Social Psychophysiology As a
Paradigm
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., &
Andersen, B. L. (1988). Social
psychophysiology as a paradigm. In H.
L. Wagner (Ed.), Social
psychophysiology and emotion: Theory
and clinical applications (pp. 273-294).
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Introduction
 Early emphasis: “The techniques provide
nonverbal, objective, relatively bias-free
indices of human reaction that have some
the same appeal as gestural, postural,
and other indicators of covert response”
(Shapiro & Schwartz, 1970, pp. 89-90;
quoted from Cacioppo, et al., 1988, p.
273).
 Disappointment:
 Physiological measures may be less
susceptible to response biases but they are
vulnerable to instructional sets, intentional
distortion, and social biases.
 There are individual differences in type of
arousal (e.g., during arousal, heart rate
increases for some people but decreases for
others).
 Some critics suggested that these problems
invalidated the usefulness of physiological
measurement.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Contemporary Thinking
 Physiological measurement still
contributes important information to
understanding human behavior.
 Recent evidence suggests that
physiological measurement provides
meaningful data (e.g., Gottman’s
research).
 Phenomena of the Third Type
 Evidence suggests that interpreting
psychophysiological measurement is best
done via consideration of social variables as
moderating variables.
 Social psychophysiology has contributed to
theory development.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Psychophysiological Comparison
Processes (Table 14.1)
 Assumptions
 Principle 1: People are motivated to evaluate
unexplained signs and symptoms.
 Principle 2: Signs and symptoms need neither
be perceived accurately in terms of their
underlying physiological causes nor be based
on actual changes in physiological functioning.
 Principle 3: The motive to maintain an
explicable physiological condition is not limited
to changes in arousal.
 Antecedents
 Principle 4: The strength of the motive to
evaluate a sign or symptom is a function of the
unexpectedness, salience, perceived
consequences and personal relevance of the
bodily reactions.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Psychophysiological Comparison
Processes (cont.)
 Selection of a Comparison Stimulus
 Principle 5: To the extent that a motive to evaluate
a perceived bodily response has been aroused,
the evaluation involves a comparison of detected
bodily events with the presumed consequences of
physiological conditions and situational stimuli.
 Principle 6: The tendency to select a particular
stimulus for purposes of psychophysiological
comparison increases as a function of the
salience of the stimulus and the perceived
similarity between the sign or symptom and the
presumed physiological effects of the stimulus.
 Principle 7: The evaluation of a sign or symptom is
hedonically biased.
 Principle 8: The less specific the sign or symptom,
the greater the number of potential comparison
stimuli, the greater the likelihood of erroneous
selections of comparison stimuli and,
consequently, the greater the likelihood of
erroneous inferences regarding the causeand
implications of the bodily response and the more
susceptible to change are these inferences.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Psychophysiological Comparison
Processes (cont.)
 Consequences of Failing to Find a
Comparison Stimulus
 Principle 9: To the extent that a motive to
evaluate a sign or symptom has been
aroused, but a comparison stimulus cannot be
found that is believed to have similar
physiological effects, the implicit theories
people have about salient comparison stimuli
influence their attention to and detection of a
bodily response.
 Principle 10: To the extent that a motive to
evaluate a sign or symptom has been
aroused, but a comparison stimulus cannot be
found that is believed to have similar
physiological effects, the detected bodily
response influences people's implicit theories
of the physiological effects of salient
comparison stimuli.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Empirical Examination of
Psychophysiological Comparison Processes
 Major Theme: “[T]he development of a
mutually stimulating interdisciplinary
approach, wherein there is joint consideration
of the inherent biological and social nature of
behavior, requires that the approach lead the
way in explorations for new and important
aspects of human nature” (p. 285).
 Research question: Does the model
described in 14.1 facilitate understanding of
the processes involved in appraisal delay
(time lapse between when a person first
notices symptoms and the time the person
concluded that s/he was ill) among cancer
patients (n = 47 )?
 Shorter delay is associated with more
favorable prognisis. Appraisal delay
accounted for 70 percent of the total delay
period in this sample.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Empirical Examination of
Psychophysiological Comparison Processes
 Results seemed to support a number of
the principles. A few examples follow:
 Principle 1: there was a positive correlation
between number of unexplained symptoms
and number of explanations generated to try
to understand their presence.
 Principle 3: initial detection of symptoms
seemed to be associated with physical signs
but not physiological arousal.
 Principle 4: salience of symptoms seemed to
be associated with motivation to evaluate
them.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson