From disorder to coherence in social psychology

Krueger & Funder (KF Kenrick et al. 2003; Vallacher & Nowak 1994). This very fragmentation, however, has fueled efforts to achieve theoretical synthesis and has resulted in several promising meta-theories. Two purported syntheses in particular – evolutionary psychology and dynamical social psychology – are noteworthy. Both perspectives confirm the functional nature of human thought and action by focusing on apparent exceptions (i.e., nonrational or undesirable manifestations). Evolutionary psychology (cf. Buss 2004) is explicitly concerned with people’s success in meeting adaptive challenges, both interpersonal and environmental. But insights into evolved mechanisms have stemmed in part from research exposing aspects of human nature that seem dysfunctional. For example, the tendency to favor in-group members and to derogate out-group members, revealed in research on social stereotyping and conflict, is a manifestation of a proclivity for forming social bonds and alliances in one’s local group that has beneficial (or at least benign) consequences most of the time. In similar fashion, although some unsavory consequences of sexual jealousy, such as spousal homicide, may have received disproportionate attention relative to their base rate occurrence, this research has highlighted the evolved design of human psychology. The dynamical perspective emphasizes the tendency for systems of interacting elements to achieve higher-order coherence as well as the expression of this self-organization tendency in specific personal and interpersonal contexts (cf. Vallacher et al.). The juxtaposition of specific thoughts and memories promotes the emergence of coherent global judgments on the part of individuals, for example, whereas social interactions in a group promote the emergence of group-level beliefs and values. The failure to achieve personal and interpersonal coherence is distressful and is associated with a host of problems (e.g., ambivalence, in-group conflict). But, although a press for higher-order coherence is functional, it also may qualify as a fundamental principle underlying a wide range of cognitive and behavioral shortcomings. In the attempt to achieve and maintain coherence, people distort or suppress information, show irrational susceptibility to influence, and ostracize or derogate others with different notions of social and physical reality. The emergence of higher-order coherence is a fundamental (and hence, unifying) feature of complex systems in all areas of science (cf. Strogatz 2003), and there is reason to think that this feature underlies the adaptive and apparently maladaptive aspects of human nature. Laypeople strive for mental coherence, groups of interacting individuals strive for social coherence, and scientists strive for theoretical coherence. In each case, the press for coherence is fueled by disorder and complexity in the system’s components. From this perspective, the laundry list of human foibles that K&F decry may provide the elements for a unified view of social thought and behavior – a view that emphasizes our strengths and capabilities as well as our weaknesses and limitations. Commentary/Krueger & Funder: Problem-seeking approach to social behavior and cognition 356 BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2004) 27:3