Most everyone knows that human beings are descended from the great apes and chimpanzees. According to the most recent research our most primitive and primal ancestors emerged some five million years ago. So, it would be a self-evident truth that ‘we’ have inherited at least a very bare minimal amount of the instinctual processes of our great ape and chimpanzee ancestors – for better or worse. Yet in a comprehensive 700 plus page Social Psychology Handbook of Basic Principles there is not a single reference.
Minimal Group Paradigm
The iconic social psychologist, H. Tajfel and his colleagues developed what they termed the minimal group paradigm. The paradigm is founded on an experiment designed to discover the very barest "minimal input” which would be needed to elicit group related behaviors in subjects - specifically discrimination of out-group members by subjects in the experiment and ingroup favoritism by in-group subjects in the experiment. The subjects involved in this experimental design had no connection or contact with any of the other subjects, and the participants were assigned arbitrarily to a group in order to rule out any possibility of inter-personal favoritism. There was no interpersonal contact. Other subjects in the experiment were referred to by code numbers or group identification numbers. This precluded any emotional connections. The summation of the situation was: “Thus these groups are purely cognitive and can be referred to as minimal.” (p49 soc id – my italics)
The subjects were given the task of awarding points, which symbolized money, to the different 'people' of the different groups. The subjects were given a "matrix" of choices from which they could distribute the points. The matrix was a list of pairs of numbers. A pair consisted of two numbers – one number representing a credit for the in group and the other number of the pair represented a credit for the out group. The subjects were only allowed to pick pairs, not individual numbers. Since there was no interpersonal interaction at all most of the psychologists predicted a rather ‘fair’ distribution. However, the subjects favored in group members. In fact, the results showed that subjects chose distributions which maximized the relative differentiation between the groups as opposed to maximizing the quantitative reward for the in group. That is, rather than choose an outcome that benefited objectively both groups in terms of reward and which would give the in group an objectively greater reward, the subjects chose a lower maximum reward for the in group if it meant that the in group ended up looking better relative to the out group. “To put this another way, beating the out group is more important than sheer profit.” (p. 49soc id)
Social Identity Theory
Currently, Social Identity Theory would appear to be the most widely accepted theory in social psychology that describes and analyzes group-related behaviors. The theory was first advanced by H. Tajfel, but has been embraced by M. A. Hogg, D. Abrams, J. C. Turner, and many other social psychologists. The social identity theory appears deceptively simple. The theory states that social identification results from the innate tendency of human beings to categorize things and people – Categorization being an attribute stemming from peoples’ need for order and the drive to make sense of the world. That is, the natural process of categorization results in categorization of people into groups, as well as the self-categorization as a member of a group. Hogg and Abrams state, “The inclusion of self in the categorization process is crucial. It is the fact that one’s self is categorized as being stereotypically the same as the ingroup members which creates social attraction – attraction to others because they are ingroupers, regardless of their personal characteristics.” (p.209 soc id)
Now, a weakness in social Identity theory would be the reliance of cognitive categorization process to explain group related behaviors. A brief precursory of group related behaviors such as patriotism or religious convictions bring to the fore the very strong emotions involved. Kay Deaux, a prominent social psychologist, relates the seeming pre-occupation with cognitive processes in social psychology to the “emphasis on experimenter-created social groups” which “precluded most affective displays.” Experiments conducted in a laboratory would necessarily have a contrived and arbitrary aspect to them. Cognitive structures and paradigms tend to be nice, neat, and precise constructs that are measurable in some sense – which makes them easily subjected to laboratory conditions.
Emotions in Group Behaviors
Emotions, however, in part due to their subjective aspect,
tend to be amorphous and difficult to define. That is, the cognitive
characteristics of the group-related behaviors is the almost the entire focus
of psychologists’ attention and experiments simply because they are nice and
neat concepts which are more easily defined and to some extent measurable.
Deaux, in her critical analysis of social psychology, goes on to say, “In
contrast, natural groups, whether family, fraternity, or nation, are often the
arena for intense displays of emotion and strong affective ties.” (p. 794 Handbook)
That is to say, strong emotions are a very salient aspect of group related
behaviors and group dynamics.
It would seem self-evident that there are unconscious processes that are integral in group-related emotional responses. Sports fans are known to be wildly emotional at times. I sat next to a Pittsburgh Steeler's fan at a Baltimore Colts game (long, long ago - it is the Baltimore Ravens now) in Mid-January. I happened to be seated in what seemed a pro-Pittsburgh section of the stadium. I happened to glance back and saw a Pittsburgh Steeler's fan without even a shirt much less a jacket like the one I wore. I was startled when I noticed a Steelers button that was pinned to the man's chest - through the skin. Religious beliefs frequently involve extremely strong emotions. And religious conflicts are notorious for incredibly extreme and irrational violence between groups. During the India-Pakistan partition numerous atrocities were witnessed. A Witness reported seeing a man take a baby and bash its brains out on a brick wall. In relatively recent violent clashes between Muslims and Hindus, more than one person has been burned alive during riots.
Savagery is a hallmark of inter-group conflict and not a monopoly of the Indian people. The Nanjing Massacre, or Rape of Nanjing beganDecember 13, 1937 which was the day the Japanese captured Nanjing ( the then capital of China whose name later changed to Nanking)
, and ran for six weeks.Estimates of the number of Chinese massacred varies. The Far East International Military Tribunal roughly estimates that over 200,00 Chinese were killed. What is especially disturbing is how they were killed. Chinese were literally used for bayonet practice for Japanese troops. Chinese were shot, burned alive, drowned, and clubbed to death. Women and children were massacred, and more than one witness reported Japanese soldiers bayoneting pregnant women in the belly. Early Americans were known to commit atrocities against Native Americans, the Trail of Tears being perhaps the most famous example of genocidal acts. In 1838, the Cherokees were removed by force from their lands and put on a forced march during which some estimates indicated that almost half of the 16,543 relocated Cherokee died on the march.
Readily and Easily
From the minimal group experiments and other experiments on group dynamics, Roy Baumeister, a prominent social psychologist, concludes: “In brief, people seem widely and strongly inclined to formsocial relationships quite easily in the absence of eliciting circumstances or ulterior motives. Friendships and group allegiance seem to arise spontaneously and readily, without needing evidence of material advantage or inferred similarity.” Baumeister emphasizes that group related behaviors are adapted and expressed both “readily” and “easily.” It is noteworthy that Baumeister, together with Leary, have suggested that some group related behaviors are instinctual in nature.
In laboratory experiments of group-related behaviors, it is clearly
evident that the group related behaviors in experimental subjects appear to
show up automatically, or “readily” and “easily” as Baumeister puts it. So, I
would argue that it would seem an inescapable conclusion that an internalized “model” in the unconscious of "being a group-member" and it is that model that actually generates the group related
ingroup-outgroup biases and the tendency to readily adapt the norms and values
of the group. The famous neuroscientist Ramachandran states that creating “models”
is a natural and primary brain function.
That is, the cognitive categorization process is the “trigger” which sets in motion what one neuroscientist called “factory installed software.” That is, the cognitive categorization as a group member triggers or activates a nonconscious process that generates the group related behaviors. It is somewhat puzzling that Baumeister didn’t realize this himself. It’s rather evident. But then again instinctual processes are somewhat taboo in psychology. But the point is that Social Identity Theory is inadequate as it stands today, and to my knowledge Kay Deaux is the only social psychologist to question it and that was in an indirect way and she does not directly criticize Social Identity Theory.
A Few Observations
A chart of the federal funding of the sciences shows psychology at the very bottom of the food chain, as it were. the prominent social psychologists Hogg and Abrams lament that funding for research in psychology is generally for small-scale projects. I did a google-scholar search for studies of patriotism. I didn't find any. And in the social psychology literature I have read I saw no citations of any large scale study of Patriotism done in the field. many people I talk with seem to assume that psychologists know what they are doing and understand human consciousness. My question is: In light of the fact that several scientists argue that the human brain (and human consciousness) is the most complex organism in the universe coupled with the fact that the science of psychology is the least funded science in the world, how could psychologists possibly have a "good grip" on human consciousness and behavior. I would mention in passing that in reading neuroscience literature about MRI studies, I have not seen an MRI study of peoples' brain-reactions of people reacting to inter-group religious conflicts.
Content Copyrighted Charles E Peck Jr. Copyright ©
References and Footnotes
Profile of Dr. James Doty: https://profiles.stanford.edu/james-doty
The Center for Compassion And Altruism Research And Education: http://ccare.stanford.edu/
American Psychological Association: https://www.apa.org/
Association for Psychological Science: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/about/links.cfm
Albert Einstein comprehensive website: http://alberteinsteinsite.com/
Albert Einstein Biography: https://www.biography.com/people/albert-einstein-9285408
Godel’s Theorem of Incompleteness: https://www.jamesrmeyer.com/ffgit/godels_theorem.html
John Bargh, PhD: http://bargh.socialpsychology.org/
https://www.rogerdooley.com/john-bargh-priming
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/bargh/index.html
Rupert Sheldrake: https://www.sheldrake.org/
Viktor Frankl: http://www.viktor-frankl.com/
Viktor Frankl: http://www.viktorfrankl.org/
Dr. Harold Koenig: https://spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/index.php/harold-g-koenig-m-d
Dr. Harold Koenig: https://medicine.duke.edu/faculty/harold-g-koenig-m-d
Roy Baumeister: http://www.roybaumeister.com/
Roy Baumeister: https://psy.fsu.edu/faculty/baumeisterr/baumeister.dp.php
Dr. Paul Wong: http://www.drpaulwong.com/
Dr. Paul Wong: https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/paul-wong-biography/
Clifford Geertz: https://www.biography.com/people/clifford-geertz-9308224
Carl Jung: https://www.biography.com/people/carl-jung-9359134
Carl Jung: https://www.psychologistworld.com/cognitive/carl-jung-analytical-psychology
12 common Archetypes: http://www.soulcraft.co/essays/the_12_common_archetypes.html
Emile Durkheim: http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/
Emile Durkheim: http://faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Durkheim/index2.htm
William James: https://www.biography.com/people/william-james-9352726
William James: https://study.com/academy/lesson/william-james-psychology-theories-lesson-quiz.html
Tania Singer references: http://cultureofempathy.com/References/Experts/Tania-Singer.htm
https://charterforcompassion.org/discovering-empathy/dr-tania-singer-and-the-neuroscience-of-empathy
Dr Amit Sood Mindfulness: https://www.mindfulleader.org/amit-sood
Dr. Harold Koenig Director, Center for Spirituality,
Theology and Health: https://spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/index.php/harold-g-koenig-m-d
Dr. Koenig on what spirituality can do for you: https://www.beliefnet.com/wellness/health/2006/05/what-religion-can-do-for-your-health.aspx
Keith Karren – Body, Mind, Spirit:
http://pgrpdf.abhappybooks.com/mind-body-health-keith-j-karren-ph-d-pdf-5716009.pdf
E O Wilson Biodiversity: https://eowilsonfoundation.org/
E O Wilson - PBS on Ants: http://www.pbs.org/program/eo-wilson/
Anthropologist Malinowski: http://anthrotheory.wikia.com/wiki/Bronislaw_
MalinowskiSocial Anthropology - Malinowski: http://scihi.org/bronislaw-malinowski-social-anthropology/
St. Augustine (Catholic source): https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=418
St. Augustine: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine
Konrad Lorenz: https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/scientist/konrad_lorenz.html
Konrad Lorenz: http://www.famouspsychologists.org/konrad-lorenz/
St. Gregory of Nyssa (Franciscan): https://www.franciscanmedia.org/saint-gregory-of-nyssa/
St. Gregory of Nyssa (wikiorg): https://orthodoxwiki.org/Gregory_of_Nyssa
Neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene: https://www.edge.org/memberbio/stanislas_dehaene
Imants Barušs, psychologist and parapsychologist: http://www.baruss.ca/
Julia Mossbridge, psychologist and parapsychologist: https://noetic.org/profile/julia-mossbridge
https://sharingthesearch.com/tag/j-mossbridge/
https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/julia-mossbridge/profile
Friedrich Nietzsche: http://nietzschecircle.com/
Nietzsche biography: https://www.biography.com/people/friedrich-nietzsche-9423452
Abraham Joshua Heschel: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/abraham-joshua-heschel-a-prophets-prophet/
Iroquois:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/1d.asp
Greek Mythology: Apollo and the Oracle of Delphi
https://www.greekmythology.com/Olympians/Apollo/apollo.html
https://www.thoughtco.com/apollo-greek-god-sun-music-prophecy-111902
http://greek-gods.info/greek-gods/apollo/
https://www.coastal.edu/intranet/ashes2art/delphi2/misc-essays/oracle_of_delphi.html
https://www.pbs.org/empires/thegreeks/background/7_p1.html
https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/pythia-oracle-delphi-001641
https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/pythia-oracle-delphi-001641