Student Development Theory in Higher Education

A Social Psychological Approach

Terrell L. Strayhorn

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781135045050
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

Moving beyond the theories traditionally used to describe college student development, this engaging book introduces social psychological theories that address the most relevant issues in higher education today. Covering theories of ecological systems, sense of belonging, prejudice and discrimination, positive psychology, social capital, personality theory, mentoring, and hope theory, this book promotes the understanding and application of social psychological theories to various higher education contexts. Examples from diverse student populations encourage learners' application to situations in their own contexts. Comprehensive enough to be used as a main text but accessible enough to be used alongside another, this important textbook bridges research, theory, and practice to help practicing and aspiring higher education and student affairs professionals effectively work with college students.

Special Features Include:

• Reflective exercises that combine theory and practice and help students apply their knowledge solving problems.

• Case studies and scenarios for further connections to the reader's university and college settings.

• Guiding questions that encourage students to think beyond the current literature and practice.

• List of further readings and references for readers to explore topics in more depth.

Introducing . . . A Social Psychology Approach

DOI: 10.4324/9780203458211-1

Key Terms

cognitive dissonance, evolution, individualism, neuroscience self-esteem, social cognition, social psychology

Introduction

It’s Tuesday. I just made it to one of my favorite coffee shops in the city that’s open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I’ve come prepared for a day-long work session. Comfortable clothes, sporting blue Converse shoes. Lined note paper and stenographer notepads chock-full of my handwritten notes and musing about the topic that is the focus of my “day-long exercise.” MacBook Air, all powered-up and ready to go. Free wireless internet (no matter how intermittent it might be at busy, public coffee houses). And my magic potion . . . coffee . . . in one of my favorite coffee mugs. By all accounts, I am ready to do “good work,” as I like to say.

As I take my seat at a brown table that seats four, though I’m going solo today, I glance up furtively at the main entrance watching several other would-be good workers pile into the coffee shop toting their bookbags, backpacks, and yes, 19-inch computer monitors behind them. One woman, wearing red (one of my favorite colors), enters slowly, moves in calculated swerves down the aisle of open tables, stops at every table for a moment, closes her eyes, and pushes her chin up toward the ceiling, as if something slipped her mind that would be etched across the ceiling above her. She did this continuously. Table 1 . . . stops, closes eyes, looks up, turns head and moves on. Table 2 . . . stops, same routine. Table 3 . . . stops, again, the same performance.

Just then two things occurred to me. First, contrary to what one might think, this was not some new line dance that, in all its circulation, hadn’t made it to Ohio yet. No. And neither was she in search of forget-me-not reminders that were sketched on coffee shop roofs or the backside of her eyelids. Actually she was trying to assess the volume of noise surrounding each table by closing her eyes (i.e., removing any other visual distractions), tilting her head and ears up toward the ceiling where large Bose speakers had been mounted to amplify the coffee shop’s playlist, and then looking around to see who would be her nearby neighbors and whether they were likely to have the same goals in mind—that is, more work than play and endless talking.

I had a second revelation from my time watching the young woman in red, who unknowingly had become the star in my silent movie: I’m a people watcher. And, in fact, I have spent a good portion of my life as a people watcher, personally and professionally. As a kid, I watched people all the time. Some might even call it staring, which adults always cautioned me to avoid. As a student, I often marveled at life happening around me and found wonder in watching people simply living. So much so that it influenced my choice of undergraduate majors: music and religious studies. Two seemingly disparate fields of study that, for me, are powerfully connected as they both serve as means through which people come to understand themselves, their feelings or emotions, and the world around them. It’s little surprise, then, that I continue my search for understanding, for more “stars” in my silent movies as a professor of higher education who draws upon social psychological theories in my research. I am now and have for a long time been a people watcher. Are you?

What is Social Psychology?

Social psychology deploys scientific methods to understand and explain how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others (Allport, 1985). While many other definitions exist, this is perhaps one of the most frequently cited and easy to apprehend. Building on this definition that shapes the scope of this book, let us consider a few examples.

First, how might the actual presence of others influence one’s thoughts or behaviors? Consider Ben, a first-year White male college student whom I met during an evening diversity workshop that I conducted for a pair of resident assistants and their residents. After showing a short video clip about campus racism and affirmative action bans, I asked: “What can be done to promote diversity on college campuses like the one you attend, in light of information from the video?” Ben had been very engaged in the program and responded to several of my earlier prompts. He raised his hand quickly here too. I called on him: “Yes, Ben.” He stuttered through his words but said: “I think it’s an issue of letting go, you know . . . letting go of standards and high achievement criteria, you know, since the minorities aren’t doing that well in high school or on the ACT and all. If you do that, then you can have more minorities, I suppose.” Faced with wrinkled eyebrows, twisted mouths, long pauses, and hushed comments, Ben immediately recognized that he held an opinion that differed from others and, thus, abandoned his dissent, rescinded his previous offering, and joined the majority. Classic case where the actual presence of others influenced the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of another.

Then what would it mean to be influenced by the imagined presence of others? Think back to when you were a kid. There were likely things that your parent(s) or guardian(s) asked you not to do. Don’t go outside before you finish your homework. Don’t stay up too late. Don’t talk to strangers. And although they may not have been physically present when you were tempted to go outside before doing your chores or when you wanted to high-five the wanderer you met on the street corner, their imagined presence likely influenced your decisions. In fact, right now, you may still avoid speaking to strangers, consciously or subconsciously, due to the imagined presence of parents and other authority figures. A few years ago, I conducted a study of Black students in campus gospel choirs (Strayhorn, 2011). I met a young man whose mother passed while he was a freshman in college. Though deceased and, thus, physically not present, her imagined presence powerfully influenced the young man and motivated him to persist in college despite academic setbacks, emotional stresses, and his own willingness to quit. In short, imaginal figures can influence our actions by shaping our interpretation of events or the meaning we attach to them. And though imagined, their influence on our behaviors can be just as real as actual presences.

Finally, how can the implied presence of others influence an individual? Here, I offer an example from a participant in my national study of formerly incarcerated men of color who find their way to higher education (Strayhorn, Johnson, & Barrett, 2013). Several of the men in the study were first incarcerated at early ages (under 20) and over 50% were juvenile offenders. One shared a story about his habit of stealing. He loved to steal and could not understand why one would pay for that which could be stolen. He tried to explain where his self-proclaimed love for stealing came from and shared that “he didn’t always steal.” In fact, he used to be afraid of stealing, especially in stores with signs that read, “Under surveillance . . . you’re being watched.” The sign implied the presence of someone or someones who, though invisible to shoppers, was at all times aware of their actions, behaviors, and whereabouts. The implied presence of someone watching him influenced my participant’s behavior and kept him from stealing. That is, until one day when he learned that some of those signs and the cosmetic surveillance cameras are just that . . . gimmicks to imply a presence that is neither real nor operable.

To recap, social psychology is an interdisciplinary field of study that attempts to understand and explain how the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2010). Drawing on insights from multiple perspectives (e.g., sociology, anthropology, economics), social psychology attempts to gain a better understanding of the individual and how s/he/z fits into the larger social system. And it is this epistemological stance that informs my approach to discussing student development theory in this book.

Is Social Psychology Sociology or Psychology?

To deal with this question, let’s talk about social psychologists or those academicians who see themselves as part of this discipline. From where do they derive their information and answers? Do they possess magic tools to make accurate judgments about social behaviors, free from error or the influences of so-called common knowledge? No, not at all. They, too, are prone to Type-1 and Type-2 errors such as failing to reject invalid hypotheses or rejecting those that may hold true. Yet, they specialize in using rigorous social research methods and theories to elicit data, findings, and other empirical evidence to support their assertions (Harman & Lehmiller, 2012). Full discussion of the methods they employ goes well beyond the scope of this volume; attention will be directed instead toward discussion of the theories that inform social psychology research.

You might be surprised to learn an interesting feature about the social psychology discipline that relates to the question that marks the beginning of this section. Actually there are two disciplines or subfields that comprise this area: psychological social psychology and sociological social psychology (Baumeister & Bushman, 2010). Psychological social psychology focuses on individuals and how they respond to social stimuli. Changes or differences in behaviors are assumed to be a function of people’s interpretations of social stimuli, differences in personalities, or a mixture of emotions, which we’ve come to know as temperament (i.e., a stable estimate of one’s nature that affects behavioral responses). Simply put, psychological social psychologists tend to emphasize processes at the individual-level and primarily use experiments to conduct their research.

Sociological social psychology intentionally minimizes the importance of individual differences and the influence of immediate social stimuli on human behavior. Instead, sociological social psychology turns attention to larger group-level or societal variables such as social roles, cultural norms, gender expectations, and social class, to name a few. Sociological social psychologists aim to explain societal-based problems such as deviance, poverty, crime, and, oh yes, educational disparity, achievement gaps, and belonging. They primarily use surveys, correlational studies, and observations to conduct their research, although the use of experiments is not completely uncommon (Haas, de Keijser, & Bruinsma, 2012; Steinberg & Piquero, 2010; Zanna & Olson, 2010).

Despite these disciplinary differences, most scholars in this domain identify as social psychologists. Two iconic examples that have relevance for those who work in higher education/students affairs include Leon Festinger and Kurt Lewin. The early years of social psychology were followed by what historians call a period of rapid expansion. One of the most significant lines of research during this period was Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance. His theory posits that people’s thoughts and behaviors are fueled, at least in part, by a desire to maintain cognitive consistency. Growth, however, is often the consequence of cognitive inconsistency, moments of disequilibrium that force individuals to acquire new information, try on different perspectives, or change their current opinion or position to restore equilibrium. Festinger’s theory has been used in Sherry Watt’s (2007) research on college students’ engagement in difficult dialogues and the privilege identity exploration (PIE) model, as one example.

Kurt Lewin (1951) is best known for his work on topological psychology and field theory. A Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, Lewin was instrumental in the development of the social psychology discipline. He firmly resisted pressures to decide whether social psychology was a pure versus applied science. His mantra was “No research without action, and no action without research,” which some would argue as an early reference to today’s “data-based” or “evidence-based” movement. Lewin once remarked, “There’s nothing so practical as a good theory” (Schuh, Jones, Harper, & Associates, 2011, p. 135). And his theory (B = f[P x E]) is the bedrock upon which our understanding of college student development is based. His theory suggests that behavior (B) is a function of the interaction (x) between the person (P) and their environment (E). So any analysis of social behavior must take into account aspects of the individual (e.g., traits), environment, and the interactions among them. His theory has been used to frame elements that are essential for promoting social justice awareness and action among college students (Lechuga, Clerc, & Howell, 2009).

So, in short, social psychology is neither sociology exclusively nor psychology exclusively, it is at all times a combination of both and more. Social psychology is interdisciplinary and deploys multiple methods in service to answering questions about social phenomena. As such, numerous higher education research studies adopt a social psychological approach to examine college student experiences, organizational or group behavior, and broad policy-related issues such as access, affordability, and campus racial climate.

What have we Learned from Social Psychology?

The ultimate aim of social psychology, as I’ve said, is to better understand how the ...