How Do Other People and Social Situations Shape Us?

An introduction to people, relationships, groups, and social change

Level: Introductory
Reading load: 11 core readings in 6 units
Prerequisites: No prior Social Psychology course is required. How to Read Psychological Science offers useful preparation for evaluating evidence.
Last reviewed: September 2026

Introduction

A silence in a meeting, a roommate's kindness, or an applicant overlooked can each carry several histories. Motives, interpretations, relationships, group expectations, and institutional arrangements offer different places to begin. Social psychology asks how these explanations fit together and what evidence could distinguish them. Its subject is the person among others, acting within circumstances that are also open to change.

This path moves from people in situations to social judgment, influence, relationships, groups, and collective change. Conceptual papers supply ways of thinking; experiments, repeated reports, and field research show what those ideas can explain. Culture enters the framework from the beginning. The aim is to learn how to construct a social explanation without treating either the person or the setting as sufficient on its own.

The eleven works vary in length and difficulty. The attitude review and the roommate study are the most substantial. Their guides introduce the terms needed to follow the argument and connect measures, comparisons, and conclusions. Keep a running account of one social problem as you move through the units, revising it when a different level of explanation becomes relevant.

Unit 1 of 6

What does a social situation explain?

Begin by describing what a setting makes possible before deciding what kind of person someone is. Reis supplies a framework for circumstances and interpretation; the quiz experiment shows how a role changes the evidence available for judging ability.

Reading
1 of 11
Reinvigorating the Concept of Situation in Social Psychology
Reis, H. T. (2008). Reinvigorating the concept of situation in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(4), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308321721
Foundational argument · Critical reappraisal · Moderate · Full work: 19 pages
Follow how opportunities, constraints, and relationships enter an explanation of behavior.
Why you’re reading it. Build a vocabulary that the later units can use at individual, interpersonal, and group levels.
A question to consider. For a newcomer who says little in a group, what would you record about the setting before labeling them shy?
Reading
2 of 11
Social Roles, Social Control, and Biases in Social-Perception Processes
Ross, L. D., Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(7), 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.7.485
Landmark empirical study · Methodological contribution · Moderate · Full work: 10 pages
Compare the questioner's opportunities with the contestant's, and track whose judgments change.
Why you’re reading it. Apply the opening distinction between a person's behavior and the conditions that make it visible.
A question to consider. How would you redesign the quiz so that judgments of knowledge depend less on who controls the questions?

Unit 2 of 6

How do social worlds shape selves and evaluations?

People interpret encounters with understandings built through social experience. Connect the cultural organization of the self with attitudes as evaluations, while keeping a report of approval separate from what a person does.

Reading
3 of 11
Cultures and Selves: A Cycle of Mutual Constitution
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375557
Foundational argument · Major synthesis · Moderate · Full work: 11 pages
Trace the movement between daily practices, institutions, and ways of understanding the self.
Why you’re reading it. Extend the opening account of situations to the social worlds that make some situations common and meaningful.
A question to consider. How could a group's routine for welcoming newcomers both reflect and reinforce an idea about who belongs?
Reading
4 of 11
Attitudes and Attitude Change
Albarracín, D., & Shavitt, S. (2018). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 299–327. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011911
Major synthesis · Challenging · Full work: 29 pages
Connect each explanation of attitude change to its outcome and to the personal, social, or historical context involved.
Why you’re reading it. Introduce evaluations and persuasion without assuming that favorable opinions automatically produce corresponding action.
A question to consider. If members say they welcome newcomers but rarely include them, which attitude measure and behavioral observation would help explain the mismatch?

Unit 3 of 6

When do people follow or resist others?

Public agreement can arise from several processes. Asch varies the social pressure around a judgment; Cialdini distinguishes information about common behavior from information about approval. Together they make disagreement, perceived expectations, and actual choices separable questions.

Reading
5 of 11
Opinions and Social Pressure
Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31
Landmark empirical study · Historical turning point · Accessible · Full work: 5 pages
Track independence as well as agreement, especially when a dissenter changes the majority's unanimity.
Why you’re reading it. Identify which feature of a group supplies pressure, rather than treating conformity as an automatic human response.
A question to consider. Would one openly welcoming member necessarily change a group's treatment of newcomers, and which comparison from Asch suggests a test?
Reading
6 of 11
Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the Environment
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01242
Foundational argument · Major synthesis · Accessible · Full work: 5 pages
Distinguish a message about what most people do from a message about what they approve.
Why you’re reading it. Move from a controlled judgment task to an explanation of everyday social expectations and communication.
A question to consider. How might saying that newcomers are often excluded undermine a campaign intended to include them?

Unit 4 of 6

How do people shape a relationship together?

A relationship involves interpretations and actions that can feed back between people. This unit uses one substantial paper rather than a pair: its theoretical model, two roommate studies, and repeated reports allow a closer look at that process. Actor means the person whose predictor is under study; partner means the other person, and their roles can be reversed in the analysis.

Reading
7 of 11
Creating Good Relationships: Responsiveness, Relationship Quality, and Interpersonal Goals
Canevello, A., & Crocker, J. (2010). Creating good relationships: Responsiveness, relationship quality, and interpersonal goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018186
Methodological contribution · Landmark empirical study · Challenging · Full work: 29 pages
Follow one proposed cycle between two roommates. For each step, identify whose goal, action or perception is measured and when it is measured. Then compare this account with the authors' analysis of relationships across participants.
Why you’re reading it. Apply interdependence to relationships over time and learn what paired observational evidence adds beyond one person's impressions.
A question to consider. What evidence would distinguish a newcomer feeling more accepted from the group actually becoming more responsive to them?

Unit 5 of 6

How do group divisions affect treatment?

An allocation task can isolate a narrow group comparison; a field audit can investigate unequal opportunities in an institution. Put these approaches in conversation while resisting the leap from arbitrary laboratory groups to a complete explanation of historical inequalities.

Reading
8 of 11
Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination
Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1170-96
Landmark empirical study · Historical turning point · Moderate · Full work: 7 pages
Use the reward matrices to distinguish a group's absolute benefit from its advantage over another group.
Why you’re reading it. Study unequal treatment without assuming that established hostility or direct personal gain must already be present.
A question to consider. Which allocation would show that a group values being ahead more than receiving the largest possible benefit?
Reading
9 of 11
Meta-analysis of Field Experiments Shows No Change in Racial Discrimination in Hiring Over Time
Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2017). Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(41), 10870–10875. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706255114
Major synthesis · Methodological contribution · Moderate · Full work: 6 pages
Separate the matched-applicant comparison from the comparison across study years, and keep the measured callback outcome in view.
Why you’re reading it. Connect social categorization to evidence about consequential treatment in institutions.
A question to consider. What would a callback difference tell you about hiring that an attitude survey or a minimal-group allocation task could not?

Unit 6 of 6

What would justify changing a social setting?

Return to action: when do people seek help, and can peers change a school's conflict climate? The first study isolates a belief about other witnesses. The second tests a network intervention with several outcomes and published corrections. Evaluate intervention evidence at the level where it was actually measured.

Reading
10 of 11
Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4, Pt. 1), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589
Landmark empirical study · Accessible · Full work: 7 pages
Distinguish the manipulated number of apparent witnesses from the inferred diffusion of responsibility.
Why you’re reading it. Use a familiar experiment to ask how the presence of other people changes the conditions for helping.
A question to consider. Would assigning one group member responsibility for welcoming a newcomer follow directly from this emergency experiment, or require a new test?
Reading
11 of 11
Changing Climates of Conflict: A Social Network Experiment in 56 Schools
Paluck, E. L., Shepherd, H., & Aronow, P. M. (2016). Changing climates of conflict: A social network experiment in 56 schools. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 566–571. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514483113
Methodological contribution · Landmark empirical study · Challenging · Full work: 6 pages
Connect network theory to school and student assignment, keeping the corrected estimate and different outcomes visible.
Why you’re reading it. Evaluate an attempt to change social life without treating a promising point estimate as settled evidence of benefit.
A question to consider. A school is considering this programme. Which outcome and uncertainty from the study would matter most to that decision, and why? Identify one important question the study leaves unanswered.

Scope and omissions

This foundation samples the field's major questions; it does not provide a complete account of each. Authority and power enter through control of opportunities, group influence, and unequal treatment. Friendship and everyday interdependence enter through roommate relationships. Helping and conflict reduction provide bounded cases for studying action and change.

Self-knowledge, attitudes, influence and power, close relationships, groups and collective action, prejudice and discrimination, cooperation, and aggression each warrant deeper study than this foundation can provide. Clinical treatment, a comprehensive account of political violence, organizational behavior, and social neuroscience lie beyond this introduction. Several core studies use narrow U.S. or British samples. Cultural frameworks make that limitation visible but do not make the empirical coverage representative of humanity.

Synthesis

Other people shape the opportunities we find, the evidence we encounter, the expectations addressed to us, and the exchanges that become relationships. Social explanation becomes clearer when it distinguishes these contributions. Role experiments, paired reports, field audits, and interventions make different processes visible. Their findings leave room for personal motives while asking how those motives meet the conditions of action.

Return to one concrete problem, such as newcomers being excluded from a group. Describe an event without assuming its motive. Develop two explanations at different levels—for example, an expectation about fitting in and a rule that restricts opportunities. Specify an observation that could distinguish them. Then propose a change, identify whose experience it should improve, and state which outcome and comparison would count as evidence.

Check your account against the whole path: what are people interpreting, what do they value, what do others make possible, and which institutional conditions sustain the pattern? Explain where the evidence is experimental, observational, or conceptual, and what remains uncertain. A useful explanation need not make every level equally important; it should justify the level it emphasizes.

Continue with How Do We Understand Ourselves and Other People? to examine self-knowledge, social comparison, impressions, and the evidence needed to judge another person accurately.

For a related question about learning, How Do We Learn From Other People? examines learning through observation and social information. How to Read Psychological Science offers further practice with measurement, causal claims, and scientific uncertainty.