Social Beings: Core Motives in Social Psychology

by Susan T. Fiske

It is a nearly universal truth that people need people; humans have adapted to life with other humans, and the interactions and relationships that result are the most relevant adaptation environment. This book explores the core motives and goals that shape these interactions with others, with the self, and collectively as a group; in other words, “Why do people do what they do?” A brief overview of the field’s unifying themes―belonging, understanding, controlling, enhancing self, and trusting―gives way to a detailed exploration of the human condition as well as the techniques used to study and understand it.

By delving into the motivations behind attraction, helping, bias, persuasion, aggression, and more, this book helps students grasp the complex interplay of internal and external cues and influences that inform every interaction. An emphasis on real-world applications relates social psychology principles to everyday life, and this latest revision has been updated with the most recent research and trends to provide an accurate picture of the state of the field. Blending traditional topics with new developments in an informal, readable style makes this the ideal text to ignite students’ deeper interest and full engagement with social psychology concepts.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Anthropology

592 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

About the author

Susan Tufts Fiske is the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs in the Department of Psychology at Princeton University. She is a social psychologist known for her work on social cognition, stereotypes, and prejudice.

Reviews

[Hind · Rating 2 out of 5]

class material that i just wanted to log onto here :) not much was actually included in our tests and in class discussions but still fun (sometimes) to get some insight from actual books about the topics. the chapters were excruciatingly long though

[Matt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Some interesting material, but full of overgeneralizations, faulty reasoning, poor methodology, and shaky concept formation. These topics carry weight, but they are dealt with in a very unrefined manner. This book, in combination with my "Advanced Social Psychology Seminar," have cause me to seriously doubt much of the work done in social psychology.

Here are some examples of the kind of problematic reasoning that is representative of the material I have read this semester.

Invalid Inference:
A published social psychology researcher recently said (roughly), "Those who sexually abuse children roughly fall into one of three categories: those who abused children while drunk or high, those who are psychopaths, and those who sexually abuse children because they are sexually aroused by children. 95% of those who sexually abuse children fit into the last category." So then the idea is that if a person sexually abuses a child, there is a good chance that this person is sexually aroused by children. No surprises there.

The researcher went on to say that in his work they would expose subjects to some material involving children (not sure exactly what this was) while testing the subjects' physiological response. That is, they would test to see if subjects were sexually aroused by children. Citing the above empirical information, the researcher said, "So if these individuals were sexually aroused by children, we know that if they have not already sexually abused children, it is highly likely that they will in the future."

To recap, the researcher cited evidence suggesting that if a person sexually abuses a child, there is a good chance that this person is sexually aroused by children (A-->B). The researcher would then attempt to verify that a person was sexually aroused by children (B), thereby concluding that this person has or will sexually abuse children (A).


Radically Underdetermination
Solely from the fact that humans experienced negative affect when ostracized by computer simulated beings, the authors of a recent study conclude: “ostracism has such adaptive significance for humans that there is essentially an early warning system that is quick to perceive social exclusion and feel the associated pain, so that the individual is motivated to make changes that will eliminate the ostracism.”

Throughout this study, the authors assume that the emotional effects brought about through ostracism are entirely social or other-referential. That is, the authors assume that a person’s negative reaction to ostracism is entirely (and directly) due to becoming an outcast of sorts. Yet, it might be suggested that persons have a relatively automatic, self-referential reaction to ostracism. Individuals are no doubt use to associating ostracism with a perceived failure of some sort, even if that perception is not truly warranted. That is, a person usually becomes an outcast because their performance (whether social, physical, etc.) is counter to the goals or desires of a specific group. Thus, even if the ultimate explanation for negative affect resulting from ostracism is socially oriented, the immediate explanation might be more accurately cast in self-referential terms. Instead of automatically thinking “Bummer that I have become an outcast,” it might be suggested that a person automatically thinks “Bummer that I failed.” This approach would perhaps better explain the fact that ostracism by computers brought about just as much, if not more, negative affect than did ostracism by humans—for computers are often seen as objective judges of ability. If a person is ostracized by another person, the former can always claim injustice, but if a person is ostracized by a computer, that person cannot possibly claim that the computer is acting unjustly (the only thing that the person could claim is that the computer was programmed unjustly by another person).

Faulty Conceptual Engineering
This one is simple. In a study testing the effects of video game violence, "Super Mario Brothers" was put in the same category ('violent') as "Mortal Kombat."

[Linda · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very...undergrad. Full of definitions though. (Not a fan of everything being tied into the core social motives.)

[Krystal · Rating 2 out of 5]

very thorough textbook, thoughts were explained in very understandable manner.