Social and Cultural Briefing Doc PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by FreeSerenity7263
Griffith University
Tags
Summary
This document provides a briefing on social and cultural topics, focusing on social psychology concepts like attitudes and social influence.
Full Transcript
Week 5: Attitudes in Social Psychology hat is an Attitude? W Attitudes are fundamental constructs in social psychology, representing evaluations of various social stimuli. Allport's classic definition describes an attitude as: Quote:“A mental and neural state of readiness, organized t...
Week 5: Attitudes in Social Psychology hat is an Attitude? W Attitudes are fundamental constructs in social psychology, representing evaluations of various social stimuli. Allport's classic definition describes an attitude as: Quote:“A mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon individual’s responses to all people, objects, and situations with which it is related” (Allport, 1935). Key aspects of attitudes highlighted in the source material include: Permanence:Attitudes are relatively enduring, though they can be modified. Evaluation:They involve positive or negative judgments of socially significant objects, groups, events, or symbols. Organisation:Attitudes are not isolated but form interconnected networks. Explicit vs. Implicit:Attitudes can operate at both conscious (explicit) and unconscious (implicit) levels. Functions of Attitudes Attitudes serve various functions, including: Knowledge:Provide a framework for understanding and navigating the social world. Instrumentality:Help individuals achieve desired goals and outcomes. Ego-defence:Protect self-esteem and manage threats to identity. Value-expressiveness:Allow individuals to express and affirm their values. The source material emphasises that the primary function of attitudes is object appraisal, providing an efficient way to orient oneself towards the social environment. Structure of Attitudes The source presents three key models of attitude structure: One-component model:Focuses solely on the affective component, the positive or negative feeling associated with an object. Two-component model:Adds a "state of mental readiness" to the affective component, suggesting a predisposition to respond in certain ways. Three-component model:The most prevalent model, including affective, behavioural, and cognitive components. This model acknowledges the interplay of feelings, thoughts, and actions in shaping attitudes. Attitudes and Behaviour While attitudes are expected to predict behaviour, the relationship is complex and often weaker than anticipated. The source explores various factors that can explain discrepancies: Methodological factors: Specificity:Attitudes and behaviours need to be measured at the same level of specificity for strong correlations. Aggregation:Measuring multiple behaviours related to an attitude provides a more accurate picture of the attitude-behaviour link. Personal factors:Competing attitudes, motivations, lack of perceived connection, and cost of behaviour can all influence the attitude-behaviour relationship. Social factors:Norms, presence of others, lack of alternatives, and unforeseen circumstances can all override the influence of attitudes on behaviour. Theories of Attitude-Behaviour Link The source details two key theories: Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA):This model suggests that behaviour is determined by behavioural intentions, which are shaped by attitudes towards the behaviour and subjective norms. Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB):This model extends the TRA by including perceived behavioural control, acknowledging that individuals may not have full control over their actions. Attitude Formation The source outlines several explanations for attitude formation: Behavioural explanations: Mere exposure effect:Repeated exposure to a stimulus can lead to increased liking. Classical conditioning:Pairing a neutral stimulus with a positive or negative stimulus can transfer the affective response. Operant conditioning:Rewards and punishments associated with a behaviour can shape attitudes towards that behaviour. Cognitive explanations:Self-perception theory: Individuals infer their attitudes from their own behaviour. Cognitive algebra:Individuals integrate information about an object using mental calculations, such as weighted averaging. Social explanations: Social learning/modelling:Observing and imitating the attitudes and behaviours of others, particularly significant individuals. Social identity and groups:Group memberships influence attitudes and shape individual perspectives. Ideologies, Values, and Social Representations The source expands on the concept of attitudes to discuss related constructs: Ideologies:Integrated sets of attitudes that form a worldview, defining goals and strategies for society. Values:Global, abstract principles that guide conduct and serve as standards for evaluation. Social representations:Shared understandings of the world that are constructed and communicated within social groups, influencing attitudes and beliefs. Measurement of Attitudes The source discusses various methods for measuring attitudes: Direct measurement (self-report):Involves asking individuals to express their attitudes directly through rating scales or questionnaires. Measures of implicit attitudes:Techniques like the Implicit Association Test (IAT) assess unconscious associations and bypass potential biases of self-report. Physiological measures:Monitoring physiological responses such as heart rate and facial expressions can offer insights into attitudes. Overt behaviour:Observing behaviours like interpersonal distance can provide indirect evidence of attitudes. The source stresses the importance of considering factors like wording, response bias, and social desirability when measuring attitudes. Conclusion he source material provides a comprehensive overview of attitudes in social psychology, T emphasizing their multifaceted nature and significance in understanding human behaviour. Understanding the formation, function, structure, and measurement of attitudes is crucial for comprehending social interactions and influencing behaviour change. Week 7: Persuasion and Attitude Change hat is Persuasion? W Persuasion is defined as "deliberate attempts by someone to change someone’s attitude". It encompasses persuasive communication aiming to influence attitudes and subsequently behaviour, particularly in advertising and marketing. Factors Influencing Persuasion The Yale Model identifies four key factors influencing persuasion: Source (who):We are more persuaded by similar, attractive, and credible/expert sources. Message (what):One-sided vs two-sided messages depend on audience intelligence and initial position. Matching the appeal (fact vs feeling) to the basis of the attitude is crucial. Fear appeals are common but effectiveness depends on intensity (inverted U-curve relationship). Repetition and message framing also play a role. The sleeper effect describes delayed persuasion due to dissociation of source and message over time. Channel (how):The effectiveness of video, audio, or written channels depends on message complexity. Audience (to whom):Gender differences are nuanced, self-esteem influences message complexity preference, prior beliefs affect scrutiny, and age effects are debated. Ultimately, persuasion is influenced by the interaction of source, message, and audience factors. For example, research by Debono & Telesca (1990) demonstrated how source attractiveness and message strength interact with self-monitoring levels to influence persuasion. Models of Persuasion The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) proposes two routes to persuasion: Central Route:Involves high elaboration and careful processing of message content, leading to enduring attitude change based on argument quality. This is more likely when motivation and opportunity are high. Peripheral Route:Characterised by low elaboration and reliance on peripheral cues (e.g., source attractiveness), resulting in rapid but less enduring attitude change. This is more likely when motivation or opportunity are low. Heuristic–Systematic Model (HSM) similarly posits two modes of processing: Systematic Processing:Involves effortful consideration of arguments. Heuristic Processing:Relies on mental shortcuts (e.g., "experts are always right"). This is often triggered by positive mood, time pressure, or low personal relevance. Both models acknowledge that individuals can switch between modes based on factors like confidence in their current attitude. Tactics for Enhancing Compliance Several tactics can enhance compliance with requests: Ingratiation:Gaining compliance by appearing likeable and agreeable (e.g., flattery, name-dropping). Reciprocity Principle:Exploiting the obligation to reciprocate favours (e.g., free samples). Multiple Requests:Using a two-step procedure, where the first request sets the stage for the second, real request. This includes: Foot-in-the-door:Starting with a small request then escalating to a larger one. Door-in-the-face:Starting with a large, unreasonable request, then making a smaller, more reasonable one that appears like a concession. Low-balling:Securing agreement with a low-cost request, then revealing hidden costs. Action Research and Attitude Change Kurt Lewin pioneered action research, emphasizing active participant involvement in change processes. This approach highlights the effectiveness of group discussion over passive listening in changing attitudes and behaviours. Role-playing, where individuals argue against their own beliefs, can also induce attitude change, as demonstrated by Janis and King (1954). Successful examples of action research in health promotion include Australia's SunSmart campaign, which effectively changed sun exposure attitudes and behaviours. Cognitive Dissonance and Attitude Change Cognitive dissonance arises when inconsistencies exist between cognitions or between cognitions and behaviour, leading to psychological discomfort. Individuals are motivated to reduce this discomfort by changing their attitudes or behaviours. Festinger's classic cognitive dissonance model (1957) explains how individuals reduce dissonance. Examples include the study "When prophecy fails" where cult members who predicted the end of the world, when it didn't occur, rationalized their beliefs instead of abandoning them. The revised model by Cooper & Fazio (1984) includes the consideration of negative consequences and self-attribution of arousal as factors influencing dissonance reduction. Key dissonance-related phenomena: Post-decision dissonance:Regret or discomfort after making a decision, often resolved by increasing the attractiveness of the chosen option (Knox & Inkster, 1968). Justification of counter-attitudinal behaviour:Changing attitudes to align with behaviour that contradicts existing beliefs, especially when justification for the behaviour is insufficient (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). Effort justification:Valuing an object or goal more after enduring hardship to obtain it (Aronson & Mills, 1959). These phenomena highlight the powerful influence of dissonance on attitudes and the various strategies individuals employ to maintain cognitive consistency. Resistance to Persuasion Individuals resist persuasion through: Reactance:Resisting attempts to limit personal freedom. Forewarning:Having prior knowledge of persuasive intent. Rehearsal of counterarguments:Being prepared with opposing arguments. Inoculation effect:Exposure to weaker arguments strengthens resistance to stronger ones. ttitude accessibility and strength:Strong, readily accessible attitudes are more A resistant to change. Application of Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive dissonance principles can be applied to promote positive behaviour change. For instance, induced hypocrisy, where individuals are made aware of inconsistencies between their attitudes and behaviours, can motivate them to align their actions with their values. Morrongiello & Mark (2008) successfully demonstrated this by inducing hypocrisy in children to reduce risky playground behaviours. Other examples include promoting condom use by reminding individuals of their negative attitudes toward STIs or encouraging cleanliness by highlighting discrepancies between desired and actual home environments. Conclusion This document has provided a comprehensive overview of key concepts in persuasion and attitude change. By understanding the factors influencing persuasion, the different models of attitude change, and the strategies for enhancing compliance and resisting persuasion, we can gain valuable insights into the complex dynamics of human behaviour and apply these insights to effectively influence attitudes and promote positive change. Week 8: Social Influence I. Types of Social Influence Social influence encompasses the ways our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are shaped by others, whether their presence is real, imagined, or implied. Key types include: Conformity:Deep-seated, private, and enduring changes in behavior and attitudes to align with group norms. Compliance:Superficial, public, and temporary changes in behavior and expressed attitudes, often driven by power dynamics. Obedience:Following direct orders from an authority figure. Power:The ability to influence others while resisting their attempts to influence us. Sources of power include reward, coercive, informational, expert, legitimate, and referent power. II. Conformity Conformity involves aligning with group norms, which are shared beliefs about appropriate conduct. It can be driven by: Informational influence:Conforming due to the belief that others possess accurate information, especially in ambiguous situations. Sherif's (1936) autokinetic effect study exemplifies this. Normative influence:Conforming to gain social approval and acceptance, as seen in Asch's (1951) line judgment study. Referent informational influence:Conforming to norms that define oneself as a member of a valued group. Key Factors Influencing Conformity: Individual characteristics:High self-monitoring, need for social approval, social anxiety, and low self-esteem increase conformity. Group size:Conformity peaks with a 3-5 person majority. roup membership:Conformity is stronger when group members are competent or G friends. Group unanimity:Even one dissenter reduces conformity. Culture:Collectivist cultures show greater conformity than individualist cultures, reflecting the prioritization of group harmony over individual expression. III. Obedience Obedience involves compliance with direct orders from an authority figure. Milgram's (1963) classic study demonstrated the powerful influence of authority, with 65% of participants delivering seemingly lethal shocks to a learner. Explanations for Obedience: Obedience to authority:Individuals are socialized to obey authority figures. Diffusion of responsibility:Participants attributed responsibility for harm to the experimenter. Gradual increase in demands:The incremental nature of the shocks made it harder to resist. Limited information in a novel situation:The unfamiliar context contributed to participants' reliance on the experimenter's guidance. Factors Reducing Obedience: Immediacy of the learner:When the learner was in the same room or the teacher had to physically touch them, obedience decreased. Immediacy/legitimacy of the experimenter:Giving instructions by phone, not wearing a uniform, or conducting the study in a non-university setting reduced obedience. Cultural Considerations:While Milgram's findings have been replicated across cultures, variations exist. Cultural dimensions like individualism-collectivism and power distance may contribute to these differences. As Ent & Baumeister (2014) note, "Obedience to authority is vital for the success of most human groups and organizations" and understanding obedience in a culture requires considering the specific social context and meaning of orders. IV. Non-Conformity & Minority Influence While conformity is common, individuals can resist group pressure. Non-conformity can lead to: Increased communication directed towards the non-conformist. Lower interpersonal attraction towards the non-conformist. Minority influence occurs when numerical or power minorities sway the majority. Effective minority influence relies on: Consistency:Maintaining a consistent stance over time and within the minority group. Investment:Demonstrating commitment to their position. Autonomy:Acting independently, not out of self-interest. Flexibility:Showing a willingness to compromise on less critical issues. Theories of Minority Influence: Conversion Theory (Moscovici, 1980):Proposes that minorities influence through deep processing and private acceptance, while majorities influence through superficial processing and public compliance. Convergent-Divergent Theory (Nemeth, 1986, 1995):Suggests disagreement with a majority leads to convergent thinking, narrowing focus, while disagreement with a minority fosters divergent thinking and broader consideration of alternatives. ocial Identity and Self-Categorization Theories (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, S 1991):Minority influence is more likely when the minority is perceived as part of the in-group but poses no threat. Context-Comparison Model (Crano & Alvaro, 1997):Highlights the importance of various contextual factors, including the centrality of the targeted belief, the source's status (in-group vs. out-group), and the issue's subjective or objective nature. Conclusion: Social influence is a powerful force shaping human behavior. Understanding the dynamics of conformity, obedience, and minority influence is crucial for navigating social situations, fostering critical thinking, and promoting positive social change. Week 9: Social Groups & Leadership . Audience Effects 1 This section explores how the presence of others impacts individual performance. It delves into concepts like social facilitation and social inhibition, supported by key studies and theories: Triplett (1898):Found cyclists performed better with others, initiating the study of audience effects. Social Facilitation:Performance improvement on well-learned/easy tasks in the presence of others. Social Inhibition:Performance deterioration on poorly-learned/difficult tasks in the presence of others. Three key theories explain these phenomena: Drive/Arousal Theory (Zajonc, 1965):Mere presence of others increases arousal, leading to the dominant response. Supported by Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman's (1969) cockroach study, where cockroaches ran an easy maze faster but a hard maze slower with an audience. Evaluation Apprehension Theory (Cottrell, 1972):Arousal stems from concern about being evaluated. Cottrell, Wack, Sekerak, & Rittle's (1968) study demonstrated social facilitation only with an attentive audience, not a blindfolded one. Distraction-Conflict Theory (Baron, 1986; Sanders et al., 1978):Attentional conflict between the task and the audience causes arousal, explaining why even non-social distractions can produce similar effects. Additional factors influencing audience effects include the audience's visibility, the performer-audience relationship, and task interactivity. 2. Social Loafing This section examines the tendency for individuals to exert less effort in group tasks. Definition:"A reduction in individual effort when working on a task involving group effort." Possible Explanations: Coordination loss:Difficulty coordinating individual efforts. Motivation loss:Reduced individual motivation due to diffused responsibility. Ingham, Levinger, Graves, & Peckham (1974):Using a rope-pulling task, they found both motivation loss and coordination loss contributed to social loafing. Strategies to reduce social loafing: maller group sizes. S Individual accountability through unique contributions and potential for evaluation. Meaningful and involving tasks. Belief in the group's effectiveness. Cultural Influences on Social Loafing: Gabrenya, Wang, & Latane (1985):Found American 9th graders displayed more social loafing than Chinese 9th graders in a tone-counting task. Chinese students even exhibited "social striving" performing better in pairs. Cultural differences in social loafing depend on developmental stage, task type, and group composition. For instance, both Chinese and US students exhibited social loafing in a sound production task. 3. Group Socialisation and Norms This section explores group dynamics, focusing on stages of group development and the role of social norms: Group Socialisation:The process from considering joining a group to leaving it. Tuckman's (1965) Five Stages of Group Development: Forming:Orientation and familiarisation. Storming:Conflict and disagreement. Norming:Consensus, cohesion, shared identity. Performing:Smooth teamwork with shared norms and goals. Adjourning:Dissolution of the group. Levine & Moreland (1982, 1984):Proposed a model considering both individual and group perspectives in socialisation, focusing on evaluation, commitment, and role transitions. Group Norms:"Attitudinal and behavioural uniformities that define group membership & differentiate between groups." Key Studies on Group Norms: Siegel & Siegel (1957):Female students in liberal dormitories became less conservative over time, demonstrating the influence of group norms. Stormshak et al. (1999):Showed that classroom norms for aggression impacted the relationship between aggressive behaviour and peer preference in 1st graders. Deviating from group norms can lead to dislike and pressure to conform. 4. Leadership This section defines leadership and explores different approaches to understanding effective leadership: Definition:"A process of social influence through which an individual enlists and mobilizes the aid of others in the attainment of a collective goal" (Chemers, 2001, p. 376). Key Aspects: Relational, collective, purposeful. Approaches to Leadership: Personality:The "Great Person" approach links leadership to individual traits. Some correlation exists with higher intelligence, physique, talkativeness, and dominance, and with the Big Five personality dimensions. Leadership Styles (Lippitt & White, 1943): utocratic:Leader makes decisions unilaterally, leading to high dependence and A potential de-motivation. Democratic:Encourages participation, fostering a positive atmosphere and high productivity. Laissez-faire:Hands-off approach, resulting in low productivity. Contingency Theories:Emphasise the interaction between leader type and situational control. Fiedler (1967, 1971, 1981):Proposed that task-oriented leaders thrive in high or low control situations, while relationship-oriented leaders excel in moderate control situations. Transactional Leadership:Focuses on the exchange of resources between leader and followers. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) Theory:Highlights the importance of high-quality, personalised relationships for effective leadership. Transformational Leadership:Leaders inspire and motivate followers, transforming group goals and actions. Key Components (Avolio & Bass, 1987; Bass, 1985):Individualised consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, idealised influence (charisma). Cultural Influences on Leadership: Universally accepted/rejected traits:While some leadership traits are universally accepted (e.g., communication, trustworthiness) or rejected (e.g., being a loner, ruthless), cultural nuances exist. Leong & Fischer (2011):Found transformational leadership scores were higher in countries with higher mastery and egalitarianism values. This briefing document summarises key themes and findings related to social groups and leadership from the provided source. Understanding these concepts is crucial for comprehending group dynamics, individual behaviour within groups, and effective leadership strategies. Week 10: Intergroup Behaviour I. Theoretical Explanations for Intergroup Behaviour A. Relative Deprivation: Definition:The perception that an individual or their group possesses less than they deserve compared to similar others or groups. This perception involves comparison, a sense of disadvantage, and a belief that the disadvantage is unfair. Types: Egoistic relative deprivation:Comparison with other individuals. Fraternalistic relative deprivation:Comparison with other groups. Link to Intergroup Aggression:Fraternalistic relative deprivation can predict support for and involvement in aggressive behaviours, especially when: The comparison group is clearly defined. There is a perceived injustice (distributive or procedural). There is a strong identification with the in-group. Collective action is deemed practical and feasible. B. Realistic Conflict Theory: Premise:Intergroup behaviour stems from the nature of goal relations between groups. Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment:Demonstrated that competition over scarce resources leads to intergroup conflict and ethnocentrism. The experiment also showed that introducing superordinate goals can reduce intergroup hostility. Key Points:Shared goals foster intergroup cooperation and harmony. Mutually exclusive goals lead to intergroup competition, conflict, and ethnocentrism. C. Social Identity Approach: Minimal Group Paradigm:Tajfel's research demonstrated that mere categorization into groups, even based on arbitrary criteria, leads to in-group favouritism and out-group discrimination. This occurs even in the absence of self-interest, shared knowledge, proximity, or a shared future. Social Identity Theory (SIT):Focuses on intergroup behaviour and posits that individuals strive for a positive social identity by comparing their in-group favourably to relevant out-groups. Key Concepts:Categorization, comparison, and the pursuit of positive social identity. Self-Categorization Theory (SCT):Focuses on how individuals act as a group by categorizing themselves and others based on salient similarities and differences. Key Concepts:Self-categorization, the meta-contrast principle (minimizing intra-group differences and maximizing intergroup differences), and depersonalisation (self-stereotyping). Strategies for Improving Social Identity: Individual mobility:Changing group membership (feasible in flexible and permeable societies). Social creativity:Reframing the comparison or highlighting different dimensions. Social competition:Directly challenging the out-group to improve the in-group's status. D. Social Identity and Culture: Individualistic Cultures:Tend to focus on intergroup comparisons, show less in-group bias in real-life groups, and may disassociate from poorly performing in-groups. Collectivist Cultures:Tend to focus on intragroup relationships, exhibit greater in-group bias in real-life groups, and may derogate out-groups in response to poor in-group performance. Bicultural Identity:Individuals who identify with both their heritage culture and the dominant national culture tend to experience positive psychological and sociocultural adjustment. II. Collective Behaviour Definition:The behaviour of people in large groups (e.g., crowds, protests, riots). Theoretical Explanations: Le Bon's Theory:Viewed collective behaviour as pathological, driven by anonymity, contagion, and the emergence of primitive instincts. De-individuation:A loss of socialised individual identity, often leading to unsocialised behaviour. Factors contributing to de-individuation include group presence, anonymity, arousal, diffusion of responsibility, and reduced self-awareness. Research supports the link between anonymity and transgressive behaviour, even in online contexts. mergent Norm Theory:Norms emerge from within the crowd to regulate behaviour. E However, this theory has been challenged. Social Identity Approach (SIDE):Collective behaviour is viewed as an intergroup phenomenon driven by a shift to social identity and conformity to context-specific norms. Research indicates that anonymity and social identification can contribute to negative collective behaviour like cyberbullying. III. Improving Intergroup Relations A. Intergroup Contact Hypothesis: Premise:Hostility stems from unfamiliarity and separation. Contact between groups, under optimal conditions, can improve intergroup relations. Optimal Conditions:Equal status between groups. Shared goals requiring intergroup cooperation. Social and institutional support for intergroup contact. Opportunities for repeated informal interaction and friendship potential. Mechanisms:Increased knowledge about the outgroup. Reduced intergroup anxiety. Enhanced empathy and perspective-taking. Meta-Analytic Evidence:Contact consistently reduces prejudice across diverse contexts and generalizes to various group memberships. B. Challenges for Intergroup Contact: Ensuring positive contact experiences. Achieving shared goals and avoiding outgroup blame for failures. Generalizing positive contact experiences beyond the immediate situation. Addressing the lack of contact opportunities. Overcoming social change and systemic issues that perpetuate inequalities. C. Strategies for Generalizing Contact Effects: Decategorization:Minimizing category salience to foster interpersonal interactions. Mutual Differentiation:Maintaining distinct group identities while highlighting positive intergroup interdependence. Common Ingroup Identity Model:Creating a superordinate identity encompassing both groups. Temporal Model:Progressing through stages of decategorization, differentiation, and common identity development. Integrative Theory:Combining salience of group memberships with interpersonal closeness and valuing each group's contribution. D. Expanding Contact Opportunities: Extended contact:Knowing ingroup members with outgroup friends. Vicarious contact:Observing positive intergroup interactions (e.g., media). Parasocial contact:Exposure to outgroup members through media. Imagined contact:Mentally simulating positive interactions. E-contact:Online intergroup cooperation. E. Integrating Contact and Collective Action (ICCA): This framework recognizes the importance of building trust and addressing inequalities. It suggests that contact interventions for disadvantaged groups should focus on empowering collective action while contact interventions for advantaged groups should emphasize allyship and support for social change. This briefing document highlights key insights into intergroup behaviour, offering a foundation for understanding the complexities of intergroup relations and identifying potential pathways towards more positive and harmonious intergroup dynamics. Week 11: Prejudice & Discrimination hat is Prejudice? W Prejudice, meaning "judgement in advance," involves pre-judging individuals based solely on their group membership. While it can target any group, research primarily focuses on prejudice experienced by historically disadvantaged minorities. Components of Prejudice: Prejudice manifests through three interconnected components: Cognitive:Stereotypes:Stereotypes are overgeneralized beliefs about social groups, acting as schemas that influence information processing. They are pervasive, persistent, and can be both positive and negative. The Stereotype Content Model (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008) posits that stereotypes vary along two dimensions: Perceived warmth:Influenced by a group's perceived competitiveness. Perceived competence:Influenced by a group's perceived status. Affective: Emotions:Prejudice involves feelings toward a group, ranging from admiration to disgust. These emotions are often linked to stereotypes. For instance, high-competence, low-warmth groups might evoke envy. Behavioural: Discrimination:This component encompasses actions toward a group based on their membership. It can be direct (e.g., verbal abuse) or indirect (e.g., avoidance), and can be individual or systemic. Current Forms and Frequency: While explicit prejudice is less common due to changing social norms, it has evolved into more subtle forms. Modern prejudice often involves denying the existence of prejudice and rationalizing inequalities while harboring implicit biases. Australian data highlights the persistence of prejudice: In 2018, a significant percentage of people reported high levels of prejudice towards various minority groups. (Faulkner, Zhao, & Smith, 2019) In 2020, a concerning number of people reported experiencing discrimination based on factors like disability, country of birth, and sexual orientation. (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020) Impact on Victims: Prejudice has profound negative consequences for victims, impacting well-being, performance, and perpetuating systemic inequalities. Well-being:Prejudice is linked to elevated stress, lower self-esteem, diminished life satisfaction, and poorer mental and physical health. A study on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults found that higher levels of discrimination were associated with poorer outcomes across various well-being indicators. (Thurber et al., 2021) Performance:Prejudice can undermine performance through: tereotype threat:Concerns about confirming negative stereotypes impede S performance. Examples include women in mathematics, Black students in intellectual tasks, and older people in memory tests. Self-fulfilling prophecy:Expectations about someone influence interactions, leading to behavioral changes that confirm those expectations. A French study (Glover, Pallis & Pariente, 2017) demonstrated that minority workers were less productive under biased managers, highlighting discrimination as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Systemic Discrimination:A network of rules and practices that disadvantage less empowered groups while advantaging dominant groups. Examples include racial profiling by law enforcement, discriminatory hiring practices, and unequal access to healthcare. Research (Booth, Leigh & Varganova, 2012) using fake job applications with racially diverse names revealed higher call-back rates for Anglo-Saxon names, demonstrating systemic bias in hiring. Theories of Prejudice: Several theories attempt to explain the origins and persistence of prejudice: Individual Explanations: Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis:Frustration can lead to aggression, often displaced onto scapegoats. This explains some prejudiced behavior but struggles to account for its widespread uniformity. Authoritarian Personality & Right-Wing Authoritarianism:Certain personality traits, like rigid thinking and adherence to authority, are associated with prejudice. However, these approaches downplay situational factors. Interpersonal Explanations: Belief Congruence Theory:Dissimilarity in beliefs can lead to prejudice, but this theory fails to explain prejudice in situations where it is socially sanctioned. Group-Based Explanations: Realistic Conflict Theory:Competition over limited resources fuels intergroup conflict and prejudice. Integrated Threat Theory:Perceived threats from outgroups, whether realistic (e.g., competition) or symbolic (e.g., differing values), contribute to prejudice. An Australian study (Schweitzer et al., 2005) found that both realistic and symbolic threats predicted prejudice towards refugees. Social Identity Perspective:Categorization into in-groups and out-groups leads to in-group bias, which can manifest as prejudice under specific conditions like high in-group identification and perceived out-group threat. Culture-Based Explanations:Cultural norms play a powerful role in shaping prejudice by dictating which groups are favored or denigrated. Reducing Prejudice: Various approaches aim to reduce prejudice, with research (Hsieh, Faulkner & Wickes, 2022) highlighting promising strategies: Awareness: Raising awareness about the negative consequences of prejudice and challenging stereotypical views. Contact:Promoting positive contact between groups, whether direct, extended, or virtual. Categorisation:Recategorizing in-group and out-group members under a shared superordinate category. ocial Norms:Challenging prejudiced norms through positive role models and media S representations. Perspective-Taking:Encouraging empathy by highlighting shared experiences. Perceived Variability:Emphasizing the diverse characteristics within outgroups. Conclusion: Prejudice remains a significant social issue with detrimental consequences for individuals and society. Understanding its multifaceted nature, impact, and the theoretical explanations for its persistence are crucial for developing effective strategies to reduce prejudice and promote equality. Week 12: Prosocial Behaviour Defining Prosocial Behaviour: Prosocial behaviour encompasses acts that are positively valued by society. This broad category includes: Helping:Actions intentionally aimed at benefiting others. Altruism:A subset of helping where the act is intended to benefit others without any thought of personal gain. The distinction between helping and altruism hinges on motivation. Determining true altruistic motivation can be challenging. Cultural Influences: Cross-cultural research highlights the following trends: Prosocial behaviour is positively linked to values like benevolence and universalism, while negatively associated with achievement and power. Helping flourishes in cultures prioritizing self-transcendence over self-enhancement and conservatism over openness to change. Altruism is generally defined in terms of helping/doing good, encompassing sacrifice and selflessness. Explanations of Prosocial Behaviour: Several theoretical perspectives attempt to explain prosocial behaviour: Evolutionary Psychology:This approach posits that prosocial behaviours, at least in part, are driven by evolved biological factors aimed at maximizing an organism's genes in future generations. Kin selectionsuggests we're more likely to help relatives to ensure the survival and reproduction of shared genes. A study by Burnstein et al. (1994) found participants were more likely to help close relatives, especially healthy ones, in hypothetical life-or-death scenarios. Gene-culture co-evolution theoryproposes that prosocial behaviours beneficial to group survival are passed down through generations. Societies encouraging self-sacrifice for the collective good are more likely to thrive. The norm of reciprocity, where helping others increases the likelihood of receiving help in return, exemplifies this concept. Social Learning:This perspective emphasizes the role of learning and socialization in shaping prosocial behaviour: odelling:Observing prosocial behaviour in real life, on television, or in video games M can increase helping behaviour. Bryan & Test (1967) demonstrated this in a field study where motorists were more likely to help a woman with a flat tire if they had previously observed someone else being helped. Direct Instruction:Explicitly telling children to be helpful encourages prosocial behaviour. Operant Conditioning:Rewarding (reinforcement) helpful actions and punishing unhelpful ones shapes behaviour. Social Exchange Theory:This framework suggests that our actions, including helping, are motivated by a desire to maximize benefits and minimize costs. Benefits of helping can include social approval, reduced personal distress, and increased self-worth. Costs include risk, time, effort, and financial expenditure. We weigh these factors before deciding to help. Bystander-Calculus Model (Piliavin et al., 1981):This model explains helping behaviour in emergencies, proposing three stages: Physiological Arousal:Witnessing an emergency triggers arousal. Higher arousal increases the likelihood of helping. Labelling the Arousal:This arousal is interpreted as empathic concern, motivating helping. Evaluating the Consequences:The bystander weighs the costs of helping (e.g., danger) against the costs of not helping (e.g., guilt). Helping is more likely when the costs of not helping are higher. Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (Batson, 1991):This model suggests that observing others in distress triggers two possible responses: Empathy:The ability to understand and share another person's feelings. Empathy leads to altruistic helping, where the goal is to relieve the other person's suffering, regardless of personal costs or benefits. Personal Distress:Focus on one's own feelings of discomfort. This can lead to either inaction or egoistic helping, motivated by reducing one's own distress. Toi & Batson (1982) provided evidence for this hypothesis, finding that participants induced to feel high empathy were equally likely to help regardless of the personal cost, while those with low empathy helped more when the cost of not helping was high. Other Determinants of Helping: Perceiver Characteristics: Personality:While there's no universal "altruistic personality," certain traits like agreeableness, forgiveness, and need for approval are associated with prosocial behaviour. Mood:People in good moods are more likely to help. Bad moods can have mixed effects: self-concern might decrease helping, but guilt or the desire to alleviate negative feelings (negative-state relief model) can increase it. Competence:Possessing relevant skills increases the likelihood of helping. Gender:Evidence for gender differences in helping is limited. Socially prescribed roles may be more influential than gender itself. Receiver Characteristics: imilarity:We are more likely to help those perceived as similar to ourselves. S Attractiveness:Attractive individuals are more likely to receive help. Responsibility for Misfortune:Help is more readily offered to those perceived as needing help due to circumstances beyond their control. Social Context: Urban vs. Rural:People in rural areas are generally more helpful than those in urban centres. This is attributed to the situational factors of urban environments, including increased anonymity, greater demands on resources, higher perceived risk, and the assumption that authorities will handle emergencies. Culture:Helping behaviour varies across cultures. Simpatia cultures (e.g., Latin America, Spain) characterized by concern for others' well-being, show higher levels of helping. Research by Levine et al. (2001) demonstrated this, with Rio de Janeiro and San Jose topping the list of helpful cities, while New York and Kuala Lumpur were among the least helpful. Conversely, cultures high in embeddedness (valuing social order and tradition) show lower levels of helping (Knafo et al., 2009). Helping in Emergencies: The tragic case of Kitty Genovese, who was murdered while numerous bystanders failed to intervene, highlighted the bystander effect: Bystander Effect:The probability of help being offered decreases as the number of bystanders increases. This phenomenon is attributed to several factors: Ambiguity:Emergencies are often ambiguous, making it unclear whether help is needed. Diffusion of Responsibility:With multiple bystanders, individuals feel less personal responsibility to act. Pluralistic Ignorance:Bystanders observing others' inaction may conclude that the situation is not an emergency. Audience Inhibition:Fear of social disapproval for intervening inappropriately can prevent action. The Cognitive Model (Latane & Darley, 1968):This model outlines the steps involved in deciding to help in an emergency: Notice/Attend to the Event:Barriers include cognitive load and distractions. Interpret/Define the Event as an Emergency:Ambiguity and pluralistic ignorance can hinder this stage. Assume Responsibility:Diffusion of responsibility is a key barrier. Decide What Can Be Done:Lack of competence can prevent action. Enact the Help:Costs outweighing rewards and audience inhibition can prevent helping. A meta-analysis by Fischer et al. (2011) confirmed the bystander effect but found it to be weaker in dangerous emergencies, possibly due to increased clarity and the need for cooperation. Encouraging Bystander Intervention: Strategies to increase helping in emergencies include: Teaching children to "disobey" and seek help in emergencies. Educating the public about the bystander effect. romoting leadership roles and encouraging individuals to take charge. P Equipping people with the skills and knowledge to help, through first aid training and bystander intervention programs addressing issues like bullying and prejudice.
