Good News For Parents: Psychologist Increases Preschooler Compliance in Study
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/52957.php
This study, which was conducted in 2006, checked into seeing on how to raise the compliance of preschoolers. They did this by following a three step system that is not very well known. They did this study for different preschool kids for twice-a-week sessions for about a six month period. The three step system went like this. First off, the instructor gave out a direct request like "Put the toy away" to the kid. If the kid carried out the action to the request, then he or she would get praise from the instructor. But if the kid didn't do it, then the instuctor would make direct eye contact with the kid and would say the kid's name. The instructor then would tell the kid their same request and show him or her about what they wanted accomplished. If the kid carried out the action to the request the second time, he or she would still get praise from the instructor. But if once again the kid didn't carry out the action from the request in about 10 seconds, the instructor would say the request again as well as leading the kid towards carrying out the action. The conductors also looked at consistency in this study in which they used three different levels. The first level was 100% consistency in which the instructor completely followed the three step system of raising compliance, while the second level was 50% consistency in which the instructors followed the three step model for only 50% of the time. But for the third level, it was 0% consistency in which the instructors didn't carry out the three step system. What they found was that compliance raised the most when the instructors completely carried out the three step system and that there was really no progress in raising compliance when the instructors carried out the three step system at 0% consistency. Even though, I do admit that these results aren't really surprising. I really liked the statement by the main conductor of this study in which it is better for parents not to give off any negative emotions especially in the later steps of this system when parents are following this three step method to raise their kids' compliance . I definitely know that most kids will most likely carry out a action from request if the parents act positive towards them. If the parent raises their voice, the kid might lash back at them or show another negative emotion like crying. This might lead the kid to not carry out the task at that moment.
Even though, I do wonder if the factors of compliance that we learned about in class had or might have an effect in this study. I question that with the kids that complied on the first try, that they might have been in better moods compared to the kids that complied on later tries. The reason that the kids might have not complied the first time could have based on them getting mad about something else from earlier in the day and ended up keeping that same bad mood for most of the day. I also wonder if the instructors would have given reasons to their requests to the kids the first time. This might have improved these kids' compliance.
I also wonder about how many parents ended up using this three step system to help with their kids' compliance. Obviously with this method not being well-known, the number isn't probably really high. When the parents decided to use this three step system, I was also curious about how consistent these parents followed the three step system. This is especially important, because consistency was a big time factor in this study to help to bring up the kids' complaince.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Social Loafing with a Gang Rape?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/29/california.rape.victim.friend/index.html
Friend of gang rape victim blasts school officials over safety
To be sure, this was a very horrible crime and there was no reason people shouldn't have called 911. Is it possible though that the reason no one came to help is because no one wanted to be responsible? If ten to fifteen people were involved in the assault and rape of this one girl, is it all that unreasonable that no one would go and stop the perpetrators, themselves? If ten people all watched and did nothing about it, maybe it's because they figured someone else would call the police and get involved.
According to the readings for this class, the cause for social loafing in this context mostly has to do with the third reason which is:
"It may be that participants
felt that the contingency between their input and the outcome was
lessened when performing in groups. Individuals could "hide in the crowd"
(Davis, 1969) and avoid the negative consequences of slacking off, or they may
have felt "lost in the crowd" and unable to obtain their fair share of the positive
consequences for working hard. People can receive neither precise credit nor appropriate
blame for their performance."
It's possible that someone would assume someone else would call 911. Another thing is that they may be hiding in the crowd because they want to help but don't want to be responsible for making the situation worse. I think most people who watched wanted to do the right thing, but were too shocked and too afraid to stand up do the right thing and call 911.
Was there a lack of responsibility with the school? Absolutely. Security guards and the assistant Principal should have checked identification and both had the authority to kick non-authorized people off the grounds. However, I don't think we can blame an individual for not wanting to confront a group of ten people that is currently beating and raping someone.
Friend of gang rape victim blasts school officials over safety
To be sure, this was a very horrible crime and there was no reason people shouldn't have called 911. Is it possible though that the reason no one came to help is because no one wanted to be responsible? If ten to fifteen people were involved in the assault and rape of this one girl, is it all that unreasonable that no one would go and stop the perpetrators, themselves? If ten people all watched and did nothing about it, maybe it's because they figured someone else would call the police and get involved.
According to the readings for this class, the cause for social loafing in this context mostly has to do with the third reason which is:
"It may be that participants
felt that the contingency between their input and the outcome was
lessened when performing in groups. Individuals could "hide in the crowd"
(Davis, 1969) and avoid the negative consequences of slacking off, or they may
have felt "lost in the crowd" and unable to obtain their fair share of the positive
consequences for working hard. People can receive neither precise credit nor appropriate
blame for their performance."
It's possible that someone would assume someone else would call 911. Another thing is that they may be hiding in the crowd because they want to help but don't want to be responsible for making the situation worse. I think most people who watched wanted to do the right thing, but were too shocked and too afraid to stand up do the right thing and call 911.
Was there a lack of responsibility with the school? Absolutely. Security guards and the assistant Principal should have checked identification and both had the authority to kick non-authorized people off the grounds. However, I don't think we can blame an individual for not wanting to confront a group of ten people that is currently beating and raping someone.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Bimbos and Rambos: The Cognitive Basis of Gender Stereotypes
Margaret W. Matlin
http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_112.aspx
In this article the author presents how she feels gender stereotypes influence our cognitive processes and also how the media contributes to the stereotypes continuing. Margaret Matlin suggests that one of the biggest ways people stereotype in general is based on gender. She gives four really great examples of how gender plays a role in the way we divide people into groups. Her first example is labeled “Gender Polarization” which is habitual and automatic splitting of people into either the male category or the female category. Margaret suggests that we tend to see the members in the male group as being very similar to each other and likewise with the members of the female group. However, we see the two groups as wholes being extremely different from each other. Her second example was in the way that we have different expectations for males and females. Here she cited a study done with infants and a jack-in-the-box and their reaction to it. Participants in this study, if thinking the infant was a male, attributed the crying response as anger; if thinking the infant was female, attributed the crying response as fear. They were not told the actual gender of the infant; they were led to believe the infant was one sex or the other, sometimes falsely. The third example she gives states that we view the males attributions as the “norm” and therefore females are measured based on that “norm”. The fourth example is “Remembering Gender Consistent Information”, here she states that people are more likely to recall facts about a person if the fact is consistent with what is considered to be the norm for their gender.
As for how the media contributes to stereotyping she lists again four ways in which this happens. Number one is that women are underrepresented in the media in general. Number two is the way that women’s and men’s bodies are represented differently in the media. For example, women are usually shown in a provocative manner, where men are usually shown as standing tall and looking competent. Number three is women and men are shown doing different activities, they are shown doing only the activities that are consistent with their gender norm. Number four is how women of “color” are represented in an especially biased way. She suggests that women who are not caucasian are shown in more exaggerated sexual ways, if they are shown at all, then women who are caucasian.
I thought that all of the author’s suggestions as to how we divide people into groups based on gender were true and accurate. However, I felt that her suggestions regarding the media were slightly outdated. I would like to believe that we now use guys as sex objects in advertisements as well as women. Also, that there has been increased use of all races in ads in the media. I think that there is less definition between what activities are the norm for each gender to be shown performing. I felt as a whole this was an interesting view on how we use gender stereotyping.
http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_112.aspx
In this article the author presents how she feels gender stereotypes influence our cognitive processes and also how the media contributes to the stereotypes continuing. Margaret Matlin suggests that one of the biggest ways people stereotype in general is based on gender. She gives four really great examples of how gender plays a role in the way we divide people into groups. Her first example is labeled “Gender Polarization” which is habitual and automatic splitting of people into either the male category or the female category. Margaret suggests that we tend to see the members in the male group as being very similar to each other and likewise with the members of the female group. However, we see the two groups as wholes being extremely different from each other. Her second example was in the way that we have different expectations for males and females. Here she cited a study done with infants and a jack-in-the-box and their reaction to it. Participants in this study, if thinking the infant was a male, attributed the crying response as anger; if thinking the infant was female, attributed the crying response as fear. They were not told the actual gender of the infant; they were led to believe the infant was one sex or the other, sometimes falsely. The third example she gives states that we view the males attributions as the “norm” and therefore females are measured based on that “norm”. The fourth example is “Remembering Gender Consistent Information”, here she states that people are more likely to recall facts about a person if the fact is consistent with what is considered to be the norm for their gender.
As for how the media contributes to stereotyping she lists again four ways in which this happens. Number one is that women are underrepresented in the media in general. Number two is the way that women’s and men’s bodies are represented differently in the media. For example, women are usually shown in a provocative manner, where men are usually shown as standing tall and looking competent. Number three is women and men are shown doing different activities, they are shown doing only the activities that are consistent with their gender norm. Number four is how women of “color” are represented in an especially biased way. She suggests that women who are not caucasian are shown in more exaggerated sexual ways, if they are shown at all, then women who are caucasian.
I thought that all of the author’s suggestions as to how we divide people into groups based on gender were true and accurate. However, I felt that her suggestions regarding the media were slightly outdated. I would like to believe that we now use guys as sex objects in advertisements as well as women. Also, that there has been increased use of all races in ads in the media. I think that there is less definition between what activities are the norm for each gender to be shown performing. I felt as a whole this was an interesting view on how we use gender stereotyping.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
What Women Want Now
Gibbs, N. (2009, October 26). What Women Want Now. Retrieved October 24, 2009, from Time.com: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1930277_1930145_1930309-1,00.html
Recent class discussions interested me in finding out where sexism stands currently. This month Time magazine featured ‘The State of the American Woman’ and included many articles and statistics about men, women, society, and ‘The Quiet Revolution’. Time surveyed individuals to find out how they feel about gender issues.
Over this past generation, women have quietly worked their way into being equal or dominating in several professions and are being recognized for accomplishments in the professional world. Women are still not as successful in equality regarding pay and other financial related matters. Women say that men have it better in the work world while men say that women don’t have barriers in the workplace as they did in the past. Something I found very interesting is that men consider marriage very important to happiness while women no longer see marriage as necessary to financial security or having children. Marriages now share resolving life’s challenges together as a team. They are also sharing more duties in the home. Overall, men are more accepting of women having careers and shared roles at home. I interpreted this article as saying most men are really OK with this whole revolution, whereas women are the ones that are less happy with what is going on. Could it be that women are still searching for the balance between work and home since it is a relatively new combination of roles and men welcome sharing the stresses of life?
The battle of the sexes is over as far as social acceptance according to this article. Ambivalent sexism is no longer prevalent. Institutional issues still prevail and need to change with the times to provide financial equality for women. Modern life has created many new stresses for everyone. Men and women are affected by these stresses very differently. Women have gained freedom and power in this generation, but the stress involved is costing them their happiness. As life continues to change, we have to learn to change with it. While I am a thankful recipient of the advances in equality, this article left the devil’s advocate in me wondering…have we, as women, have created more stress for ourselves in striving to eliminate sexism and creating equality?
Recent class discussions interested me in finding out where sexism stands currently. This month Time magazine featured ‘The State of the American Woman’ and included many articles and statistics about men, women, society, and ‘The Quiet Revolution’. Time surveyed individuals to find out how they feel about gender issues.
Over this past generation, women have quietly worked their way into being equal or dominating in several professions and are being recognized for accomplishments in the professional world. Women are still not as successful in equality regarding pay and other financial related matters. Women say that men have it better in the work world while men say that women don’t have barriers in the workplace as they did in the past. Something I found very interesting is that men consider marriage very important to happiness while women no longer see marriage as necessary to financial security or having children. Marriages now share resolving life’s challenges together as a team. They are also sharing more duties in the home. Overall, men are more accepting of women having careers and shared roles at home. I interpreted this article as saying most men are really OK with this whole revolution, whereas women are the ones that are less happy with what is going on. Could it be that women are still searching for the balance between work and home since it is a relatively new combination of roles and men welcome sharing the stresses of life?
The battle of the sexes is over as far as social acceptance according to this article. Ambivalent sexism is no longer prevalent. Institutional issues still prevail and need to change with the times to provide financial equality for women. Modern life has created many new stresses for everyone. Men and women are affected by these stresses very differently. Women have gained freedom and power in this generation, but the stress involved is costing them their happiness. As life continues to change, we have to learn to change with it. While I am a thankful recipient of the advances in equality, this article left the devil’s advocate in me wondering…have we, as women, have created more stress for ourselves in striving to eliminate sexism and creating equality?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Myths of Racial Perceptions
Banks, Tyra. (2009, March 23). Myths of Racial Perception[Video File]. Retrieved from http://showhype.com/video/racial_stereotypes_on_tyra_banks_show_arabics_african/
This episode of the Tyra Banks show tied in with our recent class discussions about stereotyping and prejudice. This show had a group of about 12 people who watched several different scenarios and were then asked for their interpretation of what they saw. The group consisted of a variety of races from different parts of the US. They were all well spoken and most seemed well educated. The scenarios included video of interracial dating, a caucasian man chasing an african-american man down the street, an Arabic man carrying a large package down the street, and a causcasian woman with 3 children walking down the street compared to an african-american woman with 3 kids walking down the street.
Typical stereotypes were very strong and evident. It was admitted these beliefs were passed down from family and some from the media. Being well educated did not override what was learned from family. One unfortunate aspect of this group was that both caucasian people were from the south and both were admittedly racist. What surprised me was the negative stereotyping found within ingroups, or amongst one’s own race. One african-american woman preferred to date caucasian men because they are more on the same intellectual level as she is than african-american men. An arabic man refused to be seen with his mother in her head scarf and admitted having disgust towards his race and lying about his race to others. The show ended with the hope that we are changing negative stereotypes amongst our nations youth as demonstrated by attitudes that were changed from before Barack Obama was nominated as a presidential candidate to what children thought after that nomination. The show also seemed to show how through exposure to different races and education we can change these negative stereotypes, or at least among the members of the group that participated in these exercises.
When we think about how we can overcome stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination it becomes even more complicated when there are negative attitudes and beliefs amongst ingroups as well as between different races. In my opinion, we have come a long way in reducing negative stereotypes over time. I doubt we will ever see a day when negative stereotypes no longer exist, but with more time and encouraging exposure to different races and cultures it seems that we will continue to see greater acceptance of one another no matter what ingroup or outgroup we are members of.
This episode of the Tyra Banks show tied in with our recent class discussions about stereotyping and prejudice. This show had a group of about 12 people who watched several different scenarios and were then asked for their interpretation of what they saw. The group consisted of a variety of races from different parts of the US. They were all well spoken and most seemed well educated. The scenarios included video of interracial dating, a caucasian man chasing an african-american man down the street, an Arabic man carrying a large package down the street, and a causcasian woman with 3 children walking down the street compared to an african-american woman with 3 kids walking down the street.
Typical stereotypes were very strong and evident. It was admitted these beliefs were passed down from family and some from the media. Being well educated did not override what was learned from family. One unfortunate aspect of this group was that both caucasian people were from the south and both were admittedly racist. What surprised me was the negative stereotyping found within ingroups, or amongst one’s own race. One african-american woman preferred to date caucasian men because they are more on the same intellectual level as she is than african-american men. An arabic man refused to be seen with his mother in her head scarf and admitted having disgust towards his race and lying about his race to others. The show ended with the hope that we are changing negative stereotypes amongst our nations youth as demonstrated by attitudes that were changed from before Barack Obama was nominated as a presidential candidate to what children thought after that nomination. The show also seemed to show how through exposure to different races and education we can change these negative stereotypes, or at least among the members of the group that participated in these exercises.
When we think about how we can overcome stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination it becomes even more complicated when there are negative attitudes and beliefs amongst ingroups as well as between different races. In my opinion, we have come a long way in reducing negative stereotypes over time. I doubt we will ever see a day when negative stereotypes no longer exist, but with more time and encouraging exposure to different races and cultures it seems that we will continue to see greater acceptance of one another no matter what ingroup or outgroup we are members of.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Will the Government Discriminate Against Obesity?
http://www.slate.com/id/2233119/
This article is all about the possibility of instituting a fat tax on the American public. It does a really good job of expressing the government’s side of the story but what about citizens affected by this? For one thing, if we are going to be on a national healthcare plan, obese people are more likely to develop medical conditions, therefore costing the government more money. On the other hand, what right does the government have to tax you on your weight? Shouldn’t that remain a personal issue? Well, to be fair, the article states that deductions will be given to those who are a healthy weight or achieve a certain goal weight. What it comes down to is that overweight people will pay more.
Although we think we are making strides in prejudice in this country we find that minorities still feel they aren’t treated equally. Blacks and Hispanics make less than whites with similar educations. And now we are beginning to accept discrimination of obesity? I can see the government’s side of the story, it makes cents. However, where do we go from here? With proposals to tax soda like cigarettes because they are unhealthy is really putting social pressure on the overweight. How is this discrimination okay? I wonder what type of social repercussions this sort of accepted discrimination will have? Will it spur more prejudice towards the obese? It definitely goes against the contact hypothesis that states if we want groups to reduce prejudice there must be a social norm favoring equality, which a fat tax clearly wouldn’t do.
This article is all about the possibility of instituting a fat tax on the American public. It does a really good job of expressing the government’s side of the story but what about citizens affected by this? For one thing, if we are going to be on a national healthcare plan, obese people are more likely to develop medical conditions, therefore costing the government more money. On the other hand, what right does the government have to tax you on your weight? Shouldn’t that remain a personal issue? Well, to be fair, the article states that deductions will be given to those who are a healthy weight or achieve a certain goal weight. What it comes down to is that overweight people will pay more.
Although we think we are making strides in prejudice in this country we find that minorities still feel they aren’t treated equally. Blacks and Hispanics make less than whites with similar educations. And now we are beginning to accept discrimination of obesity? I can see the government’s side of the story, it makes cents. However, where do we go from here? With proposals to tax soda like cigarettes because they are unhealthy is really putting social pressure on the overweight. How is this discrimination okay? I wonder what type of social repercussions this sort of accepted discrimination will have? Will it spur more prejudice towards the obese? It definitely goes against the contact hypothesis that states if we want groups to reduce prejudice there must be a social norm favoring equality, which a fat tax clearly wouldn’t do.
Looking at Stereotypes
Kanazawa, Satoshi. "All stereotypes are true, except I: What are stereotypes?" April 24, 2008.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/all-stereotypes-are-true-except-i-what-are-stereotypes.
This interesting article, which comes from an evolutionary psychologist, examines the topic of stereotypes. I felt that the author made some good remarks about this subject in which some of it resembles what we went over in class. He says that most scientists describe stereotypes as being empirical generalizations, which are general ideas that come from experiences or a widespread amount of evidence and that are usually true in most instances. Even though, I do know that stereo-typing doesn't just come from our first hand experiences. It also comes from things that we see in movies and television as well as coming from experiences from people that we are associated with. I definitely agree with the author that stereotypes aren't necessarily a good thing or a bad thing. I do realize that we all do hold stereotypes in some form or another. Even though, we don't admit this at times. Just like we discussed in class, it helps us to find a way to deal with unfamiliar situations when we are around an individual of a certain group or a group that we aren't around too much. One thing that gets us in trouble when it comes to stereotyping is that we might look too much into the beliefs that we have about the individual of that certain group. This can limit our chances to get to know them in which we don't realize that not everyone in a certain group fits underneath our beliefs that we have about that certain group. We do know that most times, stereotypes about someone in a certain group or a group are true. Different types of evidence throughout history has shown this. The author makes the statement referring to this that stereotypes won't last long if proven to be wrong. He also says that research has actually ended up proving some stereotypes to be untrue in the past. It would be interesting to see in the future if other stereotypes will be proven to be wrong.
The author makes a fascinating statement about how stereotypes are formed. He says that when empirical generalization comes about from an observation that is clarified to be true in most cases, then an individual or a group might end up disagreeing with how they or their group are being percieved by others. This ends up forming a stereotype. When most people think about stereotypes just like prejudice, they usually think of it as a bad thing. Many people worry that others would hold negative beliefs about them based on them belonging to a certain group. It takes a lot of energy out of them and can hamper them from achieving certain things. This definitely shown through the idea that we looked into from our readings, which was the stereotype threat. Also just like prejudice, stereotypes can either be good or bad. Just like I said earlier, many people don't consider certain beliefs about groups or individuals to be stereotypes unless someone or others in a certain group is negatively affected by those beliefs.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/all-stereotypes-are-true-except-i-what-are-stereotypes.
This interesting article, which comes from an evolutionary psychologist, examines the topic of stereotypes. I felt that the author made some good remarks about this subject in which some of it resembles what we went over in class. He says that most scientists describe stereotypes as being empirical generalizations, which are general ideas that come from experiences or a widespread amount of evidence and that are usually true in most instances. Even though, I do know that stereo-typing doesn't just come from our first hand experiences. It also comes from things that we see in movies and television as well as coming from experiences from people that we are associated with. I definitely agree with the author that stereotypes aren't necessarily a good thing or a bad thing. I do realize that we all do hold stereotypes in some form or another. Even though, we don't admit this at times. Just like we discussed in class, it helps us to find a way to deal with unfamiliar situations when we are around an individual of a certain group or a group that we aren't around too much. One thing that gets us in trouble when it comes to stereotyping is that we might look too much into the beliefs that we have about the individual of that certain group. This can limit our chances to get to know them in which we don't realize that not everyone in a certain group fits underneath our beliefs that we have about that certain group. We do know that most times, stereotypes about someone in a certain group or a group are true. Different types of evidence throughout history has shown this. The author makes the statement referring to this that stereotypes won't last long if proven to be wrong. He also says that research has actually ended up proving some stereotypes to be untrue in the past. It would be interesting to see in the future if other stereotypes will be proven to be wrong.
The author makes a fascinating statement about how stereotypes are formed. He says that when empirical generalization comes about from an observation that is clarified to be true in most cases, then an individual or a group might end up disagreeing with how they or their group are being percieved by others. This ends up forming a stereotype. When most people think about stereotypes just like prejudice, they usually think of it as a bad thing. Many people worry that others would hold negative beliefs about them based on them belonging to a certain group. It takes a lot of energy out of them and can hamper them from achieving certain things. This definitely shown through the idea that we looked into from our readings, which was the stereotype threat. Also just like prejudice, stereotypes can either be good or bad. Just like I said earlier, many people don't consider certain beliefs about groups or individuals to be stereotypes unless someone or others in a certain group is negatively affected by those beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)