A Perspective on the Intersection of Social Psychology and Linguistics

Despite overwhelming consensus among scientists about the reality of anthropogenic climate change (Bray, 2010; Oreskes, 2004), there remains significant reluctance on the part of citizens and politicians to take the action needed to address it. This resistance has been repeatedly identified in social research (Leiserowitz & Maibach, 2010; Leviston, Leitch, Greenhill, Leonard, & Walker, 2011; Lorenzoni & Pidgeon, 2006; McCright & Dunlap, 2011; Reser, Bradley, Glendon, Ellul, & Callaghan, 2012) and is mirrored by the lack of progress made by salient political summits (Rogelj et al., 2010). Perhaps as a response to this, scholarly journals and articles that are focused on climate change are growing. Natural scientists tell us that we know what needs to be done to avert dangerous climate change (IPCC, 2014), and economists tell us that delaying action in the short term will lead to much greater costs in the long term (Stern, 2007). Understanding public responses to climate change and developing solutions to catalyse action is a critical challenge for the social sciences, and we propose that the development and elaboration of a social psychology of climate change would be a cornerstone of such an approach. We do not make the claim that social psychology has all the answers but rather that the theories, models and research methods of social psychology can provide a powerful arsenal to complement the approaches of other disciplines. Researchers have already begun to apply social psychological theory and methods to the issue of climate change, and we highlight in the following sections examples of the insights that have flowed from this. We cannot assume, though, that our theories and findings will automatically generalise to the climate change context. As Moser (2010) has noted, there are unique dimensions to climate change that make it distinct from other environmental, risk and health issues: The causes of climate change are invisible to humans, the impacts are distal and it is complex and riddled with uncertainties. Modern urban humans are to some extent insulated from their physical environment, and the lags between the climate and social systems make it difficult for people to understand their role in influencing climate. These factors suggest the importance of developing a social psychology of climate change, empirically testing, integrating and refining existing theories and models to develop new frameworks. The notion that psychology can play a role in understanding and addressing climate change is not a new one. The American Psychological Association's Task Force on the interface between psychology and global climate change comprehensively detailed the ways in which psychological research can help to understand people's perceptions of the risks of climate change, the contribution of human behaviour to climate change, the psychosocial impacts of climate change, the ways in which people can adapt and cope with climate change and the psychological barriers that could limit climate change action (Swim et al., 2009, 2011). It is also not a new idea that social psychology can play an important role in understanding and addressing environmental problems and solutions (Clayton & Brook, 2005). Social psychology, specifically, has a long tradition of theory and research that is relevant to addressing key climate change questions. Attitudes, social cognition, persuasion and attitude change, social influence, and intragroup and intergroup behaviour, for instance, are fundamental foci for social psychology and have direct relevance for understanding the human and social dimensions of climate change. The time is ripe to understand the range of research that has been developing in social psychology on attitudes, beliefs and actions, to build upon these insights, and integrate them with knowledge from other sciences to develop models and theories indigenous to the climate change context. In the following section, we provide a brief overview of recent social psychological research that addresses three broad themes relevant to understanding and responding to climate change. These themes are as follows: (i) social psychological influences on climate change attitudes and beliefs; (ii) facilitators and barriers to climate change action; and (iii) changing climate change attitudes and behaviour. Although there is some overlap in these themes, as an organising principle they intuitively map on to key questions that arise in relation to climate change. Our aim is to highlight recent examples of social psychological research that provide interesting and important insights in relation to these themes. Swim, Markowitz, and Bloodhart (2012) have noted that much of the social psychological research on climate change has emerged since 2006; we focus in on the most recent of this research that has been published since 2010. We also outline how the studies in the special issue relate to these themes. We recognise that these are not the only areas where social psychological research and theory can make important contributions but they nevertheless relate to key questions that need to be addressed. We conclude the introduction by proposing considerations that social psychologists could take into account in their future research on climate change. A major focus in the climate change literature and the media more broadly has been on describing climate change attitudes and beliefs. In many developed nations, questions about beliefs and attitudes related to climate change have become a standard component of political polling (e.g. Gallup polls and Lowy Institute polls), and there are comprehensive national and cross-national surveys that address this topic. Examples include US research by the Yale Climate Change Communication project (Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Smith, 2010), national surveys conducted in Australia (Leviston et al., 2011; Reser et al., 2012), and the U.K. (Pidgeon, 2012) and the Eurobarometer research conducted in Europe (The European Opinion Research Group, 2002). As the study of attitudes—their conceptualization, measurement, formation, function and relationship with behaviour—has been a cornerstone of social psychological research, social psychology can make important contributions to these assessments. Note that although social psychological theories usually distinguish between attitudes and beliefs, these terms are often used interchangeably in the climate change research domain, and for the sake of simplicity, we will usually use attitudes to encompass both attitudes and beliefs. Recent reviews of the attitude literature from 1996 to 2009 highlight significant trends and directions in this area of research (Ajzen, 2001; Bohner & Dickel, 2011; Crano & Prislin, 2006). These trends include the role of attitude strength and attitude ambivalence, the distinction between implicit and explicit attitudes, the recognition that attitudes have cognitive and affective underpinnings, and the influence of bodily and external physical cues on attitudes. Recent social psychological research on climate change particularly provides examples of the influence of bodily and external cues and the distinction between cognitive and affective aspects of attitudes, and three of the papers in the special issue address the latter issue. The work on internal bodily and external physical cues is a growing research area with a special issue of the European Journal of Social Psychology devoted to the concept of embodied cognition (Schubert & Semin, 2009). As the distal nature of climate change and the relative insulation of humans from their physical environment are thought to be key barriers to greater engagement with climate change (Moser, 2010), it is perhaps not surprising that this area of research has extended into the climate change domain. Cues that help to 'bring to life' the experience of global warming could help to overcome these psychological barriers. Risen and Critcher (2011) have shown that feelings of warmth increased beliefs in global warming and that this effect was mediated through greater ease in constructing more fluent mental images of hot outdoor images. Other studies have shown that people had greater concern about global warming and donated more money to a global warming charity when they thought that the temperature outside was warmer than usual (Li, Johnson, & Zaval, 2011), that embodied temperature influenced concern for global warming and willingness to volunteer for a global warming group (Lewandowski, Ciarocco, & Gately, 2012) and that priming heat-related cognitions resulted in greater belief in global warming and willingness to pay to reduce global warming (Joireman, Truelove, & Duell, 2010). Physical external cues, in this case the presence of bare trees in the laboratory, also increased belief in global warming (Guéguen, 2012). These studies illustrate how subtle cues can influence climate change attitudes in the moment, although the longevity of these effects on attitudes has not been explored. Another important direction in attitude research that has relevance for climate change is the recognition that attitudes have affective as well as cognitive underpinnings. This is important when considering that the high levels of risk associated with climate change means that it could elicit strong emotional responses. Cognitive approaches to understanding attitudes (e.g. expectancy-value models) have been at the forefront of how we understand attitude formation (Ajzen, 2001). From this perspective, attitudes are the outcome of a cognitive process of evaluating beliefs about the attitude object; for example, a person who has positive beliefs about a climate change policy is likely to hold favourable attitudes to that policy. Consistent with the importance of cognitive, rational processes, Tobler, Visschers, and Siegrist (2012) have shown that perceived costs and benefits of climate change policies were significant predictors of support for these policies and, in most cases, were stronger predictors of behavioural willingness and policy support than other variables (e.g. demographics, climate change concern and climate change scepticism). But there is also evidence for the affective basis of attitudes and even for the primacy of affective aspects of attitudes (Verplanken, Jofstee, & Janssen, 1998; Zajonc, 1984). Recent reviews of the attitude literature suggest that, rather than attitudes being determined by one or the other, affect and cognition are both likely to be important for the formation of attitudes (Ajzen, 2001; Crano & Prislin, 2006). For example, whether affective or cognitive aspects of attitude objects are accessed more readily depends on whether the attitude object itself is more affectively or cognitively based (Giner-Sorolla, 2004). Three articles in the current issue pick up on the cognitive and affective aspects of climate change attitudes and perceptions. Although it seems intuitively likely that having greater knowledge about climate change should be related to climate change attitudes, findings in relation to knowledge have been mixed. Some research has shown that knowing more about the causes and consequences of climate change is associated with greater climate change risk judgments (Sunblad, Biel, & Gärling, 2009), whereas other studies have shown no effects or have suggested the possibility that having more knowledge could even be negatively related to climate change beliefs for those with a politically conservative orientation (Malka, Krosnick, & Langer, 2009; McCright & Dunlap, 2011). Yet, Guy, Kashima, Walker, and O'Neill (this issue) point out that knowledge is usually measured with proxy measures such as scientific literacy or self-reported climate change knowledge rather than objective knowledge of climate change, and therefore, it is premature to dismiss the positive relationship between knowledge and attitudes. Their study used an objective measure of climate change knowledge and shows that people who are more knowledgeable have greater belief that climate change is happening, and, moreover, knowledge attenuates the negative relationship between ideology (i.e. individualism) and climate change attitudes. Van der Linden (this issue) specifically addresses how affect and cognition relate to climate change perceptions. The study investigates the relationship between personal experiences of extreme weather events, affect relating to climate change, and climate change risk perceptions. The results of the structural equation modelling of a national British sample provides support for a dual-process model whereby cognitive appraisals activate risk perceptions, and risk and affect mutually reinforce each other in a feedback loop. The paper by Leviston, Price, and Bishop (this issue) explores the role of affect in climate change responses somewhat differently in that it looks at the images people bring to mind when they think about climate change and assesses the affect associated with these images. The research explores whether the types of images that people associate with climate change might be a way of psychologically and affectively engaging or distancing themselves from climate change. It is not enough that people endorse attitudes that are in tune with scientific consensus on climate change; these attitudes need to translate into positive action, whether that is individual private-sphere behaviours such as 'green' consumerism, public-sphere non-activist behaviour such as voting for political parties with environmentally responsible policies or collective environmental activism that seeks to influence decision-makers (Stern, 2000). These types of distinctions are important as the different classes of behaviour might have quite different facilitators and barriers (Stern, 2000). Another important distinction when considering climate-change-related behaviour is the extent to which it is habitual and automatic versus reasoned and deliberative (Ouellette & Wood, 1998). Automaticity of environmentally harmful behaviour poses a serious barrier, whereas automaticity of environmentally protective behaviour makes future behaviour of this type more likely (Van Lange & Joireman, 2008). Yet another potentially important consideration is the goals associated with behaviours (Lindenberg & Steg, 2007). Behaviours can be performed for a range of reasons, and individuals' perception of their own motives could have implications for their future actions. As an example, energy conservation behaviours could be performed primarily to reduce carbon emissions or to save money; the issue with engaging in environmentally protective behaviours for non-environmental reasons is that it could undermine the development of an environmentalist identity (van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2013) and reduce the likelihood of behavioural spillover (Thøgersen & Crompton, 2009). A range of social psychological theories outline the mechanisms that motivate people to take action, and these have had great reach both inside and outside of social psychology. These theories include (but are not limited to) theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and perspectives that foreground the role of norms (e.g. norm focus theory; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990) and the social identity perspective (see Hornsey, 2008 for a recent review). The theory of planned behaviour has been used to examine determinants of a range of private-sphere environmental behaviours including employees' energy-saving behaviours (Greaves, Zibarras, & Stride, 2013; Zhang, Wang, & Zhou, 2014), private landholders' carbon sequestration and trading (Thompson & Hansen, 2013), renewable energy use (Alam et al., 2014) and opposition to wind farms (Read, Brown, Thorsteinsson, Morgan, & Price, 2013). Similarly, research drawing on self-determination theory has identified that experiencing more autonomous, self-determined motivation or perceiving that the government is more autonomy supportive is related to public-sphere and private-sphere environmental behaviours (De Groot & Steg, 2010; Lavergne, Sharp, Pelletier, & Holtby, 2010). Perhaps one of the most important contributions of social psychology to understanding human behaviour has been its theorisation of the influence of social norms (e.g. Cialdini et al., 1990). From a social identity perspective, the social groups to which we belong provide guidelines for appropriate behaviour through the internalisation of group norms (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Hornsey, 2008). We only need to consider the powerful relationship between political party identification and climate change responses to see evidence of this process (Dunlap & McCright, 2008; Fielding, Head, Laffan, Western, & Hoegh-Guldberg, 2012). According to the social identity perspective, group norms are more likely to guide environmental behaviour when the social identity is more central and salient (Fielding, Terry, Masser, & Hogg, 2008; Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999). Furthermore, in salient intergroup contexts, in-group members tend to polarise away from out-group members, and their environmental intentions and behaviour will become more in-group normative (Ferguson, & 2011; & 2012). and (this issue) our understanding of how social identity and associated in-group norms influences climate-change-related behaviour. on social identity to distinguish between dimensions of group identification and whether different dimensions are more likely to guide behaviour. that extent to which group identity is important to the and rather than among group the relationship between group norms and when those behaviours are high Although much of the research to has focused on understanding and private-sphere environmental and (van & have extended their model of with collective to understand responses to climate change (Van & 2008). on a perspective & Swim, 2011), they propose and provide evidence for for people to with the climate and In the case of climate change, is a likely to be by and to the extent that they they be more likely to take action to reduce their can also be through that to their beliefs about whether group action will be in with climate change. and (this issue) this research by determinants of intentions to in collective climate emotional specifically on and as central and social norms into the Their findings that the perceived norm intentions to take part in a climate perceptions of and group In the section, we a brief overview of theories that could help to understand climate-change-related and these approaches suggest variables to to effect change. For example, research has shown the of to influence environmentally related behaviour et al., 2013; et al., 2010; Cialdini, & 2008; Cialdini, & 2008; & 2013; et al., 2012). In this section, we focus on research that addresses key that might be when to influence climate-change-related attitudes, beliefs and actions. important direction in research has been the of how to climate change to positive in climate change attitudes and beliefs. From a social psychological perspective, one of the of is the role of attitudes in & Dickel, 2011). A of the literature to a effect of attitudes on for versus et al., 2009), and there is evidence that this is more likely when people hold strong attitudes & 2007). This that people's attitudes will influence how they to to change climate-change-related attitudes and beliefs, and research is broadly with this. greater to on climate change with their own & and are more likely to climate when it to their beliefs & 2011; & 2013). In response to this, some have climate to be more when they with the For example, with greater had greater intentions when with that behaviour as the American way of & 2010), and climate greater intentions when with that the positive effects of climate change on the development of new Hornsey, & 2012). the of more we know from the work of and that people are risk and that risk in ways that highlight the of can be more than that focus on In the of climate change where is a of the and (2011) have shown that climate change that the the but the possibility of stronger intentions to and (this issue) on the model of & 2013) to provide a for climate change In they with one of policies that in renewable energy or limit The with the policies was when the with the policy. there was more with a policy of in renewable energy an when it was in terms of whereas greater was for a policy of emissions a when it was as also that the focus of their responses to the Another key issue that be is the possibility of to climate change and the risks to human and from climate change, of and are central to the of climate change. the effects of in relation to health behaviour & & 2000) provide evidence that elicit greater attitude and behaviour change but only when the is by of responses propose that people that response are and they have the to out the they will in behaviours to the there is this in to the such as or The for to climate change is in a study by and greater of climate change among with stronger beliefs who had been with about climate change, whereas this not on more Research has also shown that of to from climate change, particularly can be made more take the perspective of the by climate change (Swim & in to climate change also when social are & 1999). For example, when were to evidence of energy use by their own they were more likely to climate change to causes than when the was about 2013). Furthermore, this greater to causes was negatively associated with climate change concern and support for climate change that help reduce identity can greater engagement with climate change. on the and (2010) that a to reduce the of of climate change and personal with climate change and environmental behaviour. Although can help reduce to climate change, and (this issue) that the for to environmental problems can undermine individuals' willingness to take environmental as progress that can to future environmental and human health problems can reduce the likelihood of engaging in environmentally behaviour. The is perceptions of that a of in an as the idea of scientific progress our the need to through individual actions. The from this research is that it is important not to scientific of the major barriers that has been identified in relation to action to address climate change is the distal nature of the et al., major consequences will in the future and are perceived as more likely to affect other those who are already most This of climate change that that reduce the between and the future or between the and other humans help to overcome this In support of this, that focus on environmental consequences of climate change help climate change engagement & 2013), and to take the perspective of a future human experiencing environmental problems environmental engagement & 2013). The research of and (this issue) to whether our human identity can influence willingness to take environmental Consistent with research, they that are related to greater willingness to in environmental is though, is that priming people who have to think about to have high related to potentially it an intergroup context. This provides evidence of the of about climate change and the need to understand the Social psychology can also point to some and to greater willingness to in to address climate change. and (this issue) that that whether have an versus an can make a to how many behaviours they consider engaging In that had out behaviours they would not consider resulted in being to in more behaviours than an where people consider what they would consider from a In this introduction to the special we highlight areas where social psychological research has important insights to understanding climate change attitudes, beliefs and what influences these and how they can be We used recent social psychological research and the papers from this current issue to illustrate key The strength of a social psychological of climate change is that it can help us to understand the of responses to climate change, for example, how attitudes can be influenced by both affect and cognition, how attitudes and beliefs can responses to climate change and people to climate change with and It can also provide and to the of climate change It is to see the and of social psychological research that addresses important questions related to climate change, although this has been a recent (Swim et al., 2012). we are to to make important contributions to this area of research, though, we propose that social psychologists should consider the following in their future We noted that there are a range of that can take to address climate change, from private-sphere behaviours to non-activist public-sphere behaviours to environmental activism (Stern, 2000). Although all of these approaches can some have greater than & 2009). have greater to influence and and to effect Despite this, social psychological research often investigates private-sphere actions. As a we can our contribution to climate change research by our focus to individual behaviours and public-sphere responses to climate change & 2008). As a we are to what is about climate change. The groups we belong to and the social we can be powerful influences on our attitudes, beliefs and the effect of political identification on climate change attitudes is a of this. area where these have relevance is in the of national and climate change As an example, and (2012) on social identity to the in that when the of individual and other become a identity can that will lead to greater likelihood of The consideration of intergroup and how these or positive responses to climate change (e.g. climate change and introduction of climate change is an area that could provide important A critical distinction made in relation to climate change is between and According to the on Climate Change the to human to reduce the impacts of climate change, whereas the latter to that can be made to human or systems that can help to the or the that would from or climate change and are even the measures will not some of climate change, and is needed to with this (IPCC, Yet the issue of psychological has been in climate change & Swim, 2011). This is for at (i) as noted some of climate change is research on is and (ii) a lack of understanding of could in that to or reduce to climate change that impacts or of other or social & social psychological research is to be a serious to the climate change research greater needs to be focused on of The need to to the distinction between and to the need for social psychologists to work with other disciplines. et we social psychologists to become with the and research of other relevant that address climate change to the relevance and reach of social psychological research in this that solutions to climate change cannot be developed by one the issue systems including and A is and social psychology can make a significant contribution by methods and theories that help social and cognitive In we in this introduction to the special issue to foreground social psychological theories and findings relevant to key climate change questions. Although social psychology can a of and the social psychology of climate change is and more needs to be done we have a of and theories that are to climate change. we this, the of social psychology is likely to be at the of climate We that the special issue can help the progress that has been made and catalyse the development of an indigenous social psychology of climate change. We social psychologists to this that we can be part of the to one of the and environmental of our

Accommodation is the process whereby a listener makes adjustments in response to behavior of the speaker. In the area of linguistics we might broadly label as theoretical pragmatics, within which we include much of formal semantics and philosophy of language, accommodation is the mechanism whereby hearers modify their representation of the conversational background so as to match assumptions that the speaker has made. The most pervasive type of accommodation involves presupposition, when a speaker takes some type of information for granted. Accommodation of presuppositions occurs when the listener adjusts their knowledge state in order to match the information that a speaker has presupposed. For example, if a speaker says, “I have to go pick up my sister from the airport,” there is a presupposition triggered that the speaker has a sister. If the listener is not already aware of the existence of the sister, they must accommodate this information by adjusting their information state accordingly. Two dominant approaches to modeling presupposition behavior have emerged in the past few decades, resulting in two broad understandings of accommodation. For a class of dynamic semantic theories, accommodation is a process that involves satisfaction in local contexts. On the other hand, a wave of research on presupposition as anaphora relies on a notion of accommodation as the creation of antecedents to enable anaphoric resolution that would otherwise fail. Within both understandings of accommodation, the particular mechanisms can also vary. Some accounts weigh the plausibility of material to be accommodated, some accounts weigh the alternative contexts within which material might be accommodated, and some weigh the amount of descriptive content contributed by the presupposition. Besides accommodation in theoretical pragmatics, a broader notion of accommodation is prominent in sociolinguistics, as well as further afield from linguistics in social psychology and anthropology. This notion includes not only the beliefs of the interlocutors, but also many other aspects of speech style and communicative behavior more generally. This literature primarily draws from communication accommodation theory (CAT), according to which a speaker adjusts their communicative behavior based on that of their interlocuter. Commonly, this adjustment involves mirroring, but interlocutors may also adjust to make differences salient rather than emphasizing similarity. While theoretical pragmatic and sociolinguistic accommodation are distinct notions with independent intellectual histories, presupposition accommodation can be seen as a special case of sociolinguistic accommodation. Both involve a hearer’s adjustment in response to a speaker. However, the former is more restrictive, concerning only adjustment to increase similarity, and only adjustment of aspects of what Lewis termed the conversational scoreboard, within which he includes the beliefs of the speaker and hearer.

Evolutionary psychology suggests that a woman's sexual attractiveness is based on cues of health and reproductive potential. In recent years, research has focused on the ratio of the width of the waist to the width of the hips (the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). A low WHR (i.e. a curvaceous body) is believed to correspond to the optimal fat distribution for high fertility, and so this shape should be highly attractive. In this paper we present evidence that weight scaled for height (the body mass index (BMI)) is the primary determinant of sexual attractiveness rather than WHR. BMI is also strongly linked to health and reproductive potential. Furthermore, we show how covariation of apparent BMI and WHR in previous studies led to the overestimation of the importance of WHR in the perception of female attractiveness. Finally, we show how visual cues, such as the perimeter-area ratio (PAR), can provide an accurate and reliable index of an individual's BMI and could be used by an observer to differentiate between potential partners.

Implicit Association Test: Separating Transsituationally Stable and Variable Components of Attitudes toward Gay Men

An ideal of universal citizenship has driven the emancipatory momentum of modern political life. Ever since the bourgeoisie challenged aristocratic privileges by claiming equal political rights for citizens as such, women, workers, Jews, blacks, and others have pressed for inclusion in that citizenship status. Modern political theory asserted the equal moral worth of all persons, and social movements of the oppressed took this seriously as implying the inclusion of all persons in full citizenship status under the equal protection of the law. Citizenship for everyone, and everyone the same qua citizen. Modern political thought generally assumed that the universality of citizenship in the sense of citizenship for all implies a universality of citizenship in the sense that citizenship status transcends particularity and difference. Whatever the social or group differences among citizens, whatever their inequalities of wealth, status, and power in the everyday activities of civil society, citizenship gives everyone the same status as peers in the political public. With equality conceived as sameness, the ideal of universal citizenship carries at least two meanings in addition to the extension of citizenship to everyone: (a) universality defined as general in opposition to particular; what citizens have in common as opposed to how they differ, and (b) universality in the sense of laws and rules that say the same for all and apply to all in the same way; laws and rules that are blind to individual and group differences. During this angry, sometimes bloody, political struggle in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, many among the excluded and disadvantaged thought that winning full citizenship status, that is, equal political and civil rights, would lead to their freedom and equality. Now in the late twentieth century, however, when citizenship rights have been formally extended to all groups in liberal capitalist societies, some groups still find themselves treated as second-class citizens. Social movements of oppressed and excluded groups have recently asked why extension of equal citizenship rights has not led to social justice and equality. Part of the answer is

The current study examined a role-related difference in the use of playback (one form of repetition) in medical discourse. We adopted a language and social psychology approach and invoked communication accommodation theory (CAT) to explore this discourse. Thirty doctor/older adult dyads were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Findings suggested that the deployment of repetition is a strategy used by the addresser to either complement or converge to the other interlocutor, in order to ensure that the medical instrumental task is efficiently accomplished and interpersonal rapport is established. Our results show that discourse management is the dominant strategy used by speakers when playing back the other’s utterances. Our analysis also demonstrates that CAT strategies work interdependently. We conclude that CAT is a valuable framework to elucidate the dynamics of, and the social psychological processes underlying, the practice of repetition in medical interviews.

Intergroup communication proposes that when individuals interact with each other, it is most often their salient social memberships and not their individual characteristics that shape the communication. Thus, intergroup communication examines how our communication provides information about our identification with different groups in society, as well as how information about groups and group membership shape communication. While communication is acknowledged to be both an interpersonal and an intergroup phenomenon, intergroup communication scholars argue that much of our communication is in some way intergroup (where groups include, for example, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or political party). Intergroup communication views communication as a dynamic process where each speaker’s cognitions, emotions, and motivations influence communication behavior in interactions. These processes are argued by intergroup communication scholars to underpin communication across many different contexts. Intergroup communication also focuses on explaining conflict and miscommunication and, in particular, intergroup communication focuses on communication between dominant and subordinate groups. The systematic study of intergroup communication has its strongest roots in social psychology, together with socio-psychological areas of communication. This bibliographical review provides key authors and references for the area of intergroup communication. Many argue the field began in the 1970s in the United Kingdom with Tajfel’s work on social identity theory (e.g., Tajfel and Turner 1986) and Giles’s work on speech (later communication) accommodation theory (Giles 1973) (both cited under Theories: Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT)). Specifically, Giles theorized the bridge from social psychology to language and communication. However, owing to this area having a strong multidisciplinary heritage, the field of intergroup communication has links to earlier social psychological work of Lambert and his colleagues, with clear connections also to early work in intercultural relations and prejudice by Serge Moscovici, Thomas Pettigrew, and Muzafer Sherif. At the same time, the field also has links to early work in sociolinguistics, anthropology, sociology, and linguistics (see, for example, the work of Edward T. Hall, John Gumperz, Lesley Milroy, and William Labov). Initially mostly described as social psychology of language, a greater focus has emerged over time on communication rather than language, and intergroup communication specifically rather than the social psychology of language more generally. Early on, much of the research on intergroup communication was undertaken in social psychology, but, more recently, communication scholars have also adopted this approach. Early intergroup communication research was also primarily in intercultural communication, but the field quickly expanded to include research on gender, aging/intergenerational, organizational communication, and health communication. The field has continued to embrace new contexts, such as policing and civilian relations, internet communication, and the application of social neuroscience to measure brain activity across intergroup encounters.

Part I: Biological System. Caporael, Evolutionary Theory for Social and Cultural Psychology. Blascovich, Seery, Visceral and Somatic Indexes of Social Psychological Constructs: History, Principles, Propositions, and Case Studies. Ochsner, Social Cognitive Neuroscience: Historical Development, Core Principles, and Future Promise. Part II: Cognitive System. Dunning, Prediction: The Inside View. Roese, Sherman, Expectancy. Kruglanski, Sleeth-Keppler, The Principles of Social Judgment. Andersen, Moscowitz, Blair, Nosek, Automatic Thought. Fiedler, Information Ecology and the Explanation of Social Cognition and Behavior. Forster, Liberman, Knowledge Activation. Hilton, Causal Explanation: From Social Perception to Knowledge-Based Causal Attribution. Petty, Brinol, Tormala, Wegener, The Role of Metacognition in Social Judgment. Wyer, Jr. Principles of Mental Representation. Biernat, Eidelman, Standards. Shafir, Decisions Constructed Locally: Some Fundamental Principles of the Psychology of Decision Making. Liberman, Trope, Stephan, Psychological Distance. Part III: Personal Motivational System. Schwarz, Clore, Feelings and Phenomenal Experiences. Strack, Deutsch, The Role of Impulse in Social Behavior. Oyserman, Social Identity and Self-Regulation. Higgins, Value. Pittman, Zeigler, Basic Human Needs. Fishbach, Ferguson, The Goal Construct in Social Psychology. Baumeister, Schmeichel, Vohs, Self-Regulation and the Executive Function: The Self as Controlling Agent. Van Lange, De Cremer, Van Dijk, Van Vugt, Self-Interest and Beyond: Basic Principles of Social Interaction. Part IV: Interpersonal System. Maio, Haddock, Attitude Change. Simpson, Foundations of Interpersonal Trust. DeDreu, Beersma, Steinel, Van Kleef, The Psychology of Negotiation: Principles and Basic Processes. Semin, Grounding Communication: Synchrony. Shaver, Mikulincer, Attachment Theory and Research: Core Concepts, Basic Principles, Conceptual Bridges. Fiske, Berdahl, Social Power. Part V: Group and Cultural System. Brewer, The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations: Social Categorization, Ingroup Bias, and Outgroup Prejudice. Hogg, Social Psychology of Leadership. Vallacher, Nowak, Dynamical Social Psychology: Finding Order in the Flow of Human Experience. Levine, Kerr, Inclusion and Exclusion: Implications for Group Processes. Chiu, Hong, Cultural Processes: Basic Principles. Part VI: Applications of Social Psychology. Tyler, Jost, Psychology and the Law: Reconciling Normative and Descriptive Accounts of Social Justice and System Legitimacy. Rothman, Salovey, The Reciprocal Relation between Principles and Practice: Social Psychology and Health Behavior. Strauman, Costanzo, Jones, McLean, Merrill, Contributions of Social Psychology to Clinical Psychology: Three Views of a Research Frontier. Johnson, Pham, Johar, Consumer Behavior and Marketing. Tetlock, Psychology and Politics: The Challenges of Integrating Levels of Analysis in Social Science. Thompson, Pozner, Organizational Behavior. Snyder, Omoto, Social Action.

How Behavioral Interventions Can Reduce the Climate Impact of Energy Use

Baumeister, R. F. (1991). The self against itself: Escape or defeat? In R. C. Curtis (Ed.), The relational seIf: Theoretical convergences in psychoanalysis and social psychology (pp. 238-256). New York: Guilford. Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 1-15. Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail atself-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529. Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243-267. Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 165-195. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). The self-attention-induced feedback loop and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 545-568. Estrada-Hollenbeck, M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1997). Avoiding andrepairing guilt through prosocial behavior. In J. Bybee (Ed.), Guilt and shame in children (pp. 215-231). San Diego, CA: Academic. Fiske, A. P. (1992). The cultural relativity of selfish individualism: Anthropological evidence that humans are inherently sociable. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior: Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 176-214. Heatherton, T. F., & Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Binge eating as escape from self-awareness. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 86-108. Heatherton, T. F., Mahamedi, F., Striepe, M., Field, A., & Keel, P. (1997). A ten year longitudinal study of body weight, dieting, and eating disorder symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 117-125. Heatherton, T. F., Nichols, P., Mahamedi, F., & Keel, P. (1995). Body weight, dieting, and eating disorder symptoms among college students 1982 to 1992. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 1623-1629. Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1992). Chronic dieting and eatingdisorders: A spiral model. In J. H. Crowther, D. L. Tennenbaum, S. E. Hobfol, & M. P. Stephens (Eds.), The etiology of bulimia nervosa: The individual andfamilial context. Series in applied psychology: Social issues and questions (pp. 133-155). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Hebl, M. R, & Heatherton, T. F. (1998). The stigma of obesity in women: The difference is black and white. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 417-426. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969. Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 774-789. Schachter, S. (1982). Recividism and self-cure of smoking and obesity. American Psychologist, 37, 436-444. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they're doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3-15. Vohs, K. D., & Heatherton, T. F. (1998). Temptation and depletion: Tests of the strength model. Unpublished manuscript, Dartmouth College, Dartmouth, NH.

Teaching and Learning Guide for: Group Norms and the Attitude–Behaviour Relationship

© The Author(s) 2020. Interactional adjustment refers to people’s tendency to adjust, or adapt, their communication behavior in social interactions. In recent years, three distinctive approaches to this topic that have featured prominently in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology are communication accommodation theory (CAT), language style matching (LSM), and discursive psychology using conversation analysis (DPCA). In this article, we provide a review of these three approaches, highlighting what defines and distinguishes them, as well as what insights into interactional adjustment each offers. We draw out the connections and points of tensions between these approaches; in so doing, we identify future directions for research on interactional adjustment as a fundamental aspect of human communication, and in the study of language and social psychology.

© The Author(s) 2020. Interactional adjustment refers to people’s tendency to adjust, or adapt, their communication behavior in social interactions. In recent years, three distinctive approaches to this topic that have featured prominently in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology are communication accommodation theory (CAT), language style matching (LSM), and discursive psychology using conversation analysis (DPCA). In this article, we provide a review of these three approaches, highlighting what defines and distinguishes them, as well as what insights into interactional adjustment each offers. We draw out the connections and points of tensions between these approaches; in so doing, we identify future directions for research on interactional adjustment as a fundamental aspect of human communication, and in the study of language and social psychology.

Interactional adjustment refers to people’s tendency to adjust, or adapt, their communication behavior in social interactions. In recent years, three distinctive approaches to this topic that have featured prominently in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology are communication accommodation theory (CAT), language style matching (LSM), and discursive psychology using conversation analysis (DPCA). In this article, we provide a review of these three approaches, highlighting what defines and distinguishes them, as well as what insights into interactional adjustment each offers. We draw out the connections and points of tensions between these approaches; in so doing, we identify future directions for research on interactional adjustment as a fundamental aspect of human communication, and in the study of language and social psychology.

Social psychology investigates that explanation of human social behaviors such as roles, group processes, inter group relations. Experimental approaches can not find solutions about that objects. But today experimental and traditional social psychology approaches has changed that their research area and methods. Psychology started to understand that two aspects of human behavior which one is the individual's behavior and the other one is social behavior. Early years of psychology experimental method was accepted that the way of doing psychology. This choice was not proper way to understand social behaviors. Thus, social psychology has new important questions. What are social psychology's research objects, how to ask its questions, who answers its questions, and more important problem is how social psychology interpret all this answers.