E. Aronson
Public animal. Introduction to Social Psychology
Foreword by the scientific editor of the Russian edition
Elliot Aronson, an eminent American social psychologist, was born in 1932 in a small town near Boston, Massachusetts. His parents were poor and did not receive a good education, but Elliot entered Brandeis University in 1950. There, he once happened upon a lecture in an introductory psychology course given by Abraham Maslow. The lecture was devoted to prejudice, and the questions that Maslow posed exactly coincided with those that Elliot himself had as a child, who suffered from anti-Semitic persecution from his peers. This lecture made such a strong impression on Aronson that he changed his college major from economics to psychology.
After receiving a bachelor's degree, Aronson, at the insistence of Maslow, decides to continue his education and in 1956 he enters graduate school at Stanford University. Here he met with Leon Festinger, who by that time had just finished his book on cognitive dissonance. This meeting determined the entire further scientific path of E. Aronson.
Since graduating, Aronson has taught and conducted research at the Universities of Harvard, Texas, and Minnesota, and has been a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz for the past 25 years. In 1954 he married Vera Rabinek, they have four adult children.
Elliot Aronson is known for his elegant theoretical ideas, inventive experiments, ingenious and effective applied research and development, and numerous articles and books. Anyone who wants to deeply understand social psychology often turns to The Handbook of Social Psychology (1968, 1985), the most authoritative summary of socio-psychological knowledge, of which he is co-editor of two editions.
E. Aronson made a serious contribution to various areas of social psychology - to the study of dissonance, persuasive communication, interpersonal attractiveness, prejudice, and experimental methodology. He has been awarded the most prestigious awards for achievements in all possible fields of activity for a scientist: research, books, teaching and solving practical problems.
Aronson's versatility helped create one of the best social psychology textbooks you now hold in your hands. The book "Public Animal" has already gone through seven editions in the USA and has been translated into 14 languages of the world. It is wonderful that its translation into Russian is also being published.
There are several reasons why for those who seek to understand the mechanisms and laws of the inner world and social behavior of a person, E. Aronson's book is especially interesting and useful.
First of all, the general pathos of the author and the scientific community that he represents is captivating - to show (and prove!) That the most complex psychological phenomena can be studied by the means of science. the theory is confirmed or refuted.The title of the book "The Social Animal" once again emphasizes that the most complex phenomena of human social behavior can be understood using, in principle, the same scientific strategy as in the study of other - "non-social" animals.
In this regard, it is appropriate to recall that in our country, starting from the 60s, domestic scientists have made a lot of efforts to legitimize scientific socio-psychological knowledge, to establish socio-psychological education within the tight framework of ideological prohibitions and restrictions. primarily at the Leningrad and Moscow Universities), to begin developing research in this field of science, to publish scientific articles, monographs and textbooks. The former ideological prohibitions have been abolished, but new, so to speak, methodological resistances have arisen in the way of a scientific approach to socio-psychological phenomena. I mean the arguments that are popular today about the inapplicability of "positivist" approaches to the study of complex phenomena of the human psyche, about the difference between "explanation" (supposedly applicable only to objects of the physical world) and "understanding" (claiming a monopoly in the knowledge of anthropological and social phenomena) , about the advantages of a "qualitative" methodology in comparison with a "quantitative" one, etc. The best answer to such methodological skepticism (and even more so to attempts to replace science with mysticism) is a "demonstration of strength" - Aronson's description of the real successes of a strictly scientific study of complex socio-psychological phenomena of the human psyche, its advantages over ordinary, everyday forms of cognition.
The other extreme is to turn science into a collection of sacred truths that it is not clear how they arose, and therefore it is not clear how they are interconnected and how they can be subjected to change. Ultimately, such an attitude deprives a person of true freedom in handling scientific information. Aronson's textbook provides a powerful inoculation against this attitude towards science. The book preserves all the drama of the struggle for knowledge, which is not presented and is not perceived as something ossified, once and for all established, and what is established today is substantiated in the book not by references to the authority of "science" and "scientists", but by demonstrative logic. theorizing, procedures for experimental testing of theoretical hypotheses. Science is what is done, is being done and remade by human hands and head. It appears as a system of knowledge and practices for obtaining them, open to further development, in which the author invites you to take part, arming the reader with the appropriate tools.
So, Aronson's book, which is undoubtedly devoted to the most interesting phenomena of the human psyche, is at the same time the embodiment of scientific character, convincingly demonstrating the falsity of dividing psychology into "natural-scientific" and "interesting".
Another boundary that Aronson destroys with his textbook is the opposition between theoretical and practical psychology. The book constantly builds bridges between science and practical life, and the author generously shares the results of his own applied research on energy conservation, overcoming ethnic and racial prejudices in the classroom, AIDS prevention, etc. The principal feature of these studies is that they are based based on fundamental theoretical ideas, specific applied problems are not solved ad hoc, as is most often done, but based on general principles and patterns.
E. Aronson came to science, seeing this as the best opportunity to benefit people, but then, as he writes in his autobiography, the initial motive - to do good - began to be gradually replaced by the motive of searching for truth: a sequence characteristic of many psychologists. So applied research is so important for Aronson also because it gives him the opportunity to combine both of these motives - at the same time to do good (contributing, as he puts it, "to the improvement of mankind"), and to seek the truth. Those who know the author closely astutely notice that in this, as in his other manifestations, he combines the seemingly incompatible properties of his two teachers, who are so dissimilar (and did not love each other) - gentleness and humanistic orientation. Maslow and L. Festinger's hard scientism.
The idea of the uselessness of theoretical psychology for solving practical problems and the illusion of independence of applied areas of psychology from theoretical ones in Russia today, unfortunately, are widespread and affect the organization of psychological education, the selection of translated literature, and the planning of scientific research. Aronson's textbook convincingly demonstrates that, as in physics, in social psychology "there is nothing more practical than a good theory."
For example, for Aronson, as for all modern American social psychology, one of the central theoretical ideas that has received powerful experimental confirmation is the idea of the power of the situation in determining social behavior. And this general theoretical pathos turns out to be extremely practical. It follows from it that in order to solve many social problems and reform various spheres of social life, which is so urgent for us today, it is not at all necessary to start a difficult alteration of people's personal properties! More than once in this book we will read how, in solving this or that practical problem, social psychologists directed their efforts not at correcting people's personal imperfections, but at effectively building the situation, leading to the desired change in behavior and psyche.
Aronson E.
Public animal. Introduction to social psychology.
Uch., ed. 7.
per. from English.
Foreword by the scientific editor of the Russian edition
Elliot Aronson, an eminent American social psychologist, was born in 1932 in a small town near Boston, Massachusetts. His parents were poor and did not receive a good education, but Elliot entered Brandeis University in 1950. There, he once happened upon a lecture in an introductory psychology course given by Abraham Maslow. The lecture was devoted to prejudice, and the questions that Maslow posed exactly coincided with those that Elliot himself had as a child, who suffered from anti-Semitic persecution from his peers. This lecture made such a strong impression on Aronson that he changed his college major from economics to psychology.
After receiving a bachelor's degree, Aronson, at the insistence of Maslow, decides to continue his education and in 1956 he enters graduate school at Stanford University. Here he met with Leon Festinger, who by that time had just finished his book on cognitive dissonance. This meeting determined the entire further scientific path of E. Aronson.
Since graduating, Aronson has taught and conducted research at the Universities of Harvard, Texas, and Minnesota, and has been a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz for the past 25 years.
In 1954 he married Vera Rabinek, they have four adult children.
Elliot Aronson is known for his elegant theoretical ideas, inventive experiments, ingenious and effective applied research and development, and numerous articles and books. Anyone who wants to deeply understand social psychology often turns to The Handbook of Social Psychology (1968, 1985), the most authoritative summary of socio-psychological knowledge, of which he is co-editor of two editions.
E. Aronson made a serious contribution to various areas of social psychology - to the study of dissonance, persuasive communication, interpersonal attractiveness, prejudice, and experimental methodology. He has been awarded the most prestigious awards for achievements in all possible fields of activity for a scientist: research, books, teaching and solving practical problems.
Aronson's versatility helped create one of the best social psychology textbooks you now hold in your hands. The book "Public Animal" has already gone through seven editions in the USA and has been translated into 14 languages of the world. It is wonderful that its translation into Russian is also being published.
There are several reasons why for those who seek to understand the mechanisms and laws of the inner world and social behavior of a person, E. Aronson's book is especially interesting and useful.
First of all, the general pathos of the author and the scientific community that he represents is captivating - to show (and prove!) That the most complex psychological phenomena can be studied by the means of science. the theory is confirmed or refuted.The title of the book "The Social Animal" once again emphasizes that the most complex phenomena of human social behavior can be understood using, in principle, the same scientific strategy as in the study of other - "non-social" animals.
In this regard, it is appropriate to recall that in our country, starting from the 60s, domestic scientists have made a lot of efforts to legitimize scientific socio-psychological knowledge, to establish socio-psychological education within the tight framework of ideological prohibitions and restrictions. primarily at the Leningrad and Moscow Universities), to begin developing research in this field of science, to publish scientific articles, monographs and textbooks. The former ideological prohibitions have been abolished, but new, so to speak, methodological resistances have arisen in the way of a scientific approach to socio-psychological phenomena. I mean the arguments that are popular today about the inapplicability of "positivist" approaches to the study of complex phenomena of the human psyche, about the difference between "explanation" (supposedly applicable only to objects of the physical world) and "understanding" (claiming a monopoly in the knowledge of anthropological and social phenomena) , about the advantages of a "qualitative" methodology in comparison with a "quantitative" one, etc. The best answer to such methodological skepticism (and even more so to attempts to replace science with mysticism) is a "demonstration of strength" - Aronson's description of the real successes of a strictly scientific study of complex socio-psychological phenomena of the human psyche, its advantages over ordinary, everyday forms of cognition.
The other extreme is to turn science into a collection of sacred truths that it is not clear how they arose, and therefore it is not clear how they are interconnected and how they can be subjected to change. Ultimately, such an attitude deprives a person of true freedom in handling scientific information. Aronson's textbook provides a powerful inoculation against this attitude towards science. The book preserves all the drama of the struggle for knowledge that is not presented and not perceived-8
It is treated as something ossified, established once and for all, and what is established today is substantiated in the book not by references to the authority of "science" and "scientists", but by the demonstrative logic of theorizing, by procedures for experimental testing of theoretical hypotheses. Science is what is done, is being done and remade by human hands and head. It appears as a system of knowledge and practices for obtaining them, open to further development, in which the author invites you to take part, arming the reader with the appropriate tools.
So, Aronson's book, which is undoubtedly devoted to the most interesting phenomena of the human psyche, is at the same time the embodiment of scientific character, convincingly demonstrating the falsity of dividing psychology into "natural-scientific" and "interesting".
Another boundary that Aronson destroys with his textbook is the opposition between theoretical and practical psychology. The book constantly builds bridges between science and practical life, and the author generously shares the results of his own applied research on energy conservation, overcoming ethnic and racial prejudices in the classroom, AIDS prevention, etc. The principal feature of these studies is that they are based based on fundamental theoretical ideas, specific applied problems are not solved ad hoc, as is most often done, but based on general principles and patterns.
E. Aronson came to science, seeing this as the best opportunity to benefit people, but then, as he writes in his autobiography, the initial motive - to do good - began to be gradually replaced by the motive of searching for truth: a sequence characteristic of many psychologists. So applied research is so important for Aronson also because it gives him the opportunity to combine both of these motives - at the same time to do good (contributing, as he puts it, "to the improvement of mankind"), and to seek the truth. Those who know the author closely astutely notice that in this, as in his other manifestations, he combines the seemingly incompatible properties of his two teachers, who are so dissimilar (and did not love each other) - gentleness and humanistic orientation. Maslow and L. Festinger's hard scientism.
The idea of the uselessness of theoretical psychology for solving practical problems and the illusion of independence of applied areas of psychology from theoretical ones in Russia today, unfortunately, are widespread and affect the organization of psychological education, the selection of translated literature, and the planning of scientific research. Aronson's textbook convincingly demonstrates that, as in physics, in social psychology "there is nothing more practical than a good theory."
For example, for Aronson, as for all modern American social psychology, one of the central theoretical ideas that has received powerful experimental confirmation is the idea of the power of the situation in determining social behavior. And this general theoretical pathos turns out to be extremely practical. It follows from it that in order to solve many social problems and reform various spheres of social life, which is so relevant for us today, it is not at all necessary to start a difficult alteration of personal properties.
of people! More than once in this book we will read how, in solving this or that practical problem, social psychologists directed their efforts not at correcting people's personal imperfections, but at effectively building the situation, leading to the desired change in behavior and psyche.
I cannot fail to mention in this context Aronson's brilliant psychological analysis of the fundamental social changes associated with the process of racial desegregation in the schools of the United States of America. At the center of this analysis are the same questions that concern us today in connection with our own reforms: should we act quickly and decisively, or gradually? Is it necessary first to prepare and educate the population, to form the appropriate attitudes * and values, or, without waiting until the people are fully prepared, should organizational and institutional transformations be forced?...
Another effective applied strategy for the formation and change of relations between people is the organization of joint activities. For example, it has been successfully used in the restructuring of interpersonal relationships in the classroom (the "picture-puzzle technique"). It is impossible not to notice that such a strategy is very close in spirit to the domestic theory of activity, and research and applied developments have been carried out in our country that have shown similar results.
And finally, about the main wealth of the book by Elliot Aronson. Thanks to the scientific facts and laws set out in it, the Russian reader gets access to the colossal information resources accumulated by Western and, above all, American science.
Genuine science always strives for internationalization, for universality, but the closed Soviet society prevented contacts between Russian and Western scientists, holding back the development of social and behavioral sciences. For me and my colleagues, a huge event was the arrival in the 70s. to Leningrad by American psychologists Paul Ekman and Lee Ross. How much ingenuity they had to show in order to meet with us, having escaped from the control of the Soviet officials supervising them! And one well-known American social psychologist was even expelled from the USSR for daring to conduct a small study of social influence on city streets. Feeling no danger, he shared his results, speaking at Leningrad University. What can we say about the free exchange of people and ideas and about joint research!
Thanks to the emancipatory changes that took place in Russia in the late 80s and early 90s, Russian scientists and teachers can finally cooperate freely with their American and European colleagues, and Russian students can draw knowledge from textbooks written in America - the country where the majority of social psychologists live and work, leading and setting the world level in this field of science.
There is often concern about the degree of universality of socio-psychological knowledge and, in particular, about whether
* See footnote on p. 31.10
whether the socio-psychological patterns characteristic of Russians and residents of the United States coincide (earlier, it was, respectively, about "Soviet people" and about citizens of a "capitalist society"). Life observations, successfully developing cooperation between citizens of Russia and the United States, and rigorous scientific comparisons convincingly demonstrate the fundamental commonality of fundamental socio-psychological mechanisms and processes between Russians and Americans, a commonality that has, for obvious reasons, increased in recent years. Although the baggage of domestic social psychology is not yet comparable with the American one, nevertheless, in those cases when relevant studies were undertaken in our country, our scientists, as a rule, found that the same basic phenomena are characteristic of Russians as of Americans, such as, for example, like conformity, mismatches between attitudes and behavior, stereotyping, the already mentioned dependence of interpersonal relations in a group on the structure of activity, leadership styles, etc. As for Aronson's position, judging by the content of the book, he also believes that the common psychology is more important than differences between residents of different countries. Moreover, as the title of the book makes clear, he also takes into account the commonality of the human and animal psyches.
Of course, the universality of the methodology and many socio-psychological regularities does not at all exclude cross-country and intercultural differences (sometimes very colorful) in specific socio-psychological phenomena. And the fact that Elliot Aronson is an American scientist, naturally, leaves an imprint of American specifics on the description of those facts and patterns that are discussed in the book. However, the "volume" of this specificity should not be overestimated in advance, and more accurate ideas about the socio-psychological differences between Russians and Americans can appear only as a result of future large-scale studies. In the meantime, such an exaggeration of American or Western European specifics often acts as a self-justification that allows us to simply ignore the achievements of world science, which hinders our intellectual and social development.
By the way, why should we see in the national specifics of the "Public Animal" only the risk of mismatch with Russian realities? In my opinion, the American flavor present in the book gives it additional interest. We learn a lot about the United States of America, about the mood and behavior of Americans, about the social and socio-psychological problems that exist there, and, most importantly, about how responsible and educated citizens of this country react to these problems. American intellectuals, one of whose remarkable representatives is E. Aronson, not only fix and scientifically describe problems (which, of course, is also quite a lot), but also do everything to mobilize the available intellectual resources to solve them. In the course of getting acquainted with the book, an image of America arises as a country that has serious problems, but there are also no less serious people who are struggling with these problems and coping!
When thinking about the differences between countries and cultures, one should not lose sight of the different stages in the development of the same society. How can one not recall here that today's Russian society differs sharply from the society it was before the mid-1980s? The success of our further development will not least depend on how the intelligentsia and society as a whole manage to realize the changes that have taken place and the prospects for the future. E. Aronson's book provides the reader with conceptual tools for understanding the socio-psychological changes in Russian society.
Take, for example, the changes associated with a multiple increase in the number of degrees of human freedom in many areas of private and public life. Freedom, as Aronson writes about it in detail, is inseparable from cognitive dissonance, and therefore, in comparison with the conditions of lack of freedom, experiences of dissonance must inevitably become stronger and more frequent. Knowledge of this pattern - one of the many to which E. Aronson's book draws our attention - allows us to take a more meaningful look at our life today, better understand the additional psychological difficulties present in it, and identify in today's social reality the psychological effects caused by people's attempts reduce the increased dissonances.
In conclusion, I want to say that the book "The Social Animal" is a very interesting, fascinating, exciting read. Unlike most American textbooks, it does not contain drawings, graphs, definitions and other design elements: this is the somewhat ascetic style of the original, and we did not dare to change it. But in the book there is beauty and elegance of thought, as well as a sense of humor, so useful in doing serious business. The author made a strictly scientific book understandable and accessible, he explains all theoretical reasoning and experiments with understandable life examples. Wherever possible, he tries to use simple, familiar words, gradually accustoming readers to socio-psychological terms. I am sure that everyone who will get acquainted with the book will fully appreciate these advantages of it as a textbook. At the same time, the publishing house and scientific editor will be very grateful to readers for critical comments and suggestions, which will be taken into account in subsequent editions.
I am indebted to Stanford University professor Lee Ross for bringing this book to my attention. I also want to express my deep gratitude to Irina Ivanovna Zhibrova for the literary editing of the book and the desire for excellence and readiness to find a common language.
I am glad that "The Public Animal" is beginning to speak Russian, and I wish readers success in communicating with him.
Vladimir Magun
Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Head of the Personality Research Sector, Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences
I love being a social psychologist. For me, it is both a pleasure and a high privilege to be engaged in a scientific discipline whose goal is to understand the subtle ways of interaction between people and their mutual influence on each other. What makes us love each other or, on the contrary, hate? What evokes in us kindness or cruelty, mutual understanding or prejudice, submission or opposition? I am convinced that this is one of the most exciting, important and difficult objects of study that a scientist has ever encountered. It gives me particular joy that many of us, as social psychologists, have an overwhelming desire to go beyond the mere satisfaction of scientific curiosity in the study of all these problems. On the contrary, we strive wherever possible to use the knowledge we have accumulated in order to improve the conditions of human existence, trying, on the one hand, to reduce the level of prejudice and reduce bloodshed, and on the other hand, to increase the "quantity" of kindness, cooperation and mutual understanding between people. .
A quarter of a century ago, when I began work on what was then the first edition of this book, my goals were more than modest. I wanted to write it for my students, telling them, as vividly as possible, about the field of knowledge that I love so much. In the course of this story, I wanted to remain a scientist in everything, but at the same time I did not want my strictly scientific educational "hardening" to result in a book that is perfectly calibrated, dry, boring and overly cautious. Yes, I wanted to be precise in my formulations, but at the same time I was relentlessly possessed by the idea to convey to the reader the inspiration that this area of scientific activity arouses in me, making it clear and accessible.
In short, I wrote this book with my students first and foremost. I set a goal for myself - to show them why I feel such excitement and enthusiasm, doing my science. Since it was not my task to please my colleagues - research scientists and university-15
teachers, I immediately abandoned the idea of taking a detached, strictly academic position, characteristic of the authors of most textbooks. On the contrary, I tried my best to speak to the reader in "my own voice" and not in the voice of an experimental scientist in a laboratory or a professor in a university auditorium. My friends, who were the first to read the book in manuscript, especially noted that in the process of reading they seemed to hear my voice, and for me it was a big compliment! But I had no idea that the book would arouse a wide readership, that is, a significant number of people, excluding my circle of close friends (and, perhaps, a few of my students), would be especially interested in listening to the voice of a certain Elliot Aronson.
So it's easy to imagine my surprise when this book just went out of print and became a bestseller! The very professors and researchers whose tastes I had no intention of satisfying warmly accepted my book and included it in the list of required reading for their students. It immediately spread to university classrooms throughout the United States of America, and in the past 25 years the popularity of "Public Animal" has not waned in the slightest. In a society as highly mobile as America is today, subject to a large degree of everything that is "new", "improved" and "fashionable", the continued success of my book is still a small miracle for its author.
However, another fact is even more important. Although the book was written from a characteristic American point of view, my work has since been translated into many foreign languages, becoming a popular textbook for students in countries as diverse as Japan, Spain, Hungary, Germany, Poland, Israel, China, Korea, Finland, Bulgaria and many others. Moreover, in some of them the readership is no longer limited to the usual university and scientific framework - many "ordinary" people read the book, and this circumstance especially warms my soul.
And now, finally, the book has been translated in Russia, for which I want to especially thank my Russian colleague Vladimir Magun, the Russian branch of the Soros Foundation and the Moscow publishing house Aspect Press, without whose efforts this publication would hardly have taken place. The publication of "The Public Animal" in Russian is very significant for me for many reasons - both geopolitical and purely personal. The first are obvious, and I will not dwell on them for a long time, except to note the satisfaction that causes me a striking change that has taken place over the last, very short period of time: the two great powers of the 20th century, until recently most of all concerned with how effectively destroy each other, are now cooperating and closely interconnected. And I regard the publication of my book as an organic expression of this new spirit of cooperation and friendship between our countries.
As for personal reasons, they are as follows. My historical roots are in Russia: all four of my grandparents emigrated from there to the United States of America at the very end of the last century, as young people, this happened exactly 100 years ago! My father was born in Russia, and my mother was already in America (two years after emig-16
rirovali her parents). I have no choice but to simply believe that a particle of Russia remains in my soul. When for the first time, while still a student, I discovered the work of great Russian writers (of course, translated into English) - such as Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov, I acutely felt a kinship with Russian culture. The works of these writers have touched me more deeply than anything I have read before. By; To this, now that my book has been translated into Russian, I feel that I am returning something, albeit a very modest one, to the homeland of my ancestors. And I cherish the hope that at least some of the students who get acquainted with the Russian edition of the book "The Social Animal" will get the same pleasure while reading it, which I experienced when I wrote this book.
Why I wrote this book
From September 1970 to August 1971 I was at Stanford, California, at the invitation of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences.
During this time, I was provided with everything a researcher could dream of: financial support, a full range of incentives for scientific work, and complete freedom to do what I want. At the same time, I was also assured that I did not bear any responsibility to anyone and for anything ... It was then, conveniently located on a wonderful hill about 30 miles from San Francisco (which to this day I love most of all other cities) and having a whole year in reserve, which I was free to spend as my heart desired, it occurred to me to write this book. It would seem, what else is needed? There is such beauty all around (the neighborhoods of San Francisco are famous for it), and this exciting city itself, located, one might say, at arm's length, but I decide to lock myself up in four walls and write a book. What was behind such a strange intention? Of course, not insanity and not a strong need for money. If there was one reason why I undertook this hard work, it was this: my memory told me how once, having told students that social psychology was a young science, I suddenly felt like a coward.
Perhaps such an unexpected reaction requires an explanation. Actually, we social psychologists are very proud that our scientific discipline is young. And she is really young. Yes, of course, some inquisitive observers since the time of Aristotle have put forward exciting hypotheses regarding social phenomena. However, no one seriously tested all these curious arguments until the beginning of the 20th century. The first systematic socio-psychological experiment, to my knowledge, was carried out by Triplett in 1898 (he quantified how the presence of competition affects the productivity of activity). And only from the end of the 30s. It was largely through the inspiring influence of Kurt Lewin and his talented students that an experimental social psychology proper arose.
public animal. Research
“Public animal. Research" ed. E. Aronson Volume 1. - St. Petersburg: PRIME-EUROZNAK, 2003. - 448 p. (Project "Higher School of Psychology")
Foreword
Open letter to the reader
INTRODUCTION: REFLECTIONS ON SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY
1. Research in social psychology: the power of faith. Elliot Aronson
2. About baseball and bad luck. Elliot Aronson
CONFORMITY AND SUBMISSION
3. Opinions of others and social pressure. Solomon E. Ash
4. Behavioral study of submission. Stanley Milgram
5. From Jerusalem to Jericho: Exploring Situational and Dispositional Variables in Relief. John M. Darley and S. Daniel Batson
6. Studying the behavior of prisoners and guards in conditions that simulate imprisonment. Craig Haney, Curtis Banks, Philip Zimbardo
7. Giving meaning to meaninglessness: Jonestown's analysis. Neil Osherow
MASS COMMUNICATIONS, PROPAGANDA AND PERSUASION
8. Effects of including different types of information in messages that arouse a feeling (of fear) James M. Debbs Jr., Howard Leventhal
9. Ways to modify behavior: attribution) or persuasion. Richard L.-Miller, Philip Brickman and Diana Bohlen
10. Criminology on television: the media's distorted portrayal of the realities of criminology. Craig Honey and John Manzolati
11. The impact of media violence on homicide in the US. David P. Phillips
SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE
12. "Contrast effect" and judgments "about physical attractiveness: beauty as a social problem. Douglas T. Kenrick and Sara E. Gutierrez
13. Influence of attitudes on personal memories. Michael Ross, Kathy McFarland and Garth J. O. Fletcher
14. Attitude Accessibility as a Factor Influencing Attitude-Perception and Attitude-Behavior Relationships: A Study of the 1984 Presidential Elections. Russell G. Fazio and Carol D. Williams
15. Video recording and the attribution process: changing the perspectives of "actors" and "observers". Michael D. Storms
SELF JUSTIFICATION
16. Dissonance, hypocrisy and self-concept. Elliot Aronson
17. Compliance without pressure: the "foot in the door" technique. Jonathan L. Friedman and Scott K. Frazier
18. Reducing dissonance for weight loss: the role of justifying effort in promoting weight loss. Danny Exxon and Joel Cooper
19. Dependence of dishonorable behavior on inspired self-esteem. Elliot Aronson and David R. Mitty
20. Using cognitive dissonance to stimulate water conservation. Chris Ann Dickerson, Ruth Thibodeau, Elliot Aronson and Dana Miller
Foreword
My textbook "Public Animal" - an attempt to objectively present the state of affairs in social psychology and tell about ways to use our knowledge in this area in order to make it easier for people to solve some of the problems that abound in the modern world. I wanted the tutorial to be short, lively, and entertaining. There are practically no graphs, no charts, no tables, no statistical analysis, no detailed descriptions of the discussions on methodology. Although reading such a book is an easy and even enjoyable way to gain an understanding of social psychology, many readers have felt the need to become more familiar with the research that forms the backbone of "Public Animal". going meeting their wishes, I prepared this book for publication - “The Social Animal. Research".
When selecting articles for her, I tried to ensure that they were both a supplement and an appendix to the material published in the eighth edition. "Public Animal". That is why not only the structure of the second book is such that its sections coincide with the chapters of the textbook, but also the specific articles presented in it testify to my desire to supplement and expand information on the main issues that were raised in "Public animal". Moreover, I have selected the articles very carefully and in such a way that the reader can get an idea of both the studies that have become classics and the works of our contemporaries. Some of these articles were already considered classics when I first read them as a university student. The second pole of this "continuous scale" is the works, the contents of which I became acquainted with even before their publication. Such a combination allows the reader to understand both the history of the development of the main directions of social psychology, and the most modern ideas of this science.
The classification of articles presented in this book can be approached from other positions. Most of them are case reports as they were first published in special periodicals, others are review papers, devoted to summarizing the results of several studies on a specific problem and written by one of the recognized authorities in this field. The merit of a case study report, although sometimes difficult to read, is the detail it contains, necessary for the reader to understand what, how and why was studied. Review articles are usually not burdened with technical details, and therefore are easier to understand; they cover the issue from different angles and reflect the point of view of a person who is well aware of this problem. Figuratively speaking, such articles give the reader the opportunity to look over the shoulder of the researcher and find out how he or she perceives the flow of information on a particular topic.
While working on this eighth edition, I have not changed my rule of “mixing” classics and modernity, and publications that present the results of specific studies with review articles. Years pass, and I am pleased to note that some of the articles that I first selected in 1972 as modern, now, in 1999, have taken their place among the classics. I can only hope that the same will happen with the articles that are published today as modern, and in the future they will be recognized as classics.
Elliot Aronson
Open letter to the reader
Elliot Aronson
Welcome backstage! As noted in the preface, this book contains two types of articles. Some of them are a statement of research directions within a particular problem. It is a pleasure to read them, for they contain descriptions of a series of experiments carried out to test or further deepen an idea. Other articles are reports on individual fragments of experimental studies. They are no less exciting, but sometimes they sin with excessive “technicality”. I am convinced that some of you (educators, undergraduates, statisticians, and other passionate professionals) will want to carefully understand every phrase of every article published in this book, in order, perhaps, to plan and conduct your own research. . Good luck! And in order for these articles to really benefit you, I did not remove or change a single phrase in them.
It seems to me that most of you do not need unnecessary details. Most likely, you will be quite satisfied if, after reading them, you understand what exactly the researcher was trying to find out, how he acted, and how successful these actions were. There is no better way to understand the logic of scientific research than by reading the original reports. This reading is akin to an exciting adventure, because you, the reader, have the opportunity to imagine yourself in the place of a scientist, transforming an idea into a series of concrete research operations and trying to comprehend the results obtained, which by no means always coincide with forecasts. Each original research report consists of four main sections: 1) Introduction. In it, the author formulates an idea and writes about how it arose and why it is important, and also states it in the form of a hypothesis or hypotheses. 2) Organization and procedure of the experiment. The section is devoted to exactly how the hypothesis (or hypotheses) is supposed to be tested, i.e., the “translation” of the latter (or hypotheses) into the language of specific operations. In social psychology, this is often a very detailed scenario, designed in such a way that the subject, who is not initiated into the true goals of the experiment, has grounds for a logically understandable reaction to events. This part of the report of a well-executed study is often the most interesting part of it, because it requires the experimenter to be extremely ingenious if he wants to achieve accuracy under conditions that are as close to natural as possible. 3) Experimental data. In this section, the researcher describes the results obtained, and does so in an extremely clear and concise form, and, using various statistical methods, evaluates the degree of their reliability. four) The discussion of the results. This is the final section of the research report, in which the author evaluates and interprets the experimental data presented in the previous section and tries to explain them in the context of already known information. A creative researcher can also use this section to express their thoughts on the significance of their results and outline ways to further explore the problem.
For those of you with little experience in reading such reports, I offer some advice on which sections of the report should be read carefully and which sections can simply be skimmed over. If the article has a “Conclusions” section (it can either precede or follow the main text), I would start reading from it to find out what exactly the study is about and what its main results are. Then I would read the introduction carefully, since it contains the history of the problem, and try to understand the author's hypothesis. The next stage is a very careful reading of the procedural part and a cursory review of the section in which the results of the experiments are presented, just to understand to what extent the author's predictions were justified. If it turns out that they were not justified, I will carefully read the section in which their discussion is presented, and try to understand exactly how the author explains this and how convincing and plausible his explanation is. If you are not a big fan of statistical analysis and if it does not interest you much, I would advise you not to delve into the section devoted to it. For those of you who have little or no knowledge of statistics, diving into the details of statistical analysis will be a hassle and will do you no good. These articles have been selected because they are written by experts. It may be better for you if you simply take it for granted that the statistical analysis has been carried out to the fullest.
INTRODUCTION: "THE REFLECTIONS" ON SCIENTIFIC CREATIVITY
Research in social psychology the power of faith
E lliot Aronson ( Elliot Aronson )
Address to the participants of the congress of the Society of experimental social psychologists at the University of California (Los Angeles, 1976). Courtesy of Chapter 8 of the American Psychological Association and Publishing Sage Publications , Inc . speech with minor changes published inPersonality and Social psychology Bulletin , vol. 3, № 2, Spring 1977, p. 190-195.
It is both a great honor and a great pleasure to speak before such illustrious scientists who have devoted themselves to the problems of experimental social psychology. The members of the organizing committee who asked me to do this initially assumed that my speech would be devoted to answering the question "What happened to Elliot Aronson?". I am sure that by choosing this topic, they gave free rein to their own irony. At the same time, I am sure that this playful shell hides a very serious desire to find out what really happened to me, and why I have not published the results of my laboratory research for several years. It is possible that my colleagues abroad believe that I have decided to abandon this kind of work altogether and engage in less precise research into what some of us laughingly call "real life." It seems to me that I was invited here to be publicly reproached for cowardice. Whether I am right or wrong in my suspicions, I nevertheless decided to take the request to speak seriously. I was originally going to talk about a "real life" research project that got me into such a state of mind that for the last four or five years I've devoted most of my time to it. This is a project that excites me immensely; its purpose is to study the consequences of creating groups in elementary school, the training of which is specially organized as cooperation. While working on this project, we made many interesting discoveries. Among them is the fact that the loss of self-esteem found by Gerard and Miller (1975) in children from various desegregated ethnic groups is largely a consequence of the competition that reigns in student groups. By placing children in special groups - in groups learning in cooperation - we were able to break this trend: black and Mexican children gained self-esteem and became more successful in learning material, as evidenced by test results (Aronson et al., 1975; Lucker et al., 1976; Aronson et al., 1966).
However, once here, I realized that in the afternoon you can not offer the audience too serious information. As a dessert, it is clearly unsuitable. Besides, no sooner had I arrived here than some of you began to urgently ask me to tell you about something light and possibly cheerful. And I decided to talk to you about the philosophy of science. After all, undergraduate students find my approach to the philosophy of science remarkably easy, and some even see it as an occasion for rowdy merriment.
In 1968, Merrill Carlsmith and I wrote a chapter on the social psychology experiment for The I landbook of Social Psychology. Most of this chapter is a presentation of very delicate problems: experiences and trials that fall to the lot of a scientist who has decided to conduct experimental research in this area. We wrote about the ethics of the experimenter, about his impartiality, about random samples, about the realism of the experimenter, about conducting a survey after the subjects completed the task, and about various other things that require the close attention of the researcher. After finishing the chapter and re-reading, we realized that the experiment, as we presented it, is a dull and joyless exercise. Moreover, we also realized that such a description does not reflect our own enthusiasm for research in the field of social psychology and the enthusiasm with which we ourselves are engaged in it. And we included one more paragraph in our chapter, writing the following: “People, if you have. I got the impression that research in social psychology is a difficult task that requires solving a lot of problems, and often turns into a source of constant headaches - you were not mistaken. And there is. But if we have not been able to convey to you our attitude to research in social psychology, which - in spite of everything - we consider an extremely exciting and enjoyable activity, then we have misled you.
Several years have passed since this chapter was published, and it seems to me that the time has come to finally explain what we mean by calling experiments an exciting and enjoyable activity. Let me do this with a metaphor.
The metaphor I would like to use comes from Albert Camus' novel The Plague. The action of the novel takes place in Algiers, in a coastal city engulfed by an epidemic of bubonic plague. One of the main characters in the novel, Monsieur Grand, is a sweet man who writes a book. He is determined to create a true masterpiece. He strives to ensure that every phrase is flawless, every paragraph is amazing, and every page is incomparable perfection. He wants to create a work that will shock the future publisher and make him exclaim: "Hats off, gentlemen, you have a genius!".
Monsieur Grand sits at his desk for a long time, writing the first sentence of his future novel, a sentence about a woman riding through a park. But it is not about an ordinary woman, horse and park. “One early May morning, visitors to the Bois de Boulogne could see in its alleys, along which flowers were planted, an elegant young rider on a handsome bay stallion.” The written proposal is not liked by the author. Are there many adjectives in it? Or maybe there are not enough of them? Does each adjective convey exactly the meaning that he, the author, puts into it? Does the rhythm of the phrase match the steps of a galloping horse? Wouldn't it be better to write "framed in rows of flowers" instead of "along which flowers were planted"? Eight or nine months passed, and he still continued to work on this first phrase, as many as 50 pages were covered with it, but he still could not decide which of the options was the best, because - you didn’t forget about it - already the first phrase was supposed to make the publisher exclaim: "Hats off, gentlemen, you have a genius!".
One day, while working on his manuscript, Monsieur Grand realized that he was falling ill. As time went on, symptoms appeared that indicated that he had become another victim of the bubonic plague. Monsieur Gran's family doctor, who was also his friend, after examining the patient, said: “It is very hard for me to talk about this, but your days are numbered. You are doomed." And Monsieur Grand ordered his friend to destroy the manuscript. The order was given so resolutely and in such an indisputable tone that the doctor immediately threw the manuscript into the fire - all 50 pages written in one phrase, which the author honed and polished with the greatest zeal and extraordinary meticulousness.
Monsieur Grand recovered the next day. “I think I was too hasty,” he told his friend. Of course, there is a bitter irony hidden in these words: the only decisive act committed by Monsieur Grand was directed padestruction something that was created without even a hint of decisiveness or spontaneity.
Enough metaphors. I am convinced that there are two approaches to doing science. One of them is slow, methodical, consistent work, and Monsieur Grand may well be an example of a scientist who uses this approach. Before embarking on experiments, such a researcher carefully thinks through their scenario and all his actions. This may take him several months. When he decides that the scenario and the plan of experiments are fully worked out, he goes to the laboratory; after testing several subjects, he is convinced that his script is far from perfect and needs to be improved. The scientist stops the experiments, returns to his office and begins to "bring" the scenario "to standard". Then he tests a few more subjects and again finds some shortcomings that must be eliminated. It is possible that in a few years he will conduct such a study, describing which will make the editor of the journal say to his colleagues: "Hats off, gentlemen, you have a genius!".
But there is another approach to scientific research. You can make a basic plan, sketch it out with a few strokes of a pen, run a pilot experiment, figure out where your mistake is, refine the plan, and then run the experiments as best as you can at the moment. When you finish your research and start writing about its results, you will most likely realize that if you could start over, you would do better. There is nothing surprising in this: after all, experience is an excellent teacher even when it comes to a scientist. But a person who takes this approach to research does not run to his office to develop a scenario for a mythical "perfect" experiment that will make his colleagues "take off their hats to him." He describes his results and hurries to publish them, keeping in mind that science is a system capable of self-improvement. The meaning of these words is this: I know that if my research is not perfect, it will not be long before my colleagues improve it. Therefore, my goal is to introduce new information into scientific circulation, to interest my colleagues in it, to enable them, reacting to my results with interest or irritation, to move on - to conduct more interesting research than my own, even if they undertake it for the sole purpose of proving that I'm wrong, and even if they succeed. This is one of the remarkable features of science: it develops due to the fact that the ideas and thoughts of one scientist stimulate the creativity of another. This is precisely what William James once called "the power of faith" (W. James, 1956). I am sure that since my work is not without flaws, someone reading it will want to prove its imperfection and will perform a really interesting study. And this almost always leads to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under study. And it is quite possible that after my follower describes his own results, the editor, the publisher, and behind them the whole world; exclaim: "Hats off, gentlemen, before you is a genius!". And that's great!
Needless to say, I prefer the second way. Those of you who are familiar with my imperfect research can easily draw a similar conclusion yourself. And this idea of "the power of faith" is an essential aspect of my philosophy of science. More specifically, this idea can be expressed as follows: there is no need to strive for excellence in order to present your work "to the judgment of your colleagues and hear their opinion, their criticism and see what actions they will take. It is much more interesting, productive and useful to "paint a picture of science" broad strokes rather than polishing and “finishing” my work for several years before presenting the “finished product” to colleagues.Because I am convinced of the ability of science to improve itself, it is more important for me to know that I have attracted the attention of my colleagues to the decision with what more problems than being sure that you are right. It goes without saying that negligence and mistakes are not in my plans. I strive to use all available at me at this moment the opportunity to do a good job, and then present my far from perfect work to your judgment - to the judgment of your colleagues and critics. William James believes that there are a huge number of situations in which faith plays a major role. According to James, if you need to jump over a gap while climbing a mountain, your belief that you can do it increases the likelihood of reaching the top. With regard to our situation, we can say: the confidence that others will be interested in our research, want to continue it and, perhaps, prove it wrong, encourages us to conduct work in this way and publish its results at a time when there is a maximum likelihood that they will become a kind of “leaven”. » for a representative community of experimenters.
It's been a few years since Carlsmith and I wrote a textbook chapter in which they called a social psychology experiment a fun and rewarding experience. However, as I read specialized journals, I increasingly begin to think that social psychology is losing its appeal and fun. One possible reason for this, it seems to me, is that we become too cautious, too prudent, and too afraid of making mistakes, and these fears have robbed the study of social psychology of their zest and flavor.
One of the "by-products" of hypertrophied caution is excessive self-doubt. Indeed, one of the most characteristic features of modern social psychology must be recognized as a recent tendency towards general confusion, hand-wringing and whimpering. Over the past five or six years, I have been invited - by the most conservative estimate - at least half a dozen times to various symposia, the participants of which were looking for answers to questions such as "Where is social psychology going?", "What should we do with social psychology?" or “Will social psychology survive?”. Such insecurity is depressing. Don't misunderstand me. I don't mind a certain amount of doubt on an individual level. Moreover, I am simply convinced that every scientist every few years should take stock of his work and revise his own priorities. It is possible that once every few years it is useful to ask yourself such questions, for example: “What is really important?”, “What ethical and social issues concern me?”. Although such a process is beneficial for the individual, when an entire branch of science is involved in it, it seems that we all have to move in a certain direction, adhere to a certain methodology and study some very specific problems. In my opinion, such self-doubt is deadly and ridiculous. It is more correct to ask: “What should be done scientists!", rather than "What should this branch of science?". I like to think of social psychology as a huge tent in which many different events are happening at the same time, from time to time intersecting and interacting with each other and overlapping each other. In this "tent" everyone does what he considers most interesting and useful for himself, constantly being influenced by his colleagues who work in related fields using different methods, or in independent fields, but with similar methods.
And now - attention! Another metaphor is coming! This is the novel by Jerome David Salinger "Seymour: An Introduction". One of the characters, Seymour Glace, acts as a critic of the works of his younger brother, Buddy, a promising aspiring writer. Seymour, being a wise and benevolent person, puts his criticism in the form of letters. After reading one of his brother's stories, he wrote him the following message (Buddy kept it for years):
“You have mastered the craft of writing. It's true, you write great. You have learned how to compose phrases, everything is fine with your writing technique. You can link individual phrases into paragraphs. Your composition is fine too. The only thing you don't know yet is what to write about, and that's a very important thing. Thinking about it, I came to a conclusion, the simplicity, naturalness and "obviousness" of which struck me. The conclusion is this: remember that before you were a writer, you were a reader. And think of the one book you've always wanted to read. And then sit down at the table and write it.”
As a scientist, I constantly catch myself thinking that I myself am trying to derive some benefit from Seymour's advice. I say to myself something like this: “Hey, remember that before you became an experimenter, you studied the results of other people's research. If you want to know what exactly is worth studying, remember what kind of experimental study of human social behavior you have been wanting to read for a long time, and then go and conduct such a study. I have always tried, to the best of my ability, not to deviate from my own interpretation of Seymour's advice, and have at times succeeded. In front of such an audience, it is very dangerous to say that I have always been successful and that every experiment I have done was set up for the sole purpose of getting an answer to the only question that worried me, so I risk becoming an object of ridicule. It even seems to me that I hear one of you ask: “Are you saying that when you studied psychology, you always wanted to know only one thing - how does a person feel after pouring a cup of coffee on himself?” (Aronson, Willerman & I "loyd, 1966). Even if this were true, it would still be a risky statement, but this is not true.
But I have had good luck, and I always know exactly when I follow Seymour's advice, because at such moments I feel creative excitement. And right now, I think I'm going through one of those moments. I am concerned about the following issues. How to make primary education more humane and less traumatic for the psyche of millions of children? How to reverse the current trend in American education towards low self-esteem among children belonging to national minorities? How to easily and painlessly instill the art of "learning in cooperation" in the most ordinary schools? What needs to be done to turn schooling into an exciting, interesting journey, both in terms of social psychology and in terms of acquiring knowledge?
Since public schools are the institutions that 95% of those in this room have gone through and 95% of our children and grandchildren are going to go through, these questions seem important to me.
However, I promised you that I would not dwell on the study itself. But what I really want to dwell on is the failures that befell me as a scientist when I did not follow Seymour's advice. Often I did research that did not give me much pleasure. Why? Because sometimes there was simply no worthwhile idea. Or because the research I was interested in seemed too complicated or time-consuming to me. When this happened, instead of sitting quietly, I got scared. What? Let me make a small digression. Yesterday, when we were discussing the publishing policy of our journals, my friend and former student Darwin Linder told us very eloquently about what he thinks the role of journals is. He proposed three independent roles for discussion. One of them is the role of the archive: journals accumulate and store information, and if in 50 years people want to know what social psychologists were doing in the 70s. XX century, they will read the old files. The second role of journals is that they are sources of current information: if you are interested in what is happening now in various laboratories scattered around the country, or what happened there three years ago, when the study was carried out, the results of which are finally published, you can look at the current numbers. The third role of journals that Linder mentioned is pragmatic: by publishing their work in them, young social psychologists on probation as university lecturers convince deans that they are worthy of the positions they apply for. However, this is not what I want to say now. The third role of magazines is important not only for young people who want to sign a contract with them. It is important for many of us, not at all young men, but for a completely different reason. Although our positions do not depend on publications, something else depends on them. For want of a better word, I'll call it peer-respect. To purposefully and consistently study one problem that has always interested me, I am hindered by fear attacking me from time to time. The fear that if I am not constantly active, if I do not regularly "give out products" - any "products", some of my colleagues may decide that I am no longer "catching mice" and start asking each other the question: " What happened to Elliot Aronson? ”And, as you remember, it was (I had to devote my speech to the answer to this question. Knowing that I'm not the only one in this room who is aware of such fears reassures me. If I'm right, then it's possible that by discussing this problem, we can at least get rid of "the delusion about our own uniqueness," as Harry Stack Sullivan called it. This will help us free ourselves from unnecessary fears, and each of us will get on with the real thing: he will begin to seek the answer to the one question that has always interested him, and will try to do it not only in the way he sees fit, but also in the best possible way.
E. Aronson
Public animal. Introduction to Social Psychology
Foreword by the scientific editor of the Russian edition
Elliot Aronson, an eminent American social psychologist, was born in 1932 in a small town near Boston, Massachusetts. His parents were poor and did not receive a good education, but Elliot entered Brandeis University in 1950. There, he once happened upon a lecture in an introductory psychology course given by Abraham Maslow. The lecture was devoted to prejudice, and the questions that Maslow posed exactly coincided with those that Elliot himself had as a child, who suffered from anti-Semitic persecution from his peers. This lecture made such a strong impression on Aronson that he changed his college major from economics to psychology.
After receiving a bachelor's degree, Aronson, at the insistence of Maslow, decides to continue his education and in 1956 he enters graduate school at Stanford University. Here he met with Leon Festinger, who by that time had just finished his book on cognitive dissonance. This meeting determined the entire further scientific path of E. Aronson.
Since graduating, Aronson has taught and conducted research at the Universities of Harvard, Texas, and Minnesota, and has been a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz for the past 25 years. In 1954 he married Vera Rabinek, they have four adult children.
Elliot Aronson is known for his elegant theoretical ideas, inventive experiments, ingenious and effective applied research and development, and numerous articles and books. Anyone who wants to deeply understand social psychology often turns to The Handbook of Social Psychology (1968, 1985), the most authoritative summary of socio-psychological knowledge, of which he is co-editor of two editions.
E. Aronson made a serious contribution to various areas of social psychology - to the study of dissonance, persuasive communication, interpersonal attractiveness, prejudice, and experimental methodology. He has been awarded the most prestigious awards for achievements in all possible fields of activity for a scientist: research, books, teaching and solving practical problems.
Aronson's versatility helped create one of the best social psychology textbooks you now hold in your hands. The book "Public Animal" has already gone through seven editions in the USA and has been translated into 14 languages of the world. It is wonderful that its translation into Russian is also being published.
There are several reasons why for those who seek to understand the mechanisms and laws of the inner world and social behavior of a person, E. Aronson's book is especially interesting and useful.
First of all, the general pathos of the author and the scientific community that he represents is captivating - to show (and prove!) That the most complex psychological phenomena can be studied by the means of science. the theory is confirmed or refuted.The title of the book "The Social Animal" once again emphasizes that the most complex phenomena of human social behavior can be understood using, in principle, the same scientific strategy as in the study of other - "non-social" animals.
In this regard, it is appropriate to recall that in our country, starting from the 60s, domestic scientists have made a lot of efforts to legitimize scientific socio-psychological knowledge, to establish socio-psychological education within the tight framework of ideological prohibitions and restrictions. primarily at the Leningrad and Moscow Universities), to begin developing research in this field of science, to publish scientific articles, monographs and textbooks. The former ideological prohibitions have been abolished, but new, so to speak, methodological resistances have arisen in the way of a scientific approach to socio-psychological phenomena. I mean the arguments that are popular today about the inapplicability of "positivist" approaches to the study of complex phenomena of the human psyche, about the difference between "explanation" (supposedly applicable only to objects of the physical world) and "understanding" (claiming a monopoly in the knowledge of anthropological and social phenomena) , about the advantages of a "qualitative" methodology in comparison with a "quantitative" one, etc. The best answer to such methodological skepticism (and even more so to attempts to replace science with mysticism) is a "demonstration of strength" - Aronson's description of the real successes of a strictly scientific study of complex socio-psychological phenomena of the human psyche, its advantages over ordinary, everyday forms of cognition.
The other extreme is to turn science into a collection of sacred truths that it is not clear how they arose, and therefore it is not clear how they are interconnected and how they can be subjected to change. Ultimately, such an attitude deprives a person of true freedom in handling scientific information. Aronson's textbook provides a powerful inoculation against this attitude towards science. The book preserves all the drama of the struggle for knowledge, which is not presented and is not perceived as something ossified, once and for all established, and what is established today is substantiated in the book not by references to the authority of "science" and "scientists", but by demonstrative logic. theorizing, procedures for experimental testing of theoretical hypotheses. Science is what is done, is being done and remade by human hands and head. It appears as a system of knowledge and practices for obtaining them, open to further development, in which the author invites you to take part, arming the reader with the appropriate tools.
So, Aronson's book, which is undoubtedly devoted to the most interesting phenomena of the human psyche, is at the same time the embodiment of scientific character, convincingly demonstrating the falsity of dividing psychology into "natural-scientific" and "interesting".
Another boundary that Aronson destroys with his textbook is the opposition between theoretical and practical psychology. The book constantly builds bridges between science and practical life, and the author generously shares the results of his own applied research on energy conservation, overcoming ethnic and racial prejudices in the classroom, AIDS prevention, etc. The principal feature of these studies is that they are based based on fundamental theoretical ideas, specific applied problems are not solved ad hoc, as is most often done, but based on general principles and patterns.
E. Aronson came to science, seeing this as the best opportunity to benefit people, but then, as he writes in his autobiography, the initial motive - to do good - began to be gradually replaced by the motive of searching for truth: a sequence characteristic of many psychologists. So applied research is so important for Aronson also because it gives him the opportunity to combine both of these motives - at the same time to do good (contributing, as he puts it, "to the improvement of mankind"), and to seek the truth. Those who know the author closely astutely notice that in this, as in his other manifestations, he combines the seemingly incompatible properties of his two teachers, who are so dissimilar (and did not love each other) - gentleness and humanistic orientation. Maslow and L. Festinger's hard scientism.
The idea of the uselessness of theoretical psychology for solving practical problems and the illusion of independence of applied areas of psychology from theoretical ones in Russia today, unfortunately, are widespread and affect the organization of psychological education, the selection of translated literature, and the planning of scientific research. Aronson's textbook convincingly demonstrates that, as in physics, in social psychology "there is nothing more practical than a good theory."
For example, for Aronson, as for all modern American social psychology, one of the central theoretical ideas that has received powerful experimental confirmation is the idea of the power of the situation in determining social behavior. And this general theoretical pathos turns out to be extremely practical. It follows from it that in order to solve many social problems and reform various spheres of social life, which is so urgent for us today, it is not at all necessary to start a difficult alteration of people's personal properties! More than once in this book we will read how, in solving this or that practical problem, social psychologists directed their efforts not at correcting people's personal imperfections, but at effectively building the situation, leading to the desired change in behavior and psyche.
E. Aronson
Public animal. Introduction to Social Psychology
Foreword by the scientific editor of the Russian edition
Elliot Aronson, an eminent American social psychologist, was born in 1932 in a small town near Boston, Massachusetts. His parents were poor and did not receive a good education, but Elliot entered Brandeis University in 1950. There, he once happened upon a lecture in an introductory psychology course given by Abraham Maslow. The lecture was devoted to prejudice, and the questions that Maslow posed exactly coincided with those that Elliot himself had as a child, who suffered from anti-Semitic persecution from his peers. This lecture made such a strong impression on Aronson that he changed his college major from economics to psychology.
After receiving a bachelor's degree, Aronson, at the insistence of Maslow, decides to continue his education and in 1956 he enters graduate school at Stanford University. Here he met with Leon Festinger, who by that time had just finished his book on cognitive dissonance. This meeting determined the entire further scientific path of E. Aronson.
Since graduating, Aronson has taught and conducted research at the Universities of Harvard, Texas, and Minnesota, and has been a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz for the past 25 years. In 1954 he married Vera Rabinek, they have four adult children.
Elliot Aronson is known for his elegant theoretical ideas, inventive experiments, ingenious and effective applied research and development, and numerous articles and books. Anyone who wants to deeply understand social psychology often turns to The Handbook of Social Psychology (1968, 1985), the most authoritative summary of socio-psychological knowledge, of which he is co-editor of two editions.
E. Aronson made a serious contribution to various areas of social psychology - to the study of dissonance, persuasive communication, interpersonal attractiveness, prejudice, and experimental methodology. He has been awarded the most prestigious awards for achievements in all possible fields of activity for a scientist: research, books, teaching and solving practical problems.
Aronson's versatility helped create one of the best social psychology textbooks you now hold in your hands. The book "Public Animal" has already gone through seven editions in the USA and has been translated into 14 languages of the world. It is wonderful that its translation into Russian is also being published.
There are several reasons why for those who seek to understand the mechanisms and laws of the inner world and social behavior of a person, E. Aronson's book is especially interesting and useful.
First of all, the general pathos of the author and the scientific community that he represents is captivating - to show (and prove!) That the most complex psychological phenomena can be studied by the means of science. the theory is confirmed or refuted.The title of the book "The Social Animal" once again emphasizes that the most complex phenomena of human social behavior can be understood using, in principle, the same scientific strategy as in the study of other - "non-social" animals.
In this regard, it is appropriate to recall that in our country, starting from the 60s, domestic scientists have made a lot of efforts to legitimize scientific socio-psychological knowledge, to establish socio-psychological education within the tight framework of ideological prohibitions and restrictions. primarily at the Leningrad and Moscow Universities), to begin developing research in this field of science, to publish scientific articles, monographs and textbooks. The former ideological prohibitions have been abolished, but new, so to speak, methodological resistances have arisen in the way of a scientific approach to socio-psychological phenomena. I mean the arguments that are popular today about the inapplicability of "positivist" approaches to the study of complex phenomena of the human psyche, about the difference between "explanation" (supposedly applicable only to objects of the physical world) and "understanding" (claiming a monopoly in the knowledge of anthropological and social phenomena) , about the advantages of a "qualitative" methodology in comparison with a "quantitative" one, etc. The best answer to such methodological skepticism (and even more so to attempts to replace science with mysticism) is a "demonstration of strength" - Aronson's description of the real successes of a strictly scientific study of complex socio-psychological phenomena of the human psyche, its advantages over ordinary, everyday forms of cognition.
The other extreme is to turn science into a collection of sacred truths that it is not clear how they arose, and therefore it is not clear how they are interconnected and how they can be subjected to change. Ultimately, such an attitude deprives a person of true freedom in handling scientific information. Aronson's textbook provides a powerful inoculation against this attitude towards science. The book preserves all the drama of the struggle for knowledge, which is not presented and is not perceived as something ossified, once and for all established, and what is established today is substantiated in the book not by references to the authority of "science" and "scientists", but by demonstrative logic. theorizing, procedures for experimental testing of theoretical hypotheses. Science is what is done, is being done and remade by human hands and head. It appears as a system of knowledge and practices for obtaining them, open to further development, in which the author invites you to take part, arming the reader with the appropriate tools.
So, Aronson's book, which is undoubtedly devoted to the most interesting phenomena of the human psyche, is at the same time the embodiment of scientific character, convincingly demonstrating the falsity of dividing psychology into "natural-scientific" and "interesting".
Another boundary that Aronson destroys with his textbook is the opposition between theoretical and practical psychology. The book constantly builds bridges between science and practical life, and the author generously shares the results of his own applied research on energy conservation, overcoming ethnic and racial prejudices in the classroom, AIDS prevention, etc. The principal feature of these studies is that they are based based on fundamental theoretical ideas, specific applied problems are not solved ad hoc, as is most often done, but based on general principles and patterns.
E. Aronson came to science, seeing this as the best opportunity to benefit people, but then, as he writes in his autobiography, the initial motive - to do good - began to be gradually replaced by the motive of searching for truth: a sequence characteristic of many psychologists. So applied research is so important for Aronson also because it gives him the opportunity to combine both of these motives - at the same time to do good (contributing, as he puts it, "to the improvement of mankind"), and to seek the truth. Those who know the author closely astutely notice that in this, as in his other manifestations, he combines the seemingly incompatible properties of his two teachers, who are so dissimilar (and did not love each other) - gentleness and humanistic orientation. Maslow and L. Festinger's hard scientism.
The idea of the uselessness of theoretical psychology for solving practical problems and the illusion of independence of applied areas of psychology from theoretical ones in Russia today, unfortunately, are widespread and affect the organization of psychological education, the selection of translated literature, and the planning of scientific research. Aronson's textbook convincingly demonstrates that, as in physics, in social psychology "there is nothing more practical than a good theory."
For example, for Aronson, as for all modern American social psychology, one of the central theoretical ideas that has received powerful experimental confirmation is the idea