Shuttleworth, M. (2008). The bobo doll experiment.
Retrieved October 30, 2008, from Experiment-Resources website:
http://www.experiment-resources.com/bobo-doll-experiment.html
I like this experiment due to the fact that is shows a lot of impact on adult to child conformity. In a previous reading it confermed that older adults conform more than young children. I was thrown off by that reading because I feel that young children will conform to their elders because that is all they know. This study shows children follow the examples of what older people are doing to try and be like them. This is a good example that makes one realize, as parents, they need to be careful in what they do because their children will grow up doing the same thing.
I think it would be interesting to do this same experiment with older children. These children would range from ages 14-21. One could place children of an older age with a younger age, and two of about the same age in the room. I predict that each person will conform to the one that acts more powerful and strong. This would be due to the feeling of being accepted.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Increasing the Complaince of Preschoolers
Good News For Parents: Psychologist Increases Preschooler Compliance in Study
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/52957.php
This study, which was conducted in 2006, checked into seeing on how to raise the compliance of preschoolers. They did this by following a three step system that is not very well known. They did this study for different preschool kids for twice-a-week sessions for about a six month period. The three step system went like this. First off, the instructor gave out a direct request like "Put the toy away" to the kid. If the kid carried out the action to the request, then he or she would get praise from the instructor. But if the kid didn't do it, then the instuctor would make direct eye contact with the kid and would say the kid's name. The instructor then would tell the kid their same request and show him or her about what they wanted accomplished. If the kid carried out the action to the request the second time, he or she would still get praise from the instructor. But if once again the kid didn't carry out the action from the request in about 10 seconds, the instructor would say the request again as well as leading the kid towards carrying out the action. The conductors also looked at consistency in this study in which they used three different levels. The first level was 100% consistency in which the instructor completely followed the three step system of raising compliance, while the second level was 50% consistency in which the instructors followed the three step model for only 50% of the time. But for the third level, it was 0% consistency in which the instructors didn't carry out the three step system. What they found was that compliance raised the most when the instructors completely carried out the three step system and that there was really no progress in raising compliance when the instructors carried out the three step system at 0% consistency. Even though, I do admit that these results aren't really surprising. I really liked the statement by the main conductor of this study in which it is better for parents not to give off any negative emotions especially in the later steps of this system when parents are following this three step method to raise their kids' compliance . I definitely know that most kids will most likely carry out a action from request if the parents act positive towards them. If the parent raises their voice, the kid might lash back at them or show another negative emotion like crying. This might lead the kid to not carry out the task at that moment.
Even though, I do wonder if the factors of compliance that we learned about in class had or might have an effect in this study. I question that with the kids that complied on the first try, that they might have been in better moods compared to the kids that complied on later tries. The reason that the kids might have not complied the first time could have based on them getting mad about something else from earlier in the day and ended up keeping that same bad mood for most of the day. I also wonder if the instructors would have given reasons to their requests to the kids the first time. This might have improved these kids' compliance.
I also wonder about how many parents ended up using this three step system to help with their kids' compliance. Obviously with this method not being well-known, the number isn't probably really high. When the parents decided to use this three step system, I was also curious about how consistent these parents followed the three step system. This is especially important, because consistency was a big time factor in this study to help to bring up the kids' complaince.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/52957.php
This study, which was conducted in 2006, checked into seeing on how to raise the compliance of preschoolers. They did this by following a three step system that is not very well known. They did this study for different preschool kids for twice-a-week sessions for about a six month period. The three step system went like this. First off, the instructor gave out a direct request like "Put the toy away" to the kid. If the kid carried out the action to the request, then he or she would get praise from the instructor. But if the kid didn't do it, then the instuctor would make direct eye contact with the kid and would say the kid's name. The instructor then would tell the kid their same request and show him or her about what they wanted accomplished. If the kid carried out the action to the request the second time, he or she would still get praise from the instructor. But if once again the kid didn't carry out the action from the request in about 10 seconds, the instructor would say the request again as well as leading the kid towards carrying out the action. The conductors also looked at consistency in this study in which they used three different levels. The first level was 100% consistency in which the instructor completely followed the three step system of raising compliance, while the second level was 50% consistency in which the instructors followed the three step model for only 50% of the time. But for the third level, it was 0% consistency in which the instructors didn't carry out the three step system. What they found was that compliance raised the most when the instructors completely carried out the three step system and that there was really no progress in raising compliance when the instructors carried out the three step system at 0% consistency. Even though, I do admit that these results aren't really surprising. I really liked the statement by the main conductor of this study in which it is better for parents not to give off any negative emotions especially in the later steps of this system when parents are following this three step method to raise their kids' compliance . I definitely know that most kids will most likely carry out a action from request if the parents act positive towards them. If the parent raises their voice, the kid might lash back at them or show another negative emotion like crying. This might lead the kid to not carry out the task at that moment.
Even though, I do wonder if the factors of compliance that we learned about in class had or might have an effect in this study. I question that with the kids that complied on the first try, that they might have been in better moods compared to the kids that complied on later tries. The reason that the kids might have not complied the first time could have based on them getting mad about something else from earlier in the day and ended up keeping that same bad mood for most of the day. I also wonder if the instructors would have given reasons to their requests to the kids the first time. This might have improved these kids' compliance.
I also wonder about how many parents ended up using this three step system to help with their kids' compliance. Obviously with this method not being well-known, the number isn't probably really high. When the parents decided to use this three step system, I was also curious about how consistent these parents followed the three step system. This is especially important, because consistency was a big time factor in this study to help to bring up the kids' complaince.
Social Loafing with a Gang Rape?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/29/california.rape.victim.friend/index.html
Friend of gang rape victim blasts school officials over safety
To be sure, this was a very horrible crime and there was no reason people shouldn't have called 911. Is it possible though that the reason no one came to help is because no one wanted to be responsible? If ten to fifteen people were involved in the assault and rape of this one girl, is it all that unreasonable that no one would go and stop the perpetrators, themselves? If ten people all watched and did nothing about it, maybe it's because they figured someone else would call the police and get involved.
According to the readings for this class, the cause for social loafing in this context mostly has to do with the third reason which is:
"It may be that participants
felt that the contingency between their input and the outcome was
lessened when performing in groups. Individuals could "hide in the crowd"
(Davis, 1969) and avoid the negative consequences of slacking off, or they may
have felt "lost in the crowd" and unable to obtain their fair share of the positive
consequences for working hard. People can receive neither precise credit nor appropriate
blame for their performance."
It's possible that someone would assume someone else would call 911. Another thing is that they may be hiding in the crowd because they want to help but don't want to be responsible for making the situation worse. I think most people who watched wanted to do the right thing, but were too shocked and too afraid to stand up do the right thing and call 911.
Was there a lack of responsibility with the school? Absolutely. Security guards and the assistant Principal should have checked identification and both had the authority to kick non-authorized people off the grounds. However, I don't think we can blame an individual for not wanting to confront a group of ten people that is currently beating and raping someone.
Friend of gang rape victim blasts school officials over safety
To be sure, this was a very horrible crime and there was no reason people shouldn't have called 911. Is it possible though that the reason no one came to help is because no one wanted to be responsible? If ten to fifteen people were involved in the assault and rape of this one girl, is it all that unreasonable that no one would go and stop the perpetrators, themselves? If ten people all watched and did nothing about it, maybe it's because they figured someone else would call the police and get involved.
According to the readings for this class, the cause for social loafing in this context mostly has to do with the third reason which is:
"It may be that participants
felt that the contingency between their input and the outcome was
lessened when performing in groups. Individuals could "hide in the crowd"
(Davis, 1969) and avoid the negative consequences of slacking off, or they may
have felt "lost in the crowd" and unable to obtain their fair share of the positive
consequences for working hard. People can receive neither precise credit nor appropriate
blame for their performance."
It's possible that someone would assume someone else would call 911. Another thing is that they may be hiding in the crowd because they want to help but don't want to be responsible for making the situation worse. I think most people who watched wanted to do the right thing, but were too shocked and too afraid to stand up do the right thing and call 911.
Was there a lack of responsibility with the school? Absolutely. Security guards and the assistant Principal should have checked identification and both had the authority to kick non-authorized people off the grounds. However, I don't think we can blame an individual for not wanting to confront a group of ten people that is currently beating and raping someone.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Bimbos and Rambos: The Cognitive Basis of Gender Stereotypes
Margaret W. Matlin
http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_112.aspx
In this article the author presents how she feels gender stereotypes influence our cognitive processes and also how the media contributes to the stereotypes continuing. Margaret Matlin suggests that one of the biggest ways people stereotype in general is based on gender. She gives four really great examples of how gender plays a role in the way we divide people into groups. Her first example is labeled “Gender Polarization” which is habitual and automatic splitting of people into either the male category or the female category. Margaret suggests that we tend to see the members in the male group as being very similar to each other and likewise with the members of the female group. However, we see the two groups as wholes being extremely different from each other. Her second example was in the way that we have different expectations for males and females. Here she cited a study done with infants and a jack-in-the-box and their reaction to it. Participants in this study, if thinking the infant was a male, attributed the crying response as anger; if thinking the infant was female, attributed the crying response as fear. They were not told the actual gender of the infant; they were led to believe the infant was one sex or the other, sometimes falsely. The third example she gives states that we view the males attributions as the “norm” and therefore females are measured based on that “norm”. The fourth example is “Remembering Gender Consistent Information”, here she states that people are more likely to recall facts about a person if the fact is consistent with what is considered to be the norm for their gender.
As for how the media contributes to stereotyping she lists again four ways in which this happens. Number one is that women are underrepresented in the media in general. Number two is the way that women’s and men’s bodies are represented differently in the media. For example, women are usually shown in a provocative manner, where men are usually shown as standing tall and looking competent. Number three is women and men are shown doing different activities, they are shown doing only the activities that are consistent with their gender norm. Number four is how women of “color” are represented in an especially biased way. She suggests that women who are not caucasian are shown in more exaggerated sexual ways, if they are shown at all, then women who are caucasian.
I thought that all of the author’s suggestions as to how we divide people into groups based on gender were true and accurate. However, I felt that her suggestions regarding the media were slightly outdated. I would like to believe that we now use guys as sex objects in advertisements as well as women. Also, that there has been increased use of all races in ads in the media. I think that there is less definition between what activities are the norm for each gender to be shown performing. I felt as a whole this was an interesting view on how we use gender stereotyping.
http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_112.aspx
In this article the author presents how she feels gender stereotypes influence our cognitive processes and also how the media contributes to the stereotypes continuing. Margaret Matlin suggests that one of the biggest ways people stereotype in general is based on gender. She gives four really great examples of how gender plays a role in the way we divide people into groups. Her first example is labeled “Gender Polarization” which is habitual and automatic splitting of people into either the male category or the female category. Margaret suggests that we tend to see the members in the male group as being very similar to each other and likewise with the members of the female group. However, we see the two groups as wholes being extremely different from each other. Her second example was in the way that we have different expectations for males and females. Here she cited a study done with infants and a jack-in-the-box and their reaction to it. Participants in this study, if thinking the infant was a male, attributed the crying response as anger; if thinking the infant was female, attributed the crying response as fear. They were not told the actual gender of the infant; they were led to believe the infant was one sex or the other, sometimes falsely. The third example she gives states that we view the males attributions as the “norm” and therefore females are measured based on that “norm”. The fourth example is “Remembering Gender Consistent Information”, here she states that people are more likely to recall facts about a person if the fact is consistent with what is considered to be the norm for their gender.
As for how the media contributes to stereotyping she lists again four ways in which this happens. Number one is that women are underrepresented in the media in general. Number two is the way that women’s and men’s bodies are represented differently in the media. For example, women are usually shown in a provocative manner, where men are usually shown as standing tall and looking competent. Number three is women and men are shown doing different activities, they are shown doing only the activities that are consistent with their gender norm. Number four is how women of “color” are represented in an especially biased way. She suggests that women who are not caucasian are shown in more exaggerated sexual ways, if they are shown at all, then women who are caucasian.
I thought that all of the author’s suggestions as to how we divide people into groups based on gender were true and accurate. However, I felt that her suggestions regarding the media were slightly outdated. I would like to believe that we now use guys as sex objects in advertisements as well as women. Also, that there has been increased use of all races in ads in the media. I think that there is less definition between what activities are the norm for each gender to be shown performing. I felt as a whole this was an interesting view on how we use gender stereotyping.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
What Women Want Now
Gibbs, N. (2009, October 26). What Women Want Now. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from Time.com: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1930277_1930145_1930309-1,00.html
Recent class discussions interested me in finding out where sexism stands currently. This month Time magazine featured ‘The State of the American Woman’ and included many articles and statistics about men, women, society, and ‘The Quiet Revolution’. Time surveyed individuals to find out how they feel about gender issues.
Over this past generation, women have quietly worked their way into being equal or dominating in several professions and are being recognized for accomplishments in the professional world. Women are still not as successful in equality regarding pay and other financial related matters. Women say that men have it better in the work world while men say that women don’t have barriers in the workplace as they did in the past. Something I found very interesting is that men consider marriage very important to happiness while women no longer see marriage as necessary to financial security or having children. Marriages now share resolving life’s challenges together as a team. They are also sharing more duties in the home. Overall, men are more accepting of women having careers and shared roles at home. I interpreted this article as saying most men are really OK with this whole revolution, whereas women are the ones that are less happy with what is going on. Could it be that women are still searching for the balance between work and home since it is a relatively new combination of roles and men welcome sharing the stresses of life?
The battle of the sexes is over as far as social acceptance according to this article. Ambivalent sexism is no longer prevalent. Institutional issues still prevail and need to change with the times to provide financial equality for women. Modern life has created many new stresses for everyone. Men and women are affected by these stresses very differently. Women have gained freedom and power in this generation, but the stress involved is costing them their happiness. As life continues to change, we have to learn to change with it. While I am a thankful recipient of the advances in equality, this article left the devil’s advocate in me wondering…have we, as women, have created more stress for ourselves in striving to eliminate sexism and creating equality?
Recent class discussions interested me in finding out where sexism stands currently. This month Time magazine featured ‘The State of the American Woman’ and included many articles and statistics about men, women, society, and ‘The Quiet Revolution’. Time surveyed individuals to find out how they feel about gender issues.
Over this past generation, women have quietly worked their way into being equal or dominating in several professions and are being recognized for accomplishments in the professional world. Women are still not as successful in equality regarding pay and other financial related matters. Women say that men have it better in the work world while men say that women don’t have barriers in the workplace as they did in the past. Something I found very interesting is that men consider marriage very important to happiness while women no longer see marriage as necessary to financial security or having children. Marriages now share resolving life’s challenges together as a team. They are also sharing more duties in the home. Overall, men are more accepting of women having careers and shared roles at home. I interpreted this article as saying most men are really OK with this whole revolution, whereas women are the ones that are less happy with what is going on. Could it be that women are still searching for the balance between work and home since it is a relatively new combination of roles and men welcome sharing the stresses of life?
The battle of the sexes is over as far as social acceptance according to this article. Ambivalent sexism is no longer prevalent. Institutional issues still prevail and need to change with the times to provide financial equality for women. Modern life has created many new stresses for everyone. Men and women are affected by these stresses very differently. Women have gained freedom and power in this generation, but the stress involved is costing them their happiness. As life continues to change, we have to learn to change with it. While I am a thankful recipient of the advances in equality, this article left the devil’s advocate in me wondering…have we, as women, have created more stress for ourselves in striving to eliminate sexism and creating equality?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Myths of Racial Perceptions
Banks, Tyra. (2009, March 23). Myths of Racial Perception[Video File]. Retrieved from http://showhype.com/video/racial_stereotypes_on_tyra_banks_show_arabics_african/
This episode of the Tyra Banks show tied in with our recent class discussions about stereotyping and prejudice. This show had a group of about 12 people who watched several different scenarios and were then asked for their interpretation of what they saw. The group consisted of a variety of races from different parts of the US. They were all well spoken and most seemed well educated. The scenarios included video of interracial dating, a caucasian man chasing an african-american man down the street, an Arabic man carrying a large package down the street, and a causcasian woman with 3 children walking down the street compared to an african-american woman with 3 kids walking down the street.
Typical stereotypes were very strong and evident. It was admitted these beliefs were passed down from family and some from the media. Being well educated did not override what was learned from family. One unfortunate aspect of this group was that both caucasian people were from the south and both were admittedly racist. What surprised me was the negative stereotyping found within ingroups, or amongst one’s own race. One african-american woman preferred to date caucasian men because they are more on the same intellectual level as she is than african-american men. An arabic man refused to be seen with his mother in her head scarf and admitted having disgust towards his race and lying about his race to others. The show ended with the hope that we are changing negative stereotypes amongst our nations youth as demonstrated by attitudes that were changed from before Barack Obama was nominated as a presidential candidate to what children thought after that nomination. The show also seemed to show how through exposure to different races and education we can change these negative stereotypes, or at least among the members of the group that participated in these exercises.
When we think about how we can overcome stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination it becomes even more complicated when there are negative attitudes and beliefs amongst ingroups as well as between different races. In my opinion, we have come a long way in reducing negative stereotypes over time. I doubt we will ever see a day when negative stereotypes no longer exist, but with more time and encouraging exposure to different races and cultures it seems that we will continue to see greater acceptance of one another no matter what ingroup or outgroup we are members of.
This episode of the Tyra Banks show tied in with our recent class discussions about stereotyping and prejudice. This show had a group of about 12 people who watched several different scenarios and were then asked for their interpretation of what they saw. The group consisted of a variety of races from different parts of the US. They were all well spoken and most seemed well educated. The scenarios included video of interracial dating, a caucasian man chasing an african-american man down the street, an Arabic man carrying a large package down the street, and a causcasian woman with 3 children walking down the street compared to an african-american woman with 3 kids walking down the street.
Typical stereotypes were very strong and evident. It was admitted these beliefs were passed down from family and some from the media. Being well educated did not override what was learned from family. One unfortunate aspect of this group was that both caucasian people were from the south and both were admittedly racist. What surprised me was the negative stereotyping found within ingroups, or amongst one’s own race. One african-american woman preferred to date caucasian men because they are more on the same intellectual level as she is than african-american men. An arabic man refused to be seen with his mother in her head scarf and admitted having disgust towards his race and lying about his race to others. The show ended with the hope that we are changing negative stereotypes amongst our nations youth as demonstrated by attitudes that were changed from before Barack Obama was nominated as a presidential candidate to what children thought after that nomination. The show also seemed to show how through exposure to different races and education we can change these negative stereotypes, or at least among the members of the group that participated in these exercises.
When we think about how we can overcome stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination it becomes even more complicated when there are negative attitudes and beliefs amongst ingroups as well as between different races. In my opinion, we have come a long way in reducing negative stereotypes over time. I doubt we will ever see a day when negative stereotypes no longer exist, but with more time and encouraging exposure to different races and cultures it seems that we will continue to see greater acceptance of one another no matter what ingroup or outgroup we are members of.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Will the Government Discriminate Against Obesity?
http://www.slate.com/id/2233119/
This article is all about the possibility of instituting a fat tax on the American public. It does a really good job of expressing the government’s side of the story but what about citizens affected by this? For one thing, if we are going to be on a national healthcare plan, obese people are more likely to develop medical conditions, therefore costing the government more money. On the other hand, what right does the government have to tax you on your weight? Shouldn’t that remain a personal issue? Well, to be fair, the article states that deductions will be given to those who are a healthy weight or achieve a certain goal weight. What it comes down to is that overweight people will pay more.
Although we think we are making strides in prejudice in this country we find that minorities still feel they aren’t treated equally. Blacks and Hispanics make less than whites with similar educations. And now we are beginning to accept discrimination of obesity? I can see the government’s side of the story, it makes cents. However, where do we go from here? With proposals to tax soda like cigarettes because they are unhealthy is really putting social pressure on the overweight. How is this discrimination okay? I wonder what type of social repercussions this sort of accepted discrimination will have? Will it spur more prejudice towards the obese? It definitely goes against the contact hypothesis that states if we want groups to reduce prejudice there must be a social norm favoring equality, which a fat tax clearly wouldn’t do.
This article is all about the possibility of instituting a fat tax on the American public. It does a really good job of expressing the government’s side of the story but what about citizens affected by this? For one thing, if we are going to be on a national healthcare plan, obese people are more likely to develop medical conditions, therefore costing the government more money. On the other hand, what right does the government have to tax you on your weight? Shouldn’t that remain a personal issue? Well, to be fair, the article states that deductions will be given to those who are a healthy weight or achieve a certain goal weight. What it comes down to is that overweight people will pay more.
Although we think we are making strides in prejudice in this country we find that minorities still feel they aren’t treated equally. Blacks and Hispanics make less than whites with similar educations. And now we are beginning to accept discrimination of obesity? I can see the government’s side of the story, it makes cents. However, where do we go from here? With proposals to tax soda like cigarettes because they are unhealthy is really putting social pressure on the overweight. How is this discrimination okay? I wonder what type of social repercussions this sort of accepted discrimination will have? Will it spur more prejudice towards the obese? It definitely goes against the contact hypothesis that states if we want groups to reduce prejudice there must be a social norm favoring equality, which a fat tax clearly wouldn’t do.
Looking at Stereotypes
Kanazawa, Satoshi. "All stereotypes are true, except I: What are stereotypes?" April 24, 2008.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/all-stereotypes-are-true-except-i-what-are-stereotypes.
This interesting article, which comes from an evolutionary psychologist, examines the topic of stereotypes. I felt that the author made some good remarks about this subject in which some of it resembles what we went over in class. He says that most scientists describe stereotypes as being empirical generalizations, which are general ideas that come from experiences or a widespread amount of evidence and that are usually true in most instances. Even though, I do know that stereo-typing doesn't just come from our first hand experiences. It also comes from things that we see in movies and television as well as coming from experiences from people that we are associated with. I definitely agree with the author that stereotypes aren't necessarily a good thing or a bad thing. I do realize that we all do hold stereotypes in some form or another. Even though, we don't admit this at times. Just like we discussed in class, it helps us to find a way to deal with unfamiliar situations when we are around an individual of a certain group or a group that we aren't around too much. One thing that gets us in trouble when it comes to stereotyping is that we might look too much into the beliefs that we have about the individual of that certain group. This can limit our chances to get to know them in which we don't realize that not everyone in a certain group fits underneath our beliefs that we have about that certain group. We do know that most times, stereotypes about someone in a certain group or a group are true. Different types of evidence throughout history has shown this. The author makes the statement referring to this that stereotypes won't last long if proven to be wrong. He also says that research has actually ended up proving some stereotypes to be untrue in the past. It would be interesting to see in the future if other stereotypes will be proven to be wrong.
The author makes a fascinating statement about how stereotypes are formed. He says that when empirical generalization comes about from an observation that is clarified to be true in most cases, then an individual or a group might end up disagreeing with how they or their group are being percieved by others. This ends up forming a stereotype. When most people think about stereotypes just like prejudice, they usually think of it as a bad thing. Many people worry that others would hold negative beliefs about them based on them belonging to a certain group. It takes a lot of energy out of them and can hamper them from achieving certain things. This definitely shown through the idea that we looked into from our readings, which was the stereotype threat. Also just like prejudice, stereotypes can either be good or bad. Just like I said earlier, many people don't consider certain beliefs about groups or individuals to be stereotypes unless someone or others in a certain group is negatively affected by those beliefs.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/all-stereotypes-are-true-except-i-what-are-stereotypes.
This interesting article, which comes from an evolutionary psychologist, examines the topic of stereotypes. I felt that the author made some good remarks about this subject in which some of it resembles what we went over in class. He says that most scientists describe stereotypes as being empirical generalizations, which are general ideas that come from experiences or a widespread amount of evidence and that are usually true in most instances. Even though, I do know that stereo-typing doesn't just come from our first hand experiences. It also comes from things that we see in movies and television as well as coming from experiences from people that we are associated with. I definitely agree with the author that stereotypes aren't necessarily a good thing or a bad thing. I do realize that we all do hold stereotypes in some form or another. Even though, we don't admit this at times. Just like we discussed in class, it helps us to find a way to deal with unfamiliar situations when we are around an individual of a certain group or a group that we aren't around too much. One thing that gets us in trouble when it comes to stereotyping is that we might look too much into the beliefs that we have about the individual of that certain group. This can limit our chances to get to know them in which we don't realize that not everyone in a certain group fits underneath our beliefs that we have about that certain group. We do know that most times, stereotypes about someone in a certain group or a group are true. Different types of evidence throughout history has shown this. The author makes the statement referring to this that stereotypes won't last long if proven to be wrong. He also says that research has actually ended up proving some stereotypes to be untrue in the past. It would be interesting to see in the future if other stereotypes will be proven to be wrong.
The author makes a fascinating statement about how stereotypes are formed. He says that when empirical generalization comes about from an observation that is clarified to be true in most cases, then an individual or a group might end up disagreeing with how they or their group are being percieved by others. This ends up forming a stereotype. When most people think about stereotypes just like prejudice, they usually think of it as a bad thing. Many people worry that others would hold negative beliefs about them based on them belonging to a certain group. It takes a lot of energy out of them and can hamper them from achieving certain things. This definitely shown through the idea that we looked into from our readings, which was the stereotype threat. Also just like prejudice, stereotypes can either be good or bad. Just like I said earlier, many people don't consider certain beliefs about groups or individuals to be stereotypes unless someone or others in a certain group is negatively affected by those beliefs.
Ingrops/Outgroups within our community
I recently went to a Butte-Siverbow city council meeting at the courthouse. There is a pretty high profile issue within our community right now concerning Butte-Silverbow county health departments contact with their Chemical Dependancy program. Let me enlighten you, in this county we have a very successful chemical dependancy program. It functions well and makes lots and lots of money for our city. Surrounding counties such as Anaconda, Deer Lodge, Dillion, Powell, and Granite county do not have any success at all and are in serious need of our help. For a long time the employee's of BSB chemical dependancy have been making "pro-bono" trips to these counties to help them out. Just recently in the last year or two our health department developed a program called the Tri-County Addictive Services. This created jobs, and this mildly resolved the problem. Before I go any further I should state that they did this without any contract, they did this because it is what needed to be done. However, other programs such as Family Planning, Cancer Awareness, WIC, and Prevention have been established in these counties for many of years under the supervision of our county with a contract and have been very successful.
Here is the problem, the county health department needs to develop a contract to secure this new bridge they have built with our neighbors. In order to do this the program needs to be proposed to our city council and approved. Our city council has motioned to deny the program; a complete denial of this program would put a stop to the jobs that were created, and more importantly a stop to helping these people in the midst of their recovery. This would open up our county to the possiblity of all sorts of lawsuits.They have motioned a denial of the program even though it would bring $91,796.00 into our community. My question is why?
After attending the meeting to hear an even level of argument I have come to the decision that this is entirely like the example in class concerning the kids that rewarded the ingroup more points than their outgroup. The cities bases for dening this contract is simply based on insurance. They claim that they do not want to be held responsible for insuring the clients that the program would provide for and they do not want to insure employee's from other counties. They claim that this would be to hard to oversee. Wow! I am amazed! Considering we already employ people in these counties for the five other contracts; that the health department already has insurance to cover those people in the other contracts. I do not understand.
"This is a complete ingroup/outgroup situation!" I thought to myself. I looked around the room and like never before the citizens of BSB were all piled into this tiny court room. They were all in favor of this motion. Then I look up and we have twelve elected officials claiming that they are the victims of slander because they have made their decision and they are sticking to it. "Victims? Who is really the victim here?"
Now, the confusing part is who is the ingroup and who is the outgroup. At first, you would think that BSB is the ingroup and these other counties are the outgroup and that is why we choose not to work through the details and not help them, but when you step back and really look it, that is not the case at all. The outgroup is the citizens, all of them from all the counties combined. The ones that need the jobs, the help, the support for their families. The ingroup here is the city council, the local goverment.
In conclusion the mayor, who sits on the city council decided to extend this issue until November 1, 2009 and has asked that the health department take this time to work through the insurance details and propose them to the council at that time. It is my bet that this city council has already made up their minds. They have turned this problem into an "us" against "them".
This is also like the robbers cave study. How do we unify our state like the young boys were unified in the robbers cave study? Do we send our city council members to do arts and crafts with the citizens of our surrounding counties? Do we have to plan a competition against North Dakota so that all of Montana becomes an ingroup? If there was a solution to ingroup/outgroup problems look at the extent the resolution would go. I think it is important to study this and know how it works and what is the resolution.
Here is the problem, the county health department needs to develop a contract to secure this new bridge they have built with our neighbors. In order to do this the program needs to be proposed to our city council and approved. Our city council has motioned to deny the program; a complete denial of this program would put a stop to the jobs that were created, and more importantly a stop to helping these people in the midst of their recovery. This would open up our county to the possiblity of all sorts of lawsuits.They have motioned a denial of the program even though it would bring $91,796.00 into our community. My question is why?
After attending the meeting to hear an even level of argument I have come to the decision that this is entirely like the example in class concerning the kids that rewarded the ingroup more points than their outgroup. The cities bases for dening this contract is simply based on insurance. They claim that they do not want to be held responsible for insuring the clients that the program would provide for and they do not want to insure employee's from other counties. They claim that this would be to hard to oversee. Wow! I am amazed! Considering we already employ people in these counties for the five other contracts; that the health department already has insurance to cover those people in the other contracts. I do not understand.
"This is a complete ingroup/outgroup situation!" I thought to myself. I looked around the room and like never before the citizens of BSB were all piled into this tiny court room. They were all in favor of this motion. Then I look up and we have twelve elected officials claiming that they are the victims of slander because they have made their decision and they are sticking to it. "Victims? Who is really the victim here?"
Now, the confusing part is who is the ingroup and who is the outgroup. At first, you would think that BSB is the ingroup and these other counties are the outgroup and that is why we choose not to work through the details and not help them, but when you step back and really look it, that is not the case at all. The outgroup is the citizens, all of them from all the counties combined. The ones that need the jobs, the help, the support for their families. The ingroup here is the city council, the local goverment.
In conclusion the mayor, who sits on the city council decided to extend this issue until November 1, 2009 and has asked that the health department take this time to work through the insurance details and propose them to the council at that time. It is my bet that this city council has already made up their minds. They have turned this problem into an "us" against "them".
This is also like the robbers cave study. How do we unify our state like the young boys were unified in the robbers cave study? Do we send our city council members to do arts and crafts with the citizens of our surrounding counties? Do we have to plan a competition against North Dakota so that all of Montana becomes an ingroup? If there was a solution to ingroup/outgroup problems look at the extent the resolution would go. I think it is important to study this and know how it works and what is the resolution.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Weight Bias and Racial Discrimination
Yale University (2008, March 28). Weight Bias Is As Prevalent As Racial Discrimination, Study Suggests. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/03/080327172129.htm
This study, which came from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obestiy, looked into seeing if discrimination against people who were over-weight was just as common as racial discrimination. They used a sample of around 3,000 adults who were varied in ages from 25 to 74 years old. This sample of people observed instances in their own lives that they ended up viewing as examples of weight discrimination. After the conductors of this study collected this data about people's experiences of weight discrimination, they looked to see how similiar this data was compared to other people's experiences of discrimination that had to do with race and gender.
There were a couple of things that they found in their results that I thought were fascinating. First, they found that discrimination against people who were over-weight was just as common as racial discrimination. I think that this is true, because a lot of us hear many examples when people feel that they were discriminated against based on being over-weight. One of these examples, for instance, is like when a thin person and an over-weight person go up against each other for the same job in which the thin person ends up getting the job despite being the one less qualified for that job. There still obviously is racial discrimination going on today, but it isn't quite as bad as it was in the past. There was an interesting comment after this study had been conducted regarding weight discrimination by one of the authors of this study who said that weight discrimination is still considered to be socially acceptable. One of real world example that possibly shows this was when the United Airlines put in a rule to make people who were considered to be over-weight to buy two seats on their planes as well as for them to wait for the next flight if there were no more empty seats. With weight discrimination being socially acceptable, I think that some people view that weight is a controllable thing and that some people choose to be over-weight based on bad nutrition and lack of exercise. Even though at times, it isn't true especially with some people being over-weight based on their genes. Also, they were able to find in this study that women were more likely than men to experience weight discrimination for being over-weight. I think that this finding can definitely be attributed to the idea of men having a stronger prejudice towards over-weight people that we learned from in the studies in class.
This study, which came from the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obestiy, looked into seeing if discrimination against people who were over-weight was just as common as racial discrimination. They used a sample of around 3,000 adults who were varied in ages from 25 to 74 years old. This sample of people observed instances in their own lives that they ended up viewing as examples of weight discrimination. After the conductors of this study collected this data about people's experiences of weight discrimination, they looked to see how similiar this data was compared to other people's experiences of discrimination that had to do with race and gender.
There were a couple of things that they found in their results that I thought were fascinating. First, they found that discrimination against people who were over-weight was just as common as racial discrimination. I think that this is true, because a lot of us hear many examples when people feel that they were discriminated against based on being over-weight. One of these examples, for instance, is like when a thin person and an over-weight person go up against each other for the same job in which the thin person ends up getting the job despite being the one less qualified for that job. There still obviously is racial discrimination going on today, but it isn't quite as bad as it was in the past. There was an interesting comment after this study had been conducted regarding weight discrimination by one of the authors of this study who said that weight discrimination is still considered to be socially acceptable. One of real world example that possibly shows this was when the United Airlines put in a rule to make people who were considered to be over-weight to buy two seats on their planes as well as for them to wait for the next flight if there were no more empty seats. With weight discrimination being socially acceptable, I think that some people view that weight is a controllable thing and that some people choose to be over-weight based on bad nutrition and lack of exercise. Even though at times, it isn't true especially with some people being over-weight based on their genes. Also, they were able to find in this study that women were more likely than men to experience weight discrimination for being over-weight. I think that this finding can definitely be attributed to the idea of men having a stronger prejudice towards over-weight people that we learned from in the studies in class.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Attitudes on Campus: Applying a Theory, Outgroup Homogeny Effect
Even though Tech is a campus comprised of mainly engineers there seems to be a lot of attitudes about one type of engineering versus the other. I think that this is because early on our education we are encouraged to spend time with people in the same major from joining clubs to partnering in class for homework assignments. This seems to form ingroups. And while the ingroups aren’t necessarily particularly click-ish there definitely are some attitudes from one type of engineering to another.
I did a short survey for a Technocrat article on what the attitudes where from various majors on campus. I sent it to as many people as I could and tried to get some feedback from every major at Tech. What I found was that although students think that they work as hard as other students and they feel that their major is as important as others, they aren’t given equal respect. For instance non-engineering students whether two year, four year, or graduate degree earning majors all felt that they were treated as second-class citizens by students in engineering majors. Among engineering majors there were also just as many conflicts with those ingroups. Petroleum Engineers were reported to have insulted the most students, whether by touting the income they would earn one day or reducing fields such as Environmental Engineering to nothing more than a “glorified clean-up crew.” The thing is, I suspect that once out of Tech, if these same separated students were to meet up, their actions would be much different. For example, if two different engineering majors met at a bar one night after being in the workforce several years I think you would find that past ingroup biases would be forgotten and they would feel as though they were both part of either an engineering or Montana Tech ingroup.
Either way, although most engineers have similar interests and intelligence, there still seems to be some need to form ingroups. People tend to think either their group is superior or at least equal to that of others. While they see people in their ingroup as separate indiviuals, they reported seeing other groups as similar. This was proved when I asked them to use several words to describe their own majors versus that of others. They had a hard time generalizing their own ingroups but then used specified, often negative statements to describe others. For example, other majors were “greedy,” “approval-seeking,” or “slackers.” Out group descriptions were short and simple while ingroup descriptions were longer and more varied and emphasized diversity in character.
I did a short survey for a Technocrat article on what the attitudes where from various majors on campus. I sent it to as many people as I could and tried to get some feedback from every major at Tech. What I found was that although students think that they work as hard as other students and they feel that their major is as important as others, they aren’t given equal respect. For instance non-engineering students whether two year, four year, or graduate degree earning majors all felt that they were treated as second-class citizens by students in engineering majors. Among engineering majors there were also just as many conflicts with those ingroups. Petroleum Engineers were reported to have insulted the most students, whether by touting the income they would earn one day or reducing fields such as Environmental Engineering to nothing more than a “glorified clean-up crew.” The thing is, I suspect that once out of Tech, if these same separated students were to meet up, their actions would be much different. For example, if two different engineering majors met at a bar one night after being in the workforce several years I think you would find that past ingroup biases would be forgotten and they would feel as though they were both part of either an engineering or Montana Tech ingroup.
Either way, although most engineers have similar interests and intelligence, there still seems to be some need to form ingroups. People tend to think either their group is superior or at least equal to that of others. While they see people in their ingroup as separate indiviuals, they reported seeing other groups as similar. This was proved when I asked them to use several words to describe their own majors versus that of others. They had a hard time generalizing their own ingroups but then used specified, often negative statements to describe others. For example, other majors were “greedy,” “approval-seeking,” or “slackers.” Out group descriptions were short and simple while ingroup descriptions were longer and more varied and emphasized diversity in character.
Social Loafing: Applying a Theory
In our readings for this week, I thought that Latane’s “Many Hands Make Light the Work” study was really interesting. I had noticed social loafing at my work this summer based on how many people showed up to work to plant to trees at the Superfund. It was a large-scale planting job and so depending on what phase of the work we were in there could be anywhere from 30-80 workers onsite during the day. We had several crews working at a time and the crews could have anywhere from 8-20 people on them depending on the day. Each person working was given a quota of trees to plant every day. Although there wasn’t any repercussion for not planting this many, by the first week into the job most people didn’t have any trouble meeting the quota.
My boss and I were talking one day when production was unusually good and we noticed there were fewer workers than normal but individual production was up above any other day that summer. We noticed this again several days later. After that we started trying to predict how good the production would be based on how many workers showed up. The interesting thing was there seemed to be a maximum production per worker when the crew was smaller. Crews around 9 people seemed to plant the most versus a larger crew of around 15. It seemed that when the entire crew was present, the workers felt less motivated knowing that the other worker would pick up the slack and if they didn’t, there would be many others to blame besides themselves. When smaller crews got together, there was less talking and also more focused work. Everyone knew their production for that day mattered more and so they worked harder.
It was really interesting to see that actual studies have proved this phenomenon as well.
My boss and I were talking one day when production was unusually good and we noticed there were fewer workers than normal but individual production was up above any other day that summer. We noticed this again several days later. After that we started trying to predict how good the production would be based on how many workers showed up. The interesting thing was there seemed to be a maximum production per worker when the crew was smaller. Crews around 9 people seemed to plant the most versus a larger crew of around 15. It seemed that when the entire crew was present, the workers felt less motivated knowing that the other worker would pick up the slack and if they didn’t, there would be many others to blame besides themselves. When smaller crews got together, there was less talking and also more focused work. Everyone knew their production for that day mattered more and so they worked harder.
It was really interesting to see that actual studies have proved this phenomenon as well.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Reducing Prejudice in Children
Reading Friendship Stories can Change Children's Attitudes Towards Stigmatized Groups
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/51982.php.
I thought that this was an interesting study that looked into trying to reduce kids from having a negative prejudice towards a person or others in a particular group. This study was primarily looking at children who were from the ages of five to eleven years old. I thought this was crucial for the study to use this age group, because this age group isn't quite as familiar with the world around them. If these kids find someone that is or others that are different from themselves like their skin color, those kids might do certain things like avoid them or make fun of them. This could show a negative prejudice that those kids might have about that person or others that belong to a certain group. I also think that these negative prejudices that these kids might have could have come from prejudices held by their parents. Most kids view their parents as role models in which these kids might reflect the same attitudes, like negative prejudice against a certain group, that their parents might have without the kids being aware of it.
This was how they put together this study in which they looked at kids in U.K. The people who put together the study decided to use stories that showed friendships between English kids and refugee kids, who are a part of this group that some in this area have negative prejudices towards. These kids were put into small groups in which they read these stories for once a week for six weeks for twenty minutes. What the researchers discovered from the kids who read these stories for those six weeks was that the English kids developed more positive rather than negative attitudes towards refugee kids. They also found out that most of these kids wanted to be friends with the refugee kids. I think that in the future when most of thes English kids are around refugees, they will more likely have an automatic positive attitude towards them rather than an uncomfortable and automatic negative attitude.
This study really reminded of an example that was used in one of our readings. This example was the one when a small number of people who were white participated in diversity education in which those people ended up having less anti-Black attitudes and having more friendships with black people as well as other things. The study and this example were similiar, because they both had people go through an experience which ended up changing their attitudes towards a certain group.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/51982.php.
I thought that this was an interesting study that looked into trying to reduce kids from having a negative prejudice towards a person or others in a particular group. This study was primarily looking at children who were from the ages of five to eleven years old. I thought this was crucial for the study to use this age group, because this age group isn't quite as familiar with the world around them. If these kids find someone that is or others that are different from themselves like their skin color, those kids might do certain things like avoid them or make fun of them. This could show a negative prejudice that those kids might have about that person or others that belong to a certain group. I also think that these negative prejudices that these kids might have could have come from prejudices held by their parents. Most kids view their parents as role models in which these kids might reflect the same attitudes, like negative prejudice against a certain group, that their parents might have without the kids being aware of it.
This was how they put together this study in which they looked at kids in U.K. The people who put together the study decided to use stories that showed friendships between English kids and refugee kids, who are a part of this group that some in this area have negative prejudices towards. These kids were put into small groups in which they read these stories for once a week for six weeks for twenty minutes. What the researchers discovered from the kids who read these stories for those six weeks was that the English kids developed more positive rather than negative attitudes towards refugee kids. They also found out that most of these kids wanted to be friends with the refugee kids. I think that in the future when most of thes English kids are around refugees, they will more likely have an automatic positive attitude towards them rather than an uncomfortable and automatic negative attitude.
This study really reminded of an example that was used in one of our readings. This example was the one when a small number of people who were white participated in diversity education in which those people ended up having less anti-Black attitudes and having more friendships with black people as well as other things. The study and this example were similiar, because they both had people go through an experience which ended up changing their attitudes towards a certain group.
Obama Effect on Stereotype Threat
Begley,S. (2009, January) An 'Obama Effect' on Blacks' Test Scores. Retrieved October 12, 2009, from http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2009/01/23/an-obama-effect-on-blacks-test-scores.aspx
The Obama effect on African American students suggests that the stereotype threat was lowered after the nomination and election of Obama. Ray Friedman of Vanderbilt Owen Graduate School of Management thinks that Obama will do more for black scholastic achievement than anything since Brown v. Board of Education.
The study tested at four times in 2008 ( in August just before the Democratic Convention; just after Obama accepted the nomination; in early October; and again right after Obama was elected), the study asked around 102 college students to take an online test of 20 questions from the Graduate Record Exams (GREs). (Over the four periods of the test, 84 black students and 388 white students that were matched for education levels participated.) The students were told the test was made up by the Massachusetts Aptitude Assessment Center, and is being used to assess verbal problem solving skills. The test was meant to activate the black stereotype that blacks do not perform as well as whites on aptitude tests. The students were also asked to indentify their race before taking the test as to activate the stereotype threat.
Before the convention and in early October the score gaps were as wide as ever; white students did better than black students. However, just after the conventions speech by Obama and after Election Day the scores became statistically equal. The rise in scores is attributed to Obama breaking the stereotypical mold.
This rise in test scores only happened with students that watched the acceptance speech then it vanished. The black students that did not watch the speech scores were same; they never did score as well as the white students. However, Joshua Aronson of New York University, one of the researchers on the stereotype thought the study made some sense. According to Aronson studies have shown even a small intervention like Obama’s Denver speech can help with the stereotype threat. Then there is the possibility the students who chose to watch Obama and who chose to be the study are the type of people who would find Obama inspiring and that their test scores would get a boost from thinking about his accomplishments.
Many of the experts have the same idea as Aronson’s that the Obama effect will only inspire a sub-population of African Americans. More experiments are needed. However the idea that Obama could inspire the next generation is fascinating
The Obama effect on African American students suggests that the stereotype threat was lowered after the nomination and election of Obama. Ray Friedman of Vanderbilt Owen Graduate School of Management thinks that Obama will do more for black scholastic achievement than anything since Brown v. Board of Education.
The study tested at four times in 2008 ( in August just before the Democratic Convention; just after Obama accepted the nomination; in early October; and again right after Obama was elected), the study asked around 102 college students to take an online test of 20 questions from the Graduate Record Exams (GREs). (Over the four periods of the test, 84 black students and 388 white students that were matched for education levels participated.) The students were told the test was made up by the Massachusetts Aptitude Assessment Center, and is being used to assess verbal problem solving skills. The test was meant to activate the black stereotype that blacks do not perform as well as whites on aptitude tests. The students were also asked to indentify their race before taking the test as to activate the stereotype threat.
Before the convention and in early October the score gaps were as wide as ever; white students did better than black students. However, just after the conventions speech by Obama and after Election Day the scores became statistically equal. The rise in scores is attributed to Obama breaking the stereotypical mold.
This rise in test scores only happened with students that watched the acceptance speech then it vanished. The black students that did not watch the speech scores were same; they never did score as well as the white students. However, Joshua Aronson of New York University, one of the researchers on the stereotype thought the study made some sense. According to Aronson studies have shown even a small intervention like Obama’s Denver speech can help with the stereotype threat. Then there is the possibility the students who chose to watch Obama and who chose to be the study are the type of people who would find Obama inspiring and that their test scores would get a boost from thinking about his accomplishments.
Many of the experts have the same idea as Aronson’s that the Obama effect will only inspire a sub-population of African Americans. More experiments are needed. However the idea that Obama could inspire the next generation is fascinating
Indirect Detection of Deception: Looking for Change
I could do that better.
http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp14_9.pdf
Indirect Detection of Deception: Looking for Change
This study used indirect methods to detect liars. College students (53 males and 51 females) were asked to watch a video in which half of the people told some lies and half were entirely truthful. They were asked to detect the liars in the video and whom behavior, mannerisms, or speech changed. The participants were from psychology classes and were all given extra credit in the courses in exchange for participation. The people for the interview were asked questions about themselves, half were asked to lie and the other half were asked to tell the truth. The results were that the direct detection of lying resulted in poor accuracy. Yet the indirect method resulted in more accuracy, because they were told to look for changes in behavior.
I think this study was interesting and that it did find that people look more at how people act when lying versus trying to just figure out if the information was true. This is important in the studies of deception that they let the participants know what lying is and what exactly they were hoping to get from the study. I think it could have been done better if the people in the video had to lie about something that was meaningful to them, something that they cared to lie about. Just lying about basic information, the people had nothing they were trying to gain from it. The lies were not important to them. If the study had been done where the lying meant something to the video people, I think there would have been more reaction when the video people lied, because it was meaningful to them. The participants would have been able to pick up more on the lying because it was meaningful lying. I think it would have made the study a little more accurate.
-Megan Hopkins
http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp14_9.pdf
Indirect Detection of Deception: Looking for Change
This study used indirect methods to detect liars. College students (53 males and 51 females) were asked to watch a video in which half of the people told some lies and half were entirely truthful. They were asked to detect the liars in the video and whom behavior, mannerisms, or speech changed. The participants were from psychology classes and were all given extra credit in the courses in exchange for participation. The people for the interview were asked questions about themselves, half were asked to lie and the other half were asked to tell the truth. The results were that the direct detection of lying resulted in poor accuracy. Yet the indirect method resulted in more accuracy, because they were told to look for changes in behavior.
I think this study was interesting and that it did find that people look more at how people act when lying versus trying to just figure out if the information was true. This is important in the studies of deception that they let the participants know what lying is and what exactly they were hoping to get from the study. I think it could have been done better if the people in the video had to lie about something that was meaningful to them, something that they cared to lie about. Just lying about basic information, the people had nothing they were trying to gain from it. The lies were not important to them. If the study had been done where the lying meant something to the video people, I think there would have been more reaction when the video people lied, because it was meaningful to them. The participants would have been able to pick up more on the lying because it was meaningful lying. I think it would have made the study a little more accurate.
-Megan Hopkins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)