SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Social Psychology may be defined as the science that seeks to understand how people think
about, feel about, relate to, and influence one another. It is the branch of psychology that
delves into the intricate dynamics of human behavior within social contexts.

1. According to GORDON ALLPORT (1954), Social Psychology is best defined as the discipline
that uses scientific methods in ‘an attempt to understand and explain how the thought,
feeling, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence
of other human beings’

2. MYERS and SPENCER (2006) defined social psychology as the scientific study of how people
think about, influence, and relate to one another.

3. BARRON and BYRNE (2007) defined Social Psychology as the scientific field that seeks to
understand the nature and cause of individual behavior and thought in social situations.

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY is an interdisciplinary domain that bridges the gap between psychology
and sociology. During the years immediately following World War II, there were frequent
collaborations between psychologists and sociologists. However, the two disciplines have
become increasingly specialized and isolated from each other in recent years.

Social Psychology has also been defined as the scientific study of how we feel about, think
about and behave toward the people around us and how our feelings, thoughts and
behaviours are influenced by those people in the social contexts. (KASSIN, FEIN & MARKUS,
2017)
Social Psychology as a Science
The fact that social psychology is a science is fundamental to its meaning.
The essence of science involves
(a) a set of research methods that in combination make up what is known as the scientific
method and
(b) a foundation of core values.

Scientific method and core values.

The research methods (e.g., correlational, experimental) that fall under the scientific method
are those that depend on empirical tests, that is, the use of systematic observation to evaluate
propositions and ideas.
An empirical test of an idea (e.g., people are happier in sunny weather) entails a research
study that is
(a) set up in such a way as to allow for the idea to be either refuted or supported and
(b) conducted so that what is done can be readily evaluated and replicated by other
researchers (Cozby, 2009).

Undergirding and guiding research methods is a set of core values (Baron, Branscombe, &
Byrne, 2008; Heiman, 2002).
The following are some of the most important values that are absolutely essential for
scientists to adhere to in their work:
Accuracy: precise, error-free measurement and collection of information (i.e., data)
Objectivity: minimization of bias in data collection and proposition testing
Skepticism: refusing to believe findings and conclusions without rigorous verification
Open-mindedness: readiness to accept as valid evidence that may be inconsistent with one’s
initial, and perhaps strongly held, beliefs or theories
Ethics: acceptance of the absolute importance of ethical behaviour in conducting research
~Adherence to the first four values is necessary to ensure that the findings of research validly
reflect the phenomenon under study.
~The fifth value, ethics, also pertains to the validity of findings (e.g., researchers should not
wittingly alter or misrepresent their results) but also encompasses the need to safeguard the
dignity and well-being of research participants

Scientific understanding. Thus, to seek an understanding of social psychological phenomena,

social psychologists, as scientists, are guided by certain core values and rely on research
strategies that fall under the scientific method.
“understanding”? In science, including social psychology, understanding involves the
accomplishment of four goals: description, prediction, determining causality, and explanation
(Cozby, 2009).

THE FOUR GOALS

1. The goal of description entails identifying and reporting the details and nature of a
phenomenon, often distinguishing between the classes or types of the phenomenon and
recording its frequency of occurrence.
-In the case of the adjustment of the elderly, a researcher might distinguish between
emotional adjustment and social adjustment and then measure and record the incidence of
older persons in the community who fit this classification. The researcher could also find out
whether or not each elderly person has a pet, perhaps listing information about the kind and
number of pets.
-Achieving accurate descriptions of phenomena is one aspect of understanding. Understanding
also entails prediction.

2. The prediction form of understanding requires knowing what factors are systematically
related (i.e., correlated) to the phenomenon of interest.
In our example, if research showed that there is a relationship between adjustment and having
a pet—those who have a pet tend to be better adjusted—we would understand that
adjustment in the elderly can be predicted in general by the presence or absence of a pet.
This relationship would represent an important insight and lead us to consider the third form
of understanding: ascertaining whether or not there is a causal relationship between having a
pet and adjustment.

3. Determining causality between two factors means determining that changes in one factor
produce (i.e., cause) changes in the other factor.
-Just because two factors are related does not necessarily mean that they are causally related.
-For instance, having a pet might have no effect whatsoever on the adjustment of the elderly
even though a relationship may exist. A third factor could be responsible for the existence of
the relationship.
For instance, physical health could influence both how well-adjusted people feel and whether
they have a pet (because it is easier to care for a pet if one is healthy).
So, it is important not to be misled by a common tendency among people to assume that if
two things are correlated, a causal relationship necessarily exists.

4. Understanding also involves explanation, the fourth goal. Explanation pertains to

establishing why a phenomenon or relationship occurs. We may understand that one factor
causes another factor without knowing exactly why the effect occurs. If having a pet does lead
to improvements in the adjustment of the elderly (and this does seem to be the case [Beck &
Katcher, 1996]),
Then the explanation will be that it is because having a pet reduces loneliness, or because it
increases feelings of security, or because it gives the elderly person a chance to feel needed by
nurturing a living thing, or might be because of some other factor.
Establishment of causation (- Identifying the cause(s) of phenomena) is a very important
component of understanding. If research were to establish that having a pet does indeed lead
to improvements in adjustment (i.e., causes better adjustment), there could be clear-cut
practical implications in terms of providing help to the elderly. However, the pursuit of
understanding does not end with the establishment of causation.

APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

1. Applied social psychology can be explained as a branch of social psychology. It mainly deals
with the application of principles of social psychology to varied fields.
2. According to Schneider et. al (2012), social psychology can be defined as a science with an
objective of comprehending how individuals relate, think, feel, and influence each other. Thus,
social psychology mainly focuses on the social dimension of human behavior.
3. With regard to applied social psychology, it can be defined as a “branch of social psychology
that draws on social psychology theories, principles, methods and research evidence to
contribute to
a) the understanding of social and practical problems and
b) the development of intervention strategies for improving the functioning of individuals,
groups, organizations, committees, and societies with respect to social and practical
problems”(Schneider et. al, 2012, page 8).
~As can be seen in the above definition the focus is mainly on developing a better
understanding of the problems both social and practical and then developing a suitable
intervention strategy.

4. According to Keizer, Buunk & Rothengatter (2017)- “Applied Social Psychology combines the
science of social psychology with the practical application of solving social problems that exist
in the real world”.
5. According to Thompson (2003b) applied social psychology advances by employing
experimental research methodologies; in particular the hypothetico-deductive method.
He explains: ‘Researchers develop a hypothesis derived from theory and then design an
experiment that will allow cause-and-effect conclusions from the results. This is in contrast to
folk wisdom or qualitative ethnographic research ’.

6. According to Steg, Buunk, and Rothengatter (2008), “Applied social psychology combines the
science of social psychology with the practical application of solving social problems that exist
in the real world”. The above definitions clearly mention that applied social psychology is a
field that uses psychological methods and scientifically tries to solve human problems. It
applies the social psychological theories, principles, research findings, and experimental
methods to understand social issues and to offer real-world solutions for a variety of social
problems

EXPERIMENT
Around 1950, Muzafer Sherif and his research team took the investigation of intergroup
relations into the field where they studied the role of competition between groups (Sherif,
1966b; Sherif & Sherif, 1953, 1969).
The researchers conducted an ingenious series of three-week experiments with 11-and 12-
year-old boys in isolated camp settings.
The investigations were conducted in weeklong phases.
During phase 1-group formation--the boys were divided into two groups of approximately 10
each. Each group lived in a separate cabin and, as arranged by the experimenters, engaged in a
series of appealing activities that required cooperative interdependence (e.g., camping,
building a rope bridge). Members of each group soon developed a sense of "we-feeling" as
their group developed a definite role structure (e.g., leaders, followers) and set of norms (e.g.,
expectations about how things should be done).

During phase 2-group conflict the researchers investigated conditions that resulted in negative
intergroup attitudes and behaviour. They implemented a series of competitions (e.g., tug-of-
war, skits) in which only the victorious group of boys won a prize. By the end of the week, the
relations between the two groups had deteriorated to a very antagonistic situation involving
strongly negative stereotypes (e.g., "sneaky," "stinkers") and behaviour (e.g., name-calling,
food fights, damage to property).

Sherif's (1966b) field research on intergroup relations involved a third phase.

During this phase of reduction of conflict, the researchers developed and evaluated an
intervention strategy to improve the relations between the groups of boys.
The strategy was designed in accordance with Sherif's understanding of the existing research
literature on the determinants of positive attitudes and relations among groups that are
divided along racial, political, and industrial lines (Sherif & Sherif, 1953).
The strategy was based on the idea that groups in conflict would experience improved
relations if they cooperate in the attainment of superordinate goals, that is, goals that are
highly appealing to both groups but that can be attained only through their cooperative effort.

During this phase, the groups of boys were introduced to a series of superordinate goals (e.g.,
pulling together on a rope to start a broken-down truck that had been on its way to get food.
Over the course of several days, hostile interaction between the groups declined considerably
and friendships began to cross group boundaries. Since this early work of Sherif, the utility of
superordinate goals in contributing to the reduction of conflict between a wide variety of
groups has been well established (e.g., Kelly & Collett, 2008). In Sherif's research on breaking
down the barriers between the groups of boys, we have an example of the use of social
psychology to effect positive social change.

THE POINT TO BE NOTICED IS how his emphasis shifted from trying to understand the causes
of a social problem intergroup antagonism to trying to come up with a strategy for doing
something about the problem. This concern with contributing to positive change brings us
more fully into the area of social psychology that focuses on application applied social
psychology.
Applied Social Psychology as a Science
As a branch of social psychology, applied social psychology is by definition a science and,
accordingly, relies on the scientific method and is guided by the core values of science.
(core values and goals)

However, APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGISTS are distinguished from other social psychologists by
also having a strong interest in what may be regarded as the fifth goal of science: control
(Christensen, 2004; Goodwin,2003).
In science, control means being able to manipulate conditions that will cause changes in a
phenomenon. Thus, once scientific research has identified the causes of a phenomenon, the
potential for scientific control will have been established.

Returning to the pets-adjustment example, once researchers determine that having a pet
frequently improves adjustment in older people, a "pets visit nursing home" program might be
implemented as an intervention strategy.

Another example is that once the basic principles of attribution theory were formulated,
clinical psychologists began to use them to develop interventions designed to alleviate
depression.

Although their ultimate goal is to effect positive change to improve the functioning of people,
applied social psychologists themselves may conduct research that helps them to understand
the nature and causes of phenomena that concern them.
This is seen in Sherif's (1966b) research on how competition can negatively affect intergroup
relations. In Sherif's research on breaking down the barriers between the groups of boys his
emphasis shifted from trying to understand the causes of a social problem intergroup
antagonism to trying to come up with a strategy for doing something about the problem. This
concern with contributing to positive change brings us more fully into the area of social
psychology that focuses on application applied social psychology.

.
Key aspects
DIFFERENCE
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
A huge development from the 1990s onward was a growing
openness to biology.
The influx of biology began with evolutionary psychology, which
sought to extend and apply the basic ideas of evolution to
understanding human social behavior.
It gained further momentum as some social psychologists began
to study the brain in order to learn how its workings are related to
social events.

The study of the self has been another central theme of social
psychology since the 1970s. It is hard to realize that in the 1960s
people hardly ever used the term self-esteem or cared about it.
In recent decades, social psychologists have explored many
different aspects of the self—not only self-esteem but also self-
regulation (also known as self-control), self-schemas, and self-
presentation. The field continues to change and evolve.
In the 1980s, the conflict between the so-called free world and
communist totalitarian systems was the dominant conflict in the
world and the main focus of conflict studies.
When the Soviet empire abruptly collapsed in 1989, the study of
the conflict between groups refocused on racial and ethnic
conflict, which in the United States meant a sharp rise of interest
in prejudice and stereotyping, which continue
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Levels of Analysis
The social psychological perspective emphasizes the importance of social influences on people
—that is how we think, feel, and behave is greatly affected by aspects of the social situation or
context.

To explore further what may be viewed as constituting one’s social situation, a student’s
ongoing activity can be considered, for instance, reading the lesson

As the student reviews his chapter, what is the social situation that is possibly causing him/her
to read the material with more or less motivation and diligence?

Is it a social stimulus in the immediate situation? For instance, is he/ she being encouraged by
a motivated friend with whom he/ she is —at this very moment—reading and studying the
material or perhaps by other students earnestly studying around him/her in the library?

Also, it might be helpful to look beyond the individual’s immediate situation to the broader
social context to understand his/her current level of motivation on this task.

Is the student reading contently because he/she is concerned that the instructor may call on
him/her during the upcoming class? Or, are the perceived expectations of significant others, in
addition to the instructor, having an influence on the student?

For instance, is the student applying himself/herself because their family or close friends
expect this of them, or (conversely) is their heart not really in this task because of the pull of
friends who really want the student to be out having fun with them?

Beyond the influence of significant others, is the student working hard (or not so hard)
because the academic standards at his/her school are quite high (or not so high) and he/she
feels a lot of pressure (or little pressure) to do his/her best?

From this personal example, you can see that the social situation can be conceived broadly,
ranging from the direct influence of specific others to the influence of more general factors.

The social situational determinants of an individual’s behavior may be viewed as falling into
the following categories:

 interpersonal,
 group,
 organisational,
 community, and
 societal/cultural.

Based on categorizations similar to this one, in social psychology, we refer to levels of analysis
(or explanation) that correspond with the various categories of determinants.
For example, we seek to explain a person’s behavior (e.g., studying)
by investigating the effect of individuals on him or her (explanation at the interpersonal level)
or
by investigating the effect of groups on him or her (explanation at the group level).

Of course, what is missing is the possible role of individual difference variables. In the example
of studying, a dispositional explanation would suggest that your current level of diligence
stems from your personality; for instance, you have (or do not have) a high drive to achieve.

It is customary to combine personal determinants with situational determinants to come up

with a more complete list of explanatory variables. It is also important to understand that the
term level does not imply “superior” in any way; all levels may be important in establishing a
thorough understanding of a phenomenon, although the relative importance of explanatory
levels may vary from phenomenon to phenomenon.

A study by Riksheim and Chermak (1993) allows us to consider further the meaning of the
social situation as a determinant of behavior and clearly illustrates the notion of levels of
analysis.

Riksheim and Chermak were interested in examining factors that lead police officers to engage
in various behaviors such as providing service (e.g., assisting motorists), making arrests, and
employing force on suspects.

They distinguished among four categories of determinants of police behavior:

(a) immediate situational variables such as characteristics of the incident

(e.g., seriousness of crime) and of the parties involved (e.g., the demeanour of the suspect),

(b) organizational variables such as

differences among police units in policing style and enforcement strategy,

(c) community variables such as the crime rate and ethnic makeup of the neighborhood, and

(d) officer individual difference variables such as gender and racial attitudes.

Riksheim and Chermak’s classification of variables divides the determinants of police behavior
into
 three situational categories
 and one individual difference category.

This following table summarises what Riksheim and Chermak (1993) found in their review of
40 studies that examined factors that predict police officer use of force (use of fists, firearms,
stun guns, pepper spray, etc.).
Individual differences (officer characteristics)
◦ Gender (male)
◦ Racial attitudes (prejudicial)
◦ Skilled in handling overt conflict (most skilled)

Immediate interpersonal situation

◦ Number of officers (more officers)
◦ Suspect’s conduct (e.g., antagonistic, consumed alcohol)Bystanders(notp.)
◦ Weapon (used by citizen)

Organizational
◦ Department policy (less restrictive about the use of force)
◦ Assignment/non assignment to specialized unit (assignment)
◦ Supervisory review process (not in place)

Community
◦ Ethnic composition of the community (more non-White)
◦ Racial heterogeneity (more heterogeneous)
◦ Transience of population (less transient)

(SOURCE: Based on Riksheim and Chermak (1993).

NOTE: Factors in parentheses are associated with more use of force.)

The researchers pointed out the importance of understanding the determinants of officer use
of force because of its potential alienating and inflammatory effects on communities.

Table shows, for each category of variable (level of explanation), those variables reported by
Riksheim and Chermak that showed a relationship to use of force.

For instance, under the immediate situation, use of force was related to the number of
officers present (occurring more often with more officers present) and the suspect’s conduct
(occurring more often with antagonistic suspects).\

Further inspection of the Table clearly shows that to gain a more complete understanding, it is
also necessary to investigate police use of force from the perspective of the three other levels
of analysis—
◦ individual difference,
◦ organisational, and
◦ community
—because variables at these levels likewise are shown to be related to use of force.

The distinction among levels of analysis is an especially important one for applied social
psychology because it begs the question of toward what level(s) and toward what variable(s)
intervention strategies should be directed.
Given the results in the above Table, One possibility is to intervene at the organisational level
by ensuring the consistent application of supervisory review of questionable incidents
involving force, thereby ensuring greater accountability of officers for their actions. This is
how one can bring about other intervention possibilities, perhaps at the other
levels(organizational and individual difference levels)

In applied social psychology, researchers often employ multiple levels of analysis to examine
complex phenomena. This could include individual-level factors (such as attitudes and beliefs),
interpersonal factors (such as social interactions and relationships), and societal factors (such
as institutional policies and cultural norms).
By examining various levels of explanation, researchers can develop a more nuanced and
comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing behavior, in this case, the use of force
by officers. This multidimensional approach is valuable for informing interventions and policies
aimed at improving community relations and minimizing potentially negative consequences
associated with the use of force.

THEORETICAL APPROACHES
A THEORY is a set of interrelated propositions that organises and explains a set of observed
phenomena.
Theories usually pertain not just to some particular event but rather to whole classes of
events.
Moreover, a theory goes beyond mere observable facts by postulating causal relations among
variables.
In other words, it describes not only what people do but also why they do it.
If a theory is valid, it enables its user to explain the phenomena under consideration and to
make predictions about events not yet observed.

In social psychology, no single theory explains all phenomena of interest; rather,

the field includes many different theories.

Middle-range theories identify the conditions that produce specific social behavior.
One such theory is the frustration-aggression hypothesis, which describes the connection
between blocked goals, frustration, and aggression.

However, social psychology also includes theoretical perspectives.

Broader in scope than middle-range theories, theoretical perspectives offer general
explanations for a wide array of social behaviors in a variety of situations.
These general explanations are rooted in explicit assumptions about human nature.
Theoretical perspectives serve an important function for the field of social psychology.
By making certain assumptions regarding human nature, a theoretical perspective establishes
a vantage point from which we can examine a range of social behaviors.
Because any perspective highlights certain features and downplays others, it enables us to
“see” more clearly certain aspects or features of social behavior. The fundamental value of
any theoretical perspective lies in its applicability across many situations; it provides a frame
of reference for interpreting- ing and comparing a wide range of social situations and
behaviors.

Social psychology can be organized into a number of distinct theoretical perspectives.

For sociologists who study social psychology, these theoretical perspectives are situated in
three traditions—
symbolic interactionism,
group processes, and
social structure and personality.

James House (1977) referred to these as the three “faces” of social psychology, each with a
unique perspective and emphasis.
Also, these theoretical perspectives have dominated psychological social psychology over the
last twenty years:
cognitive theories (including both the dual-process model of information processing and social
identity theory) and
evolutionary theory.

Symbolic Interactionism
The theoretical perspective that guided much of the early work of sociological social
psychologists—and that is still important today—is symbolic interactionism (Charon, 1995;
Stryker, 1980, 1987).
Symbolic interactionism is a social theoretical framework associated with George Herbert
Mead (1863–1931) and Max Weber (1864-1920).
It is a perspective that sees society as the product of shared symbols, such as language. The
social world is, therefore, constructed by the meanings that individuals attach to events and
social interactions, and these symbols are transmitted across the generations through
language.
Symbolic interactionism theory assumes that people respond to elements of their
environments according to the subjective meanings they attach to those elements, such as
meanings being created and modified through social interaction involving symbolic
communication with other people.

Symbolic Interactionism is a theoretical framework in

sociology that describes how societies are created and
maintained through the repeated actions of individuals
(Carter and Fuller, 2015).

In simple terms, people in society understand their social

worlds through communication — the exchange of
meaning through language and symbols.
Instead of addressing how institutions objectively define and affect individuals, symbolic
interactionism pays attention to these individuals’ subjective viewpoints and how they make
sense of the world from their own perspective (Carter and Fuller, 2015).

The objective structure of a society is less important in the symbolic interactionist view than
how subjective, repeated, and meaningful interactions between individuals create society.
Thus, society is thought to be socially constructed through human interpretation.

Although the theory is sometimes called symbolic interaction theory, symbolic interactionism
is actually a perspective that guides the development of more specific theories.
The basic premise of symbolic interactionism is that human nature and social order are
products of symbolic communication among people.

Society (from cultures to institutions to ourselves) is produced and reproduced through our
interactions with others by means of language and our interpretation of that language.

According to Blumer (1969), social interaction thus has four main principles:

1. Individuals act in reference to the subjective meaning objects have for them. For
example, an individual who sees the “object” of family as being relatively unimportant will
make decisions that deemphasize the role of family in their lives;
2. Interactions happen in a social and cultural context where objects, people, and
situations must be defined and characterized according to individuals’ subjective meanings;
3. For individuals, meanings originate from interactions with other individuals and
with society;
4. These meanings that an individual has are created and recreated through a
process of interpretation that happens whenever that individual interacts with others.

People can communicate successfully with one another only to the extent that they ascribe
similar meanings to objects.
An object’s meaning for a person depends not so much on the properties of the object itself
but on what the person might do with the object. In other words, an object takes on meaning
only in relation to a person’s plans.
Consider an empty glass bottle. Standing alone, a bottle has no meaning. The meaning of the
bottle comes from how you plan to use it. If there is liquid in it, it becomes a vessel for a
beverage.
Placed in the recycling bin, it becomes waste. But if someone pulls it out of the recycling and
puts flowers in it, it becomes a vase. Use it in a bar fight, it might be a weapon. Placed on its
side at the center of a table filled with people, it becomes a game piece for Spin the Bottle.

According to symbolic interactionism, we derive the meaning of objects from how we (or
others) plan to use those objects. The same bottle can be a vessel for liquid, waste, a vase, a
weapon, or a game piece. Depending on how people intend to use the table the bottle is on,
its meaning can also vary—from a table, to a desk, to a seat, to a place to lie down for a nap
We learn the meanings of things—whether bottles or smiles or pieces of linen and cotton
printed with black and green ink—through interaction with others. These meanings can
change and shift over time based on social interaction.

Negotiating Meanings.
Symbolic interaction theory views humans as proactive and goal seeking. People formulate
plans of action to achieve their goals. Many plans, of course, can be accomplished only
through cooperation with other people.
To establish cooperation with others, the meanings of things must be shared and consensual.
If the meaning of something is unclear or contested, an agreement must be developed
through give-and-take before cooperative action is possible.
Symbolic interactionism portrays social interaction as having a tentative, develop- ing quality.
Meanings can change over time or across situations.

Example- On the way home from his first day of kindergarten, a young boy was describing a
little girl from his class—marry—to his mother.
It was clear the boy was fond of Marry as he spoke of her big brown eyes, long straight hair,
pink lips, and chubby cheeks.
But when he proceeded to tell his mother that Marry looked like a dog, his mother was taken
aback. To her, calling a woman a dog was an insult.
The reverence in her son’s voice suggested he would never insult Marry, so the mother was
confused. Thinking more about it, the mother realized that to her son, calling marry a dog was
a compliment rather than an insult.
There was nothing the young boy loved more than to cuddle up with the family dog. To him, a
dog was something to love and cherish. He had not yet learned that dog was an insult.

To fit their actions together and achieve consensus, people interacting with one another must
continually negotiate new meanings or reaffirm old meanings. In the same way that the
mother had to work to determine the boy’s meaning to have interaction proceed smoothly,
the coworkers will have to negotiate a working consensus to effectively communicate and
interact.
In this process, each person formulates plans for action, tries them out, and then adjusts them
in light of others’ responses.
Thus, social interaction always has some degree of unpredictability and indeterminacy.

For an interaction among persons to proceed smoothly, there must be some consensus with
respect to the situated identity who one is in relation to the others in the situation of each
person.
In other words, every person involved in the interaction must know who they are in the
situation and who the other people are.
In the example of the coworkers: are they friends, could she want more, or are they simply co-
workers? Only by answering this question in some detail can each person understand the
implications (meanings) that others have for his or her plan of action.
The Self in Relationship to Others.
As we grow, we learn that the self is also a social object and its meaning is also developed and
negotiated in interaction.
A central concept of symbolic interactionists is the Self, which allows us to calculate the effects
of our actions.
As we interact with people, we try to imagine how they see us so we can come to under-
stand how they see us and how we should see ourselves (Cooley, 1902).
To do this, we engage in a process of role taking: we imagine ourselves in another person’s
role, including how we look from the other per- son’s viewpoint.

This serves two purposes.

First, role-taking can make cooperative action possible. Based on previous experience, we can
imagine how another would react in any given situation.
Consider a teenager whose mother has just asked him whether he completed his homework.
Before answering, he will try to imagine the situation from his mother’s perspective. If he tells
her he played video games instead, she will be disappointed or even angry. If he lies and says
it is all done, she will be satisfied—at least until she finds out the truth, and then she will be
even angrier. By role-taking, he can effectively guide subsequent interaction.

However, there is a second important purpose of role-taking. In imagining how he appears to

his mother, the teenager is acquiring self-meanings. If he fails to do the homework, opting
instead to play video games, he may see himself as lazy or un-motivated because that is how
he imagines someone else (like his mother) would see him. If he lied about it, he might see
himself as a liar.

The self occupies a central place in symbolic interaction theory because social order is
hypothesized to rest in part on self-control.
Individuals strive to maintain self-respect in their own eyes, but because they are continually
engaging in role-taking, they see themselves from the viewpoint of the others with whom they
interact. To maintain self-respect, they thus must meet the standards of others, at least to
some degree.
Of course, an individual will care more about the opinions and standards of some persons
than about those of others. The persons about whose opinions he or she cares most are called
significant others. Typically, these are people who control important rewards or who occupy
central positions in groups to which the individual belongs. Because their positive opinions are
highly valued, significant others have relatively more influence over the individual's behavior.

Symbolic interactionism asserts that a person can act not only toward others but also toward
him or herself. That is, an individual can engage in self-perception, self-evaluation, and self-
control just as he or she might perceive, evaluate, and control others.
The ability to act toward oneself, taking the role of both subject an object, is a unique human
trait.

George Herbert Mead, a forefather of symbolic interactionism, referred to

this ability as the reflexive self (1934).
History
The first person to write about the principles underlying Symbolic Interactionism was George
Herbert Mead (1934).
Mead, an American philosopher, argued that people develop their self-image through
interactions with other people.

In particular, Mead concentrated on the language and other forms of talk that happens
between individuals. The “ self ” — a part of someone’s personality involving self-awareness
and self-image — originates in social experience.
Charles Horton Cooley (1902) used the term looking-glass self to convey the idea that a
person’s knowledge of their self-concept is largely determined by the reaction of others
around them. Other people thus act as a “looking-glass ” (mirror) so that we can judge
ourselves by looking “in” it.
An individual can respond to others’ opinions about himself and internalise the opinions and
feelings that others have about him.
Beginning in the 1960s, sociologists tested and adopted Mead’s ideas.

There are three main schools of Symbolic Interactionism: the Chicago School, the Iowa School,
and the Indiana School. These schools stem from the work of Herbert Blumer, Manford Kuhn,
and Sheldon Stryker, respectively.

Blumer’s Chicago School of Symbolic Interactionism

Blumer’s view on Symbolic Interactionism (Blumer, 1969), people act toward objects in a way
that reacts to the meanings they have personally given to the objects.
This means that people are reacting to comments from the social interactions that they have
with others, and meanings are confronted and modified through a continuous interpretive
process that the person uses whenever they deal with things that they encounter (Carter and
Fuller, 2015).
Blumer strongly believed that the idea that science was the only right vehicle for discovering
truth was deeply flawed. Because all behavior happens on the basis of an individual’s own
meanings about the world, Blumer believed that observing general behavioral patterns was
not conducive to scientific insight (Carter and Fuller, 2015).
Rather, Blumer aimed to attempt to see how any given person sees the world.
Methodologically, this means that Blummer believed that it is the researcher’s obligation to
take the stance of the person they are studying and use the actor’s own categorization of the
world to capture how that actor creates meanings from social interactions (Carter and Fuller,
2015).

Lowa School of Symbolic Interactionism

Manford Kuhn (the Iowa School) and Sheldon Stryker (the Indiana School) used empirical
methods to study the self and social structure (Kuhn, 1964; Stryker, 1980; Carter and Fuller,
2015).
To Kuhn, behavior was “purposive, socially constructed, coordinated social acts informed by
preceding events in the context of projected acts that occur.” Social interaction can be studied
in a way that emphasizes the interrelatedness of an individual’s intention, sense of time, and
the ways that they correct their own systems of meanings.
Small groups — groups with, for example, two or three people — to Kuhn, are the focus of
most social behavior and interaction.
Social behavior can be studied both in the greater world and within the confines of a
laboratory, and this combination of approaches can lead to being able to identify abstract laws
for social behavior that can apply to people at university.
And lastly, sociologists must create a systematic and rigorous vocabulary to deconstruct and
create a system of cause and effect for how people form meaning through social interactions
than social psychologists had before

Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism

In contrast to Kuhn, Stryker of the Indiana School of Symbolic Interactionism emphasizes that
the meanings that individuals form from their interactions with others lead to patterns that
create and uphold social structures (Carter and Fuller, 2015).
In particular, Stryker focuses on Mead’s concept of roles and role-taking. A social role is a
certain set of practices and behaviors taken on by an individual, and these practices and
behaviors are regulated through the social situations where the individual takes on the role
(Casino and Thien, 2009).
The roles that individuals have are attached to individuals’ positions in society, and they can
be predictors of their future behavior.
To Stryker, the social interactions between individuals — socialization — is a process through
which individuals learn the expectations for the practices and behaviors of the roles that they
have taken on.
Individuals identify themselves by the roles they take in social structure and the beliefs and
opinions that others’ identify them with become internalized.
These internalized expectations of how someone with a particular set of roles is supposed to
behave become an identity (Carter and Fuller, 2015).
In contrast to the Chicago and the Iowan schools of Symbolic Interactionism, the Indiana
school attempts to bridge how people form a sense of meaning and identity on an individual
level with the roles that they fill in the greater society.

CONCLUSION
In sum, the symbolic interactionist perspective has several strong points.
It recognises the importance of the self in social interaction.
It stresses the central role of symbolic communication and language in
personality and society.
It addresses the processes involved in achieving consensus and cooperation in interaction.
It illuminates why people try to maintain a positive image of self and avoid embarrassment.

Limitations of Symbolic Interaction Theory.

Critics of symbolic interactionism have
pointed to various shortcomings.

One limitation concerns the balance between rationality and emotion.

Some critics argue that this perspective overemphasizes rational, self-conscious thought and
deemphasizes
unconscious or emotional states.
Symbolic interactionism theory has been criticized because it ignores the emotional side of the
Self as a basis for social interaction.

A second limitation concerns the model of the individual implicit in symbolic interaction
theory. The individual is depicted as a specific personality type—an other-directed person who
is concerned primarily with maintaining self-respect by meeting others’ standards.

A third criticism of symbolic interactionism is that it places too much emphasis

on consensus and cooperation and, therefore, neglects or downplays the importance of
conflict. The perspective does recognize, however, that interacting people may fail to reach
consensus despite their efforts to achieve it.
The symbolic interactionist perspective is at its best when analyzing fluid,
developing encounters with significant
others; it is less useful when analyzing self-interested behavior or principled action.

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM
Social Constructionism is a Theory of knowledge that originated in sociology and examines
how individuals develop their knowledge and understanding of the world.

The theory of social constructionism was introduced in the 1966 book

“The Social Construction of Reality",
by sociologists Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckman.
It was further developed by KENNETH GERGEN who first introduced the social constructionist
ideas in 1985

Social constructionism is another approach in social psychology that seeks to study the ways in
which people and groups create and institutionalize social phenomena by constructing their
perceived reality. This theory assumes that understanding, significance and meaning is
developed in coordination with other human beings.

The most important elements in this theory are the assumption that human beings rationalise
their experience by creating a model of the social world, and the way that it functions in
language as the most essential system through which humans construct reality. (Leeds&
Hurwitz , 2009)

Theoretical assumptions
There were four beliefs and practises in common (Burr,2015)
1. A critical stance towards knowledge that is normally taken for granted.Social
constructionists believe that conventional knowledge is not necessarily based on objective,
unbiased observations of the world. Humans, according to Social Constructionism, put more
emphasis on certain categories than others, even if these categories do not necessarily reflect
 real divisions. Thus, it is the obligation of sociologists and psychologists to be aware of the
assumptions implicit in knowledge. What exists is what we perceive to exist (Burr, 2015).

2. The knowledge exists in historical and cultural context. All ways of understanding
are historically and culturally relative. What is thought of as natural, and the categories and
concepts we use, are an effect of history and culture.For example, historically, children took
on many “adult” tasks (Aries, 1962), but the mid-20th century brought a renewed emphasis on
child development and childhood, and thus the role of children changed. It should not be
assumed that the ways of understanding that belong to one time and cultural context are
necessarily better than another (Burr 2015).

3. Knowledge is sustained by social processes. Knowledge is constructed through

interactions between people and the world. Therefore an individual’s Perception of truth is
product of social processes and the interaction and individual is engaging in rather than
objective observation.(burr,2015)

4. Knowledge and social actions go together. Each understanding of the world has a
variety of “social constructions” that come with it. As stated by (Burr 2015), before the
temperance movement, alcoholics were seen as entirely responsible for their behaviour —
meaning that an appropriate response would be imprisonment. However, after Temperance,
alcoholism shifted into a sickness, flaying responsibility away from its victims. The solution
became medical and psychological treatment rather than imprisonment (Burr, 2015).

History
 The first sociologist writing in the tradition of social constructionism was George Herbert
Mead (1930), in her book, “Mind, Self, and Society.”
 Mead created the concept of “symbolic interactionism,” which argues that humans construct
their own and each other’s identities through their everyday encounters with each other. In
other words, the self is created through social interaction.

 Although there were intermediating theories such as ethnomethodology in the 1950s and
60s, Berger and Luckmann (1966) became the next pivotal writers of Social Constructionism
in “The Social Construction of Reality.”
 The Social Construction of Reality is widely considered to be one of sociology’s most seminal
works.
 Berger and Luckman’s The Social Construction of Reality, although first published as a rather
esoteric book on the sociology of knowledge.
 The Social Construction of Reality soon came to define a field of “new sociologies” (Vera,
2016).

1. In short, The Social Construction of Reality argues that humans create and sustain all
social phenomena through their social practices.
2. People “externalise” their thoughts on the world, such as writing down or creating a story
about an idea they have.
 3. As other people tell this story or read the book, this idea becomes an “object” of
consciousness for the people the idea spreads to.
4. The idea, to these people, becomes an objective truth.
5. And finally, in the last stage, the idea becomes “internalised” in the consciousness of the
society, and future generations more or less take the idea for granted as an objective
truth, as the idea already exists in the world they were born into (Burr 2015).

Gergen’s Social Psychology as History

1. In the 1960s and 70s, social psychologists became increasingly concerned with how the
field of social psychology promoted the views of dominant groups (Burr 2015).
2. There was a shift from focusing on objectivity and laboratory behaviour to accounts of the
lives of ordinary people (Harre & Secord, 1972).
3. In “Social Psychology as History” (1973), Gergen argues that while the methods used in
psychology itself are scientific, the theories of social behaviour that originate from
psychologists are actually reflections of contemporary history.
4. Unlike the natural sciences, Gergen argues, which are based on a set of relatively unchanging
principles, human interaction happens on the basis of a number of factors that shift rapidly
with time (Gergen, 1973). Social theories describe what is perceived to be and prescribe
what is seen as desirable.

 For example, as social psychology arose in the Second World War, with the goal of creating
propaganda, questions of keeping up morale and encouraging uncommon behaviour (such
as eating an unpopular food) — “desirable” behaviours — shaped the field’s basis (Burr,
2015).
 Thus, social theories are symptoms of the social, political, and economic realms of the times
in which they were devised; thus, sociologists can read social theories of behaviour as a
history.

Social Constructionism and Postmodernism

Historically, sociology has searched for underlying structures that lead to human behaviour.
Social constructionism evolved in the cultural and intellectual context of the mid-20th century,
which was dominated by the Postmodernist movement.

Postmodernism is the rejection that there can be the ultimate truth. To postmodernists, the
world, as it is perceived by individuals, is a consequence of hidden structures.

The world cannot be understood in terms of grand theories; rather, postmodernism

emphasises how ways of life can differ between the groups and situations of the people who
live them (Burr 2015).
Postmodernism has both informed and been informed by social constructionism; however,
these theories diverge.
Social constructionism provides a framework for understanding the constructed worlds that
people inhabit — useful for understanding social behaviour, while postmodernism does not
provide such a framework (Flaskas, 1995).

Malcolm Spector and John I. Kitsuse’s Social Constructionism

Traditionally, sociologists have thought of social problems as conditions that cause some harm
to society.
However, four years after Gergen’s Social Psychology as History, the sociologists Kituse and
Malcolm extended the concept of social problems using Constructionism in a way considered
radical by sociologists.

Spector (1977) argued in Constructing Social Problems that sociologists had altogether failed
to create a conception of social problems specific to sociology.
That is to say, up to the publication of Constructing Social Problems, sociologists had
difficulties describing what a social problem was. What seemingly created harm in one society
could be considered normal or even taken for granted in other circumstances.

Spector defined social problems as “the activities of individuals or groups making assertions of
grievances and claims with respect to some putative conditions” (Best, 2018).

In this definition, social conditions were not the stuff of social problems — rather, it was
whether or not people considered conditions to be a problem that made them problems.
“what people are.” but beyond this, Spector used this concept as a guide to sociological
research and writing (Schneider 2018).

APPLICATIONS
1. Personal Construct Psychology (PCP):
Personal Construct Psychology (PCP) emerged in the 1950s as a constructivist theory of
personality and a framework for transforming individual meaning-making processes,
particularly in therapy. It views individuals as akin to scientists, formulating and testing
theories about their worlds. In contrast, Social Constructionism (SC) arose as a critical
perspective, seeking to address oppressive effects in social meaning-making. Although
traditionally treated as distinct entities with binary oppositions, reframing their relationship
presents opportunities for enriching SC theory through the PCP "toolkit" and exploring new
ways of addressing social construction in therapeutic contexts.

2. Educational Psychology:
Similar to social constructionism, social constructivism posits that individuals collaboratively
construct artifacts. While social constructionism emphasizes artifacts created through group
interactions, social constructivism focuses on individual learning arising from interactions
within a group. Educational psychologists, including Lev Vygotsky, Ernst von Glasersfeld, and
A. Sullivan Palincsar, have explored social constructivism's implications for teaching and
learning, emphasizing the importance of social interactions in the learning process.

3. Systemic Therapy:
Social constructionism influences systemic therapy models such as Narrative Therapy and
Solution Focused Therapy. These therapeutic approaches utilize social constructionist
principles to understand and address individuals' experiences, emphasizing the role of
language and narrative in shaping one's understanding of self and others.

4. Poverty:
Max Rose and Frank R. Baumgartner's work, "Framing the Poor: Media Coverage and U.S.
Poverty Policy, 1960-2008," examines how media portrayal of the poor, with increased
negative framing since 1960, has influenced shifts in government spending. The framing of
poverty in the media, using terms like "lazy" and "fraud," has contributed to a decrease in
government expenditure on social services.

5. Crime:
In the context of criminology, social constructionism challenges traditional perspectives on
criminal behavior. Potter and Kappeler's "Constructing Crime: Perspectives on Making News
And Social Problems" highlights the disparity between public opinion and crime facts,
suggesting that societal views construct a fluid and subjective reality of crime. Crime is viewed
through a social constructionist lens, where acts deemed deviant become criminal based on
societal perceptions. Individual identity constructs, influenced by societal definitions, may lead
to deviant behavior, as individuals conform to labels such as "madman" or "criminal."
METHODOLOGIES- PRINTOUTS + NCERT

ACTION RESEARCH
Action research – which is also known as
 Participatory Action Research (PAR),
 community-based study,
 co-operative enquiry,
 action science and
 action learning –
 is an approach commonly used for improving conditions and practices in a range of healthcare
environments (Lingard et al., 2008; Whitehead et al., 2003).
 It involves healthcare practitioners conducting systematic enquiries in order to help them improve their
own practices, which in turn can enhance their working environment and the working environments of
those who are part of it – clients, patients, and users.
 The purpose of undertaking action research is to bring about change in specific contexts, as Parkin
(2009) describes it.
 Through their observations and communications with other people, healthcare workers are continually
making informal evaluations and judgments about what it is they do.
 The difference between this and carrying out an action research project is that during the process
researchers will need to develop and use a range of skills to achieve their aims, such as careful planning,
sharpened observation and listening, evaluation, and critical reflection.

 Meyer (2000) maintains that action research’s strength lies in its focus on generating solutions to
practical problems and its ability to empower practitioners, by getting them to engage with research and
the subsequent development or implementation activities.
  Meyer states that practitioners can choose to research their own practice or an outside researcher can be
engaged to help to identify any problems, seek and implement practical solutions, and systematically
monitor and reflect on the process and out comes of change.
 Whitehead et al. (2003) point out that the place of action research in health promotion programmes is an
important and yet rela tively unacknowledged and understated activity and suggest that this state of
affairs denies many health promotion researchers a valuable resource for managing effective changes in
practice.

Purposes of conducting action research

action research supports practitioners in seeking out ways in which they can provide an enhanced quality of
healthcare. With this purpose in mind, the following features of the action research approach are worthy of
consideration (Koshy, 2010: 1):
• Action research is a method used for improving practice. It involves action, evaluation, and critical reflection,
and – based on the evidence gathered – changes in practice are then implemented.
• Action research is participative and collaborative; it is undertaken by individuals with a common purpose.
• It is situation-based and context specific.
• It develops reflection based on interpretations made by the participants.
• Knowledge is created through action and at the point of application.
• Action research can involve problem solving, if the solution to the problem leads to the improvement of
practice.
• In action research findings will emerge as the action develops, but these are not conclusive or absolute.

Reason and Bradbury (2001) explain, that the primary purpose of action research is to produce practical knowledge that
is useful to people in the everyday conduct of their lives.
They maintain that action research is about working towards practical outcomes and that it is also about ‘creating new
forms of understanding,
since action without reflection and understanding is blind,
just as theory without action is meaningless’ and
that the participatory nature of action research
‘makes it only possible with, for and by persons and communities,
ideally involving all stakeholders both in the questioning and sense-making that informs the research and in the action
which is its focus’.

Meyer (2000) describes action research as a process that involves people and social situations that have the ultimate aim
of changing an existing situation for the better.

What is involved in action research?

Research is about generating knowledge.
Action research creates knowledge based on enquiries conducted within specific and often practical contexts.
As articulated earlier, the purpose of action research is to learn through action that then leads on to personal or
professional development.
Action research is participatory in nature, which led Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) to describe it as participatory
research.
The authors state that action research involves a spiral of self-reflective cycles of:
• Planning a change.
• Acting and observing the process and consequences of the change.
• Reflecting on these processes and consequences and then replanning.
• Acting and observing.
• Reflecting.
• And so on …

Reason and Bradbury (2006) describe action research as an approach that is used in designing studies that seek both to
inform and influence practice.
The authors state that action research is a particular orientation and purpose of inquiry rather than a research
methodology.
They also propose that action research consists of a ‘family of approaches’ that have different orientations, yet reflect
the characteristics that seek to ‘involve, empower and improve’ aspects of participants’ social world.
A further list of features of action research, put forward by the Reason and Bradbury (2008), states that it:
• is a set of practices that respond to people’s desire to act creatively in the face of practical and often pressing issues in
their lives in organizations and communities;
• calls for an engagement with people in collaborative relationships, opening new ‘communicative spaces’ in which
dialogue and development can flourish;
• draws on many ways of knowing, both in the evidence that is generated in inquiry and its expression in diverse forms
of presentation as we share our learning with wider audiences;
• is value-oriented, seeking to address issues of significance concerning the flourishing of human persons, their
communities, and the wider ecology in which we participate;
• is a living, emergent process that cannot be pre-determined but changes and develops as those engaged deepen their
understanding of the issues to be addressed and develop their capacity as co-inquirers both individually and collectively.

Action research can be defined as an approach employed by practitioners for improving practice as part of the process of
change. The research is context-bound and participative. It is a continuous learning process in which the researcher
learns and also shares the newly generated knowledge with those who may benefit from it.

In the context of practitioner research, Hopkins (2002) maintains that action research combines a substantive act with a
research procedure and that it is action disciplined by enquiry and a personal attempt at understanding, while engaged
in a process of improvement and reform.

Winter and Munn-Giddings’s (2001) definition of action research, as a ‘study of a social situation carried out by those
involved in that situation in order to improve both their practice and the quality of their understanding’, captures the
essence of the philosophy underlying the action research approach.

A careful study of the definitions and viewpoints we have presented in this section should help to highlight some of the
unique features of action research. The key concepts include a better understanding, participation, improvement,
reform, problem finding, problem solving, a step-by-step process, modification, and theory building. These words also
perhaps demonstrate the reasons for the popularity of action research as a mode of study for healthcare professionals.

Key characteristics of action research

Many attempts have been made, over the years, to identify the characteristics that highlight the uniqueness of action
research and distinguish it from other methodologies.

Carr and Kemmis (1986) in their seminal text on action research included the underlying principles of the action research
approach.
These include its • participatory character; • democratic impulse;
• simultaneous contribution to social science (knowledge) and social change (practice).

In the British Medical Journal, Meyer (2000) explains these three characteristics from a practical perspective.
1. Meyer contends that participation is fundamental in action research as it is an approach that demands that
participants perceive the need to change and are willing to play an active part in the research and change
process.
2. Conflicts may arise in the course of the research.
3. It is vital that outside researchers working with practitioners must obtain their trust and agree on the rules for
the control of the data and their use, as well as acknowledging how any potential conflict will be resolved.
4. In order to address the feature of democratic impulse, according to Meyer, this requires participants to be seen
as equals.
5. The researcher works as a facilitator of change, consulting with participants not only on the action process but
also on how it will be evaluated.
 6. One benefit to this is that it can make the research process and outcomes more meaningful to practitioners by
rooting these in the reality of day-to-day practice.
7. Throughout the research process, the findings are fed back to participants for validation.
8. The formative process involved in the spirals of planning, observing, reflecting, and re-planning care needs to be
taken because this can be threatening, something that is common in healthcare settings.
9. With regard to the role of action research in contributing to social science and social change, Meyer highlights
the concern about the theory-practice gap in clinical practice; practitioners have to rely on their intuition and
experience since traditional scientific knowledge – for example, the results of randomized controlled trials –
often do not seem to fit with the uniqueness of the situation.
10. Action research, Meyer maintains, is one way of dealing with this because it draws on a practitioner’s situation
and experience and can therefore generate findings that are meaningful to them.
In this context, we are thus made aware of an important feature – that the contributions to knowledge arising from
action research and any generalizations are different from other conventional forms of research. Reports from action
research projects will rely on readers underwriting the accounts by drawing on their own knowledge of human
situations and therefore it is important for action researchers to describe their work in rich contextual detail.

Example of ACTION RESEARCH

Development of an Information Source for Patients and the Public about General Practice Services: An Action Research
Study (Marshall et al., 2006)

Background:
The study by Marshall et al. addresses the need for transparent healthcare information to empower patients and
enhance accountability. Focused on UK Primary Care, it aimed to understand patients' information needs and develop a
user-friendly information source on general practice services. This initiative was prompted by a national call for
improved, accessible information to align health services with public needs.

Methods:
Conducted as an action research study, the research utilized formal and informal interviews, focus groups, participant
observation, and document reviews. Two Primary Care Trusts in the North of England and two Local Health Boards in
South Wales served as the study's settings. Participants included the public, general practice staff, NHS managers, and
the research team. Selection criteria for Primary Care Organizations (PCOs) considered geographical proximity,
willingness to participate, and demographic diversity. A multi-method approach, including in-depth interviews, focus
groups, and participant observation, facilitated data collection.

Data Analysis:
Employing a constant comparative approach, the research team analyzed data, identifying themes from participant
discussions regarding factors influencing the public's use of information and their needs. Themes were collaboratively
explored, interpreted, and triangulated across stakeholder groups and sites. Findings guided the development of an
information source for patients about general practice services.

Overview of Outcomes:
The research revealed a public desire for information on the quality and range of general practice services. Existing
information sources, including league tables, were inadequate, as the public favored details on services, practice
improvement efforts, and clarity about information sources. Cognitive science principles guided the development of
paper and electronic prototypes for a guide to general practice services.

Researchers' Comments on Action Research:

The authors chose action research due to its compatibility with the project's participatory and developmental nature. It
allowed the research team to act as facilitators of change, engaging all participants in decision-making processes based
on their knowledge and expertise. The approach aligned with the project's goal of empowering service users and
generating a tangible, user-friendly product.