Chapter 22 Chapter Thirteen Social Psychologist-2

In March 1964, a murder in Kew Park in Queenstown, New York, quickly became front-page news in the New York Times and shocked the nation.The reason for the murder's attention had nothing to do with the murderer, the victim, or his method of murder.Kitty Groves, a young bar manager, was stabbed to death by Winston Moseley on her way home at 3am.Mosley, a transaction machine operator, didn't know her at all, and he had killed two other women before.What made this murder big news was that it took half an hour for the murder (Mosley stabs her, walks away, turns back a few minutes later stabs her again, walks away, then turns back stabbing her), during which time she repeatedly screamed and called for help, and 38 people heard and saw her being stabbed from the apartment window.No one came down to protect her, she was lying on the ground bleeding and no one helped her, not even calling the police. (One did—after she died.)

News commentators and other scholars believe that the indifferent words and deeds of these 38 witnesses are evidence of the alienation and inhumanity of modern urban people, especially New Yorkers.But two young social psychologists living in the city, neither of them native to New York, were unhappy with the generalization.John Barley, an associate professor at New York University, and Bibe Latane, a lecturer at Columbia University, were both former students of Stanley Schachter.Shortly after the murder, they met at a party and felt the two had something in common.Although the two differ in many ways—Barry is dark-haired, well-mannered, Ivy League; Social psychologists, they all felt, must have a better explanation for the indifference of the witnesses.

They talked for several hours that night and reached a consensus.Latane recalled: Newspapers, tv, everyone is saying the truth is there were 38 people who witnessed the atrocity and no one came out to do something, as if if only one or two witnesses saw it and did nothing Things are much easier to understand.So we suddenly had an idea: perhaps, it was because of the fact that 38 people did explain their indifference.It's an old trick in social psychology where people turn a phenomenon upside down and see if what you think is the effect is actually the cause.Maybe, each of those 38 people knew, and someone else was watching, and that's why they didn't do anything.

Despite the delay, the pair immediately set about designing an experiment to test their hypothesis.Over the course of several weeks, with careful planning and preparation, they launched an extensive survey of bystander responses to emergencies, in varying circumstances. In the study, 72 students in an introductory psychology class at NYU participated in an unspecified experiment to fulfill a requirement required by the course.Each arriving participant would be told by Barry, Latane, or a research assistant that the experiment involved a discussion of personal problems among urban college students.Discussions take place in groups of 2, 3 or 6.In order to minimize the embarrassment of exposing personal problems, they will be assigned to separate work rooms, and talk through the walkie-talkie, taking turns to speak in an arranged order.

Whether the uninformed participant assumed that he was talking to one other person, or two, or five other people—hypothetical because of the fact that everything he heard was on a tape recorder—the first The first voice, always a male student, spoke of the difficulties of adjusting to life in New York and studying, and admitted that he often had semi-seizures under the stress.That was said by Richard Nisbett, then a graduate student at Columbia University and today a professor at the University of Michigan, who auditioned best and was chosen for the play this role.When it was time for him to speak in the second round, his voice began to change, and his speech was incoherent. He stuttered and breathed rapidly. , "I'm dying...uh yo...help me...ahah... attack..." Then, after panting for a while, there was no sound at all.

Eighty-five percent of the participants who thought they were the only ones talking to the person with epilepsy rushed out of the workplace to report a seizure, long before the patient was silent; Of the 4 participants who also heard these seizures, only 31 percent moved.Later, when the students were asked whether the presence of others affected their responses, they all said no; they really didn't realize its enormous influence. Barry and Latane now have a convincing social-psychological explanation for the Kew Park phenomenon, which they call "social inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies," or, more simply, "the bystander effect." ’” As they assumed, it was the presence of other witnesses to an emergency that made a bystander indifferent.The explanation for the bystander effect, they say, "may lie more in bystanders' reactions to other observers than in a person's 'pathological' personality flaws that a priori exist."

They later suggested that three thought processes underpin the bystander effect: the hesitation to act in the presence of others unless the person knows that helping or some other action is appropriate; the feeling that other immobile people might understand the situation, That is, nothing needs to be done; most importantly, "diffusion of responsibility"—that is, a feeling that because others know about the emergency, one's own responsibility to act is relieved.Other later experiments by Latane, Barry, and other researchers also demonstrated that, depending on whether bystanders can see other bystanders, are seen by others, or are fully aware of other people, then the three thoughts One way or another of the process will work.

The Barry and Latane experiments aroused widespread interest and inspired a large number of similar experiments.Over the next decade or so, 56 studies in 30 laboratories provided apparent urgency to a total of nearly 6,000 blinded experimental subjects, either alone or in One, several, or many other persons are present. (Conclusion: The greater the number of bystanders, the more pronounced the bystander effect.) There are various stages of emergencies: a loud noise in the next room, followed by a lady's groan; a well-groomed young man holding a walking stick (or, sometimes, a dirty young man reeking of alcohol) who suddenly fell in a subway car and struggled to get up; staged book theft; the experimenter himself fainted Wait a minute.In 48 of the 56 studies, the bystander effect was clearly shown; in general, when an emergency situation arises, if only one person is present, about half of the people will help; Only 22 percent of people would help in the presence of other people.Since there is less than one chance in 51 million of this total, the bystander effect is one of the most established hypotheses in social psychology.Since it is so well established and its effects have been individually measured in many situations, it has, in recent years, ceased to be the subject of much research and has become a matter of fact.

However, research on helping behavior in general—the social and psychological factors that favor and disfavor helping behavior in non-emergency situations—continued and prospered until recently, in the 1980s.Helping behavior is the part of prosocial behavior that, in the idealistic 1960s, began to replace the vigorous postwar study of aggressive behavior by social psychologists; it remains an important aspect of the field of social psychological research today. There are many other verdicts in social psychology.Here are some very notable examples, each with a key finding or two: Thought shifting (or persuasion): People with low self-confidence are more likely to be persuaded than those with high self-confidence... People are more easily influenced by what an authority figure says, and if a person is not an authority, people are less likely to Note that he says the same or even better things... They are also more likely to be persuaded by some hearsay than to believe what people tell them, and are more likely to take actions that are induced (as in Furstinger's opinion as in the cognitive dissonance experiment), rather than acting on logical reasoning.

Prejudice: When people are assigned to or belong to a certain group, they often perceive that group as better than others so that they can maintain their self-confidence and positive self-image...people assume that some other group shares some People with tastes, beliefs, or attitudes may also be like you in some other ways, and those who disagree with you on many topics may be different in other ways... in rival or rival groups There is a distaste that men have for each other, and this dislike is somewhat counteracted when they must cooperate for some mutually beneficial end. Group Decision-Making: Groups make riskier or more conservative decisions than individuals do alone, mainly because group discussion and public expression of opinions can lead some people to take more extreme positions than they would alone. When tasks are better accomplished, they are those that require the addition of everyone's efforts, rather than those for which there is only one correct solution; With the support of people, the group may abandon this correct solution... In some groups organized to solve a specific problem, two people are the most important: one is the task expert, he speaks the most, he has the most ideas, and acts as the leader people look at.There is also a propagandist who does a lot of work to promote harmony and morale growth.

The list could go on and on, but we've seen enough examples.In their short professional history social psychologists have enthusiastically undertaken and subsequently dropped a large number of subject categories, in some cases because they found their assumptions questionable, in others Because they have largely solved the problem and added to the accepted body of knowledge about human nature and human behavior. A common factor in many of these established examples, particularly the three detailed above and the hundreds of studies that have inspired them, is the use of carefully crafted false research objectives.Few of these things have been done in experimental studies of personality and development, or in most areas of psychology today, yet deceptive research experiments have been the essence of social psychology research for many years . In the years since the Nuremberg trials, criticism of human experimentation without the knowledge or consent of human subjects has grown, and deceptive experiments by biomedical researchers and social psychologists have been severely criticized. attack.The Milgram obedience experiment was especially attacked not only because it inflicted pain on people without prior warning, but because it could cause long-term psychological damage to these people because the experiments revealed some nasty things about themselves. aspect.Milgram, expressing "overwhelming surprise" at the criticism, asked some of his former subjects to share their experiences with the experience, reporting that 80 percent said they were glad they had participated In this experiment, 15 percent of the people were neutral, and only 1 percent regretted that they had participated in such an experiment. But in the era of the growing human rights movement, moral opponents of such research have won. In 1971, the Ministry of Health, Education and Welfare adopted some regulations.Qualifications for research approval schemes greatly constrain social psychologists and biomedical scientists from the freedom to conduct experiments that exploit uninformed individuals. In 1974, the department tightened the rules even more; the power of man not to do anything to himself without his written consent was made very strict, which not only made Milgram-type experimental procedures impossible. As a result, many social psychologists have abandoned a series of very interesting subjects that seem to be impossible to study any more. Protests from the scientific community grew from the 1970s onwards, and by 1981 the Department of Health and Human Services (formerly the Department of Health, Education and Welfare) had somewhat relaxed restrictions to allow less concealment and Preserve information measures, but must be "minimal risk to the subjects", except for these, the research "cannot be practicably conducted", and the benefits to humans should outweigh the risks to the subjects. "Risk-benefit" calculations, which must be reviewed by an evaluation committee before a research proposal can be deemed legitimate to proceed, already allow for concealment research—no Milgram-style experiments, though— — has been going on until now.Concealment experiments are used in more than half of all social psychology experiments, but in relatively innocuous formats and settings. Moreover, many moralists agree that even harmless concealment is an irrefutable violation of human rights.They also say that this kind of research is unnecessary because research can use non-experimental methods, such as questionnaires, interviews, comprehensive surveys, observations of natural situations, and so on.However, while these methods are available in many areas of psychology, they are less useful, or simply impossible, in social psychology. On the one hand, the evidence obtained by these methods is largely interactive, and a correlation between X and Y factors only means that they are related in some way; it does not prove that one factor is necessarily the other. The cause of a factor.This is especially true in some social psychological phenomena, which involve a confluence of factors, any one of which may appear to be a cause of an effect under study, but may in fact be just one Collateral effects of individual causes.However, experimental methods can isolate a single factor, an "independent variable," which can be modified (for example, by changing the number of bystanders standing by when an emergency occurs).If this produces a change in a "dependent variable," the behavior under study, then one has solid evidence for causation.Such an experimental method can be compared with some chemical experiments.In a chemical experiment, a single catalyst added to a liquid produces a measurable effect.As Aronson and two co-authors put it in the Handbook of Social Psychology: "Experiments can provide unambiguous evidence of causality, allow control of The analysis and exploration of parameters, etc., these aspects are unmatched by other methods.” On the other hand, no matter how powerfully the experimenter controls and manipulates the experimental variables, he or she cannot control the multiple variables located inside the human brain unless the subject is deceived.Had they known that the investigators wanted to see how they reacted to the sound of someone next door falling off a ladder, they would have acted more admirably than it would have been.If they knew that the investigator's interest was not in enhancing memory through punishment, but in refusing to inflict pain on another human being until a certain point, they would be more likely to act more noblely than without their knowledge the behavior performed.Therefore, for many kinds of social psychological research, concealing the purpose of the experiment is a must. Many social psychologists used to use this method not for this effective reason, but for another, less effective reason.A carefully drafted cover-up experiment is a challenge; a clever and complex script is given great weight, prestige, and excitement.And concealment research is partly a game, a magic show, a theatrical one; compared to. (Aronson and a colleague once devised an experiment in which unsuspecting subjects were led to believe that she herself was a colluding character conducting some sort of experiment. In fact, her role was the actual need , and the so-called uninformed subjects are the actual colluders.) In the 1960s and 1970s, at this time, most undergraduates had heard of the concealment experiment method, and the above method could continue to mislead the subjects , and then ask for their opinion. In the past fifteen years, however, the tide of artistic, brilliant, and daring experimentation has receded; Graham and Barry and Ratane are much more cautious.However, concealing the specific effects of experimental methods remains attractive to some researchers.When one meets or talks to such a researcher, one gets the impression that they are highly competitive, inquisitive, funny, daring, acrobatic and extraordinary, Serious men like Wundt, Pavlov, Binet, and Piaget are very different. Some of the topics that social psychologists have been actively exploring in recent years have been going on since the days of Luwin.Other topics have been raised more recently.Although these ongoing explorations are not related to each other, they have one characteristic in common: connection.Almost all subjects are not only of scientific interest but also have profound potential to improve the human condition.We can look at two famous examples. About half a century ago, social psychologists became interested in what factors promote cooperation over competition, and where people work more effectively in some places rather than others.After a while, they reframed the topic, calling it "conflict solutions," and defining their concerns as the outcomes obtained when people compete or cooperate, so that goals can be achieved. Morton Deutsch (1920- ), now professor emeritus at Teachers College, Columbia University, has long been a patriarch in the field of conflict studies.He suspects that his research on the subject may have taken root as a child.As the fourth youngest son in a Polish-Jewish immigrant family, he was a constant loser, an experience he has translated into a lifelong study of social justice and peaceful conflict resolution. It took him a long time to discover that this was where his true interest lay.As a middle school student he became very interested in psychology from reading Freud and reacted strongly to some of the emotional processes he himself experienced.When he gets to college, he plans to be a clinical psychologist.However, the social turmoil in the 1930s and the outbreak of World War II made him more interested in solving social problems.After the battle, he found Kurt Luwin.Luwin's magnetic personality and exciting ideas, especially about social issues, convinced Deutsch that he should become a social psychologist.For his doctoral dissertation, he studied conflict resolution, which he continues to this day.The subject suited his character: unlike many other social psychologists, he was slow-talking, affable, and peaceful (except on the tennis court, where he played silent but competitive— —at least when playing with me, he gave me a lot of thumps on the court—the author), and as an experimenter, he mainly relies on the use of Unpleasant gameplay. A focus of his research has been the behavior of people in "mixed motivational situations," such as labor disputes or disarmament negotiations, in which one side always seeks ways to gain more at the other's expense, But there are common interests with the other party, so they don't want to destroy the other party.In the 1950s, he studied these situations carefully in the laboratory, mainly by modifying the "prisoner's dilemma" game himself.In a Deutsch-style game, each player tries to increase the imaginary total by choosing a good answer among two choices—the outcome of which depends on the other player's simultaneous choice.It is particularly worth mentioning that player 1 can choose X or Y, and player 2 can choose A or B at the same time.In deciding what to do, neither side knows what the other is going to do, but each side knows that any combination of choices they make—XA, XB, YA, YB—has different consequences.For example, Player 1 thinks, "If I pick X and he picks A, we both get $9—but if he picks B, I lose $10 and he gets $10. If I What about pick Y? If I pick Y and he picks A, I win $10 back and he loses $10, but if he picks B we both lose $9. "And Player 2 faces the same dilemma. Since neither side knows what the other is going to do, each side is left to decide for itself which step is best to take.However, as in the original "Prisoner's Dilemma" game, logical reasoning cannot help; only if both players trust each other to take the course that is most beneficial to both will they choose X and A respectively. , and both win $9.If either party mistrusts the other party, or tries to look out for his own interests regardless of the other party's situation, he may win $10 back and the other party loses a corresponding amount, but he may also lose $10 and the other party wins back The corresponding amount, or, it is also possible to lose $9 together with the other party. Deutsch made some variations on these situations so that student volunteers could play the game to stimulate and test the effect in a range of real-world situations.To induce cooperative motivation, he told some of the volunteers: "You have to consider that you are collaborators. You care as much about your partner's interests as your own." To induce individual motivation, he told others: "You are the only Your motivation is to win as much as you can. You have no interest in whether the other party wins or loses. This is not a competitive game.” Finally, to induce a competitive atmosphere, he told some others: “Your motivation is to try to win as much as possible. Win more for yourself, and do better than the other person. You want to make money, not lose money, but you also want to be better than other people.” Usually, players make choices at the same time when they don't know the opponent's choice, however, sometimes, Deutsch lets the first player choose, and then passes his choice to the second player, who also makes a choice. own choice.At other times, one or both players are allowed to change their choice after hearing about the other's choice.At other times, both parties can pass notes stating their intentions, such as: "I will cooperate, so I hope you will cooperate. In this way, we can both win." As Deutsch postulates, when players tend to consider each other's interests, they act in a way that trusts each other (they choose X and A), so that the overall outcome is good, even if one side may Will be a big loser if the other party cheats him.However, when they are asked to win as much as possible and beat each other, everyone usually assumes that the other party is also trying to win him at the expense of himself, so the choices he makes only consider himself, making the other party lose more, or both Both lose. The encouraging result, says Deutsch, is that "mutual trust can occur even when neither side has the other's interests in mind, in which case the situation must have the following characteristics: They will Induce one party to expect their trust to be realized." This is, for example, a situation where one player can propose a cooperation plan to the other party, with regulations and penalties for violations; or, when a person knows before making his choice What the other party will do.Or, when one party can influence the other party's outcome, it turns out that violating an agreement is not in the other party's interest. Deutsch's research using a modified "prisoner's dilemma" game is a seeding work in social psychology.It led to hundreds of similar studies by others, who modified and varied player conditions to explore other factors that could encourage cooperative or competitive styles in conflict resolution. Deutsch himself soon moved on to another game, in which he and a research assistant, Robert M. Krauss, investigated how threats affected conflict resolution.Many people, in times of conflict, believe that by issuing threats they can induce more cooperation.Quarrelling spouses signal separation or divorce in an attempt to change each other's behavior; management warns strikers that unless they sit down to negotiate, they will shut down the company; conflicting nations move troops to their borders Go up, or conduct weapons tests, in an attempt to force the other party to make concessions. In Deutsch and Krause's Assem-Poulter car transport game, there are two players, both "truck drivers", the Assem Corporation on one side and the Poulter Corporation on the other.This diagram represents a world in which they would interact: time is a fundamental concern for both players.A short cut means profit; a long way means loss.Both sides drive at the same speed at the same time (the position will appear on the control wheel), and both sides can choose to take a curved road or take a shortcut.Although taking a shortcut is obviously a good way, it involves a section of single lane, and only one car can pass at a time.If both players choose this road at the same time, they will form a head-to-head traffic jam, and one or both players will have to reverse, thus losing money.Clearly, the best route is that they come to an agreement to take turns crossing the one-way street so that both parties reap the greatest or near-equal profits. To stimulate the threat, Deutsch and Krause let each player take control of Luca at one end of the one-way street.When negotiating, each party can threaten the other by saying that it will close the door on its end unless the other party agrees to its terms.The experiment can be played for 20 rounds in one of three situations: double threat (both sides can control Luka), single threat (only Assem's side can control Luka), no threat (neither side can control Luka) Card).Another important change is communication.In the first experiment, players communicated intent only by the steps they took; in the second experiment, they could talk to each other; in the third experiment, they could only talk on each attempt.Since both players want to earn as much money as possible, the money they earn over a total of 20 rounds is a direct measure of their success in resolving the conflict.The main findings are as follows: - profit is maximized (collectively) when neither player can threaten; slightly worse when one side can threaten; and, contrary to common sense, is least profitable when each player can threaten. (Is the idea that "mutual deterrence" is the way to avoid a nuclear war in general an ill-thought-out and costly misjudgment?) — Free communication does nothing to reach an agreement, especially when both sides threaten the other.The obligation to communicate is useless if both parties can threaten, but it may be useful if only one can threaten. —If both parties are taught, can communicate and make reasonable proposals to each other, they will reach an agreement more quickly than if they were not instructed. - If both parties can issue threats, verbal communication during a deadlock will lead to a useful agreement more quickly than communication before the deadlock.Clearly, being in a deadlock is a motivating experience. — the higher the stakes, the harder it is for them to reach an agreement. - Finally, when the experiment was run by a beautiful female research assistant instead of a man, both players - male college students - acted in a machismo way, they used control Luca more often, and came to an agreement would encounter considerable difficulties. The Assam-Polt Car Transport game became an instant classic, quickly cited by many, and won the prestigious AAAS Award for Social Science Research.Like many groundbreaking studies, it was an immediate target for critics, many of whom wondered whether the variables were based on what can be found in real life.However, over time, this problem has resolved itself.The notion that a conflict can be viewed as a problem and approached as a question of "what is the best way to solve it" has been borrowed by many other studies and has become the basis for practical training. tutorial.In recent years, the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, led by Deutsch at Normal University, the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard Law School, and other negotiation centers have been teaching negotiators to resolve disputes constructively With great success, these disputes have arisen between employers and employers, divorce and corporate attorneys, government officials and legislatures, teachers and students, tenants and homeowners, family members, and other conflict situations.Deutsch hopes that many of the facts uncovered by conflict resolution research will eventually become known to leaders of world powers. In the 1970s, cognitive dissonance had been replaced by a new topic, attribution, as the top topic of social psychology.This term refers to the process of inference we make about the causes of events in our own lives or in the actions of others. Our inferential processes, correct or incorrect, play a greater role in how we think, feel, and behave than objective reality.For example, research shows that we generally attribute more warmth, sexiness, and likability to more beautiful people than to ugly ones, and decide to behave toward them accordingly.Those who attribute women's lower employment status and pay levels to their fear of success and lack of assertiveness are also more likely to treat women than those who believe it is due to male bias, male dominance in the workplace and concerns about women. People with traditional views of the role take a different approach. The phenomenon of attribution can be seen in an old joke.Two men, one Protestant, the other Catholic, saw a priest in a brothel.The Protestant smiles sourly at the hypocrisy of Catholicism when he sees the evidence, while the Non-Catholic smiles proudly at the proof that a priest dares to go anywhere, not even a brothel, for the sake of The purpose is to save the dying soul of a Catholic. For those who prefer a more serious example, attribution can be compared with an early experiment by two of Luwin's students, Talbot and Henry Leecken.They assign unsuspecting volunteers the task of meeting one person at a time with an experimental project, and along the way each realizes that he needs the help of two other people present, one a graduate student and the other a newborn. (Both were insiders for the researcher.) Each of the volunteers reached out to them for help, and they all got help.When volunteers were later asked why they felt helped by others, most said that the graduate student helped them because he wanted to help people, and the college student helped because he felt compelled to help. .This attribution is not based on any experience they know, but on their prior understanding of social status and power. 弗里茨·海德是位奥地利心理学家，他早在1927年就提出到过归因概念，可是，在许多年里，一直没有人注意到他的提议。海德很早就移民到美国了，在1958年，他进一步扩大了这个概念，海德在《个人关系中的心理学》一书中提出了我们的社会行为的因果关系概念，他还说，我们不是在对实际的刺激产生反应，而是对我们认为引起这些现象的东西产生反应。例如：如果一位妻子正试图通过不与先生讲话而使他生气，他可能会想，要么是他很担心，要么是他已经做了某件使她恼火的事情，而他的行动将会取决于不仅是她的行为的真实原因，而是他把这件事归咎于什么原因了。海德还在这些归因之间做了极有价值的区别，一是指向外部原因的归因，一是指向内部原因的归因。这比朱利安·罗特在内部和外部控制位的归因作为关键的性格特征上的重要工作早80年头。 心理学家们都觉得海德的思想很是令人激动，因为使人们进行归因的那些因素的知识会极大地增大人类行为的可预见性。60年代对归因的兴趣一直不减，而到70年代时，它已经成了社会心理学中的热门话题。 可也只是一个热门话题而已，不到形成理论的时候。的确，它是一大堆小理论，每个理论都是对一个社会心理学现象以前的某种解释以归因论的术语重新炒作一遍而已。认知失谐理论被重新解释为，一个人将自我的行为自我归因至人们认为自己的信仰和感觉应该是的样子。（如果情形逼迫我对某人作出很坏的行为，我就对自己说，这人活该如此，从而从我自己的行为归因至我对他的“真实”本性的解释。）“一脚在里”现象也是这么重新加以解释的：如果我第一次给收钱的人出了一点钱，因此第二次就多给一点，这是因为我把第一次捐赠归因于我是一个好人，一个仁慈的人，等等。社会心理学领域的大片地区都受到了归因论者的侵袭，并为他们所占领。 比前述发现的重新解释更为重要的是，从归因研究当中涌现出了很多新的发现。一些著名的例子如下所示： ——李·罗斯和两位同事请成对的学生志愿者玩一种“测验表演游戏”。一个装提问者，另一个装竞赛者。提问的人要求拿出10个相当困难而他自己又知道答案的问题，再让竞赛者回答这些问题。（竞赛者平均可答对6个问题。）之后，所有的参与者都要求来评定彼此的“总体知识”。几乎所有的竞赛者都说，他们认为提问的人比自己更有知识；实验的公正观察人也是这么想的。哪怕他们都知道，这些提出问题的人所提出的问题都是他们自己知道答案的问题，他们还是因为他们所扮演的角色而认为其知识更多。 ——调查者发现，我们通常将极引人注目、长相不同或着装醒目者的行为归因于遗传品质，而将容易忘记或长得一般的人的行为归因于外部（环境）的力量。 ——人们对穷人、嗜酒者、事故受害人、强奸受害人和其它一些不幸者的反应都以“公平世界假设”来解释——人们需要相信，这个世界是有秩序和公正的，好有好报。这就导致人们认为，受害者的不幸是因为他们自己不小心、懒惰、冒险、容易受诱惑及类似原因。有些研究发现，受害者受到的损失越大，人们越是认为他们自己活该。 ——心理学家斯图尔特·华林斯请男性大学生看裸体女人的幻灯片，并给她们的美丑评分。学生们一边看的时候，一边还可以通过耳机上的听筒听到假定是他自己的心跳，而事实上，这些心跳都是华林斯事先录制好了，并且由他来控制的。志愿者听到的扑通扑通的心跳，会在某些幻灯片而不是另外一些幻灯片出现时加快。当他们后来评定这些女人的吸引力时，他们认为那些好像使自己心跳加快的女人最有吸引力。 ——一些考得并不好，但为其报告的假成绩却很高的志愿者，他们倾向于把所谓的考试顺利归因于他们自己的努力或者天才的能力，而认为考得不好的原因都是外部的，比如考试不公平，考试环境太吵等。 ——研究者请幼儿园的一组以前喜欢用多色彩软尖笔画画的孩子过来玩游戏，以获取“好玩家”奖。他们请一个控制组用这种笔来玩，但不提获奖的事。过了一会儿，两个组都到了自由画画时间，因此都可以拿这种笔。那些获得过奖项的孩子不像没有获奖的孩子们那样对这些笔有兴趣。归因解释为：以前准备拿奖的孩子会在心里想：“如果我是为了拿奖才这么做的，我就不能表现出使用这种笔来画是件非常好玩的事。” 80年代以来，归因理论已经在很大程度上吸收到更为广泛的“社会认知”领域里去了。这个领域研究人们对于社会问题是怎样认识的。在这个框架之中，它仍然是当代社会心理学的中心概念。它使心理学家对人类行为的解释范围又增加了很大一块。 它还得出了在教育中的很多应用（学生被告知，他们失败的原因在于自己努力不够，而不是能力问题），对忧郁的治疗（让忧郁症患者尽量减少他们的个人责任感，他们生活当中的负面影响不是他个人的责任），促进一些有害怕心理的人和失败主义者的操作水平和进取心（引导他们将所担心的失败归因于缺少练习和技巧，而不是性格缺陷）等等。 其它许多既有科学兴趣，也具实践意义的课题，也在最近几年被社会心理学家们加以探索了，而且还在积极的探索中。下列课题中每个都还有一两个样板式的发现： 个人之间的交流：配偶、朋友、同事和其他人之间的交流通常是模糊不清和被错误理解了的，这种交流通常可以通过培训组、治疗组和婚姻咨询的经历得到很大的改善。参与者被告知他们自己的交流中存在一些问题，因而对对方的话更加敏感一些……一些清晰和公平理由的表达会教给冲突中的夫妇，这就会相当程度地改变他们的交流和关系……情感交流中的信息，只有很小一部分（也许不到十分之一）是通过词汇来传达的，其余的部分是通过身体语言、眼部接触或者回避、双方保持的距离及类似方式表达的；还可以教给他们一些非语言的交流技巧。 集体交流及说服：政治性的、销售及其它并不事先指明它们是要来说服你的宣讲，比那些直截了当地宣布其目的的东西更有说服力一些。站在两面的立场上，即先提出一种反面观点，然后驳倒它，再提出并支持自己的观点，这比只是简单有力地提出一种观点有效得多。直接了当地表达出对某个有争议的话题的观点，这只会为一些已经接受了这个观点的人所理解，而不会把那些持反对意见的人所接受。令人遗憾的是，非直接的、诉诸情感、欺骗性的和不公正的方法，往往在改变一个人的观点时比直接谈到某话题更有效果。 吸引：一种并非罗曼蒂克的现实：生理上的接近或者某个集体中的成员是一些罗曼蒂克的喜好和朋友关系中的决定因素……在近距离和集体成员的参数中，生理的美是约会的伙伴中重要得多的因素，可是，自信心较低或者中等的人会因为害怕被拒绝而避免接触最喜欢的伙伴……在朋友选择和配偶选择中，性格一致、背景相同所具有的吸引力，远较传统的相反特征吸引力为大。 利他主义：前面说到过的旁观者效应，如果了解它的话，就可以克服它。在一项实验中，听过旁观者效应讲座的学生，在发现一个受伤的陌生人时，比平常更具帮助的倾向……在许多利他主义的活动中，自我利益是最为主要的动机（人们帮助一个处于压抑情绪中的人，可以使自己从不快中，或者从看到一个人受苦的内疚中解脱出来），可是，有些利他主义的行动却只是由看到别人的需要和社会经验已经将其转换成真正的同情心的感情所促发的。利他主义，或者至少叫同感，可以在教室里面成功地培养出来，培养的方式可以是在小型心理剧中扮演角色，可以完成一些想象的故事，可以进行集体讨论，还有其它一些方法。 这些只是社会心理学目前正在积极进行的一些特别研究领域的抽样而已。其它一些包括找借口和自我束缚研究（把事情弄成很容易失败的样子，这样就有了失败的借口）；电视暴力节目对行为的影响；爱与婚姻不断变化着的形式；陪审团的决策过程；从领土权和拥挤到民族关系和社会公正。毫不奇怪，社会心理学的疆界是无法划定的，它的触角伸及人类思想、感情和行为的广大世界。 跟其它许多的心理学分枝一样，它经历过很多来自外界的批评和内部的反叛。其混杂的课题、伸得过长的战线、大胆和有时候冒犯性的实验方法以及整体理论的缺乏，都使它成为众矢之的。 最为严厉的攻击来其内部。从70年代早期开始的六七年里，在所谓的社会心理学危机期间，社会心理学家都卷入了一场自我批评的狂欢中。在他们揽到自己身上来的各式各样的攻击中，有一项是说，他们对实际的应用注意太少了（可实际情况是，他们对理论发展注意太少）；说他们对无足轻重的一些细节所花精力太多（可反过来，它们从一个大题跳向另一个大题目，而没有将其细节弄清楚）；说它对人性作出了无法证实的概括，因为其基础是利用美国大学生做的一些小型实验。 这最后一项批评是最难逃过的。1974年，当自我批评走向高潮的时候，在一家主要学术刊物中报告的百分之八十七的研究实验中，其受试者都是大学生，而在其它一些专业杂志中，所报告的研究实验中，有百分之七十四的实验受试人也是大学生。这样的实验研究，批评者说，在内部可能是有效的（它能显示出它说能够显示的东西），可是，在外部来看，它不一定，也的确不是有效的（它所显示的东西不一定适用于外部世界）。一个像米尔格莱姆的服从实验这样高度人为和特别的实验室情形，以及它所激发出来的行为，他们说，都很难与纳粹的死亡集中营相比，在那里，自信而不可能产生误差的野蛮的官员和看守们每天将赤身裸体的犹太人赶入“淋浴间”，然后打开毒气阀。 有人将社会心理学研究的发现缺乏外部有效性的缺点加以扩大，因而提出了最为严厉的攻击。1973年，斯瓦思摩尔大学的肯尼思·格根在一篇猛烈攻击其自己的职业的文章中说，社会心理学不是一门科学，而是历史学的一个分支。它宣称要发现对全体人类都适用的行为准则，可是，这实际上只是一些现象，它们符合历史某个特定时间和在某个特定文化背景上的既定人类的抽样。 作为例子，格根说，米尔格莱姆服从实验取决于现代人对权威的态度，可是，这并不是放之四海而皆准的。认知失谐理论宣称，人类觉得前后不一致是令人不快的，可是，早期存在主义者却认为这是受人欢迎的；而顺从研究报告说，人们更容易受到朋友而不是别人的影响，这个结论在美国可能是正确的，可是，在一些朋友扮演不同角色的社会里，事情可能就不是这样的。格根的果敢的结论是： 认为社会心理学的过程是自然科学意义上的基本概念，这是错误的。反过来，它们更有可能应该被看作文化常规的心理学对等物……社今心理学研究主要是现代历史的系统研究。 格根刻薄的批评过后许多年，社会心理学家召开了无数搜索灵魂的学术会议，主要解决其论点问题。艾德华·琼斯说，由于格根的悲观结论并非新鲜事，“人们可以奇怪为什么现代社会心理学家会把许多的精力浪费在这些奇谈怪论上，”并说，“一种广泛的自我惩罚需求也许是社会心理学家们独有的，它可以解释杰根的话里面所包含的益处。”这种特别的需要来自何处？琼斯并没有说什么，可是，也许它是对心理学这门职业到那时为止自以为是、自我主义和目空一切的特点的悔过。 最后，这场辩论并没有得出可以答复由格根和其他人提出来的一些辛辣问题的答案，也没有把社会心理学作为一门科学的形象恢复起来。 在大学生身上可能是正确的东西，不一定在其他的人类身上也是正确的，对于这种说法，方法学家们说，为了证实一个假设的正确性，选来做研究的人并不是一个关键的因素。如果变量X导向变量Y，而没有X就没有Y，则X与Y之间的在这个组中的因果关系就被证明了。如果这种关系证明在其它的组别中也存在，则它可能是一种普通真理。许多发现就是这样形成的，包括米尔格莱姆服从现象和拉塔内的旁观效应，这些发现在这个国家和不同的实验受试者的不同组别里都得到过映证。 为了彻底反驳格根的攻击，佛罗里达大学的巴里·谢伦克指出，自然科学开始的时候也只有有限的和互相矛盾的一些观察结果，慢慢才发展出一些可以将看似矛盾的一些不一致的地方统一起来的普遍理论的。同样，社会科学在有限的环境里已经分辩出什么是全人类共通的东西，并把一些分布甚广的证明收集到一起了。比如，人类学家和心理学家开始提出，后来也证明，所有的社会都有近亲通婚禁忌、某种形式的家庭和某种维持秩序的办法。社会心理学走的是同一条路。社会认知的原则、顺从和地位控制都是一些已经在多重文化里得到映证的发现。 到70年代末，这场危机退潮了，再过几年后，艾德华·琼斯可以用乐观态度看待社会心理学和这个研究领域的未来： 社会心理学的危机已经开始确立其作为在社会科学的漫长历史中一个小小的插曲的位置了。这个领域的学术力量并没有受到致命的影响……社会心理学的未来之所以前途无量，不仅仅是因为其研究主题极为重要，而且是因为其独特的概念上的及方法上的力量，它们可以确定日常生活中起支持作用的一些原理。 到现在仍然正确的是，社会心理学没有统一的理论，但是，其许多中期理论都已经证明是极其有效的，它们大量混杂的发现对人类行为和本质的自我理解起了不可磨灭的作用。 可是，从特里普莱的时代到今天为止，社会心理学的价值一直就是在对一些根本原则更深刻的理解和将这些原则运用于实际生活之中。社会心理学有益的利用是相当不错的：其中有使病人更好地遵守医疗过程的办法；利用合作而不是竞争性的课堂教育法；对孤寡失助和处于危机中的人们以提供社会支持的小组和网络；在培训小组中进行人际交流的培训；给养老院的病人们更大的控制权和决策权，以改善其情绪和精神功能；治疗忧郁病人、孤独症患者和害羞者的新方法；在课堂上教育学生，培育同感和有利社会的行为；通过小组和家庭疗法来控制家庭冲突的办法。 艾略特·阿伦森最近表达了大部分社会心理学家对他们自己的研究领域的看法： （这）是我的想法，即社会心理学是极为重要的——社会心理学家可以起很大的作用，可以让这个世界成为一个更好的地方。的确，我更夸张一些的时候，在心里还在暗想，社会心理学家处于一个独特的位置，可以对我们的生活产生深刻而有益的影响，他们可以为理解像顺从、说服、偏见、爱和进攻性这类的重要现象提供更多的解释。 如果说它没有合适的界线，没有一致同意的定义，也没有统一的理论，那又有什么关系呢？