina
• Yasna Ramírez
• Geraldy Sepúlveda-Páez

Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2024)

A scoping review of ethics review processes during public health emergencies in Africa

• Kingsley Orievulu
• Dorcas Kamuya

BMC Medical Ethics (2024)

“R” you getting this? Factors contributing to the public’s understanding, evaluation, and use of basic reproduction numbers for infectious diseases

• Ruben D. Vromans
• Emiel J. Krahmer

BMC Public Health (2024)

The paradox of pandemic mitigation? Moderating role of pandemic severity on the impact of social distancing policies: a cultural value perspective

• Xingyang Ma
• Yufang Zhao

Globalization and Health (2024)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Author Biographies
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The evolution of human social behavior.

1. Introduction

2. the role of feelings, 3. affiliations, 3.1. parent–child, 3.2. pair-bonding.

Click here to enlarge figure

3.3. Kinship

3.4. social life.

• Inclusive fitness is primarily about relatives, but the associated feelings can “spill over” to non-kin.
• Reciprocity means that I help you today because I expect that you will help me later [ 43 ]. The principle stands strong in humans, where it forms the basis for commitment and obligations, but it is relevant for other species as well. The reciprocity can be indirect in that the return is given by a third party. Our concern about reputation is related to indirect reciprocity.
• Group selection is somewhat controversial [ 44 ]. It implies that natural selection can act not only on the individual but on a tribe or a troop. The idea is that the stronger groups outperform competing groups. The benefit will likely affect the genes of an individual because if the group thrives, his or her progeny will eventually benefit. I believe group selection was instrumental in establishing the foundation of human social life and perhaps the use of religion as a tool to promote prosocial behavior [ 6 , 45 ].

3.5. Hostility

4. present society, 4.1. the history of homo sapiens, 4.2. social discords.

• A high population density. The “us and them” inclination is troublesome in a world where conflicts between groups are common.
• Present societies require that you interact with many people you do not know. We have an innate tendency to fear strangers [ 73 ]; thus, the situation is expected to increase not only hostility but also stress and anxiety.
• The large number of people, combined with how society is organized, means more competition and concomitant stress.
• We have lost the close-knit social structure of the tribe, and the consequences are loneliness, insecurity, and a lack of belonging. Family and friends do not offer complete compensation for the tribal bonds.
• While the typical tribe presumably had a relatively flat social structure, in most countries there is a distinct hierarchy. The inhabitants frequently encounter dominant individuals such as teachers, police, or government officials.
• We can no longer fulfill our needs solely by personal activity but rely on external suppliers.

5. Conclusions and Prospects

5.1. promoting social behavior, 5.2. aiming for happiness, 5.3. finale remarks, conflicts of interest.

• Dobzhansky, T. Nothing in Biology Makes Sense except in the Light of Evolution. Am. Biol. Teach. 1973 , 35 , 125–129. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wilson, E.O. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis ; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grüter, C.; Czaczkes, T.J. Communication in Social Insects and How It Is Shaped by Individual Experience. Anim. Behav. 2019 , 151 , 207–215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dugatkin, L.A. Cheating Monkeys and Citizen Bees: The Nature of Cooperation in Animals and Humans ; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grinde, B. An Evolutionary Perspective on the Importance of Community Relations for Quality of Life. Sci. World J. 2009 , 9 , 588–605. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Atkins, P.W.; Wilson, D.S.; Hayes, S.C. Prosocial: Using Evolutionary Science to Build Productive, Equitable, and Collaborative Groups ; New Harbinger Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grinde, B. Did Consciousness First Evolve in the Amniotes? Psychol. Conscious. 2018 , 5 , 239–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grinde, B. Consciousness: A Strategy for Behavioral Decisions. Encyclopedia 2023 , 3 , 60–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grinde, B. The Biology of Happiness ; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Helliwell, J.F.; Layard, R.; Sachs, J.D.; Neve, J.-E.D.; Aknin, L.B.; Wang, S. World Happiness Report 2023 ; Sustainable Development Solutions Network: New York, NY, USA, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Abdallah, S.; Thompson, S.; Michaelson, J.; Marks, N.; Steuer, N. The Happy Planet Index 2.0 ; New Economic Foundation: London, UK, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertolero, M.A.; Yeo, B.T.T.; Bassett, D.S.; D’Esposito, M. A Mechanistic Model of Connector Hubs, Modularity and Cognition. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2018 , 2 , 765–777. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Philipson, L. Functional Modules of the Brain. J. Theor. Biol. 2002 , 215 , 109–119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Panksepp, J. Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leknes, S.; Tracey, I. A Common Neurobiology for Pain and Pleasure. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2008 , 9 , 314–320. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Berridge, K.C.; Kringelbach, M.L. Neuroscience of affect: Brain Mechanisms of Pleasure and Displeasure. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2013 , 23 , 294–303. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dalgleish, T. The Emotional Brain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2004 , 5 , 583–589. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balcombe, J. Animal Pleasure and Its Moral Significance. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009 , 118 , 208–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spence-Aizenberg, A.; Di Fiore, A.; Fernandez-Duque, E. Social Monogamy, Male–Female Relationships, and Biparental Care in Wild Titi Monkeys ( Callicebus discolor ). Primates 2016 , 57 , 103–112. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Royle, N.J.; Smiseth, P.T.; Kölliker, M. The Evolution of Parental Care ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flannery, T.F.; Rich, T.H.; Vickers-Rich, P.; Ziegler, T.; Veatch, E.G.; Helgen, K.M. A Review of Monotreme (Monotremata) Evolution. Alcheringa 2022 , 46 , 3–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shih, H.-C.; Kuo, M.-E.; Wu, C.W.; Chao, Y.-P.; Huang, H.-W.; Huang, C.-M. The Neurobiological Basis of Love: A Meta-Analysis of Human Functional Neuroimaging Studies of Maternal and Passionate Love. Brain Sci. 2022 , 12 , 830. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bode, A.; Kushnick, G. Proximate and Ultimate Perspectives on Romantic Love. Front. Psychol. 2021 , 12 , 573123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Blumenthal, S.A.; Young, L.J. The Neurobiology of Love and Pair Bonding from Human and Animal Perspectives. Biology 2023 , 12 , 844. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kleiman, D.G. Monogamy in Mammals. Q. Rev. Biol. 1977 , 52 , 39–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lack, D. Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds ; Methuen and Company: London, UK, 1968. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lukas, D.; Clutton-Brock, T.H. The Evolution of Social Monogamy in Mammals. Science 2013 , 341 , 526–530. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ford, C.S.; Beach, F.A. Patterns of Sexual Behavior ; Harper: New York, NY, USA, 1951. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yong, J.C.; Li, N.P. Elucidating Evolutionary Principles with the Traditional Mosuo: Adaptive Benefits and Origins of Matriliny and “Walking Marriages”. Cult. Evol. 2022 , 19 , 22–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Strier, K.B. Primate Behavioral Ecology ; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hasty, J.; Lewis, D.G.; Snipes, M.M. Introduction to Anthropology ; OpenStax Rice University: Houston, TX, USA, 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feldman, R. The Neurobiology of Human Attachments. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2017 , 21 , 80–99. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Marazziti, D.; Akiskal, H.S.; Rossi, A.; Cassano, G.B. Alteration of the Platelet Serotonin Transporter in Romantic Love. Psychol. Med. 1999 , 29 , 741–745. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pitkow, L.J.; Sharer, C.A.; Ren, X.; Insel, T.R.; Terwilliger, E.F.; Young, L.J. Facilitation of Affiliation and Pair-Bond Formation by Vasopressin Receptor Gene Transfer into the Ventral Forebrain of a Monogamous Vole. J. Neurosci. 2001 , 21 , 7392–7396. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wood, B.; Boyle, E.K. Hominin Taxic Diversity: Fact or Fantasy? Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2016 , 159 , 37–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Levin, S.R.; Grafen, A. Inclusive Fitness Is an Indispensable Approximation for Understanding Organismal Design. Evolution 2019 , 73 , 1066–1076. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pereira, A.S.; De Moor, D.; Casanova, C.; Brent, L.J. Kinship Composition in Mammals. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2023 , 10 , 230486. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Palmer, C.T.; Steadman, L.B. Human Kinship as a Descendant-Leaving Strategy: A Solution to an Evolutionary Puzzle. J. Soc. Evol. Syst. 1997 , 20 , 39–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fortunato, L. Lineal Kinship Organization in Cross-Specific Perspective. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2019 , 374 , 20190005. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Skov, L.; Peyrégne, S.; Popli, D.; Iasi, L.N.; Devièse, T.; Slon, V.; Zavala, E.I.; Hajdinjak, M.; Sümer, A.P.; Grote, S. Genetic Insights into the Social Organization of Neanderthals. Nature 2022 , 610 , 519–525. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lieberman, D.; Lobel, T. Kinship on the Kibbutz: Coresidence Duration Predicts Altruism, Personal Sexual Aversions and Moral Attitudes among Communally Reared Peers. Evol. Hum. Behav. 2012 , 33 , 26–34. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Krause, J.; Ruxton, G.D. Living in Groups ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Romano, A.; Saral, A.S.; Wu, J. Direct and Indirect Reciprocity among Individuals and Groups. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2022 , 43 , 254–259. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Smith, D. Cultural Group Selection and Human Cooperation: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. Evol. Hum. Sci. 2020 , 2 , e2. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grinde, B. How Can Science Help Religion toward Optimal Benefit for Society? Zygon 2005 , 40 , 277–288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hensch, T.K. Critical Period Regulation. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2004 , 27 , 549–579. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Berk, L. Child Development ; Pearson Higher Education: Sidney, OH, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dombrowski, S.C.; Gischlar, K.L.; Mrazik, M.; Greer, F.W. Feral Children. In Assessing and Treating Low Incidence/High Severity Psychological Disorders of Childhood ; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 81–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• de Waal, F. Bonobo Sex and Society. Sci. Am. 2016 , 25 , 42–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Poiani, A. Animal Homosexuality: A Biosocial Perspective ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barron, A.B.; Hare, B. Prosociality and a Sociosexual Hypothesis for the Evolution of Same-Sex Attraction in Humans. Front. Psychol. 2020 , 10 , 2955. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pfau, D.; Jordan, C.L.; Breedlove, S.M. The De-Scent of Sexuality: Did Loss of a Pheromone Signaling Protein Permit the Evolution of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior in Primates? Arch. Sex. Behav. 2021 , 50 , 2267–2276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Stowers, L.; Holy, T.E.; Meister, M.; Dulac, C.; Koentges, G. Loss of Sex Discrimination and Male-Male Aggression in Mice Deficient for Trp2. Science 2002 , 295 , 1493–1500. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hill, R.A.; Dunbar, R.I. Social Network Size in Humans. Hum. Nat. 2003 , 14 , 53–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Peter, T. Population Dynamics and Internal Warfare: A Reconsideration. Soc. Evol. Hist. 2006 , 5 , 112–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rankin, D.J. Resolving the Tragedy of the Commons: The Feedback between Intraspecific Conflict and Population Density. J. Evol. Biol. 2007 , 20 , 173–180. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pinker, S. The Better Angels of Our Nature ; Penguin: London, UK, 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prüfer, K.; De Filippo, C.; Grote, S.; Mafessoni, F.; Korlević, P.; Hajdinjak, M.; Vernot, B.; Skov, L.; Hsieh, P.; Peyrégne, S. A High-Coverage Neandertal Genome from Vindija Cave in Croatia. Science 2017 , 358 , 655–658. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schaefer, N.K.; Shapiro, B.; Green, R.E. An Ancestral Recombination Graph of Human, Neanderthal, and Denisovan Genomes. Sci. Adv. 2021 , 7 , eabc0776. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Macciardi, F.; Martini, F. The Neanderthal Brain: Biological and Cognitive Evolution. In Updating Neanderthals ; Romangnoli, F., Rivals, F., Benazzi, S., Eds.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 89–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Diez, M. ‘Art’: Neanderthal Symbolic Graphic Behaviour. In Updating Neanderthals ; Romangnoli, F., Rivals, F., Benazzi, S., Eds.; Elsevier: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 251–260. [ Google Scholar ]
• Benítez-Burraco, A. The Case of Neanderthal Language (s): A Multidisciplinary Approach. PsyArXiv 2023 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bergström, A.; McCarthy, S.A.; Hui, R.; Almarri, M.A.; Ayub, Q.; Danecek, P.; Chen, Y.; Felkel, S.; Hallast, P.; Kamm, J. Insights into Human Genetic Variation and Population History from 929 Diverse Genomes. Science 2020 , 367 , eaay5012. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Snir, A.; Nadel, D.; Groman-Yaroslavski, I.; Melamed, Y.; Sternberg, M.; Bar-Yosef, O.; Weiss, E. The Origin of Cultivation and Proto-Weeds, Long before Neolithic Farming. PLoS ONE 2015 , 10 , e0131422. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pearson, J.; Evans, J.; Lamb, A.; Baird, D.; Hodder, I.; Marciniak, A.; Larsen, C.S.; Knüsel, C.J.; Haddow, S.D.; Pilloud, M.A. Mobility and Kinship in the World’s First Village Societies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023 , 120 , e2209480119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lewis, R. Human Genetics: The Basics ; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Owens, K.; King, M.-C. Genomic Views of Human History. Science 1999 , 286 , 451–453. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moberg, G.; Mench, J. The Biology of Animal Stress ; Moberg, G., Mench, J., Eds.; CABI: Oxfordshire, UK, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grinde, B. Can the Concept of Discords Help Us Find the Causes of Mental Diseases? Med. Hypotheses 2009 , 73 , 106–109. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Eaton, S.B.; Konner, M.; Shostak, M. Stone Agers in the Fast Lane: Chronic Degenerative Diseases in Evolutionary Perspective. Am. J. Med. 1988 , 84 , 739–749. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grinde, B. An Approach to the Prevention of Anxiety-Related Disorders Based on Evolutionary Medicine. Prev. Med. 2005 , 40 , 904–909. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Williams, G.C.; Nesse, R.M. The Dawn of Darwinian Medicine. Q. Rev. Biol. 1991 , 66 , 1–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marks, I. The Development of Normal Fear: A Review. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 1987 , 28 , 667–697. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moffitt, T.E.; Caspi, A.; Taylor, A.; Kokaua, J.; Milne, B.J.; Polanczyk, G.; Poulton, R. How Common Are Common Mental Disorders? Evidence That Lifetime Prevalence Rates Are Doubled by Prospective Versus Retrospective Ascertainment. Psychol. Med. 2010 , 40 , 899–909. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Douglas, K. Playing Fair. New Sci. 2001 , 169 , 38–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fowler, J.H.; Christakis, N.A. Dynamic Spread of Happiness in a Large Social Network: Longitudinal Analysis over 20 Years in the Framingham Heart Study. BMJ 2008 , 337 , a2338. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nivette, A.E. Violence in Non-State Societies: A Review. Br. J. Criminol. 2011 , 51 , 578–598. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hino, K.; Schneider, R.H. Planning for Crime Prevention in Japan. Built Environ. 2013 , 39 , 114–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grinde, B. How to Form the Human Brain. PsyArXiv Prepr. 2024 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hofmann, S.G.; Grossman, P.; Hinton, D.E. Loving-Kindness and Compassion Meditation: Potential for Psychological Interventions. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2011 , 31 , 1126–1132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Krasnegor, N.A.; Bridges, R.S. Mammalian Parenting ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clark, R. The Japanese Company ; Tuttle Publishing: Tokyo, Japan, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry, Z.; Frederickson, J. Explanations and Implications of the Fundamental Attribution Error: A Review and Proposal. J. Integr. Soc. Sci. 2015 , 5 , 44–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• DiMaria, C.H.; Peroni, C.; Sarracino, F. Happiness Matters: Productivity Gains from Subjective Well-Being. J. Happiness Stud. 2020 , 21 , 139–160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grinde, B. Social Behavior: Making the Best of the Human Condition. Mank. Q. 2000 , 41 , 193–210. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Layard, R. Happiness—Lessons from a New Science ; Penguin: London, UK, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grinde, B.; Nes, R.B.; MacDonald, I.; Wilson, D.S. Quality of Life in Intentional Communities. Soc. Indic. Res. 2017 , 137 , 625–640. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gallagher, E.N.; Vella-Brodrick, D.A. Social Support and Emotional Intelligence as Predictors of Subjective Well-Being. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2008 , 44 , 1551–1561. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grinde, B. Role of Happiness When Evaluating Society. Encyclopedia 2022 , 2 , 230–236. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moll, J.; Krueger, F.; Zahn, R.; Pardini, M.; de Oliveira-Souza, R.; Grafman, J. Human Fronto-Mesolimbic Networks Guide Decisions about Charitable Donation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006 , 103 , 15623–15628. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Borgonovi, F. Doing Well by Doing Good. The Relationship between Formal Volunteering and Self-Reported Health and Happiness. Soc. Sci. Med. 2008 , 66 , 2321–2334. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grinde, B. An Evolutionary Perspective on Free Will and Self-Consciousness. Psychol. Conscious. 2022 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lykken, D. Happiness: The Nature and Nurture of Joy and Contentment ; St. Martin’s Griffin: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Veenhoven, R. Well-Being in the Welfare State: Level Not Higher, Distribution Not More Equitable. J. Comp. Policy Anal. 2000 , 2 , 91–125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

Grinde, B. The Evolution of Human Social Behavior. Encyclopedia 2024 , 4 , 430-443. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia4010029

Grinde B. The Evolution of Human Social Behavior. Encyclopedia . 2024; 4(1):430-443. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia4010029

Grinde, Bjørn. 2024. "The Evolution of Human Social Behavior" Encyclopedia 4, no. 1: 430-443. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia4010029

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Essays on Ethics, Social Behaviour, and Scientific Explanation

• © 1976
• John C. Harsanyi 0

School of Business Administration, University of California, Berkeley, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Part of the book series: Theory and Decision Library (TDLU, volume 12)

3750 Accesses

212 Citations

19 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

About this book

Similar content being viewed by others.

The theory of social games: outline of a general theory for the social sciences

Game Theory

Game theory in economics, origins of.

• game theory
• interaction
• methodology
• organization
• organizations

Table of contents (13 chapters)

Front matter, ethics and welfare economics, cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk-taking.

John C. Harsanyi

Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility

Ethics in terms of hypothetical imperatives, can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality a critique of john rawls’s theory, nonlinear social welfare functions: do welfare economists have a special exemption from bayesian rationality, rational-choice and game theoretical models of social behavior, advances in understanding rational behavior, rational-choice models of political behavior vs. functionalist and conformist theories, game theory and the analysis of international conflicts, measurement of social power, opportunity costs, and the theory of two-person bargaining games, measurement of social power in n -person reciprocal power situations, a bargaining model for social status in informal groups and formal organizations, scientific explanation, explanation and comparative dynamics in social science, popper’s improbability criterion for the choice of scientific hypotheses, back matter, authors and affiliations, bibliographic information.

Book Title : Essays on Ethics, Social Behaviour, and Scientific Explanation

Authors : John C. Harsanyi

Series Title : Theory and Decision Library

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9327-9

Publisher : Springer Dordrecht

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Copyright Information : D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1976

Softcover ISBN : 978-90-277-1186-1 Published: 30 September 1980

eBook ISBN : 978-94-010-9327-9 Published: 06 December 2012

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : 278

Topics : Methodology of the Social Sciences

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research