Theodore Newcomb

Theodore Newcomb
Born July 24, 1903
Rock Creek, Ohio
Died December 28, 1984
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Nationality American
Fields Psychologist
Alma mater Columbia University
Doctoral students Joseph E. McGrath
Susan M. Ervin-Tripp
Known for Proximity principle

Theodore Mead Newcomb (July 24, 1903 – December 28, 1984) was an American social psychologist, professor and author. Newcomb led the Bennington College Study, which looked at the influence of the college experience on social and political beliefs. He was also the first to document the effects of proximity on acquaintance and attraction. Newcomb founded and directed the doctoral program in social psychology at the University of Michigan. A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Newcomb as the 57th most cited psychologist of the 20th century.[1]

Biography

Early life

Theodore Newcomb was born in Rock Creek, Ohio on July 24, 1903. His father was a minister. Newcomb attended small rural schools until he started high school in Cleveland. After graduating as valedictorian of his high school, Newcomb graduated from Oberlin College and attended Union Theological Seminary. While at seminary, Newcomb decided to become a psychologist. He completed a PhD at Columbia University in 1929.[2]

Career

Newcomb held academic appointments at Lehigh University (1929-1930), Case Western Reserve University (1930-1934), Bennington College (1934-1941) and the University of Michigan (1941-1972). He served in the military during World War II between 1942 and 1945. Shortly after his return from the war, Newcomb founded Michigan's Survey Research Center, which became the Institute for Social Research. He also founded Michigan's doctoral program in social psychology and he chaired the program from 1947 to 1953.[3] He was also editor of Psychological Review from 1954-1958 [4]

Death

Newcomb died at home in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1984. He had suffered a stroke three weeks earlier.[5]

Contributions

Acquaintance Process

One of Newcomb's greatest contributions involved his study of the acquaintance process. Newcomb offered 17 men entering college free rent as long as they recorded their attitudes, likes, and dislikes each week.[2][6] The study led to a number of principles of attraction that lead to the formation of groups both elaborated by Newcomb, and then later by other researchers.

Proximity Principle

(Further information: Proximity Principle)

The Proximity Principle is the tendency for individuals to associate, befriend, and be attracted to those who are nearby. Newcomb assigned each of the young men in his Bennington College study into their rooms at random. Therefore, they were each paired with a roommate at random. Despite the random assignment most of the roommates were close friends by the end of the study.[6]

These results have been further corroborated by findings showing students becoming friends with students adjacent to them in assigned seating, and college students sending more emails to students in nearby dorms as opposed to far away.[6][7]

Elaboration Principle

(Further information: Elaboration Principle)

The Elaboration Principle is the tendency for groups to form when smaller groups (e.g. dyads and triads) develop ties and linkages to form larger more functional groups. Essentially, core group members tend to reach out and create new acquaintances, allowing the group to expand through the Elaboration Principle.[6]

Newcomb found that many of the dyads in his Bennington College study consisted of roommates and individuals in adjoining rooms. These soon grew as other individuals became attracted to members of these dyads, allowing the smaller groups to grow and amalgamate.[6]

This has been further corroborated by studies observing groups of individuals like peer-groups, and social movements.[6]

Similarity Principle

The Similarity principle is the tendency for individuals to join groups in which the members are similar to them in some way. Newcomb found that his sample consisted of two main sub-groups. A group of nine and a group of seven (One young man was outside both of these groups, adding to the total of 17 men). The two sub-groups were separated by both their interests and backgrounds. For example, one group favored liberal politics and religious ideas, were enrolled in the arts college, were from the same part of the country, as well they shared comparable aesthetic, social, and theoretical views. The other group, however, were all veterans, engineering majors, and shared comparable political, religious, and economic views.[6]

The types of similarities that can attract group members to each other can be related to values, attitudes, and beliefs. They can also consist of more irrelevant similarities such as race, sex, age, and other demographic factors.[8]

Other Principles of Attraction

These additional principles that grew out of Newcomb's initial work have been worked on mostly by other researchers, and some have had conflicting findings within the research.[6]

Complementarity Principle

The tendency for individuals to seek members that are dissimilar in ways that fit well with the other group members. For example, someone who enjoys leading would fit well with followers as opposed to other leaders.[6]

Some research has found that in dyads similarity is much more common a reason to join a group,[9] while other studies have found close groups will often have complimentary, but dissimilar needs.[10]

Reciprocity Principle

The tendency for individuals to respond favorably when others accept them or act approvingly towards them. Individuals tend to reciprocate liking with liking.[6]

Newcomb and others have found evidence for the principle.[6][11]

Minmax Principle

The tendency for individuals, as rational creatures, to seek out groups that offer the cost and the greatest.[6]

Works

See also

References

  1. ↑ Haggbloom, Steven J.; Warnick, Jason E.; Jones, Vinessa K.; Yarbrough, Gary L.; Russell, Tenea M.; Borecky, Chris M.; McGahhey, Reagan; et al. (2002). "The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century". Review of General Psychology. 6 (2): 139–152. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.139.
  2. 1 2 Biographical Memoirs, Vol. 64. National Academies Press. 1994. pp. 322–335.
  3. ↑ "Theodore Mead Newcomb Papers: Biography". Michigan Historical Collections. Bentley Historical Library. Retrieved March 16, 2013.
  4. ↑ Kintsch, Walter; Cacioppo, John T. (1994). "Introduction to the 100th Anniversary Issue of the Psychological Review". Psychological Review. 101 (2): 195–199. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.195.
  5. ↑ "Theodore M. Newcomb Dies; Pioneer in Social Psychology". The New York Times. December 31, 1984. Retrieved March 16, 2013.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Forsyth, Donelson (2009). "Chapter 4". Group Dynamics. Cengage Learning. ISBN 0495599522.
  7. ↑ Sacerdote, Bruce; Marmaros, David (2005). "How do friendships form?". National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series.
  8. ↑ Lazarfeld, Paul; Merton, Robert (1954). "Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis". In Berger, Morroe; Abel, Theodore; Page, Charles. Freedom and Control in Modern Society. New York: Van Norstrand. pp. 18–66.
  9. ↑ Miller, Rowland; Perlman, Daniel; Brehm, Sharon (2007). Intimate Relationships. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
  10. ↑ O'Connor, Brian; Dyce, J. A. (1997). "Interpersonal rigidity, hostility, and complementarity in musical bands". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 72: 362–372. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.362.
  11. ↑ Newcomb, Theodore (1979). "Reciprocity of interpersonal attraction: A nonconfirmation of a plausible hypothesis". Social Psychology Quarterly. 42: 299–306. doi:10.2307/3033801.
  12. ↑ https://archive.org/details/socialpsychology00innewc
Educational offices
Preceded by
E. Lowell Kelly		 65th President of the American Psychological Association
1956-57 		Succeeded by
Lee J. Cronbach
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 10/26/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.