Part 7: Applying Social Accreditation Processes to Decode our Framing of Reality and Assessment of Knowledge
Epistemology and Social Accreditation
"Humans consider themselves unique so they've rooted their whole theory of existence on their uniqueness. One is their unit of measure, but it's not. All social systems we've put into place are a mere sketch. One plus one equals two. That's all we've learned, but one plus one has never equaled two. There are, in fact, no numbers and no letters. We've codified our existence to bring it down to human size to make it comprehensible. We've created a scale so that we can forget its unfathomable scale." - Lucy (2014)
Alright, in my last post, I explained how language acts as a mediator for cultural norms and knowledge. The main point being that humans have evolved to use language not only as a tool for communication but also as a shared system of signs to represent our understanding of the world. This capacity to comprehend and articulate our experiences through language has enabled us to develop and disseminate knowledge.
To truly grasp the social aspects of how we frame reality and assess knowledge we need to understand the concept as it relates to the formation of our identities, it's helpful to look back at the ideas of some of history's greatest thinkers and see how their insights have helped us understand how our thoughts about thoughts have evolved over time.
Imagine living in a cave where all you see are shadows cast on the wall by objects behind you, which you can't see directly. This is the world described in Plato's Allegory of the Cave. According to Plato, the shadows represent the deceptive perceptions of the senses, while the objects casting the shadows represent the higher, unchanging reality of the forms. True knowledge, Plato argued, comes from understanding these perfect forms through rational thought and philosophical reasoning, rather than relying on our often misleading sensory experiences.
His allegory underscores how our perceptions can be limited by our context, much like how societal norms and validations can shape and sometimes distort our understanding of reality. Plato’s theory suggests that societal consensus often accredits the "shadows" we see, while the true forms of knowledge require deeper understanding and critical thinking.
Fast forward to the 17th century, and René Descartes took this further with his famous declaration, "I think, therefore I am." Descartes used doubt to challenge every belief he had to try and find a foundation of knowledge, eventually realizing that the very act of doubting confirmed his existence as a thinker with a mind. He argued that our mind, distinct from our body, is central to our existence and understanding of the world. This framework, known as Cartesian dualism became the new methodological basis for understanding the Self and reality. With an emphasis on subjective experience being the primary source for knowledge and existence, his work influenced developments in fields like psychology, medicine, natural science and philosophy.
In the twentieth century, Sigmund Freud shook things up by introducing the idea of the unconscious mind. He suggested that our thoughts and behaviors are heavily influenced by unconscious desires and conflicts, which changed how we think about the mind’s role in shaping our reality. Freud's work revolutionized psychology and the concept of the Self through new theories focused on personality and psychoanalysis.
Developmental psychologists like Erik Erikson and James Marcia later offered another perspective, attempting to understand how we learn by examining the progression of the Self from infancy to adulthood. Erikson's stages of psychosocial development emphasized how our identity is shaped by social relationships and societal expectations throughout our lives.
Marcia expanded on this, looking at how we explore and commit to different identities based on societal influences and personal choices. Marcia's work on identity formation suggested that our sense of Self is largely determined by the choices and commitments we make regarding certain personal and social traits.
Today, our understanding of our thoughts and identities are more complex and nuanced than ever with breakthroughs in cognitive studies and neuroscience integrating insights from psychology and social sciences to move away from Cartesian dualism and embrace an understanding of knowledge and the Self that accounts for both our personal experiences and social dynamics.
These philosophical and psychological frameworks show that our understanding of ourselves, reality and knowledge isn't static. Its evolved through centuries of thought and continues to be shaped by our interactions with the world and others. In learning from these developments we get a better idea of our epistemological progress.
So, what is epistemology? It's the branch of metaphysics that weighs into the nature and scope of knowledge. It tries to establish the structures that shape how we create, verify, and question what we know and believe. These frameworks deeply impact how we validate knowledge within society, as our acceptance of truth hinges on shared understanding and collective assessments. In other words, our methods of knowing themselves have become forms of social accreditation.
Since the Scientific Revolution of the 15th and 16th centuries, the scientific method has been our go-to approach for discovering facts about the world. Scientists use logic and empirical observation to reach consensus on new discoveries, validating or challenging theories to establish what we recognize as legitimate knowledge. This process of consensus is dynamic, evolving with new evidence, technological breakthroughs and changing values.
Before the Scientific Revolution, knowledge mostly came from philosophical traditions and religious doctrines. But with the rise of scientific methods, Western European societies underwent significant changes that trickled across the globe. Scientific advances brought new technologies like the printing press that changed the way knowledge was created and shared. With information now accessible through mass-marketed books, treatises, maps and diagrams, we became more secular, and democratic ideals began to reshape our world, challenging the established authorities and shifting how we accredit knowledge.
Galileo Galilei faced condemnation by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633 for defending the heliocentric model, suggesting that Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun. By promoting this theory, which was initially proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo challenged the accepted consensus of the theological authorities of his time and faced judgment.
Our collective belief in the objectivity of scientific discoveries reflects a shared value judgment. This judgment, grounded in the idea that evidence-based conclusions should outweigh subjective narratives, continues to be validated through education, media discourse, and peer reviews. This process emphasizes the informational dimension of social accreditation, where group consensus acts as a seal of approval.
This ties back to the motivations for conformity explored in previous posts, especially regarding Asch's experiments. Psychologists split the motivations for conformity into normative influences (wanting to fit in) and informational influences (believing the group knows better).
Why we make Mental Models of the World
The relationship between personal beliefs and informational influence is substantially impacted by uncertainty. Uncertainty refers to a state of being unsure or having limited knowledge about outcomes, which can lead to having cognitive and emotional responses that attempt to mitigate the discomfort associated with this lack of certainty. Thie phenomenon of uncertainty is deeply intertwined with our perceptions, decision-making processes, and the construction of mental models.
Mental models are our internal representations of external reality. They are cognitive structures that we use to make sense of our experiences, guide our actions, and predict outcomes. Shaped by personal experiences, education, culture, and social interactions, these mental models help us navigate the world (Johnson-Laird, 1983). For instance, when we encounter a new situation, our mental models help us draw on knowledge from past experiences to understand and respond appropriately.
Emotions seriously influence the formation and adjustment of mental models. When we experience fear, joy, anger, or surprise, these emotional states can alter our perceptions and decisions, impacting how we update or reinforce our mental models (Damasio, 1994). For example, anxiety about climate change can strengthen a mental model that prioritizes environmental conservation, while joy from economic success can reinforce capitalist ideals.
Building on this, propositional attitudes are specific types of mental states held toward propositions. Propositional attitudes are statements that express specific ideas or claims, such as "she believes the Earth is round." The attitude part refers to the stance or perspective the person has toward the proposition, which can include beliefs, desires, hopes, fears, intentions, and doubts (Dennett, 1978).
These propositional attitudes fundamentally shape our mental models. They influence how we interpret social norms and seek validation. Understanding the formation and maintenance of beliefs about social norms is necessary for explaining how social accreditation systems work and why people align their behaviors with societal expectations.
For example, when a society highly values environmental conservation, people are more likely to develop mental models that prioritize sustainability, leading to propositional attitudes like "I believe in climate change" or "Scientists fear global warming." Which can influence personal and collective actions toward more environmentally friendly practices.
Conversely, in a society that values economic achievements over environmentalism, mental models will prioritize capitalist ideals, leading to activities focused on accruing capital rather than conserving resources. Propositional attitudes such as "they're afraid of profit loss" or "he hopes to get rich" reflect this perspective.
These examples illustrate how social accreditation processes contribute to the formation and reinforcement of our mental models by validating specific behaviors, beliefs, and identities. When society accredits certain norms or values, its members use propositional atittudes that reflect these norms as preferable or desirable, thus shaping the mental models we develop (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).
Understanding that other people have propositional attitudes (beliefs, desires, intentions) allows us to predict and interpret their behaviors, facilitating social interactions and cooperation. In uncertain situations, we often look to others for cues on how to think and behave. This phenomenon, known as social proof, helps reduce uncertainty by aligning our beliefs with those of the majority (Cialdini, 2001).
By observing the actions and beliefs of others, especially in uncertain situations, we can adjust our mental models and propositional attitudes to conform to the perceived majority view. This alignment reduces our own uncertainty and reinforces the societal norms that guide behavior. For this reason, social proof serves as a fundamental mechanism of social accreditation, fostering social cohesion and shared understanding within a community.
The Power Framing has on our Perception and Decisions
Framing refers to the way information is presented or perceived, which influences how it is interpreted and acted upon. To frame is to create a mental model that allows us to see patterns, predict how things will unfold, and make sense of new situations. Frames serve as cognitive shortcuts, helping us quickly understand complex information by relating it to our existing mental models.
Erving Goffman was a Canadian sociologist, known for his detailed observations of social interactions and his theoretical contributions, like the concept of frame analysis. Goffman suggested that people use two types of primary frameworks:
Natural Frameworks focus on physical, biological, or environmental causes of events without considering human involvement. They see events as part of the natural order. Imagine a thunderstorm happening. Your natural frame might view it as a meteorological phenomenon resulting from atmospheric conditions such as humidity, temperature, and pressure. There are no social or human factors influencing this storm; it is purely a natural occurrence.
Social Frameworks emphasize human actions, intentions, and social contexts. They interpret events based on the roles, motivations, and interactions of individuals or groups. Let's say a community cancels an outdoor festival due to the same thunderstorm. The thunderstorm itself remains a natural event, but its impact and the response can now be framed socially. The cancellation of the festival is viewed in terms of human choices and social implications, where the organizers' decision reflects their concern for public safety, potential financial losses, and community disappointment.
Goffman's distinction between natural and social frameworks helps us see that while events can be understood through their physical causes, their significance in life often comes from the social context and responses they evoke. He applied frame analysis to various social contexts, demonstrating how people use frames in everyday interactions, institutions, and social practices like rituals, performances, and the presentation of self in social life (Goffman, 1974).
Goffman's frame analysis gives a foundational understanding of how framing works in social interactions and everyday life. But, further research has shown that we also use various methods of framing to make individual decisions and solve problems.
For example, formal logic is a structured framework for evaluating arguments, ensuring consistency and validity in our reasoning (Aristotle, trans. 1998). Consider the following infamous logical argument:
- Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
- Premise 2: Socrates is human.
- Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
This kind of logical structure helps us frame reliable mental models and make informed decisions, which is essential for accurate framing of perceptions.
In using formal logic, we can frame information in a way that promotes clarity and rationality, which prevents us from framing mental models built on logical fallacies.
Logical fallacies impact our capacity to frame mental models because they distort our reasoning, leading to incorrect or misleading conclusions.
A particularly relevant fallacy is the Bandwagon fallacy, which assumes that something is good or correct simply because it's popular. When applied to social norms, it can lead to the widespread acceptance of behaviors or values without critical examination.
So for example, if a behavior becomes trendy on social media, it might be widely accepted and accredited as a norm simply due to its popularity, regardless of its inherent value or ethical standing. This shows how the way social norms, values, or behaviors are framed can notably influence their accreditation and can help us make sense of viral trends that seem to be bizarre or strange.
Recall our discussion from part three where I explained the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct, which describes how norms can influence behavior when they are prominent or activated by social cues. Our frames guide our attention and intentions by dictating which environmental cues we perceive and respond to.
As an illustration, imagine two people, Alex and Taylor, are attending the same party. Despite being in the same environment, their experiences and reactions are shaped by their distinct frames.
Alex is an aspiring entrepreneur who is highly focused on networking and building professional relationships. His frame is driven by the desire for career advancement and social validation within the business community.
At the party, Alex's attention is drawn to others who appear successful, confident, and influential. He notices people who are engaging in conversations about business ventures, sharing success stories, or discussing market trends. Guided by his frame, Alex intends to introduce himself to these key people, exchange business cards, and engage in meaningful conversations about entrepreneurship. He perceives the event as an opportunity to expand his professional network and gain insights into business strategies.
Taylor, on the other hand, is a recent graduate interested in finding new hobbies and making friends with similar interests. Taylor's frame is influenced by a desire for social connection and personal growth outside the professional realm.
Taylor's attention is captured by activities that seem fun and recreational. He notices people who are laughing, playing games, or engaging in creative discussions about hobbies like photography, hiking, or cooking. Taylor's intentions revolve around joining in the fun activities, participating in casual conversations, and finding people who share his interests. He views the party as a chance to form friendships and explore new pastimes.
Each person's frame shapes their focus and actions in a given context, highlighting different aspects of the same environment based on their motivations and goals. Framing here is relevant to Snyder's Self-Monitoring scale that we covered in part two, showing how people differ in their sensitivity to social cues and their ability to modify their expressions and behaviors in response to these cues.
Moreover, we can integrate the concepts of attachment styles and network roles that we discussed in part four to better understand the framing behind Alex and Taylor's behaviors. Alex, with a secure attachment style, exhibits confidence in navigating social networks, aiming for professional growth as an Expansionist. His broad, strategic connections are designed to maximize social validation and minimize any potential sanctions within his professional community.
Taylor, potentially reflecting an anxious attachment style, seeks deeper, more personal connections, aligning with the role of a Convener in his social network. His focus on recreational activities and forming close friendships reveals a desire for reassurance and acceptance within a smaller, cohesive group.
By linking these theories to frame analysis, we can see how different peoples' intentions and actions in the same social environment are not only guided by their immediate goals but also by underlying social influences like attachment styles and network roles.
When I say that SAT is a lens for understanding the human need for validation, it's because it's a social framework. It gives us a structured way to understand how social validation and sanctioning processes operate within our society. This framework helps to recognize how behaviors, beliefs, values, and norms are accredited (validated) or sanctioned (penalized) by different social bodies and institutions, which I hope can give us more autonomy and agency in understanding how knowledge and social behaviors are validated through social feedback loops.
Thinking Outside the Box: How Your Brain Uses Stereotypes and Biases
Our brains are inherently social accreditation machines, constantly categorizing and judging our perceptions and experiences. This process helps us make quick, informed decisions necessary for survival. However, it can become problematic when used to sort and label people, leading to stereotypes and biases.
Heuristics are mental shortcuts that allow us to make decisions, pass judgments, or solve problems quickly with minimal mental effort, saving time and energy. Psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky developed the study of heuristics, identifying several types, including the availability heuristic, representativeness heuristic, and anchoring effect.
- Availability Heuristic: Estimating the likelihood of events based on how easily certain examples come to mind. After seeing news reports about airplane crashes, people might overestimate the likelihood of being involved in an airplane crash. Even though airplane travel is statistically very safe, the vivid and recent examples of crashes that come easily to mind make them seem more common than they are.
- Representativeness Heuristic: Judging the probability of an event based on its similarity to already known events. Suppose someone meets a person who is very quiet, analytical, and loves reading. They might just assume this person is a librarian because the traits match their image of a librarian. This judgment is based on how representative the person is of their idea of a librarian, not on actual probabilities.
- Anchoring Effect: Relying too heavily on the first piece of information encountered (the “anchor”) when making decisions. Imagine during a job interview, the employer asks the candidate what their current salary is. The candidate says $50,000. The employer’s offer will likely be influenced by this figure. If they were initially considering offering $60,000, they might now offer $55,000, using the candidate’s current salary as an anchor.
While heuristics can lead to correct conclusions, they also result in biases and errors deviating from logical reasoning. In everyday decision-making, heuristics are faster and require less cognitive effort than structured, rule-based reasoning. These cognitive shortcuts align with societal norms and values (explicit accreditation) and influence the unconscious validations and heuristics (implicit accreditation) we hold.
Framing plays a crucial role in social accreditation by distinguishing between behaviors or beliefs that are accredited (in-group) and those that are not (out-group). This can reinforce social cohesion within groups sharing similar frames while contributing to social exclusion or stigma against those outside, leading to binary thinking and an "us vs. them" mindset.
Binary thinking simplifies complex realities into two mutually exclusive categories, reinforcing rigid social norms and hindering nuanced understanding and adaptive social accreditation. Many cultures encourage binary thinking by promoting norms and categories in polarized dichotomies, such as good vs. bad. This can lead to the development of prejudices, framing models using stereotypes and biases.
Stereotypes are oversimplified generalizations about a group of people, often based on incomplete or biased information. Biases are tendencies to think in certain ways that deviate from rationality or objectivity. Both stereotypes and biases heavily influence framing by shaping how information is processed and perceived.
Stereotypes act as mental shortcuts, leading to unfair and inaccurate representations of individuals based on group characteristics. For instance, stereotypes about gender roles can frame women as less competent in leadership positions, affecting their social accreditation in professional environments.
Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, lead people to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs and ignore information that contradicts them. This bias reinforces pre-existing frames and can perpetuate misinformation and social inequities.
Another significant cognitive bias is the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes the phenomenon where people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability, while experts may underestimate their competence. The Dunning-Kruger effect highlights the importance of self-awareness and feedback in accurately assessing one’s abilities. Without it, social accreditation can become skewed, promoting people with explicit validations based on misplaced implicit feelings of confidence rather than true competence.
Stereotypes and biases not only influence individual perceptions but also impact broader social norms through accreditation processes. Media representations often rely on stereotypes, shaping public opinion and reinforcing existing biases. For instance, early 20th-century media often depicted Black Americans using harmful stereotypes, portraying them as animalistic, uneducated, or subservient. These representations reinforced biases and influenced public opinion and policy, such as segregation laws. Continuous portrayal of these stereotypes in media perpetuated discrimination and social exclusion, which took decades of civil rights activism to begin dismantling. (We'll come back to the topic of media representation in a future post!)
Similarly, before World War II, stereotypes reinforced the idea that women should primarily be homemakers while men were breadwinners. This bias was reflected in employment practices, where women were excluded from higher-paying jobs or leadership positions. During the war, women entered the workforce in larger numbers, proving their capabilities and slowly shifting the stereotype. However, the initial bias created a long-standing impact on gender roles that still affects workplace dynamics today.
These examples highlight the powerful role of framing in maintaining or challenging social structures. Stereotypes and biases create a recursive feedback loop: media and societal representations shape public perceptions, influencing behaviors and policies that reinforce the original stereotypes.
Navigating Dissonance and Illusions
As we can see, changing our frames and mental models isn't just possible, but often necessary. In part three, I shared Festinger's Social Comparison theory, or the idea that people evaluate their opinions and abilities by comparing themselves to others to reduce uncertainty and to learn how to define their self.
This intersects with the concept of social proof that I mentioned earlier, where we look to others' behaviors to guide our own actions, particularly in ambiguous situations. This shows how much of our behavior is driven by an assumption that other people possess more information about the correct course of action.
Another contribution Festinger's work made to psychology is in realizing that when people's beliefs and actions are inconsistent or contradictory with each other, they feel a mental discomfort or unease and then pursue some kind of change in their beliefs or actions to align better, just like with states of uncertainty.
Cognitive dissonance is the psychological state of tension caused by conflicting attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. Cognitive dissonance theory explains why people strive for consistency between their beliefs and actions, suggesting that the discomfort we feel from holding conflicting beliefs leads us to make drastic changes in our behavior or beliefs to reframe situations and reduce this dissonance, even by blindly believing whatever we want to believe.(Festinger, 1957).
For example, a person who values environmental conservation but drives a gas-guzzling car might feel dissonance as societal norms around driving strongly contradict eco-friendly practices. Although they love the planet and don't enjoy contributing to emissions, if everyone around them still uses gas powered cars, they might adjust their values to downplay the importance of environmental conservation or just rationalize that their car's emissions are not terribly impactful as to align their beliefs with their behavior.
The unspoken endorsement that comes from seeing others engage in specific behaviors reinforces implicit social norms and values, contributing to the internalization of these norms. People are then motivated to change their beliefs to better align with socially accredited norms when they believe the change will reduce their psychological discomfort and help them gain social approval.
But people will also change their behaviors to align with beliefs. Let's consider how a person who loves eating meat but lives in a community or family that really values vegetarianism might experience dissonance. To reduce it, they might also choose a vegetarian diet, thus aligning their behavior with the community's norms and gaining social approval, even though they really enjoy the taste of meat.
The desire to fit in can cause us to behave in ways or accept beliefs that don't align with our personal or private views because we fear that our personal views are in the minority or socially unacceptable. When framed with cognitive biases and logical fallacies, this desire for validation can lead us to join in collective illusions.
Collective illusions emerge when a large portion of a group or society holds false or misperceived beliefs due to social pressures, misinformation, or the misinterpretation of others' beliefs and behaviors. The need for social validation can lead people to conform to perceived group norms, even if those norms are based on collective illusions.
In a classroom, for example, students might all be confused about a certain topic but each kid will refrain from asking questions because they falsely believe they are the only ones struggling. This type of behavior is known as pluralistic ignorance, it happens when we mistakenly believe that our own beliefs, feelings, or behaviors are different from those of the group, despite acting similarly.
The bandwagon effect occurs when people adopt new beliefs or behaviors because of the bandwagon fallacy, where they perceive that many other people like them are doing the same thing. This is why during elections, voters may support a candidate simply because they believe that candidate is popular, regardless of their own knowledge about the candidate's policies or character.
Understanding these illusions is helpful for recognizing why certain behaviors persist and how social change can be enacted by addressing the discrepancy between public endorsement (explicit validation) and private disagreement (implicit sanctions).
For example, in Hans Christian Andersen's tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes" everyone in the kingdom pretends to see the emperor's new suit because they believe everyone else can see them and they don't want to appear foolish. It isn't until a naive child blurts out that the emperor is naked, that everyone drops the pretense and acknowledges that the clothes aren't there.
This story reveals how SAT can also be a tool for challenging collective illusions. When individuals or groups start to publicly question or reject a norm, this can disrupt the illusion and lead to a reevaluation of what is socially accredited. Over time, collective illusions can dissolve as more people feel empowered to express their private dissent publicly. This can shift what is implicitly and explicitly accredited in society, altering the landscape of social norms and values.
By understanding the effects of framing, cognitive dissonance, social proof, and collective illusions, we're gaining more insight into the mechanisms that sustain or challenge social accreditation processes. it's my belief that recognizing these dynamics allows us to more effectively address social problems and promote a more inclusive and adaptive framework for society.
As we encounter new ideas, technologies, or cultural influences, our collective epistemology evolves, leading to shifts in social norms and the accreditation of new or previously marginalized behaviors, beliefs, or identities.
Media is an effective contributor in this process. It can perpetuate our coginitive biases and collective illusions by repeatedly framing certain views or behaviors as normative and widely accepted, thus implicitly accrediting these norms through representation. Importantly, media can also challenge collective illusions and harmful biases by highlighting the discrepancy between public perception and private belief.
In the next post in the series, I will elaborate more on how various forms of media can serve as both normative and informational influences, depending on the context and narratives of specific media content. Thank you so much for reading this!
If you like this blog, buy me a coffee! https://ko-fi.com/callmebryy
References & Further Reading:
Aristotle. (1998). The Nicomachean Ethics (D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor Books.
Cukier, K., Mayer-Schönberger, V., & de Véricourt, F. (2021). Framers: Human advantage in an age of technology and turmoil. Dutton.
Dennett, D. C. (1978). Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. MIT Press.
Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and Society. Norton.
Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the Id. Hogarth Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Gaukroger, S. (2006). The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1210-1685. Oxford University Press.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harper & Row.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and Validation of Ego-Identity Status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551-558.
Plato. (1961). The Republic (B. Jowett, Trans.). Vintage
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic Ignorance and Alcohol Use on Campus: Some Consequences of Misperceiving the Social Norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(2), 243-256.
Rose, T. (2022). Collective illusions: Conformity, complicity, and the science of why we make bad decisions. Hachette Go.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.