Before the Thanksgiving break last week we had the group assignment to define aggression and then read that short story and pick out what acts were aggression according to our definition. There tended to be several schools of thought on how it was defined and what specific actions in the story were indeed aggression. I was confused leaving class last week about one that several groups labeled as aggression that was later said to not be an act of aggression. I would like to take a moment to try and argue that it maybe was indeed an act of aggression.
The specific action I am talking about was, "Depressed and angry, the thief smashes his fist into the concrete cell wall, fracturing three fingers." This was labeled as not an act of aggression due to the fact that the thief did not hit the wall intending to destroy something and that the act of hitting the wall was not aimed at an "other" type thing. My argument is this: if aggression can be hot or a responsive action to strong emotion, then couldn't the thief have been acting on that emotion and the wall just happened to be the recipient of his outpouring anger?
The other example used that is closely related to the one above, "the thief angrily kicks and dents a waste container", this one labeled as aggression due to the fact that it was aimed at the destruction of an object, I feel really should be classified in the same category as the first one. The thief didn't kick the garbage can with the true intent of destroying it, he kicked the garbage can still acting on the same emotion that fueled the hitting of the wall. Therefore, if the garbage can example is aggression, couldn't we label the wall example aggression too? Also, if it isn't aggression, then what is it?
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Good Doll and the Bad Doll
(blog 1)
While reading the Montana Standard today, I came across an article by Leonard Pitts called Sammy Sosa: Cosmetics or Self-Image? He discusses the controversial practice of African Americans using skin bleaching creams to make their skin lighter.
I thought of this class when he mentioned a psychology study called the "doll test." In the 1940's, a black psychologist named Dr. Kenneth Clark conducted a study with children and dolls. In the study, black children were shown a black doll and a white doll, and asked questions about them. For example, when asked which doll is the "good" doll, most of the children would point to the white one. When asked why she was the good one, they said it was because she is white. On the other hand, the children often referred to the black dolls as "bad."
Leonard Pitts mentions a YouTube video called "A Girl Like Me" For this video, the study was recreated and black children were again asked to choose between a black doll and a white doll. They were also asked which doll was good and which was bad, and most of the children said the black doll was bad. When a young black girl was asked to show the researcher which doll looked the most like herself, she hesitated before reluctantly pointing to the black doll. 15 out of the 21 children preferred the white doll, and most children had negative comments about the black doll.
I remember watching a tv show awhile back (I think it may have been Tyra, Dr. Phil, or Oprah) in which parents admitted to bleaching the skin of their children, as well as their own. One mother used bleaching creams on her three sons every day because she said that it would make them more attractive. When the boys were interviewed, they said that they hated getting it done, but that they had to do it so that they wouldn't be ugly.
I find this sad because black children often grow up thinking that they are not good enough the way that they are. They pick up on negative stereotypes of themselves and other black people at a very young age.They are also pressured to change how they look in order to fit society's standards. The girls in the video above talk about how they are looked down upon if they don't straighten their naturally curly or kinky hair, and how they need to change their whole look in order to feel accepted.
White people aren't exempt from these types of pressures. Many white women (and some men) feel the need to go to tanning beds, use tanning chemicals, or sit in the sun for long periods of time to make their skin darker. As a fair-skinned girl with freckles, I often get negative comments from people about how "pale" "pasty" or "white" my skin is. I gave into peer pressure and tanned when I was younger, but don't anymore. For some reason, people don't understand why I would be ok with having light skin. When I was planning my wedding last year, many people asked when I was going to start tanning for my wedding. When I told them that I wasn't going to, they looked at me like I was crazy. For some reason, my light skin is seen as a negative thing by some people, and something that I should change (and harm myself while doing.)
I find it very ironic that while black people are using creams to lighten their skin, white people are doing things to make themselves darker.
While reading the Montana Standard today, I came across an article by Leonard Pitts called Sammy Sosa: Cosmetics or Self-Image? He discusses the controversial practice of African Americans using skin bleaching creams to make their skin lighter.
I thought of this class when he mentioned a psychology study called the "doll test." In the 1940's, a black psychologist named Dr. Kenneth Clark conducted a study with children and dolls. In the study, black children were shown a black doll and a white doll, and asked questions about them. For example, when asked which doll is the "good" doll, most of the children would point to the white one. When asked why she was the good one, they said it was because she is white. On the other hand, the children often referred to the black dolls as "bad."
Leonard Pitts mentions a YouTube video called "A Girl Like Me" For this video, the study was recreated and black children were again asked to choose between a black doll and a white doll. They were also asked which doll was good and which was bad, and most of the children said the black doll was bad. When a young black girl was asked to show the researcher which doll looked the most like herself, she hesitated before reluctantly pointing to the black doll. 15 out of the 21 children preferred the white doll, and most children had negative comments about the black doll.
I remember watching a tv show awhile back (I think it may have been Tyra, Dr. Phil, or Oprah) in which parents admitted to bleaching the skin of their children, as well as their own. One mother used bleaching creams on her three sons every day because she said that it would make them more attractive. When the boys were interviewed, they said that they hated getting it done, but that they had to do it so that they wouldn't be ugly.
I find this sad because black children often grow up thinking that they are not good enough the way that they are. They pick up on negative stereotypes of themselves and other black people at a very young age.They are also pressured to change how they look in order to fit society's standards. The girls in the video above talk about how they are looked down upon if they don't straighten their naturally curly or kinky hair, and how they need to change their whole look in order to feel accepted.
White people aren't exempt from these types of pressures. Many white women (and some men) feel the need to go to tanning beds, use tanning chemicals, or sit in the sun for long periods of time to make their skin darker. As a fair-skinned girl with freckles, I often get negative comments from people about how "pale" "pasty" or "white" my skin is. I gave into peer pressure and tanned when I was younger, but don't anymore. For some reason, people don't understand why I would be ok with having light skin. When I was planning my wedding last year, many people asked when I was going to start tanning for my wedding. When I told them that I wasn't going to, they looked at me like I was crazy. For some reason, my light skin is seen as a negative thing by some people, and something that I should change (and harm myself while doing.)
I find it very ironic that while black people are using creams to lighten their skin, white people are doing things to make themselves darker.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
While many states require older drivers to take competency test for driving, there is not a test to determine if they are competent to own a firearm.
The issue of whether older people should be allowed to own guns is important for the following reasons. First gun ownership among older adults is growing faster than any other age group. Second as the population ages there are an increased number of people with cognitive impairment sometimes resulting in dementia. The idea of a demented person having a gun is a concern. Third unlike driving or piloting a plane there is not a procedure for insuring that people with dementia use proper caution when handling a gun.
Dementia is a term used to describe brain conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, strokes, and some less common diseases. Symptoms of dementia include personality changes, memory loss, confusion, language and speech problems, depression, increased anxiety and aggressiveness.
Gun ownership among older adults is on the rise. In Florida for example a 2004 survey showed the 130,000 of the states 338,000 concealed weapon permits were issued to people over 50. In the U.S. people older than 65 are now more likely than any other age group to own a gun.
There is the case of an 82 year old man by the name of Mario Mendez who shot himself in the eye while responding to imaginary burglars in his house. He had a history of memory difficulties, cognitive functioning impairment, and he had lost his ability to perform the tasks of daily living, along with paranoid delusions. He actually believed that there were burglars in his house, so he stayed awake all night, with his gun.
Although there not a lot of information about the risks of owing a firearm and dementia patients. How many people would want a person with dementia to have access to a firearm?
Greene, E., Bornstein, B., & Dietrich, H. (2007). Granny, (don't) get your gun: Competency issues in gun ownership by older adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(3), 405-423. doi:10.1002/bsl.766. Retrieved November 29, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2007-10401-007&site=ehost-live
Dementia is a term used to describe brain conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, strokes, and some less common diseases. Symptoms of dementia include personality changes, memory loss, confusion, language and speech problems, depression, increased anxiety and aggressiveness.
Gun ownership among older adults is on the rise. In Florida for example a 2004 survey showed the 130,000 of the states 338,000 concealed weapon permits were issued to people over 50. In the U.S. people older than 65 are now more likely than any other age group to own a gun.
There is the case of an 82 year old man by the name of Mario Mendez who shot himself in the eye while responding to imaginary burglars in his house. He had a history of memory difficulties, cognitive functioning impairment, and he had lost his ability to perform the tasks of daily living, along with paranoid delusions. He actually believed that there were burglars in his house, so he stayed awake all night, with his gun.
Although there not a lot of information about the risks of owing a firearm and dementia patients. How many people would want a person with dementia to have access to a firearm?
Greene, E., Bornstein, B., & Dietrich, H. (2007). Granny, (don't) get your gun: Competency issues in gun ownership by older adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(3), 405-423. doi:10.1002/bsl.766. Retrieved November 29, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2007-10401-007&site=ehost-live
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Sugar Mama's no longer... Cougar dating all the way
Sugar mama's is no longer the socially acceptable term for an older lady who dates a younger man. The new term is now Cougar dating. When I stumbled upon this article (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/finding-true-love/200911/sugar-mamaboy-toy-the-new-cougar-dating) in psychology today that stated 90% of these older "Cougars" were looking for a long term relationship I began to question why an older woman would want a younger man over a man of her own age? What has the older gentleman done to be out casted like this? I searched out the reference link (http://www.cougared.com/index.php?dll=Survey) on this page and discovered that an actual survey was done. This survey questioned Cougars and younger men. Some of the things that were discovered I found very interesting, 52% of Cougar couples split the check when they go to dinner, 73% of the young man's friends did not make a big deal or even care that their friend was dating someone old enough to be his mother, and one of the top places to meet and enter into a cougar relationship was found to be at the workplace. Does this mean that the social norm is changing? Our society seems to be coming more open minded. The reasons the "Cougars" stated that they preferred the younger men were that older men are more lazy, younger men were more sexually fulfilling, and the number one reason was that older men carried to much emotional baggage. This made me laugh, I think my hypothesis here is that in our society getting old is avoided at all cost by women of today and being with a younger man somehow satisfies the women emotionally in that goal to feel younger. Women go to great extent to look young and maintain their beauty because the idea of being old means they are ugly. Older women today focus on staying in shape, get plastic surgery's and do the botox thing, why would they not psychologically seek out a younger man to compliment their belief of preserving their youth? For whatever the reason, younger men have the advantage today. It would be interesting to take a look at why younger men what older women.
Proposed Study for Conformity/Groupthink
When we were discussing groupthink and conformity in class I thought of this study because I always fall victim of this particular behavior. I am wondering if anyone else does?
Hypothesis: that groupthink and conformity can be automatic or hot.
Operational Definition: how many students misspell the common word exactly like the professor does verses how many students continue to spell the common word correctly (or even misspell it a different way which would be assumed that they felt was their correct way) at the end of the semester.
Sample: all general psychology students at Montana Tech.
Method: The professor would do a lecture class in which required the students to take exact copy of the notes from a power point slide. Throughout the semester the professor would misspell a common word every time he used it throughout the entire semester. (Example of this would be the word Psychology spelled pyschology.) At the end of the semester the professor would give an exam with questions requiring the word to be used in the answer multiple times.
Possible Results: If at the end more students spelled the word exactly the way the professor spelled the word throughout the semester it would then show a possibility that these students changed their way of spelling to match/conform to the professors. It would be interesting to ask them later in a survey if they noticed they did this or if they did this for social desirability in the professors eyes. If it were found that less than noticeable or no students at all spelled the word exactly the way the professor spelt it then this could suggest that nobody noticed or that everyone continued to correct the word for themselves but did not want to correct the professor.
Discussion: Groupthink and conformity are important situations to study. Learning weather they can be automatic or deliberate is also a very important factor. If we would conform automatically to something as simple as misspelling a word and not pointing it out do to an authoritative figure, what else could possibly be overlooked or automatically assumed? This is something that could produce uncertain actions within a community, politics, health care, courts of law, education etc. I think that studies done in these areas are well worth it for the purpose of prevention.
Hypothesis: that groupthink and conformity can be automatic or hot.
Operational Definition: how many students misspell the common word exactly like the professor does verses how many students continue to spell the common word correctly (or even misspell it a different way which would be assumed that they felt was their correct way) at the end of the semester.
Sample: all general psychology students at Montana Tech.
Method: The professor would do a lecture class in which required the students to take exact copy of the notes from a power point slide. Throughout the semester the professor would misspell a common word every time he used it throughout the entire semester. (Example of this would be the word Psychology spelled pyschology.) At the end of the semester the professor would give an exam with questions requiring the word to be used in the answer multiple times.
Possible Results: If at the end more students spelled the word exactly the way the professor spelled the word throughout the semester it would then show a possibility that these students changed their way of spelling to match/conform to the professors. It would be interesting to ask them later in a survey if they noticed they did this or if they did this for social desirability in the professors eyes. If it were found that less than noticeable or no students at all spelled the word exactly the way the professor spelt it then this could suggest that nobody noticed or that everyone continued to correct the word for themselves but did not want to correct the professor.
Discussion: Groupthink and conformity are important situations to study. Learning weather they can be automatic or deliberate is also a very important factor. If we would conform automatically to something as simple as misspelling a word and not pointing it out do to an authoritative figure, what else could possibly be overlooked or automatically assumed? This is something that could produce uncertain actions within a community, politics, health care, courts of law, education etc. I think that studies done in these areas are well worth it for the purpose of prevention.
Reciprocal exchange in rural communities: Consumers' inducements to inshop.
Reciprocity is the theory that people will only put into a relationship what they feel they will get in return. This article examines the moral, social and economic relationship between the local retailers and big box stores.
In many communities the local merchants have been losing business to the big box stores. Better roads, regional shopping centers lure consumers to travel outside their local markets, thus they spend their money outside the community. This outshopping results in lower sales for local businesses, and lost sales tax revenue for the community.
The idea is that local retailers can keep people coming in if they able to create a moral and social reciprocity with customers that will outweigh the economic reciprocity customers have with the big box stores.
The findings from the study suggest that local merchants should use a strategy centered on moral sentiments that makes shopping locally correct moral behavior within the community. To reinforce the idea that shopping locally is the morally correct activity merchant should offer more personalized service, such as greeting customers by name, supporting local sports and church activities. Although further study is warranted there is the idea from this study that by creating more interpersonal relationships local merchants may have the competitive edge over the big box discount stores.
In many communities the local merchants have been losing business to the big box stores. Better roads, regional shopping centers lure consumers to travel outside their local markets, thus they spend their money outside the community. This outshopping results in lower sales for local businesses, and lost sales tax revenue for the community.
The idea is that local retailers can keep people coming in if they able to create a moral and social reciprocity with customers that will outweigh the economic reciprocity customers have with the big box stores.
The findings from the study suggest that local merchants should use a strategy centered on moral sentiments that makes shopping locally correct moral behavior within the community. To reinforce the idea that shopping locally is the morally correct activity merchant should offer more personalized service, such as greeting customers by name, supporting local sports and church activities. Although further study is warranted there is the idea from this study that by creating more interpersonal relationships local merchants may have the competitive edge over the big box discount stores.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Angry Faces
Association for Psychological Science (2009, November 2). Angry Faces: Facial Structure Linked To Aggressive Tendencies, Study. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091031002319.htm
Cell Press (2006, June 7). Do angry men get noticed?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060607085104.htm
In class we talked about empirical research proving what qualities an attractive face has, so when I came across these two articles I found them interesting. These articles discuss what an angry face looks like and the link to aggressive behavior and how quickly angry faces are picked out in a crowd.
Research has found that men with a greater width-to-height ratio (WHR) tend to act more aggressively than those with smaller WHR. In a study, volunteers rated photos. Those with a greater WHR were rated as more aggressive. This accurately linked with the actual aggression of those faces in the photos these volunteers were looking at.
With this being said, the second article comes into play. I think those of us from small towns can think of the aggressive, angry guy in the crowd at the ball games that everyone in town and all of the refs in the district know. He is usually the first to pick a fight, verbal or physical, at the bar on a Saturday night as well. From my experience, these guys have always had a pretty good WHR. Even at the store or café, everyone walks lightly unsure of what mood these guys are in. The article points out that this is evolutionary based so danger can be detected. Makes sense to me. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
If we can gauge attractiveness and aggression by looking at a face, what else do we subconsciously find out just by looking at someone?
Cell Press (2006, June 7). Do angry men get noticed?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060607085104.htm
In class we talked about empirical research proving what qualities an attractive face has, so when I came across these two articles I found them interesting. These articles discuss what an angry face looks like and the link to aggressive behavior and how quickly angry faces are picked out in a crowd.
Research has found that men with a greater width-to-height ratio (WHR) tend to act more aggressively than those with smaller WHR. In a study, volunteers rated photos. Those with a greater WHR were rated as more aggressive. This accurately linked with the actual aggression of those faces in the photos these volunteers were looking at.
With this being said, the second article comes into play. I think those of us from small towns can think of the aggressive, angry guy in the crowd at the ball games that everyone in town and all of the refs in the district know. He is usually the first to pick a fight, verbal or physical, at the bar on a Saturday night as well. From my experience, these guys have always had a pretty good WHR. Even at the store or café, everyone walks lightly unsure of what mood these guys are in. The article points out that this is evolutionary based so danger can be detected. Makes sense to me. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
If we can gauge attractiveness and aggression by looking at a face, what else do we subconsciously find out just by looking at someone?
Is Giving Thanks A Form Of Anger?
Paul Dobransky, M. (2009, November 24). The Urban Scientist. Retrieved November 27, 2009, from Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-urban-scientist/200911/is-giving-thanks-form-anger?page=2
The holiday season is here. That time of year we all look forward to. Or is it? The majority of people I have talked to lately dread the holidays, myself included. It seems as though there are a variety of reasons for this. Some people dislike shopping this time of year. Some people don’t want to be around their obnoxious, know-it-all brother-in-laws. Other people get the holiday blues because of a plethora of different reasons.
I found this article interesting because it points out the reasons for anger that seems to show up this time of year in even the most functional of families. The explanation that anger comes from some kind of hurt or from some kind of need not being met makes great sense. The emphasis on being happy during the holidays almost seems to bring about the opposite response. Hurts and unmet needs that have occurred over the year surface from the stress of the season. Knowing this anger is dealt with by getting depressed or aggressive, which helps no one, or by being assertive, which is a productive way to work through anger is great information. We can utilize this information to understand others behavior and to modify our behavior to maximize our own happiness and productivity.
As we go through this season, we should take time to make sure those we care about are dealing with anger they feel productively. I really believe in what this article says…that if we choose to be thankful, appreciative, and forgiving (rather than depressed and aggressive) we can move forward in making decisions to assertively map the life we want which will replace that anger and allow for happier holidays and a more fulfilled life overall.
The holiday season is here. That time of year we all look forward to. Or is it? The majority of people I have talked to lately dread the holidays, myself included. It seems as though there are a variety of reasons for this. Some people dislike shopping this time of year. Some people don’t want to be around their obnoxious, know-it-all brother-in-laws. Other people get the holiday blues because of a plethora of different reasons.
I found this article interesting because it points out the reasons for anger that seems to show up this time of year in even the most functional of families. The explanation that anger comes from some kind of hurt or from some kind of need not being met makes great sense. The emphasis on being happy during the holidays almost seems to bring about the opposite response. Hurts and unmet needs that have occurred over the year surface from the stress of the season. Knowing this anger is dealt with by getting depressed or aggressive, which helps no one, or by being assertive, which is a productive way to work through anger is great information. We can utilize this information to understand others behavior and to modify our behavior to maximize our own happiness and productivity.
As we go through this season, we should take time to make sure those we care about are dealing with anger they feel productively. I really believe in what this article says…that if we choose to be thankful, appreciative, and forgiving (rather than depressed and aggressive) we can move forward in making decisions to assertively map the life we want which will replace that anger and allow for happier holidays and a more fulfilled life overall.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Fort Hood
I have been contemplating whether or not I wanted to blog on the Fort Hood incident. Mainly because it is a very controversial issue, but as you can see I have decided to go through with it. This incident is not only so very complicated and controversial it also holds a place in nearly every single topic we have discussed in our social psychology class. We have the self, prejudice, stereotypes, religion, in and out groups, on and on right down to aggression.
So here we have a Major in the United States Army, who is a psychiatrist, that helps solders work through their personal issues concerning the war, who happens to be a Muslim, that shoots at, wounds, and murders multiple American soldiers that are preparing to be shipped off to the war. The big question here is why? Or maybe the big question is how does this happen? Was this man just sick of his job and could not handle the stress he faced on a daily basis and just snapped? This seems kind of a ironic since he was a psychiatrist. You would think that a man with that kind of knowledge would have the intelligence to seek outside counseling before it went this far. Was he a victim of prejudice and stereotyping? This is possible, there is a lot of hostility toward the Muslims within our country, but he was a Major, that holds some degree of authority in the military. Can you really bully around an authoritative figure? Was he working with the enemy and this was an act of terrorism? Now this would be a nightmare for the United States Army, how could that even make sense or be possible? Or this could be complete stereotyping by our society and the media is just printing what will make them their top dollar. Could this be an evolutionary situation? Maybe this man was happy to serve in the military, and he did fine work, but the more his job pressed on to fight against his own people it became one or the other. How can he help eliminate his primary choice of reproduction? Imagine being one of the very few white person(s) in a military, working with a strong couple of majority races and killing nothing but white people? Eventually you might face a question of who are you? Where do you belong? This could lead to a serious psychotic snap.
There are so many factors in this sad situation that could lead you into so many directions and we may possibly never really know what this was all about or how it came to be. Or we could learn a thousand things from this tragedy. There will be people studying this for years and years to come. Look at how these actions will impact the way Americans will see Muslims. In one of the blogs I read, (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-small-talk/200911/fort-hood-fallout) by Dr. Sam Sommers Ph.d, a social psychologist, he talks about illusory correlation. The tendency to overestimate the associations between groups and the actions that are distinctive. Basically, he is saying that now people associate every Muslim as being a killer. Proposing that this act has awakened the fears that have settled since 9/11. The article also quotes the New York Times " When a white guy shoots up the post office, they call it postal, but when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad"
Anyway you look at this situation psychologists and sociologists have their work cut out for them.
So here we have a Major in the United States Army, who is a psychiatrist, that helps solders work through their personal issues concerning the war, who happens to be a Muslim, that shoots at, wounds, and murders multiple American soldiers that are preparing to be shipped off to the war. The big question here is why? Or maybe the big question is how does this happen? Was this man just sick of his job and could not handle the stress he faced on a daily basis and just snapped? This seems kind of a ironic since he was a psychiatrist. You would think that a man with that kind of knowledge would have the intelligence to seek outside counseling before it went this far. Was he a victim of prejudice and stereotyping? This is possible, there is a lot of hostility toward the Muslims within our country, but he was a Major, that holds some degree of authority in the military. Can you really bully around an authoritative figure? Was he working with the enemy and this was an act of terrorism? Now this would be a nightmare for the United States Army, how could that even make sense or be possible? Or this could be complete stereotyping by our society and the media is just printing what will make them their top dollar. Could this be an evolutionary situation? Maybe this man was happy to serve in the military, and he did fine work, but the more his job pressed on to fight against his own people it became one or the other. How can he help eliminate his primary choice of reproduction? Imagine being one of the very few white person(s) in a military, working with a strong couple of majority races and killing nothing but white people? Eventually you might face a question of who are you? Where do you belong? This could lead to a serious psychotic snap.
There are so many factors in this sad situation that could lead you into so many directions and we may possibly never really know what this was all about or how it came to be. Or we could learn a thousand things from this tragedy. There will be people studying this for years and years to come. Look at how these actions will impact the way Americans will see Muslims. In one of the blogs I read, (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-small-talk/200911/fort-hood-fallout) by Dr. Sam Sommers Ph.d, a social psychologist, he talks about illusory correlation. The tendency to overestimate the associations between groups and the actions that are distinctive. Basically, he is saying that now people associate every Muslim as being a killer. Proposing that this act has awakened the fears that have settled since 9/11. The article also quotes the New York Times " When a white guy shoots up the post office, they call it postal, but when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad"
Anyway you look at this situation psychologists and sociologists have their work cut out for them.
Sexting
I thought it would be interesting to see if sexting was being studied since it is the new age of digital romantic involvement. Here is what I have found on the subject.
Some researchers suggest that sexting as it relates to psychology may be a way to improve social status or possibly a new type of “mating call” (http://www.realpsychology.com/content/tools-life/sextingis-it-all-about-power). The first study I found involved internet polling of people earlier this year. Of the 323 participants it was found that 66% sexted. Along with polling them about their sexting habits and experiences they took a “power personality assessment”. Ages of participants ranged from 13-72 years old and as a total they found that people who sexted had a higher power score compared to non-sexters. When broken down into smaller aged groups the teens (13-26) there was no difference in scores between sexters. One of the problems I think this study has was not enough participants. For being an online study they really should have gotten more participation.
Another article I found on sexting that I thought was interesting can be found here :http://socialpsychconnection.blogspot.com/2009/04/sexting-aiming-to-conform.html, this isn’t a study on it but a suggestion as to why sexting may occur in younger teens. The author suggests that the pressure to conform is a deciding factor on why teens will sext. I can see this point of view and can somewhat agree with what they are suggesting. It is sad to think though that some young girls (and possibly boys) are sending provocative pictures and messages simply to try and fit in and try to be “cool”.
So, my question is this: Is sexting really the new cybering? Based on this study alone I do not think it is. Cybering is more of an attempt to make connections to people anonymously and fill physical desires. Whereas sexting seems like it may be more of a thing about popularity and gaining social status. Sexting isn’t really something that is done anonymously either which is another thing that makes it different than cybering. This is a very interesting new area of study for social psychologists to research further.
Some researchers suggest that sexting as it relates to psychology may be a way to improve social status or possibly a new type of “mating call” (http://www.realpsychology.com/content/tools-life/sextingis-it-all-about-power). The first study I found involved internet polling of people earlier this year. Of the 323 participants it was found that 66% sexted. Along with polling them about their sexting habits and experiences they took a “power personality assessment”. Ages of participants ranged from 13-72 years old and as a total they found that people who sexted had a higher power score compared to non-sexters. When broken down into smaller aged groups the teens (13-26) there was no difference in scores between sexters. One of the problems I think this study has was not enough participants. For being an online study they really should have gotten more participation.
Another article I found on sexting that I thought was interesting can be found here :http://socialpsychconnection.blogspot.com/2009/04/sexting-aiming-to-conform.html, this isn’t a study on it but a suggestion as to why sexting may occur in younger teens. The author suggests that the pressure to conform is a deciding factor on why teens will sext. I can see this point of view and can somewhat agree with what they are suggesting. It is sad to think though that some young girls (and possibly boys) are sending provocative pictures and messages simply to try and fit in and try to be “cool”.
So, my question is this: Is sexting really the new cybering? Based on this study alone I do not think it is. Cybering is more of an attempt to make connections to people anonymously and fill physical desires. Whereas sexting seems like it may be more of a thing about popularity and gaining social status. Sexting isn’t really something that is done anonymously either which is another thing that makes it different than cybering. This is a very interesting new area of study for social psychologists to research further.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Proposed Study
We've heard and read about stereotype threat and the negative impact that stereotypes have in general. What we haven't discussed is whether or not there is anything we can do to limit the negative effects of stereotype threat or stereotypes in general in terms of the individual who may fall victim to such. Therefore, I propose a study to determine if we are capable of limiting the negative impact that stereotyping has been shown to have.
My theory is that, through knowledge, we can limit the negative impact that stereotyping/stereotype threat has on the individual being stereotyped against or who experiences stereotype threat. The whole idea is that if we are trained to recognize how we could be feeling, thinking, and responding to a situation in which we may feel victim of stereotyping/stereotype threat that we will be able to essentially decide how we will feel, think, and respond when we are actually in the situation.
Operational Definition: The number of negative thoughts and feelings reported by individuals will decrease and the average score of tests and personal performance rating will increase among commonly stereotyped individuals with increased knowledge about stereotypes and stereotype threat.
Sample: A survey will be conducted, most likely at a large university, asking questions about when, where, how frequently, under what circumstances, how they felt during situation, how they feel in reflection, whether or not they think it had an impact on their personal performance if the situation called for it, and why people believe they have been victim of stereotyping or stereotype threat. It would be a rather large survey that also incorporated other questions about issues pertaining to society so as to give the impression that the whole survey was about problems that afflict our society and the individuals that live in it in general. From this survey, 100 people will be asked to participate in the study.
Method: The study would consist of six months of rigorous learning. Learning will be focused on determining the many negative effects that a victim of stereotyping or stereotype threat may encounter. Full participation in the study will consist of research, group projects, skits, open discussion, lectures, and individual expression of feelings about stereotyping and stereotype threat. After the six month period, participants will be asked to participate in the same survey as was originally given but this time every three months for 2 years. The reason for the survey given every three months is to determine whether or not the information learned has a lasting impact, if at all, or if people are prone to falling back into old habits of reacting and thinking about stereotypes/stereotype threat. Participants will also be asked to submit test scores and GPA's over the same time period to determine if there was an increase, decrease, or no change.
Possible Results: We may find that increased knowledge of the negative effects of stereotypes/stereotype threat has no impact on the victim. We may find that it does change the way people respond, think, and feel when confronted with stereotyping/stereotype threat, but only temporarily. We may find that there is a permanent change. As a researcher, I would look for a decrease in negative emotions reported, a decrease in negative thoughts reported, a decrease in negative responses, and a reported increase in personal performance rating when the situation calls for it, i.e. testing, giving speeches, GPA, etc. Hopefully, if any of these things were reported, it would be a lasting effect.
My theory is that, through knowledge, we can limit the negative impact that stereotyping/stereotype threat has on the individual being stereotyped against or who experiences stereotype threat. The whole idea is that if we are trained to recognize how we could be feeling, thinking, and responding to a situation in which we may feel victim of stereotyping/stereotype threat that we will be able to essentially decide how we will feel, think, and respond when we are actually in the situation.
Operational Definition: The number of negative thoughts and feelings reported by individuals will decrease and the average score of tests and personal performance rating will increase among commonly stereotyped individuals with increased knowledge about stereotypes and stereotype threat.
Sample: A survey will be conducted, most likely at a large university, asking questions about when, where, how frequently, under what circumstances, how they felt during situation, how they feel in reflection, whether or not they think it had an impact on their personal performance if the situation called for it, and why people believe they have been victim of stereotyping or stereotype threat. It would be a rather large survey that also incorporated other questions about issues pertaining to society so as to give the impression that the whole survey was about problems that afflict our society and the individuals that live in it in general. From this survey, 100 people will be asked to participate in the study.
Method: The study would consist of six months of rigorous learning. Learning will be focused on determining the many negative effects that a victim of stereotyping or stereotype threat may encounter. Full participation in the study will consist of research, group projects, skits, open discussion, lectures, and individual expression of feelings about stereotyping and stereotype threat. After the six month period, participants will be asked to participate in the same survey as was originally given but this time every three months for 2 years. The reason for the survey given every three months is to determine whether or not the information learned has a lasting impact, if at all, or if people are prone to falling back into old habits of reacting and thinking about stereotypes/stereotype threat. Participants will also be asked to submit test scores and GPA's over the same time period to determine if there was an increase, decrease, or no change.
Possible Results: We may find that increased knowledge of the negative effects of stereotypes/stereotype threat has no impact on the victim. We may find that it does change the way people respond, think, and feel when confronted with stereotyping/stereotype threat, but only temporarily. We may find that there is a permanent change. As a researcher, I would look for a decrease in negative emotions reported, a decrease in negative thoughts reported, a decrease in negative responses, and a reported increase in personal performance rating when the situation calls for it, i.e. testing, giving speeches, GPA, etc. Hopefully, if any of these things were reported, it would be a lasting effect.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
When Males are More Sensitive to Self-Perceptions Than Females
Self-Ratings of Physical Attractiveness in a Competitive Context: When Males are More Sensitive to Self-Perceptions Than Females
Gad Sadd, Concordia University & Tripat Gill, University of Ontario Institute of Technology
as published in The Journal of Social Psychology, 2009, 149(5), 585-599
I found this study to be fascinating because I felt it showed a different result than I would have expected. The researchers used the "Ultimatum Game" to see how a competitive atmosphere will impact a person's judgment towards their competition's attractiveness. The "Ultimatum Game" is one in which there is a "recipient" and an "allocator". The allocator makes an offer to the recipient on how they are willing to split the resource they are given (in this study $10 was used). The recipient then accepts the offer and they get to collect the amount as offered, or the recipient rejects the offer and neither player gets anything. After the game was played between the participants they were given a questionnaire that among other questions had the participants rate their own attractiveness and that of their partner. The person administering the experiment also rated both participants' attractiveness.
Results of the study showed that among the male-male groups participants rated their own attractiveness higher than that of their partner's. Among male-female groups the males rated the females higher in attractiveness than they rated themselves. Lastly, among the female-female groups they tended to rate each other as similarly attractive. As for the ratings of the person administering the experiment all females were rated higher in attractiveness than all males in general. The researchers also point out that the males self-ratings when facing a male opponent were higher than that of either the opponent or the experiment administrator showing an overconfidence bias in the males self ratings.
I just thought it was interesting that the males' rating results on attractiveness were the ones that differed the most when comparing themselves to others. I always thought females were the ones that were more likely behave in that way. The researchers suggest that the males' rating differences is due to an evolutionary kind of influence, and that adding competition into the mix of rating attractiveness causes males to want to be the most successful and attractive.
Gad Sadd, Concordia University & Tripat Gill, University of Ontario Institute of Technology
as published in The Journal of Social Psychology, 2009, 149(5), 585-599
I found this study to be fascinating because I felt it showed a different result than I would have expected. The researchers used the "Ultimatum Game" to see how a competitive atmosphere will impact a person's judgment towards their competition's attractiveness. The "Ultimatum Game" is one in which there is a "recipient" and an "allocator". The allocator makes an offer to the recipient on how they are willing to split the resource they are given (in this study $10 was used). The recipient then accepts the offer and they get to collect the amount as offered, or the recipient rejects the offer and neither player gets anything. After the game was played between the participants they were given a questionnaire that among other questions had the participants rate their own attractiveness and that of their partner. The person administering the experiment also rated both participants' attractiveness.
Results of the study showed that among the male-male groups participants rated their own attractiveness higher than that of their partner's. Among male-female groups the males rated the females higher in attractiveness than they rated themselves. Lastly, among the female-female groups they tended to rate each other as similarly attractive. As for the ratings of the person administering the experiment all females were rated higher in attractiveness than all males in general. The researchers also point out that the males self-ratings when facing a male opponent were higher than that of either the opponent or the experiment administrator showing an overconfidence bias in the males self ratings.
I just thought it was interesting that the males' rating results on attractiveness were the ones that differed the most when comparing themselves to others. I always thought females were the ones that were more likely behave in that way. The researchers suggest that the males' rating differences is due to an evolutionary kind of influence, and that adding competition into the mix of rating attractiveness causes males to want to be the most successful and attractive.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Medical Marijuna for ADD/ADHD
We all know that the use of medical marijuana is on the up rise in this country for many reasons such as Muscular dystrophy, Anorexia, Cancer, and many other medical conditions that are accompanied with high levels of pain, but when I heard that we are giving medical marijuana to children for Attention Deficit Disorder I had to do some research on the topic. I went to a web page that had a few links to follow up on this topic http://www.showmethefacts.org/medical-marijuana-facts/add-adhd/ and on that page the first link I clicked on http://mcforadhd.free.fr/symptomsen.html this gave me some pretty interesting information. They stated that good reasons to treat Attention Deficit Disorder with medical marijuana were lack of attention, because the THC in the marijuana slows the brain down and therefore patients would be able to focus more; sexual hyperactivity, they listed no reason how marijuana would help with this; and my favorite alcohol and drug abuse tendencies, it would help with this because patients would use cannabis (marijuana) use as a substitute for these addictions. I could not believe what I was reading! If this was seriously the scientific evidence that was to support our society in giving marijuana to young children I was about to be completely let down. There also was a video listed with an actual doctor supporting this issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj72e5q61Fs. In this video the doctor implies (at least how I perceived it) that the reason teenagers with ADD start smoking marijuana is because it helps them and that we as a society have been the fools by trying to redirect our children to not smoke marijuana. The doctor then states she started supporting the use of medical marijuana for ADD because she started listening to her patients tell her how good the drug was for them. I thought to myself, well of course they are going to say that, it is a mood altering substance. I always feel good or rather better when my mood has been altered as well. Has our society really forgotten the harmful effects that marijuana can have on the human mind physically, mentally, and psychologically? Lets refresh our memory here, to use marijuana is to take a chemical and run it through our brain where it effects our pleasure center. You are changing the way you feel by changing the way your brains pleasure center normally functions creating a mental disorder. Humm? Sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Also, marijuana effects chromosomes, sex and reproductive organs and hormones in a negative way. All this is supported by the article http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000235 I bet evolutionary psychologists just love that. Lets give it to our nine year old son and see if he can produce a daughter with a perfectly symmetrical face? I could go on and on about the negative effects of marijuana. I think the most important argument here is children with ADD are at a substantially higher risk to develop an addiction problem as it is. Giving young children marijuana at an early age just introduces them to addiction earlier, we as a society are saying here, "We know your going to use drugs so just stick to the pot." When people use a drug they develop drug related behaviors, we are just introducing our children to these behaviors at an earlier age. Imagine what this does to their self-esteem, to their will to better themselves. It just blows me away that our society wants to say " Here kid smoke a joint and just exist, because your behaviors are to out of control for us to tolerate". Talk about developing a lazy society. Marijuana never kills anyone they say, or it is better than drinking alcohol. Well, unfortunately drug addiction kills everyday, it destroys entire families. Then when you compare it to alcohol what are you really saying there, that having no ambition in life and delaying your thought process is better than getting into a bar fight or driving drunk? I think they are still in the same category of " my life sucks". This is not a message I want to send to anyone who already has a hard struggle with life as it is. In conclusion, it will be interesting to see how this great idea will impact us in a social psychological point of view. Its almost like our society has went with the old saying " Heck, if you cant beat them join them" and finding every reason under the sun to do so.
Changes in Marital Status
Lucas, R., Clark, A., Yannis, G., Diener, E. (2003).
Reexamining adaptation and the set point model of Happiness:
Reactions to changes in marital status.
Retrieved November 20, 2009, from:
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/psp843527.pdf
I found this article to be very interesting. One often hears the statement that your never happy alone, or life is always better with a partner. I found a study that was done with 12,000 residents in private households of Germany. These residents were contacted over the phone or face to face, and given a survey about their marital status and happiness.
The results showed that people who were married were just as happy and satisfied as those who were single. Everyone has life changing experiences such as getting married, winning a large amount of money, or getting a promotion. Although these times make one very excited and raise self-esteem dramatically, overtime these high levels of happiness return right back to normal. In the end one's life satisfaction will remain about the same from day one until life is over.
I believe this study should be looked at again with a range of different cultures. The meaning of marriage, and beliefs about marriage change between cultures. This study should also be done with different age groups. It would be interesting to see if young couples are happier than older couples. Kepping in mind the younger couples are still working along with many other activites, therefore would recieve many breaks from one another. The older retired couples seem to be around each other a lot more on a day to day basis. I wonder if these time frames would change the level of happiness in a couples relationship.
Marissa Steele
Reexamining adaptation and the set point model of Happiness:
Reactions to changes in marital status.
Retrieved November 20, 2009, from:
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/psp843527.pdf
I found this article to be very interesting. One often hears the statement that your never happy alone, or life is always better with a partner. I found a study that was done with 12,000 residents in private households of Germany. These residents were contacted over the phone or face to face, and given a survey about their marital status and happiness.
The results showed that people who were married were just as happy and satisfied as those who were single. Everyone has life changing experiences such as getting married, winning a large amount of money, or getting a promotion. Although these times make one very excited and raise self-esteem dramatically, overtime these high levels of happiness return right back to normal. In the end one's life satisfaction will remain about the same from day one until life is over.
I believe this study should be looked at again with a range of different cultures. The meaning of marriage, and beliefs about marriage change between cultures. This study should also be done with different age groups. It would be interesting to see if young couples are happier than older couples. Kepping in mind the younger couples are still working along with many other activites, therefore would recieve many breaks from one another. The older retired couples seem to be around each other a lot more on a day to day basis. I wonder if these time frames would change the level of happiness in a couples relationship.
Marissa Steele
Monday, November 16, 2009
Internalization of Stigmas
I originally went on a search for information about the effects of the obesity stigma but I got a little sidetracked. On this website, http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/sum03/stigma.html, I found this: "It is important to note that the stigma of obesity is somewhat unique from that of other marginalized groups, in that obese people internalize societal anti-fat and pro-thin biases. Obese people agree with society's assessment that an imperfect body represents an imperfect person." The word "internalize" jumped out at me like a bright yellow flower in a wide-open range of rolling green fields. Naturally, I wanted to see what has been said about when this internalization takes place. That's when I found this website: http://www.obesity.org/information/weight_bias.asp. "Research shows that children who are targets of weight stigma internalize negative attitudes and engage in self-blame for the negative social experiences that they confront." One other bit of information is that results from a survey about relationship satisfaction showed that overweight participants who were overweight at or before age 21, attributed relationship struggles to their weight and that overweight participants who were not overweight until after age 21 did not attribute their weight to any struggles in personal relationships. I couldn't find very much more about when the threat of internalization is highest or if there is a time frame for internalization to take place. My hypothesis is that internalization happens at a young age(before the age of 18). Therefor, I propose a study spanning the continental US(simply because I think that differing cultures may naturally have different stigmas). The study would focus on different ranges of ages. The study would combine naturalistic observation of the different age groups and a series of daily journals(participants would not be told what the purpose of keeping a daily journal is or what it is we're looking for) over a period of a year. Initial surveys would be performed to find out who had become classified as obese and when so that we may divide groups according to how long they had been living with the stigma and then determine when, if at all, the stigma was internalized. Researchers would look for specific interactions with peers or coworkers in the observation phase and then look for how, if at all, the participant referred to it in their daily journal. For example, a mention of the specific interaction may or may not even get mentioned in the journal and this would show a great deal about how the incident affected the participant. Any sudden changes in the reactions to specific incidents would indicate a change in the way the participant is perceiving the interactions.
Awareness of Racism Affects How Children Do Socially and Academically
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091113083301.htm
I found this article very interesting and easily related back to things we have discussed in class. This article discusses that children develop an awareness about racial stereotypes earlier in life than we thought. The study looked at children in elementary school and asked them questions to determine their ability to understand another person's stereotypical beliefs. Researchers found that children between age 5 and 11 become aware of stereotypes, including stereotypes about academic ability. When children become aware of stereotypes about their own racial ethnic group, it can affect them academically. The idea being that if a child is of a ethnic group that has a stereotype that they are not that intelligent, the student will do poorer on tests and in class to confirm the stereotype.
This relates to what we studied in class about stereotypes affecting people and people living up to their stereotypes. I would think that if a certain race had a stereotype, that they would want to do the best they can and prove that the stereotype does not apply to them. Instead, this study proves that people continually go along with stereotypes because it is what is expected of them.
So how do we change this? The article suggests that there is a need for educational policies and programs to reduce stereotypes and their consequence early in children's school careers. I would have to agree. If we can get rid of children developing these stereotypes, then every one has the ability to preform at the best level they can, not be help back by stereotypes. Does anyone have any other ideas of how to stop this?
I found this article very interesting and easily related back to things we have discussed in class. This article discusses that children develop an awareness about racial stereotypes earlier in life than we thought. The study looked at children in elementary school and asked them questions to determine their ability to understand another person's stereotypical beliefs. Researchers found that children between age 5 and 11 become aware of stereotypes, including stereotypes about academic ability. When children become aware of stereotypes about their own racial ethnic group, it can affect them academically. The idea being that if a child is of a ethnic group that has a stereotype that they are not that intelligent, the student will do poorer on tests and in class to confirm the stereotype.
This relates to what we studied in class about stereotypes affecting people and people living up to their stereotypes. I would think that if a certain race had a stereotype, that they would want to do the best they can and prove that the stereotype does not apply to them. Instead, this study proves that people continually go along with stereotypes because it is what is expected of them.
So how do we change this? The article suggests that there is a need for educational policies and programs to reduce stereotypes and their consequence early in children's school careers. I would have to agree. If we can get rid of children developing these stereotypes, then every one has the ability to preform at the best level they can, not be help back by stereotypes. Does anyone have any other ideas of how to stop this?
Twittering the Student Experience
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091116103840.htm
There was an experiment done by researchers on a campus to find out if Twitter would help education or not. Researchers set up a system where students in their first term would communicate by tweeting. This was an effective experiment and tweeting was not used for social communication, but more for peer support tool and a student-staff communication tool.
This article discusses how a University used Twitter as a communication tool for their courses. It helped students in studying for exams, setting up meetings, and bringing more clarity of the material by asking the professor questions. Students updated their status to let other students know if they needed help or that they were wiling to help others. Twitter proved to be more effective than email and phone calls because it was more immediate. It also helped students open up more to other students and be available to help each other more.
I thought this was a very interesting phenomenon. I have never used twitter myself because I have always thought of it as just a social network to know what people are doing every second of every day. I would never have thought of using Twitter as an outlet for education. The article briefly discusses how students found it useful and helpful in communicating about courses they were taking and assignments/exams.
This may be effective and helpful to students, but I wonder if it would eventually affect the way people communicate? If all campuses go to this form of communication, there will be no need for face-to-face interaction. The essence off communication will be lost- nonverbal cues, voice cues, etc. I am interested to see what other students think about this!
There was an experiment done by researchers on a campus to find out if Twitter would help education or not. Researchers set up a system where students in their first term would communicate by tweeting. This was an effective experiment and tweeting was not used for social communication, but more for peer support tool and a student-staff communication tool.
This article discusses how a University used Twitter as a communication tool for their courses. It helped students in studying for exams, setting up meetings, and bringing more clarity of the material by asking the professor questions. Students updated their status to let other students know if they needed help or that they were wiling to help others. Twitter proved to be more effective than email and phone calls because it was more immediate. It also helped students open up more to other students and be available to help each other more.
I thought this was a very interesting phenomenon. I have never used twitter myself because I have always thought of it as just a social network to know what people are doing every second of every day. I would never have thought of using Twitter as an outlet for education. The article briefly discusses how students found it useful and helpful in communicating about courses they were taking and assignments/exams.
This may be effective and helpful to students, but I wonder if it would eventually affect the way people communicate? If all campuses go to this form of communication, there will be no need for face-to-face interaction. The essence off communication will be lost- nonverbal cues, voice cues, etc. I am interested to see what other students think about this!
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Balloon Boy Hoax
The Heene family appeared on a popular reality show called Wife Swap about a year ago. The father, Richard, is some kind of scientist who works on inventions all the time. He and his wife have been said to sleep in their clothes in case they need to jump out of bed to chase a storm. They have three boys, the youngest one, named Falcon, being 6 yrs old. Here is a link to the story in case you aren't familiar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_balloon_incident. The most recent news says that the parents are pleading guilty to the charges against them and that the prosecutor is recommending probation. Jim Watkins, a news anchor, wrote a pretty strongly worded article in regards to the exploitation of the children called Falcon's Aftermath: The Danger Was on the Ground. You can find it here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-watkins/falcons-aftermath-the-dan_b_324442.html. This situation pertains to so many of the things we've been discussing in our class so far. For instance, the impact that the news has on how we perceive and feel about things, what they report, and how they report it. Originally, the only information anybody had was one of the boys brother's saying that he saw him climb into the balloon. This country obviously loves reality TV and I would argue that the news has turned into just that. We get what we ask for I think. Based on ratings, they know exactly what to give us and they won't change it until we ask them to. I believe it to be pretty individualistic, among other things, to pull a stunt like this without considering the consequences that may effect their own children and the society around them. What impression have these people gotten that they think nothing will happen as a result of this except that it might better their chances at the reality TV show they had previously pitched to the same network responsible for Jon and Kate + Eight. I think these kids should have some rights to their own autonomy. I know it's hard to define exactly what that means for a child but I really do think that their is something wrong with having the right to subject your kids to reality TV, hoax's to get the attention of the media, and maybe even acting in general. I don't know where to even begin to draw the line though. I would propose a study to map the effects of exploiting kids in the media except that it would completely contradict my notion that children should have some rights because it would have to be done over a long period of time in which several different families were involved in different types of media. There's obviously some idea of what parent's have the right to subject their own children to. We can decide to include them in media entertainment but we can't sell them, send them to work in factories, or beat them. My point is, how do we know what damages are/are not caused by or correlated with, the entertainment industry? Young Falcon reportedly vomited on the sets of both Today and Good Morning America.
The E-spot
If it's easy access that really makes you click, log on here.
With the prevalence of E-Harmony commercials, it's amazing that I hadn't realized just how ordinary internet relationships had become. I knew that cybersex had been around for a long time, I guess I just never thought about the impact that it has on the traditional idea of how people "should" form relationships. The article bounces back and forth between discussing cyber relationships and cybersex. I think they are two different things so I'm going to pick one to talk about. I bet you can't guess which one...
With the prevalence of E-Harmony commercials, it's amazing that I hadn't realized just how ordinary internet relationships had become. I knew that cybersex had been around for a long time, I guess I just never thought about the impact that it has on the traditional idea of how people "should" form relationships. The article bounces back and forth between discussing cyber relationships and cybersex. I think they are two different things so I'm going to pick one to talk about. I bet you can't guess which one...
Okay, so I went and found some information on cybersex addiction. Our class reading mentions fantasy being addictive and that cybering is similar to taking drugs. I became immediately curious about whether or not this was defined as a specific addiction or mental disorder or whether it had been recognized at all. This is what I found: http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2005/06_15/2_feature05_11.html. This particular review is from 2005 and talks about the DSM-IV, The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, which does not specifically include cybersex addiction as a disorder. It usually gets lumped into the category of "sexual disorder not otherwise specified." This site however, http://www.netaddiction.com/, does mention that Internet addiction is a serious disorder and is being considered for inclusion in the upcoming revision of the DSM-V. My first reaction to this was laughter. I'm ashamed to admit that because I have always been one to take addiction seriously. After bouncing around a couple different web sites dedicated to people who are addicted to cybersex and reading their personal stories, I realized how real the whole thing is. Marriages have indeed been destroyed, internet abuse is attributed to 30% of lost productivity in the work place, and people are neglecting their own children in order to be cybering. A psychiatrist named Dr Jennifer Schneider calls cybersex addiction the crack cocaine of sexual addictions. Essentially she's saying, it's cheap, easy to obtain, and it's extremely powerful in the way it effects the body, therefore people who may not have had issues with addictive sexual behaviors before, might become so when introduced to cybering. I'm curious what the rest of you think about this.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
What your Facebook profile says about you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33796525/ns/technology_and_science-science
I think this article is very interesting since it is about a social profiling site and how you can persuade other people based on attractiveness. We actually talked about this in class where it can be based on their audience, likability, and physical attractiveness.
"In an age dominated by social media where personal photographs are ubiquitous, it becomes important to understand the ways personality is communicated via our appearance," said study researcher Laura Naumann of Sonoma State University. "The appearance one portrays in his or her photographs has important implications for their professional and social life."
I believe that with facebook and other social networking sites we focus more on the Peripheral Route Processing instead of Central Route Processing. Instead of analyzing the message being conveyed we are more likely to see someone be more likable if they are more attractive
Another thing I find fascinating is that it tested many different things such as: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness (open to experience), likability, self-esteem, loneliness, religiosity and political orientation.
If there is one thing you can take away from this it comes back to the basic argument of representative heuristics. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. If you want to be seen as a friendly person you need to show that in your pictures on facebook and real life as well.
I think this article is very interesting since it is about a social profiling site and how you can persuade other people based on attractiveness. We actually talked about this in class where it can be based on their audience, likability, and physical attractiveness.
"In an age dominated by social media where personal photographs are ubiquitous, it becomes important to understand the ways personality is communicated via our appearance," said study researcher Laura Naumann of Sonoma State University. "The appearance one portrays in his or her photographs has important implications for their professional and social life."
I believe that with facebook and other social networking sites we focus more on the Peripheral Route Processing instead of Central Route Processing. Instead of analyzing the message being conveyed we are more likely to see someone be more likable if they are more attractive
Another thing I find fascinating is that it tested many different things such as: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness (open to experience), likability, self-esteem, loneliness, religiosity and political orientation.
If there is one thing you can take away from this it comes back to the basic argument of representative heuristics. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. If you want to be seen as a friendly person you need to show that in your pictures on facebook and real life as well.
Apologizing to Avoid a Jail Sentence?
Is Saying Sorry Better Than Prison?
http://www.good.is/post/is-saying-sorry-better-than-prison/?gt1=48001One of the things we discussed in class was that one of the goals of incarceration is rehabilitation. According to the article a group of young people that are arrested in Northern Ireland are given the opportunity to say they are sorry to the people they affected the most with their crimes and they often have to work to offset any pay/damages.
38% under this program reoffended, however under a more harsh standard of incarceration reoffended 71% of the time. Not only are there benefits economically by not putting more tax dollars into the prison system, the offenders actually are acting better for society after their crimes.
One reason may be that the offender may become more self-aware to the crimes they have committed. They see how it affects the other people that are the victims. They are less likely to conform to a life of crime due to their new found self-awareness.
Now is this unfair to the victims? Not according most of the victims who actually support this more than just locking kids up. This allows kids to get over their crimes in a more efficient way and they will not have the social stigma of being incarcerated. This allows them to be able to work and be effective members in society.
Can Poor Leadership Lead Workers to Have Bad Health Problems?
Karolinska Institutet (2009, November 11). Poor Leadership Poses A Health Risk At Work. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com? /releases/2009/11/091102121626.htm
This was a cool study that came about recently that examines the effect that possible bad managerial leadership can have on workers' long term health. They also examined the relationship that possible bad managerial leadership had on workers taking more time off for sick leave. This study was conducted by the Swedish medical university Karolinska Institutet in which they got their results from 20,000 employees from such countries as Germany and Poland as well as most of Sweden's working population. These employees worked at various places like hotels. Once they got the results back, the conductors of this study looked at different people's stress levels, the number of sick leave that they took, and their different health problems that they had as well as other things. The conductors related this to how these people viewed their manager's leadership whether it was good or bad like how supportive he or she was. Through all of the results, they found out that possible poor managerial leadership actually did have an effect on a worker's long term health as well as the increased number of days that people were on sick leave from work due to poor managerial leadership. The conductors also found out that workers who viewed their managers as being good leaders, that those people had spent less days on sick leave from work.
I think that one factor that really wasn't mention that could make the employees view their managers as being poor leaders could be the leader's style. The employees might prefer a more relationship-oriented leader rather than a task-oriented leader or vice versa. Even though this is definitely not considered to be bad leadership, some employees might view this as being bad leadership. I also feel that some of the employees might view their leaders as being poor leaders based on things like their leaders showing a little favoritism towards the other employees. Those workers might end up having a dislike for their boss and end up viewing this as poor leadership which is another example that might not be considered by others to be poor leadership. I also agreed with the results that came about from this study. I think that employees who feel that their bosses are good leaders are more likely to live happier and healthier lives now and down the road. I think that this also can lead employees to enjoy their work more.
This was a cool study that came about recently that examines the effect that possible bad managerial leadership can have on workers' long term health. They also examined the relationship that possible bad managerial leadership had on workers taking more time off for sick leave. This study was conducted by the Swedish medical university Karolinska Institutet in which they got their results from 20,000 employees from such countries as Germany and Poland as well as most of Sweden's working population. These employees worked at various places like hotels. Once they got the results back, the conductors of this study looked at different people's stress levels, the number of sick leave that they took, and their different health problems that they had as well as other things. The conductors related this to how these people viewed their manager's leadership whether it was good or bad like how supportive he or she was. Through all of the results, they found out that possible poor managerial leadership actually did have an effect on a worker's long term health as well as the increased number of days that people were on sick leave from work due to poor managerial leadership. The conductors also found out that workers who viewed their managers as being good leaders, that those people had spent less days on sick leave from work.
I think that one factor that really wasn't mention that could make the employees view their managers as being poor leaders could be the leader's style. The employees might prefer a more relationship-oriented leader rather than a task-oriented leader or vice versa. Even though this is definitely not considered to be bad leadership, some employees might view this as being bad leadership. I also feel that some of the employees might view their leaders as being poor leaders based on things like their leaders showing a little favoritism towards the other employees. Those workers might end up having a dislike for their boss and end up viewing this as poor leadership which is another example that might not be considered by others to be poor leadership. I also agreed with the results that came about from this study. I think that employees who feel that their bosses are good leaders are more likely to live happier and healthier lives now and down the road. I think that this also can lead employees to enjoy their work more.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monogamy as Evolutionary or Social Function?
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/science-of-sex-appeal-is-monogamy-the-answer.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/science-of-sex-appeal-is-monogamy-the-answer.html
These videos described the reasons for monogamy in humans. In recent decades, I think people's view of monogamy has changed greatly. Maybe this is due to an increasing feeling that life-long monogramy isn't necessary or practical. With half of all marriages ending in divorce and women's changing roles in society, it isn't really surprising that monogamy isn't seen as a necessity to building a prosperous family. Today, women can engage in one night stands as easily as men and with less worry about consequences than ever before. They also aren't dependent on men as providers anymore. So is monogamy still a good option?
These videos showed that although women throughout evolution wouldn't have benefitted from straying from her partner, women seem to have a tendency to desire different traits at different times of the month. They still desire good fathering traits in their long term partners; however, they may stray if their partner doesn't have the good genes needed to be passed on to offspring. These "good genes" can be recognized by attractiveness and may tempt women into cheating, especially when their liklihood of getting pregnant is high.
Both men and women were found to have chemicals in their brains that support monogamy. These were vasopressin in males and oxytocin in women.
So could monogamy be nothing more than the balance of hormones? I think that even though monogamy today might not be as necessary as it was before, it is still necessary for future generations. Two parent households seem like they would be ideal in raising children. This way the children have both a male and female perspective guiding them and they often grow up with more stability.
Studies like Buss's Strategies of Human Mating show that men think short-term dating is more important than women. I understand that this could be because it is the easiest way to ensure they mate. However, I think that from an evolutionary standpoint, the offspring of a male who wasn't present for their upbringing would have less of a chance of surviving. This is possible for several reasons such as a lack of protection and no one to provide for the family. There would also be a chance that the child would have no male to teach it hunting or other important skills. Then in this way wouldn't the offspring of an absent male be less adaptive and less likely to mate? All-in-all I think that although monogamy isn't essential today, it is still important in raising successfull offspring in most cases. And although short-term mating may be the easiest way for males to reproduce, it might not have given their genes the best chance of being carried on through future generations.
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/science-of-sex-appeal-is-monogamy-the-answer.html
These videos described the reasons for monogamy in humans. In recent decades, I think people's view of monogamy has changed greatly. Maybe this is due to an increasing feeling that life-long monogramy isn't necessary or practical. With half of all marriages ending in divorce and women's changing roles in society, it isn't really surprising that monogamy isn't seen as a necessity to building a prosperous family. Today, women can engage in one night stands as easily as men and with less worry about consequences than ever before. They also aren't dependent on men as providers anymore. So is monogamy still a good option?
These videos showed that although women throughout evolution wouldn't have benefitted from straying from her partner, women seem to have a tendency to desire different traits at different times of the month. They still desire good fathering traits in their long term partners; however, they may stray if their partner doesn't have the good genes needed to be passed on to offspring. These "good genes" can be recognized by attractiveness and may tempt women into cheating, especially when their liklihood of getting pregnant is high.
Both men and women were found to have chemicals in their brains that support monogamy. These were vasopressin in males and oxytocin in women.
So could monogamy be nothing more than the balance of hormones? I think that even though monogamy today might not be as necessary as it was before, it is still necessary for future generations. Two parent households seem like they would be ideal in raising children. This way the children have both a male and female perspective guiding them and they often grow up with more stability.
Studies like Buss's Strategies of Human Mating show that men think short-term dating is more important than women. I understand that this could be because it is the easiest way to ensure they mate. However, I think that from an evolutionary standpoint, the offspring of a male who wasn't present for their upbringing would have less of a chance of surviving. This is possible for several reasons such as a lack of protection and no one to provide for the family. There would also be a chance that the child would have no male to teach it hunting or other important skills. Then in this way wouldn't the offspring of an absent male be less adaptive and less likely to mate? All-in-all I think that although monogamy isn't essential today, it is still important in raising successfull offspring in most cases. And although short-term mating may be the easiest way for males to reproduce, it might not have given their genes the best chance of being carried on through future generations.
1. http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/science-of-sex-appeal-attractive-facial-features.html
2. http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/science-of-sex-appeal-signals-of-the-flesh.html
I found this first short video after I read the assigned reading from Lemley; "Isn't She Lovely?" I was looking for an example of what the "hyperfeminized" faces from the reading looked like. It elaborated on what the reading had already said and gave some helpful visuals.
The second video is a related study that I thought was pretty interesting. College students were asked to judge photos of small patches of skin on the attractiveness that their owner probably possessed. After a short period of time the students were able to distinguish and rate what they thought were the most attractive people based on the sample photo of skin given to them. Why is such a small glimpse of a person all that's needed to assess their attractiveness?
It is guessed that in evolution, parasites were particularly prevalent in the success or failure of humanity. Therefore, the easiest way to indicate that a potential mate may not be a good choice, would be to analyze their skin color and texture. This would be a good representation of the general health of the other. It would be especially useful in determining their hormonal health because an imbalance in hormones is quite often the cause of irregular complexion and blemishes.
I thought that this attempt to delve into more detailed theory of visual attraction seemed pretty reasonable. It's kind of amazing that without even thinking about the smaller details in summing up someone's appeal, you are subconsciously analyzing all these finer points.
I wonder how people will adapt from here on out. Today, you can't assume someone is healthy just by seeing the tone of their skin. Actually, you can assume that if a woman's skin is too evenly colored and her cheeks are rosy, that she is wearing make-up. An attractive all-over tan is also a good indicator that this person may use tanning beds. Many cosmetics contain checmicals known to cause cancer, and by now everyone knows that tanning beds do as well. So in the future will an even skin tone, rosy cheecks and colored lips be considered unadaptive rather than indicators of good physical health? Maybe that's too much to assume being that nearly everything is supposed to cause cancer. However, I do think it's interesting that what we do to appear attractive to mates, seems to be making us less desirable mates.
2. http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/science-of-sex-appeal-signals-of-the-flesh.html
I found this first short video after I read the assigned reading from Lemley; "Isn't She Lovely?" I was looking for an example of what the "hyperfeminized" faces from the reading looked like. It elaborated on what the reading had already said and gave some helpful visuals.
The second video is a related study that I thought was pretty interesting. College students were asked to judge photos of small patches of skin on the attractiveness that their owner probably possessed. After a short period of time the students were able to distinguish and rate what they thought were the most attractive people based on the sample photo of skin given to them. Why is such a small glimpse of a person all that's needed to assess their attractiveness?
It is guessed that in evolution, parasites were particularly prevalent in the success or failure of humanity. Therefore, the easiest way to indicate that a potential mate may not be a good choice, would be to analyze their skin color and texture. This would be a good representation of the general health of the other. It would be especially useful in determining their hormonal health because an imbalance in hormones is quite often the cause of irregular complexion and blemishes.
I thought that this attempt to delve into more detailed theory of visual attraction seemed pretty reasonable. It's kind of amazing that without even thinking about the smaller details in summing up someone's appeal, you are subconsciously analyzing all these finer points.
I wonder how people will adapt from here on out. Today, you can't assume someone is healthy just by seeing the tone of their skin. Actually, you can assume that if a woman's skin is too evenly colored and her cheeks are rosy, that she is wearing make-up. An attractive all-over tan is also a good indicator that this person may use tanning beds. Many cosmetics contain checmicals known to cause cancer, and by now everyone knows that tanning beds do as well. So in the future will an even skin tone, rosy cheecks and colored lips be considered unadaptive rather than indicators of good physical health? Maybe that's too much to assume being that nearly everything is supposed to cause cancer. However, I do think it's interesting that what we do to appear attractive to mates, seems to be making us less desirable mates.
Did equal rights for women hurt education
A hundred years ago teaching was dominated by women. Teaching was one of the few jobs open to women that did not involve menial labor. By 1940 about 55 percent of teachers were women.
According to the authors of the book Super Freakonomics. When the Equal Pay and Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed it caused a shift in the perception of women’s roles in the work place. Enabling more women with a chance for an education, they looked at professions that had previously been off limits to women: law, medicine, finance, and business.
These profession offered women higher wages and attracted the best and the brightest women. In the past many of these women would have taken up teaching in the past.
As a consequence, of these women choosing the higher paying jobs the teaching profession experienced a brain drain. In 1960 40 percent of women scored in the top quintile of IQ and other aptitude tests. Within twenty years fewer than half as many women were in the top quintile, with more than twice as many in the bottom. Falling wages for teachers in relation to other jobs is seen as at least partially to blame. The chancellor of New York City’s public school system said, “The quality of teachers has been declining for decades.”
Between 1967 and 1980 U.S. test scores fell about 1.25 grade-level equivalents. Education researcher John Bishop called this decline, “historically unprecedented,” arguing that it will put a serious drag on national productivity well into the twenty first century.
Levitt, S., & Dubner, S. (2009) Super Freakonomics. New York: HarperCollins.
According to the authors of the book Super Freakonomics. When the Equal Pay and Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed it caused a shift in the perception of women’s roles in the work place. Enabling more women with a chance for an education, they looked at professions that had previously been off limits to women: law, medicine, finance, and business.
These profession offered women higher wages and attracted the best and the brightest women. In the past many of these women would have taken up teaching in the past.
As a consequence, of these women choosing the higher paying jobs the teaching profession experienced a brain drain. In 1960 40 percent of women scored in the top quintile of IQ and other aptitude tests. Within twenty years fewer than half as many women were in the top quintile, with more than twice as many in the bottom. Falling wages for teachers in relation to other jobs is seen as at least partially to blame. The chancellor of New York City’s public school system said, “The quality of teachers has been declining for decades.”
Between 1967 and 1980 U.S. test scores fell about 1.25 grade-level equivalents. Education researcher John Bishop called this decline, “historically unprecedented,” arguing that it will put a serious drag on national productivity well into the twenty first century.
Levitt, S., & Dubner, S. (2009) Super Freakonomics. New York: HarperCollins.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Making Progress in Lessening Racism: Prom Night in Mississippi
We had a little discussion in class about a month ago where we looked at the question if we have progress in the last fifty years in lessening racism. We listed a few examples that showed this progress. But, there was one thing afterwards that I thought of regarding this question. I thought of the documentary, Prom Night in Mississippi, that I watched this past summer. This documentary, which was filmed in 2008,talked about a high school in Charleston, Mississippi, where there was two separate proms, one prom for the white kids and one prom for the black kids. In 1997, actor Morgan Freeman, who lived in Charleston, made a proposal to the school board that if they had just one prom instead of separate proms, that he would pay for it. But, this proposal was rejected. But for the 2008 prom, Morgan Freeman decided to do the proposal again and this time, the proposal was approved. He also told the kids that he would pay for the prom if they put together an integrated prom. They gladly accepted this. But when the idea of an integrated prom came about, many of the white parents were furious and spoke up about their racist views that they held for their entire lives. Some said that integration of any kind didn't allow for individuality, and some said that they wouldn't change their views for nobody. Some of the white parents were trying their best to push their kids away from the integerated prom and pushing them to go to the parents' proposed separate white prom. Even, one kid, when he was interviewed for the documentary, had to have his face covered so that his parents, who were racist, didn't find out about his true views. Many of the kids ended up becoming furious with how the parents were acting. The kids said things like that the white parents had to get over this racism and that it was so stupid that the parents were making such a big deal out of this. With all of these things, this showed that the racism was definitely bad in this town. When looking at the different forms of racism that were discussed in one of our readings, it seemed to me that most of these parents, who were racist, held old-fashioned racist views. I can't recall if there were parents who held aversive racist views, but there might have been. Even through all of the parents bickering as well as other people in the town, the kids had a very successful integrated prom.
This documentary also related to the studies that were conducted in one of our readings, "Change of Heart." It definitely related to its studies about the generation gap which said that younger Americans were more likely to accept other races than the older Americans. This is definitely shown in the documentary with racist parents being furious over an integrated prom while many of the high school kids feeling that an integrated prom is a good thing. This could based on the kids being taught in school that interacting with people of a different race is a good thing as well as some of the students already dating someone from a different race. This documentary as well as the reading gives us an eye-opener that racism is still a big part today. Even though, I do agree that we have done many things throughout the years to lower racism. But like the documentary and the reading shows us, that there is still some progress that needs to be made in order to keep lowering racism.
This documentary also related to the studies that were conducted in one of our readings, "Change of Heart." It definitely related to its studies about the generation gap which said that younger Americans were more likely to accept other races than the older Americans. This is definitely shown in the documentary with racist parents being furious over an integrated prom while many of the high school kids feeling that an integrated prom is a good thing. This could based on the kids being taught in school that interacting with people of a different race is a good thing as well as some of the students already dating someone from a different race. This documentary as well as the reading gives us an eye-opener that racism is still a big part today. Even though, I do agree that we have done many things throughout the years to lower racism. But like the documentary and the reading shows us, that there is still some progress that needs to be made in order to keep lowering racism.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Genes May Influence Popularity, Study of College Students Finds
Genes May Influence Popularity, Study Of College Students Finds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081222074607.htm
This is a very interesting article that goes off of our recent and current class discussions of groups and group behavior. In class we have looked at group structure and how people fit in certain groups. We recently were asked to create models of how people are accepted into a group, stay in a group, hierarchy in a group, why people leave the group, etc. Students in class discussed more in terms of certain traits that make people accepted into groups. What I was interested in was what made people popular in certain groups or if there was a real reason for a hierarchy in groups.
This article was very interesting in the sense that I didn’t think there could be a certain gene that made people more popular than others. The idea that the article discusses is that a gene predisposes you to a certain behavior and those behaviors get different kinds of social reactions from others. So, the genes are in some way directing your social experiences. The particular gene that they have found is one that predisposes males to rule-breaking behavior, which makes them more popular in their groups. If you think back to high school, the rule-breaking kid always was more popular because they were exciting and not afraid to break rules.
This is the only gene they have found so far, but gives an interesting insight to group behavior. I do not think that genes decide where we stand in groups and what groups we are in, but they apparently do play a small role. Does anyone else find this fascinating or have opposing opinions?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081222074607.htm
This is a very interesting article that goes off of our recent and current class discussions of groups and group behavior. In class we have looked at group structure and how people fit in certain groups. We recently were asked to create models of how people are accepted into a group, stay in a group, hierarchy in a group, why people leave the group, etc. Students in class discussed more in terms of certain traits that make people accepted into groups. What I was interested in was what made people popular in certain groups or if there was a real reason for a hierarchy in groups.
This article was very interesting in the sense that I didn’t think there could be a certain gene that made people more popular than others. The idea that the article discusses is that a gene predisposes you to a certain behavior and those behaviors get different kinds of social reactions from others. So, the genes are in some way directing your social experiences. The particular gene that they have found is one that predisposes males to rule-breaking behavior, which makes them more popular in their groups. If you think back to high school, the rule-breaking kid always was more popular because they were exciting and not afraid to break rules.
This is the only gene they have found so far, but gives an interesting insight to group behavior. I do not think that genes decide where we stand in groups and what groups we are in, but they apparently do play a small role. Does anyone else find this fascinating or have opposing opinions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)