Self-Esteem PDF

Self-Esteem 1 Recap of last week (week 3)... The self is the sense of “who I am” as a distinct being, in relation to attributes, opinions & abilities. In psychology, we refer to Self-Concept, which is the sum total of beliefs that people have about themselves. The Self-concept is co...

Self-Esteem 1 Recap of last week (week 3)... The self is the sense of “who I am” as a distinct being, in relation to attributes, opinions & abilities. In psychology, we refer to Self-Concept, which is the sum total of beliefs that people have about themselves. The Self-concept is composed of self-schemas - systems of beliefs about oneself that guide the processing of self-relevant information. People are motivated to acquire beliefs and knowledge about the self (for accuracy, consistency, and self-enhancement), and they do so via a number of ways. These include introspection, observing their own behaviour, from other people (social comparison, imagining our impression on others), autobiographical memory, and our culture. Ø The Self is a psychological and social construct. Much or our behavior and understanding of the world is orientated around ‘protecting’ the self. 2 This week… Part 1 Self-esteem – the basics ¡ What is it? ¡ Levels of self-esteem & associated personality characteristics ¡ Self-deception strategies Part 2 Studies & methodological issues ¡ Measuring self-esteem ¡ Correlates ¡ What are the benefits of high self esteem? 3 Part 1 Self-Esteem (the basics) See also: Kassin, Fein, & Markus 2011; Baumeister et al. 2003 ATS1262 – week 4 4  Key point from previous weeks Ø Our sense of who we are, and our judgements about ourselves (self-beliefs), our behaviour (attribution), other people and their behaviour (attribution) are often not concerned with accuracy, reason, rationality. Ø Rather, our self-beliefs and our attributional styles are culturally conditioned, and often (mostly?) oriented towards making us feel better and protecting our self of who we are. See the interpersonal and ego-centric functions of attributions. Ø Self-esteem is at the core of this. 5 Why is self-esteem interesting? 6 At an individual level... Because we think it feels good to have high self-esteem! From the perspective of behavioural studies/psychology... ¡ Self-esteem is posited as the basis of vast amounts of social behaviour ¡ Variance in self-esteem is an outcome of social interactions ¡ Theories state that self-esteem is linked to social identity, group membership, and intergroup dynamics. (As we will see next week!) ¡ Many of the popular beliefs about self-esteem are unfounded ¡ E.g. Is self-esteem the cause, or the outcome, of desirable behaviours?  ¡ Self-appraisal: Self-esteem originates from the Latin word aestimare, which means “to estimate or appraise” Defining self- ¡ Refers to our positive and negative evaluations of esteem... ourselves What is it? ¡ It is an affective component of the self (remember affect, behavior, cognition) ¡ It is a perception, not a reality. 7  ¡ Generally, we mean ‘global’ self-esteem: a feeling of overall self worth (e.g. relates to the self-concept, rather than specific self- schemas). Self-esteem is a ¡ However self-esteem can also be conceptualized ‘specific self- esteem.’ This relates to specific contexts and attributes. e.g: multifaceted Academic performance concept ¡ ¡ Body image ¡ We obviously evaluate some aspects of ourselves more favorably than others, and not all aspects carry equal weight in our global self-esteem 8  ¡ We have ups & downs, successes & failures – our global self-esteem can vary over time. ¡ As we move through different contexts, the focus of our self-evaluations change. Self-Esteem is ‘fluid’… ¡ Stability/fluidity of self-esteem also varies between individuals. ¡ Some people have stable self-esteem. Other people’s self-esteem changes depending on experiences (e.g. negative feedback from manager). 9 Levels of self- Secure High Self-Esteem ¡ Positive self-views that are confidently held. esteem ¡ People with secure high S-E feel good about themselves and do not need constant reassurance from others to maintain their high S-E High self-esteem People with high S-E have favorable views about Defensive High Self-Esteem themselves. For example, they may consider ¡ Positive self-views are fragile. themselves to be competent, likeable, attractive ¡ People with defensive high self-esteem and morally good. have unconscious self-doubts and insecurities. They require repeated positive feedback from others.. 10 Levels of self- Low Self-Esteem ¡ Some people have low self-esteem. The most esteem common form of low self-esteem is the absence of strong positive views about the self. Very few people hold extremely negative views about the self. ¡ People with low S-E have conflicted, uncertain ideas about the self: ‘self-concept confusion’ ¡ Focus on self protection, rather than self- enhancement. ¡ More prone to emotional highs and lows ¡ Contrary to previous understandings, people with low self-esteem do not want to fail 11 Self-esteem – common personality characteristics High Self-Esteem Low Self-Esteem Ø Persistent and resilient in the face of failure Ø Vulnerable to impact of everyday events Ø Emotionally stable Ø Wide swings in mood & affect Ø Less flexible & malleable Ø Flexible & malleable Ø Less easily persuaded / influenced Ø Easily persuaded / influenced Ø No conflict between wanting & obtaining Ø Want success & approval, but are skeptical of it success Ø React negatively to a happy or successful life Ø React positively to a happy & successful life Ø Inconsistent and unstable self-concept Ø Thorough & consistent self-concept Ø Motivational orientation: self-protection Ø Motivational orientation: self-enhancement 12 The illusions of high self-esteem…. 13 Self Discrepancy Theory (Revisited) Ideal Self Unhappiness Dissapointment Dissatisfactiom Self-dislike Actual Self discrepancy Ought Self Fear Anxiety Personal inadequacy Alienation 14  15 How do we deal with self discrepancies? - Self-esteem and positive illusions Three positive illusions that are common among well-adjusted, mentally healthy people: 1. People overestimate their good qualities, and underestimate their faults 2. People overestimate their level of control of events 3. People are unrealistically optimistic  Self-deception strategies: mental tricks that people use to help themselves believe things that are false We deceive ourselves to boost our self-esteem Self-esteem and ¡ Self-serving bias (we claim credit for success, but deny blame for failure) self-deception ¡ Being more skeptical of bad feedback strategies ¡ Self-handicapping ¡ Basking in the glory of others ¡ Social comparisons (i.e. downward social comparisons) ¡ Differential assessments of good traits versus faults ¡ Adjusting definitions of what is a good trait. 16 Questions for you! ¡ Do you feel that you have ‘high’, ‘low’ (or somewhere in between) global self-esteem? ¡ Do you have high specific self-esteem? (e.g. relating to specific domains and contexts). ¡ In what ways do you think you might ‘deceive’ yourself, so that you can boost yourself esteem? (Check previous slide...!) 17 Part 2 Measuring, correlates & the benefits of high Self-Esteem See also: Kassin, Fein, & Markus 2011; Baumeister et al. 2003 ATS1262 – week 4 18 How can we actually measure self-esteem? 19  20 The Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale First introduced: ¡ Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ¡ Almost 50,000 citations! (= very widely adopted in the social sciences) Description A 10-item scale that measures global self-worth by measuring positive or negative feelings about the self. All items are answered using a 4-point Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Higher score equals higher self-esteem (5 of the items are reversed scored). Online version: https://wwnorton.com/college/psych/psychsci/media/rosenberg.htm  21 The Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale 1. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others. 2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. 4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. 5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 6. I take a positive attitude toward myself. 7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. 9. I certainly feel useless at times. 10. At times I think I am no good at all.  What does recent research say about the relationship between self- Self-Esteem esteem and other social factors / Correlates personality traits? 22 Self-Esteem & Lifespan Orth et al (2018) Development of self-esteem from age 4 to 94 years: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies. Psychological Bulletin 144(10): 1045-80 23 24 Self-Esteem, Gender, Age & Culture Bleidorn et al (2016) Age and gender differences in self-esteem – A cross cultural window. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 111(3): 396-410 25 Self-Esteem, Gender, Age & Culture Bleidorn et al (2016) Age and gender differences in self-esteem – A cross cultural window. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 111(3): 396-410 Key points (from Abstract): Ø Across 48 nations, and consistent with previous research, we found age-related increases in self-esteem from late adolescence to middle adulthood and significant gender gaps, with males consistently reporting higher self-esteem than females. Ø Despite these broad cross-cultural similarities, the cultures differed significantly in the magnitude of gender, age, and gender x age effects on self-esteem. These differences were associated with cultural differences in socio- economic, socio-demographic, gender equality, and cultural value indicators.” 26 27 Self-Esteem & Culture Chen & Graham (2018) Doing better but feeling worse: An attributional account of achievement – self-esteem disparities in Asian American Students. Soc Psychol Educ 21:937-949 28 Self-Esteem & Culture Chen & Graham (2018) Doing better but feeling worse: An attributional account of achievement – self- esteem disparities in Asian American Students. Soc Psychol Educ 21:937-949 Key points (from Abstract): ¡ Asian American students often report lower self-esteem than their peers from other racial groups even though they are doing better academically. ¡ Academic achievement, self-esteem and attributions for academic failures (i.e., low ability and low effort) were examined in an ethnically diverse sample of 3546 White, Black, Latino, and Asian American 8th grade students (Mage = 14.03 years) from California. ¡ Results showed that Asians had the highest-grade point average but the lowest self-esteem among the four major racial/ethnic groups. Asians and Latinos also endorsed more low ability attributions than Whites and Blacks. ¡ The self-esteem gap between Asians and their White and Black peers was partly explained by more endorsement of low-ability attributions.” 29 Self-Esteem & Body Image Hesketh, Wake & Waters (2004) Body Mass Index and parent- reported self-esteem in elementary school children: evidence for a causal relationship. International Journal of Obesity 228:1233- 1237 30 Self-Esteem & Body Image Hesketh, Wake & Waters (2004) Body Mass Index and parent-reported self-esteem in elementary school children: evidence for a causal relationship. International Journal of Obesity 228:1233-1237 Key points (from Abstract): ¡ Objective: Clarify relationships between Body Mass Index (BMI) and self-esteem in young children” ¡ Design: Longitudinal Cohort Study; 1997 & 2000 ¡ Measure: Child Health Questionnaire (parent reported) ¡ Results: “Overweight/obese children had lower median self-esteem scores than nonoverweight children at both time points, especially at follow-up…While nonoverweight children with low baseline self-esteem were more likely to develop overweight/obesity (OR ¼ 2.1, 95% CI ¼ 1.2, 3.6), this accounted for only a small proportion of the incidence of overweight.” ¡ Conclusions: “Our data show an increasingly strong association between lower self-esteem and higher body mass across the elementary school years. Overweight/obesity precedes low self-esteem in many children, suggesting a causal relationship. This indicates that prevention and management strategies for childhood overweight/obesity need to begin early to minimise the impact on self-esteem” 31  Parenting styles ¡ Parents with low self-esteem are more likely to be violent (Ostrowsky, 2010) ¡ Witnessing inter-parental violence negatively impacts children’s self-esteem (Shen 2010) ¡ Childhood psychological abuse linked with low self-esteem More Studies in adults (Briere & Runtz, 1990) Domestic Violence & Self-esteem On Self-Esteem ¡ Physical abuse of women associated with significantly lower self-esteem (Sahin et al 2010) ¡ Both victimization and perpertration of domestic violence associated with lower self-esteem in males (Papadakaki, 2009) Childhood Sexual Abuse (CSA) ¡ Extensive longitudinal study linking CSA to lower self-esteem setting in at around age 30. (Fergusson et al 2013) 32  Sexual Behavior & Sexual performance ¡ Females who had lower self-esteem reported initiating sex earlier and having risky partners. (Ethier et al, 2006: 268) ¡ Men experienced significantly increased self-esteem after receiving treatment for sexual dysfunction (Althof et al 2003) More Studies ¡ In a multivariate model, inadequate sexual performance had the largest impact on male self-esteem (Stimson et al 2010) On Self-Esteem Leadership ¡ People with high self-esteem are confident in their decisions ¡ They do not need leaders for social cues on what to do, thus equipping them to be leaders 33 Correlation Versus Causation High self-esteem correlates with many positive outcomes.... Ø Does high self-esteem result in positive outcomes? Ø...Or do positive outcomes result in high self-esteem? In the past, researchers have been too quick to assume that high self-esteem resulted in positive outcomes. Hence, there has been a lot of focus on improving peoples’ self- esteem For example, we now have good evidence that high self-esteem is the result, not the cause, of good school performance. 34 So… what are the benefits of high self- esteem? “Our 2003 article clashed with conventional wisdom by concluding that high self-esteem has only a couple of benefits, notably high initiative (based on trusting one’s own judgment) and feeling good.” 35 There is a common belief that low self-esteem is associated with poor outcomes (and aggressive & antisocial behaviour) BUT... High self-esteem is not a panacea for societal ills. Pursuit of self-esteem as an end in-itself can have harmful consequences! 36  Narcissism: a disposition that represents the extent to which people have excessive love for themselves and a selfish orientation. Threatened egotism: Disadvantages Of A hostile aggressive response to criticism from others, which High Self-esteem has been linked to narcissism. High self-esteem is also associated with higher prejudice (as we will see when we look at Social Identity Theory). 37 Summary ¡ Self-esteem refers to our positive and negative evaluations of the self. We can distinguish between global and specific self- esteem. Specific personality traits often accompany particular levels of self-esteem. Self-esteem can be fluid. ¡ People often have various self-deception strategies to boost self-esteem. High self-esteem tends to be associated with various illusions about the self. ¡ We have tools for measuring self-esteem, such as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Measure. This has enabled us to undertake studies that explore various correlations (gender, age, culture etc) ¡ High self-esteem is not a panacea for social ills. It may have less benefits than commonly assumed, and it can be associated with negative personality traits. 38 Intergroup Relations Week 5 ATS1262 Understanding Social Behaviour Dr John Gardner 1 Recap of previous weeks… We are social beings. Our sense of self and our self-esteem emerges from our relationship with other people. For example: Self schemas (e.g. ideals relating to body shape) Looking-glass self (we imagine how others judge us) Social comparison (we compare ourselves to peers) These processes are all deeply tied to our sense of belonging to some groups, and not others. 2  Part 1 What are ‘groups’ in behavioral studies? - Some definitions Part 2 This week… Conflict between groups – some theories - Realistic Group Conflict Theory (RGCT) - Social Identity Theory Part 3 Resolving conflict between groups - Intergroup Contact Hypothesis - Acculturation 3  What are groups? Part 1 See also: Chapter 13 of De Lamater et al 2018. 4 Groups are social units They are characterized by: Membership: Individuals accept each other as members of a group. Interaction: Group members interact with each other in some way. Shared goals: Groups members have common goals Shared norms: Group members share and perpetuate norms 5  Families Religious groups Specific parishes, sects, denominations, religions. Sports teams & recreational groups Work teams Ethnic groups Nation states Ø Most of us belong to multiple groups. Groups – some examples How to make sense of groups? Primary groups: Close-knit, small groups characterized by close and enduring personal relationships Norms and values play a larger role in group cohesion Families, friendship groups, religious groups, etc Secondary groups: Large, impersonal groups, that are often time-limited Cohesion tends to result from shared goals. A corporation, a university class, sports teams. Ingroups (groups we belong to) and outgroups (groups we don’t belong to). 7 Group cohesion The extent to which members of a group desire to remain in a group and resist leaving it (Balkwell, 1994) Social cohesion: The ‘connectedness’ that results when individuals within a group like each other and want to spend time with each other. Task cohesion: The connectedness that results when individuals work together on a shared task. Members of high cohesion groups often have more influence on each other. Conformity is higher… 8 Group norms Dictate what goals are Guide how members should important and how they will be conduct themselves with achieved others in the group Determine what is considered Guide intergroup relations – ‘appropriate behaviour’, and how members should interact can thus be used to distinguish with other groups group members from non- members 9 Why do individuals conform? Groups provide individuals with resources and benefits Emotional & physical support Income Status, positive self-appraisal and self-esteem (Part 2) To manage threats arising from conflict with other groups (part 2) Groups provide individuals with ways to understand social reality Groups provide members cognitive frameworks for making sense of the world Groups shape and validate individual opinions. 10  What groups do you belong to? What are your primary groups? What are your secondary groups Some question Do they have high or low levels of for you! cohesion? What benefits and resources do you receive from your groups? In what ways do your groups shape and validate your opinions? 11  Conflicts & competition Part 2 between groups See also: Jackson 1993, Tajfel 1982. 12 Human history is a history of intergroup competition and conflict… Conflicts between families, clans, religions groups, ethnic groups, nations… Can entail physical violence, hostility, antipathy, discrimination, competition… 13 Competition between groups can change dynamics within groups Increases cohesion: as group goals become more significant, Individuals ‘band-together’ to manage threats Leadership militancy: Group leaders may consolidate their leadership by denouncing outgroups Changes to group norms: Some norms become more significant, others less so. Increased loyalty 14 Why do group conflicts arise? Groups may have differing views/opinions on issues they feel are important. Also… Groups may have competing goals – Realistic (Group) Conflict Theory (RGCT / RCT) Individuals pursue positive self-concept - Social Identity Theory (SIT) 15 Realist Group Conflict Theory - The Robbers Cave Experiment, Sherif and Sherif (1954) The Cummings Center for the History of Psychology – ‘The Robbers Cave Experiment’ Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PRuxMprSDQ&t=3s 16 Realist Group Conflict Theory - The Robbers Cave Experiment, Sherif and Sherif (1954) Quick Recap: Phase 1: Group formation: A culturally homogenous group of boys was divided into two groups. Both groups quickly developed their own norms, rules and hierarchies Phase 2: Intergroup competition: Groups were made to compete in games for rewards. Only the winning team gets rewarded. Aggression and conflict between the groups developed quickly. Phase 3: Tension Reduction: Groups were put in close contact in non-competitive environment. Conflict remained until the were encouraged to cooperate on tasks. 17 Realist Group Conflict Theory - Basic premise 1. Groups compete for scare resources: land, money, jobs, rewards etc. (Scarcity can be perceived or real, often assumes zero-sum fate) 2. Group members experience frustration, resentment and hostility towards competing groups. 3. Group members positively appraise ingroup, while establishing negative stereotypes of outgroup. Stereotypes can become ingrained and persist beyond conflict. 4. Conflict can be reduced by increasing contact and providing common goals which require cooperation between groups (‘superordinate’ goals). 18 Realist Group Conflict Theory - ‘Classic’ theory in Behavioral Sciences Intergroup conflict and the development of prejudice, discrimination and violence, result from competition between groups (e.g., tribes, countries, regions, ethnic groups) for limited resources (water, fertile land, oil and mineral reserves, jobs/money). 19 Do incompatible ”Not only are incompatible group interests not always sufficient to generate conflict… there is a good deal of experimental evidence that these goals always conditions are not always necessary for the development of competition and discrimination between groups” lead to conflict? (Tajfel & Turner, 2004: 373) Are incompatible Social Identity Theory goals necessary (Emerged as a movement away form RCT as an explanation of integroup conflict. for conflict? 20 Social Identity Theory Proposed by Henry Tajfel and John Turner in 1979. Intergroup conflict and competition relates to social identity and self esteem Social identity: ”That part of the individual’s self concept which derives from his [sic] knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups), together with the value and emotional significance of that membership” (Tajfel, 1981: 255) Self esteem: Our positive and negative evaluations of ourselves (see week 4!) 21 Social identity theory Three assumptions (Tajfel and Turner 2004: 377) 1. “Individuals strive to maintain or enhance their self-esteem: they strive for a positive self-concept.” 2. “Social groups or categories and the memberships of them are associated with positive or negative value connotations.” 3. “The evaluation of one’s own group is determined with reference to specific other groups through social comparisons in terms of value-laden attributes and characteristics.” 22  Social identity theory Three Principles (Tajfel and Turner 2004: 378) Based on the three assumptions (previous slide)… 1. “Individuals strive to achieve and maintain positive social identity” 2. “Positive social identity is based on a large extent on favourable comparisons that can be made between the in-group and some relevant out-groups” 3. “When social identity is unsatisfactory, individuals will strive to leave their existing group and join some more positively distinct group and/or to make their existing group more positively distinct” 23  Social identity theory What does this all mean? We want to feel good about themselves. Whether or not we feel good about ourselves largely depends on whether the groups we are part of (in-groups) are viewed positively or negatively compared to other groups (out-groups). If our group is viewed positively compared to other groups, we feel good about ourselves. We differentiate our in-group from out-groups in order to achieve and maintain superiority over other groups. We may discriminate people from out-groups to achieve this. Group conflict and competition can thus arise because individuals want to feel good about themselves (and not necessarily because groups are competing for resources). 24  Social identity theory Minimal Group Paradigm A key concept underpinning SIT: A methodology used in studies to determine the minimal conditions required for discrimination between groups. “The mere awareness of an out-group is sufficient to stimulate in-group favouritism… the possibility of social comparison generates ‘spontaneous’ intergeroup competition” (Tajfel & Turner, 2004:378) 25  Social identity theory Reactions to negative social identity What do we do when our groups are viewed negatively? 1. Individual mobility – individuals move from one group to another (not always possible) 2. Social creativity Reverse the negative value attached to the in-group attribute Emphasize and celebrate another group characteristic which is more favourable Shifting comparison to a different outgroup 3. Social comparison Direct attempt to change the relative positions of the ingroup and the outgroup on the most salient dimensions. 26 We live in a Instances of individual/social mobility, social pluralistic society, creativity, and social competition are constantly occurring as people seek to improve their self- concept. characterized by numerous groups. Social mobility: Reflects flexibility and permeability within society, as individuals move between groups Social change: Reflects inflexibility and rigidity within society. People cannot easily move between groups so they advocate for greater social change. Ø Societies differ (some more rigid than others), but both social mobility and social change can occur side-by-side. 27 Some question Think of your in-groups… What positive aspects of yourself for you! derive from these groups? When have you felt positive/negative because your ingroups have done well (or done badly?) What are some examples of social mobility from your life? 28  Resolving conflict between groups: Part 3 Contact & Acculturation See also: Allport 1954, Pettigrew 1998, Berry 2005 29  Ø Superordinate goals. Diverse groups Contemporary societies are ‘band-together’ to achieve shared heterogenous, with many objectives (RGCT) diverse groups and Another (related) explanation/theory communities. The Intergroup Contact Hypothesis - How can we reduce/avoid (Allport 1954, Pettigrew 1998) conflict? What happens when groups of individuals from different culture come into continuous contact? Berry’s Bidimensional Model of Acculturation 30 Immigration is a key issue here… People in big cities have more positive attitudes towards immigration than people from small towns and rural areas. Big cities are cosmopolitan (diverse, many groups). Rural areas are often homogenous. What explains this phenomenon? From Maxwell, 2019. X axis represents attitudes towards immigration (Further right = more favorable) 31  Intergroup contact can be beneficial when it is under the right conditions: 1. When there is equal status between Intergroup Contact groups Hypothesis 2. When groups have common goals Allport 1954 3. When there is interdependent cooperation 4. Support of authorities, laws and customs. 32 Pettigrew’s reformulation of The Contact Hypothesis Pettigrew 1998 Time is very important! Intergroup contact is a long-term process that can not be replicated in small experiments. Over time, meaningful intergroup relations (e.g. friendships) are developed. The ‘fifth’ condition of The Contact Hypothesis is thus ‘the opportunity to become friends’. “The contact situation must provide participants with the opportunity to become friends. Such opportunity implies close interaction that would make self-disclosure and other friendship- developing mechanisms possible” (Pettigrew 1998: 76) 33 When two cultures come together - Acculturation “Acculturation is the dual process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups and their individual members. At the group level, it involves changes in social structures and institutions and in cultural practices. At the individual level, it involves changes in a person’s behavioural repertoire. These cultural and psychological changes come about through a long-term process, sometimes taking years, sometimes generations, and sometimes centuries.” (Berry 2005: 698-699) 34 Berry’s Bidimensional Model of Acculturation Migrants and ethnocultural minority groups face two questions: 1. ‘Do I want to maintain the culture and traditions of my ethnocultural background?’ 2. ‘Do I want to develop and maintain relationships with other groups? (esp. the host community). - ‘Do I want to adopt the culture and traditions of the host/majority group?’ Based on these two questions, the following ‘typology’ of acculturation orientations emerges. 35 Berry’s Bidimensional Model of Acculturation Integration: individuals maintain a positive relation to their original cultural and their host culture Assimilation: Individuals relinquish their original cultural and completely absorb new culture. Separation: Individuals retain their original culture and reject their host culture. Marginalisation: individuals reject both cultures. An ‘integration’ orientation tends to be associated with more positive outcomes. This has been shown in numerous countries (Germany, Spain, USA, Netherlands, Australia etc). 36 The Interactive Acculturation Model Bourhis et al 1997 Argues that the ‘relative fit’, or the compatibility of majority and minority orientations, is important. To what extent do both groups find it acceptable that: Immigrants maintain their cultural heritage Immigrants adopt the culture of the host community Based on the degree of alignment between the two groups, three outcome can emerge: Consensual: groups agree on the way in which they should live together Problematic: groups disagree on one of the points above Conflictual: the groups disagree on both points above, and/or if the dominant group prefers exclusion 37 Summary: Intergroup relations Lots of theory this week! Ø The theories that we have explored today can be used to make sense of social behaviour in subsequent weeks (e.g. online behaviour, leadership) 38  Key points: Summary: Individual behaviour is heavily influenced by intergroup dynamics Intergroup Realistic Group Conflict Theory and Social Identify Theory provide relations explanations for intergroup conflict and competition Conflict and competition between groups can be reduced when particular conditions are met. The relationship between minority ethnocultural groups and host/majority groups can be understood in terms of acculturation orientations 39 Leadership 1 Recap of last week (week 5)... Social groups provide us with resources, ways of understanding the world, ways of understanding ourselves, and thus self esteem (positive or negative). Whether or not we have a positive self concept depends on how well our ingroups are doing compared to outgroups. We favour our ingroups and discriminate against individuals from outgroups. Intergroup competition and conflict can be reduced by superordinate goals. Group relations can be beneficial when certain conditions are met (equal status, shared goals, interdependency, favorable laws etc, and opportunities for friendship). Ø Leaders and leadership (and also followership!) are a major factor group and intergroup dynamics… 2 This week… Part 1 Why is leadership important? ¡ Some definitions Part 2 Theories of leadership Part 3 Social Identity Theories of leadership 3 Part 1 Why is leadership important? (& some definitions) ATS1262 – week 6 4 Why do we care about leaders? In general terms: Ø They inspire us (or they terrify us) Ø They bring about changes that we desire (or loathe) Ø They popularize visions about what the world should/could be In the Social Sciences: Ø They bring about social change (political, technological, community…) Ø By leading groups, they provides individuals with opportunities to manage threats (from other groups) and seek positive self- concept (via competition & discrimination 5 We are obsessed with leadership! 6  Ø In the social sciences, we are highly In popular skeptical of the popular ‘great man’ culture, effective theory’ of leadership. leaders are often portrayed as Ø Different theories have been developed uniquely skilled that foreground the relationship between individual traits, social context and group individuals. dynamics (see part 2!) 7  Multiple definitions of leadership in the social sciences: “a process of social influence in which a person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task” (Chemers, 1998). “the process whereby one member of a group takes executive control over a group’s function and aims” (Nugent, 2013). What is “a form of interpersonal behavior and involves certain individuals leadership? influencing and directing the behaviors, attitudes, and thoughts of others” (Matthews, 2014). “the process of influencing others in a manner that enhances their contribution to the realization of group goals” (Platow et al, 2015). Some common points: Ø A process; involves influence, facilitates pursual/realization of group/collective goals 8  Ø ‘Followership’ as a focus of research has often been neglected, but it is part of the ‘social influence’ leadership equation. Followship study is: “The study of followership involves an investigation of the nature and impact of followers and following in the leadership process” (Uhl-Bien et What is al, 2014). followership? Followership can be understood as: “The ability to take direction well, to get in line behind a program, to be part of a team and to deliver on what is expected of you” (McCallum, 2013). 9  “a change in an individual’s thoughts, feelings, attitudes, or What is social behaviors that results from interaction with another influence? individual or a group” (Rashotte, n.d.: 4426). 10  Leadership emergence ¡ The process or accomplishment of emerging as a leader of a group. Leadership effectiveness Researchers have proposed and explored a number of traits relating to ‘leadership effectiveness’ in studies. Definitions Two more thus very on the nature of research methods. concepts… General points of emphasis include: ¡ ability to motivate followers; ¡ ability to achieve or accomplish goals/tasks; ¡ group success; ¡ ability to elicit desired change; ¡ ability to stay in power. 11 Part 2 Theories of leadership See also: Haslam et al 2010; Haslam & Reicher 2016 ATS1262 – week 6 12  Too much focus on the individual qualities of leaders? “The vast majority of leadership research has focused on leaders. This leader-centric approach has contributed to a view of leaders as power-wielding actors who affect group and Are leaders born organizational outcomes…Not surprisingly, the resultant focus or made? has been nearly exclusively on leaders, and the vast history of research on leadership can be viewed as the study of leaders ¡ The ‘Great Man’ Theory and “subordinates.” (Uhl-Bien et al 2014:84) ¡ Trait theories Ø Social Identity Theories foreground leader-follower (i.e. ¡ Contingency theories group) dynamics – Part 3 (see Haslam and Reicher 2016) ¡ Behavioural theories ¡ Charismatic leadership ¡ Transformational leadership 13  'Leaders are born, not made’. A theory of history: The ebb and flow of history is carved by individual great men - individuals of high influence who have impacted the world towards their aims through dispositional characteristics such as Great Man charisma, political savvy, intelligence and wisdom. "The history of the world is but the biography of great men“ (Carlyle, Theory of 1840). Carlyle often used the term ‘heroes’ to describe these leaders. leadership Muhammad; Shakespeare; Luther; Rousseau; Napoleon; Wagner and others have been understood in this way. Great man theories are not well-regarded in academia… “The Great Man theory does not fit into the rigorous scholarly theory and research that makes up the contemporary canon of leadership discourse” (Spector 2015) Ø Ignores the malleability of some leadership traits and the importance of context 14  Certain personality traits foster effective leadership across a number of organizational settings and circumstances (Zaccaro, Kemp and Bader, 2004) ¡ Very leader-centric, stemming from Great Man Theory ¡ Was popular pre-1950s, recently, however, ‘adapted’ trait- Trait theories of based theories have been proposed (e.g. Zaccaro et al leadership 2004) Example: Zaccaro et al (2004) trait-based model ¡ Distinguishes between distal and proximal traits ¡ Distal = dispositional, ‘ingrained’ traits. ¡ Proximal = learned and malleable traits 15 Zaccaro et al’s trait-based model of leadership 16  Distal traits that correlate with leadership effectiveness Openness, +ve (see Judge et al 2002) Conscientiousness, +ve (see Judge et al 2002) Extraversion, +ve (see Judge et al 2002) Agreeableness, +ve (see Judge et al 2002) Honesty/Integrity, +ve (see Hoffman et al 2011) According to Charisma, +ve (see Hoffman et al 2011) research, which Creativity, +ve (see Hoffman et al 2011) Intelligence , +ve (see Hoffman et al 2011) traits are Need for power, +ve (See McClelland and Boyatzis 1982) Neuroticism, -ve (see Judge et al 2002) important? Proximal traits that are important for effective leadership Oral/written communication (Hoffman et al 2011) Interpersonal skills (Hoffman et al 2011) General problem solving (Hoffman et al 2011) Decision-making skills (Hoffman et al 2011) Technical knowledge (Bass 1990) Management skills (Hoffman et al 2011) 17  It is the interplay of traits and prevailing conditions that produces effective leadership ¡ Effective leadership cannot be reduced to an individual’s personal profile/traits ¡ Effective leadership is dependent on factors that are outside of the leader. ¡ Effective leadership = a good fit between leader traits and situational needs. Contingency Example: The Fiedler Contingency Model (see Fiedler 1967; 1971; 1981) theories of ¡ There are two styles of leadership. Both styles can be effective under the right leadership circumstances ¡ Relationship-orientated leaders – strength is to build interpersonal relationships and manage conflict ¡ Task-orientated leaders – strength is to organize teams to efficiently and effectively complete tasks ¡ Fiedler noted that task-orientated leaders do better when situational conditions are ‘highly unfavorable’ and ‘very favorable’. Relationship-orientated leaders do better when situational conditions are ‘moderately unfavorable/favorable. 18  Specific behaviours separate leaders from followers. Distinct leadership styles are the consequence of patterns of behavior. ¡ Focus on behaviours rather than traits Two famous sets of studies underpin this theory: The Ohio State Behavioural ¡ Studies, in the 1940s (Shartle et al), The Michigan Studies, 1950s (Likert theories of et al) leadership ¡ Both studies suggest that there are two general dimensions to leadership behaviour, which are non-exclusive. ¡ Goal orientated behaviors (task-focused) ¡ Relation-focused (focused on creating positive relationships between leaders and followers 19 The Ohio State Model 20 Charismatic leadership Transformational leadership theories theories Strong emphasis on the leaders’ ability to Strong emphasis on leaders’ ability to support prompt affective reactions via key traits: individuals to transform into effective group members (and leaders) ¡ Confidence, which involves articulating a vision ¡ Leaders as instrumental in building follower and inspiring others to orientate to the vision commitment to achieving goals and (Conger & Kanungo 1987; 1988) challenging/inspiring/motivating them to perform. ¡ Sensitivity to followers, which involves ¡ Transformational leaders focus on followers' needs recognizing and responding to what followers and ability to grow and develop needs/wants/emotions. 21 These theories Ø While some theories recognize the importance place too much of context & situational fit, they largely ignore emphasis on followership (and hence, the importance of group dynamics) individual Ø Different groups have different perceptions of characteristics ‘charisma’ & ‘intelligence’. (e.g. charisma, Ø Leaders themselves are transformed by leadership intelligence) 22 Questions for you! Think of leaders in your life – a coach, a boss, a politician, a mentor.. ¡ Are they/where they effective leaders? What traits enabled them to be effective/ineffective leaders ¡ Would you describe them as relationship- focused or task-focused? ¡ Have you been in situations where a relationship-focused leader would be more effective? Or a task-focused leader? 23 Part 3 Social Identity Theories of leadership (see Haslam and Reicher 2016) ATS1262 – week 6 24  Emphasis the role of followers in leadership by foregrounding the role of group dynamics Ø people derive part of their self-concept from the social groups to which they belong. Social Identity Ø When an individual strongly identifies with a group, or has a strong desire to be accepted, they are more likely to conform Theory of to the group prototype (group prototype = the ‘ideal group member’ who embodies the defining characteristic of the Leadership group) Ø This process creates the boundaries, ‘ingredients’ and momentum for leaders to emerge. Ø People who successfully emulate and craft the group protype naturally emerge as group members Ø Group norms, goals etc will influence what constitutes ‘effective’ leadership 25  A leader is someone who embodies a social identity – they reflect the prototype of the group. This is how they acquire ‘legitimacy’ as a leader within the group Leadership is a process of social identity management that centers on a leader’s ability to create, represent, promote and embed a shared, Social Identity special sense of ‘us’. Theory of Four key elements of leadership: leadership ¡ Being one of us ¡ Doing it for us ¡ Crafting a sense of us ¡ Making us matter 26 Being one of us! Leaders as ingroup prototypes ¡ Leaders are more effective and influential if they are perceived as representing a social identity that we share. ¡ Leaders need to be seen as ‘one of us’ and as embodying ‘who we are’ and ‘what we want to be’. 27 Doing it for us! Leaders as ingroup champions ¡ Leaders are more effective if they are perceived to stand up for the group and its values, even if it costs the group in the short term. ¡ Their leadership will be compromised if they place other groups or personal interests above those of the group. 28 Crafting a sense of us! Leaders as entrepreneurs of social identity ¡ Successful leaders ‘craft’ a sense of identity to ensure that they (and their vision) are prototypical for the group ¡ This involves ongoing sensitivity to the way they appear to ingroup members ¡ Example: Trump’s reshaping of the Republican Party 29 Making us matter! Leaders as ‘embedders’ of identity ¡ Successful leaders initiate ‘identity embedding’ structure. They bring about activities and practices which advance group goals and entrench and elevate social identities. ¡ They create a vision of who we are, what we value, what sort of society we want to live in, using language, rhetoric, poetic expression, ceremony etc. 30 Social Identity Effective leadership as a group dynamic. It helps explain why leaders can be so divisive (leaders reflect Theory of the goals, norms and values of diverse and competing groups), and also how leaders themselves can change Leadership (effective leaders can ‘read’ the ingroup, craft themselves and their behaviors in response). Ø See Haslam and Reicher 2016 reading for more. 31 Summary ¡ Leadership is a key dimension of social change and social behaviour, and is thus an important topic in the social sciences. ¡ Researchers are highly skeptical of ‘Great Man’ theories of leadership. ¡ During the 20th century, researchers have proposed a number of leadership theories. These foreground the importance of traits, behaviours, and situational context. ¡ Generally, these theories fail to capture the role of followership. Social Identity Theory explains how leadership emerges from, and is shaped by, group dynamics. 32 Aggression 1 Recap of last week (week 6)... Leadership is an important topic in the social sciences because 1) leaders are drivers of social change (good and bad!) and 2) leadership is tied up with group dynamics, social identity and self-esteem. There are many useful theories of leadership. ‘Great Man theories are outdated. Theories which emphasize context and fellowship are much more useful. Effective leadership is a group dynamic: effective leaders embody group norms and provide opportunities for positive-self appraisals. 2 This week… Part 1 Understanding Aggression ¡ What is it? Part 2 Why are people aggressive? Causes & motives Part 3 Do violent video games cause aggression? 3 Part 1 Understanding Aggression See also: DeLatamer 2018 ATS1262 – week 7 4 Many forms of aggression are a major societal concern 5 But… Many of the activities we enjoy (and which are generally condoned) involve aggression! 6 Some questions… Why are people How do we mitigate aggressive? aggression? Is aggression in things And, what do we actually that we enjoy (e.g. video mean by aggression? games) a problem? 7 What is aggression? ¡ Intention to harm is important ¡ Harm can be psychological (e.g. Ø Any behaviour aimed at harming emotional abuse) others physically or psychologically ¡ Physical violence is one form of aggression. 8 Two types of aggression 1. Hostile/retaliatory aggression An act intended for the sole purpose of harming others (often in reaction to a threat or an insult) ¡ Intention is to cause harm Ø Bullying, fighting, teasing, rumour spreading (note: some of these examples could have an instrumental component). 2. Instrumental aggression An act that harms others, and which serves a purpose in addition to the harm. ¡ Intention is to harm, because by doing harm, an additional goal can be achieved (harm is a means to an end) Ø Military intervention, corporal punishment, assault coupled with robbery, terrorism 9 Aggression is ubiquitous! …from major conflict to small everyday interactions. 10 Part 2 Why are people aggressive? (Causes & motivations) See also: DeLamater 2018 ATS1262 – week 7 11 Causes & motivations 1. Instincts and genetic explanations 2. Psychological processes ¡ Frustration-Aggression ¡ Aversive-emotional Arousal ¡ Positive Affect ¡ Deindividuation/anonymity 3. Social Learning ¡ Bobo the Clown experiments ¡ Violent media & popular culture 4. Situational factors – heat! 12  Genes do not directly influence (i.e. cause) aggression. But… Ø Genes influence neurochemical, hormonal and sensory systems that enhance aggressive potential/capacity What role do Ø Genes influence muscle and bone growth necessary for expression for aggression. instincts and genes have in In humans, aggression may have some evolutionary advantages. But… aggression? Aggression is not instinctual like other behaviors (eating, reproduction). Ø Aggression (unlike other instinctual behaviours) is not universal across cultures. 13 What about testosterone in aggression? In animals: strong evidence that testosterone drives aggression (e.g. castrated/neutered males) In humans (from Geniole et al 2020): Ø baseline testosterone is positively (but weakly) correlated with human aggression. Ø context-dependent changes in testosterone are positively (but weakly) correlated with human aggression. Ø No strong evidence for a causal role of testosterone in promoting human aggression 14 Frustration-aggression hypothesis Situational event Frustration Aggressive act impedes goal Original hypothesis (Dollard et al 1939): 1. Every frustration leads to some sort of aggression 2. Every aggressive act is due to some prior frustration Subsequent modifications Ø Individuals often restrain themselves due to fear of punishment/backlash Ø Frustration can lead to other responses (despair, depression, withdrawal) Ø Aggression can occur without frustration (e.g. ruthless person sabotaging others) 15 Aversive emotional arousal Accident, Negative attack, Aggressive act affect or insult 1. Accidents, attacks or insults cause people negative emotions 2. People want to reduce or eliminate negative emotion 3. Aggressive acts can be one means of reducing/eliminating negative emotion ¡ Aversive aggression is an instrumental aggression aimed at averting negative emotion 16 Positive affect ‘Classical’ theories on aggression have focused on the role of negative emotions. However, there is evidence that positive affect is a correlate and cause of aggression. Ø people commit some aggressive acts because they find it pleasurable (‘aggressive pleasure’) Ø E.g. sadism; people taking pleasure from acts of revenge 17 Deindividuation Ø A psychological state of diminished self identity and self awareness. Can happen to people in crowds, in wearing uniform, under the influence of drugs/alcohol, when online… Normal constraints on behaviour are weakened when a person loses their sense of individuality Person feels less likely to be identified and held responsible for aggressive behaviour Creates a path to aggression 18 Deindividuation – Philip Zimbardo’s classic work Zimbardo (1969): Deindividuation can be produced by ¡ Anonymity ¡ Diffused responsibility ¡ Size of group/crowd ¡ The activity ¡ A novel unstructured situation ¡ Arousal to noise ¡ Fatigue Stanford Experiment (1973) ¡ Guards’ aggression increased when: ¡ Wearing uniforms ¡ Wearing sunglasses ¡ At night-time. 19 Deindividuation - mask wearing Watson (1973) found that: ¡ Across 27 cultures: Warriors who conceal their identity by wearing face and body paint were more aggressive that those warriors who were identifiable 20  ¡ What role does behaviour modelling play? E.g. children observing aggressive parents Social learning ¡ What role does culture play? E.g, violent films, aggressive music, violent video games… 21 Bandura’s Social Learning Theory Observational learning Ø When individuals acquire attitudes and behaviours (including aggression) by simply observing others. Ø Based on the Bobo Doll Experiment ¡ 72 children: ¡ 24 exposed to an aggressive role model, ¡ 24 to a non-aggressive role model ¡ 24 no role-model (control group) 22 Bandura’s Social Learning Theory It seems obvious that children will imitate what they see, and that aggression will therefore be learned! Ø Prior to Bandura’s study, the ‘Catharsis Hypothesis’ was popular. Ø Catharsis Hypothesis argues we purge/expend our aggression through aggressive acts 23 Violence In Popular Culture There is strong evidence of a causal relationship between media violence and aggressive behaviour ¡ Brocato et al 2010: Even watching short violent ads on TV significantly increased aggression in children Ø Media provides us with ‘scripts, schemas and beliefs’ about how & when to expression aggression. Ø Positive modeling can work in the same way – promote pro-social behaviors through positive portrayals in media (Dittman 2004) 24 Phillips (1983): Sharp increase in U.S. homicides immediately after heavyweight championship prize fights 25  Violent music - Fischer and Greitemeyer (2006) study found that exposure to aggressive music… ¡ Increased aggression in both male and female participants; ¡ Increased aggressive behaviour ¡ Increased aggressive thoughts Other forms of Pornography – Ferguson et al (2022) undertook a ‘meta-analysis’ of studies over multiple-decades. Found that: media ¡ Evidence does not suggest that non-violent pornography is associated with sexual aggression ¡ Some evidence that violent pornography is weakly correlated with sexual aggression. ¡ Lots of methodological problems with studies makes it difficult to draw strong conclusions Video games/gaming – see Part 3! 26 SITUATIONAL FACTORS AND AGGRESSION – HEAT ¡ Physical pain and discomfort are associated with increased aggression ¡ Anderson et al (2011) proposed that: Increases in heat due to climate change may be reflected in an increase in the number of serious and deadly assaults ¡ Supported by a meta-analysis study undertaken by Hsiang, Burke & Miguel 2013). ¡ Domestic violence, riots, tribal conflicts, border conflicts. 27 Questions for you! ¡ Reflect on examples of violence you’ve seen in the media in the last week ¡ How is violence & violent behavior portrayed? Does it provide an alluring or appealing ‘script’ for being aggressive? ¡ Have your ever experienced ‘deindividuation’? ¡ Are you more likely to get frustrated (and aggressive?) when feeling hot or uncomfortable? 28 Part 3 Do violent video games cause aggression? ATS1262 – week 7 29 Violent video games – setting the scene ¡ Video games have existed since 1970s ¡ Last decade – improvement in console processing power means games are more realistic ¡ Gaming consoles prevalent in wealthy countries ¡ 55 million PlayStation 5 units sold as of Feb 2024. (118 million PlayStation 4 units) ¡ 28 million Xbox Series X/S units sold as of Feb 2024 ¡ Violent video games – extremely popular ¡ Call of Duty franchise generated $30 billion revenue in USD (as of 2022) ¡ Grand Theft Auto franchise generated $10 billion revenue in USD (as of 2024) Ø There is still considerable debate about the impact of violent video games on aggressive behaviour 30 Gaming in the late 1990s / early 2000s GTA San Andreas (2004) Goldeneye N64 (1997) 31  32 What does theory predict? The Catharsis Hypothesis would imply that: Ø Violent video games provide a safe outlet for aggressive tendances. Playing violent video games would thus decrease someone’s likelihood of engaging in aggressive behavior in the community. The Social Learning Hypothesis (e.g Observed learning) would imply that: Ø Violent video games promote aggression. Ø People may learn that aggression can result in rewards (or that aggression is not severely punished) Ø Video games provide ‘violent scripts’ – ideas about how to express aggressive behaviour (e.g. ‘copycat’ violence) Ø Video games desensitize people to violence. People are less likely to experience empathy for victims. What do the studies show? In general, studies have produced significant evidence that violent video games promote aggression (Anderson et al 2010). Also, exposure to violent video games: Ø Increases hostile expectation bias (Bushman and Anderson 2002) Ø Video games make us think other people are more hostile, and thus we are more likely to be aggressive towards them Ø Results in neural desensitization to violence in the real world (brain is less responsive) (Engelhardt et al 2011) Ø Reduces physiological arousal (e.g. heart rate) to violence in the real world 33 But, studies have also shown… Long-term violent video game playing does not effect (Kuhn et al 2019): ¡ Aggressive behaviors ¡ Sexist attitudes ¡ Empathy ¡ Impulsivity ¡ Interpersonal competencies One study (Dowsett and Jackson 2019) indicates that competition within games, rather than the violence of those games, is what impacts aggression. 34  35 So…what is going on? ¡ The relationship between exposure to violent video games and aggressive behaviour is very complex. There are lots of moderating factors that influence whether someone will become more aggressive (e.g. loneliness, exposure to domestic violence) ¡ Measuring violence in video games, and measuring aggression, are not straightforward. There are lots of methodological limitations and defects in studies in this area: “Video game violence studies have too often been shockingly and embarrassingly poor, with common use of unstandardized, and poorly validated measures, upon which unscientific claims of generalizability to real world acts of extreme violence are made (Ferguson 2010:31). ¡ This area of research is (like many areas of behavioral studies research) highly politicized. There are likely vested interests and biases on both sides of the debate. Essay question 4… Is there a relationship between violent media (e.g. video games, films) and violent, aggressive behaviour? You could any of make the following arguments: ¡ Yes, playing violent video games increases aggression. This is supported by the evidence… ¡ No, playing violent video games does not impact aggression. This is supported by the evidence… ¡ It is currently uncertain as to whether violent video games impacts aggression. This is demonstrated by contradictory evidence… Ø Any of these arguments/responses is acceptable. The purpose is to make and argument and support it with evidence. 36 Summary ¡ Aggression is a behaviour aimed at harming others physically or psychologically. Aggression is thus ubiquitous in contemporary society. Many forms of aggression are considered significant societal issues. However, there are ‘culturally mandated’ ways of expression aggression. ¡ Aggression is not instinctual, however our capacity to enact aggression is a consequence of genetic heritage. Aggression can be explained via various psychological processes (e.g. frustration, negative affect aversion, positive affect). It is also learned via observation. ¡ There is strong evidence that violent video game exposure causes aggression. However, there is also some evidence that it does not. This emphases the complexity of studying social behaviour 37 Racism & prejudice 1 Recap of last week (week 7)... Aggression is a behaviour aimed at harming others physically and/or emotionally. Aggression is a common dimension of human life. Many forms of aggression are considered major societal problems. Other forms of aggression are, in some contexts and cultures, condoned. Aggression is ‘enabled’ but not determined by our biology. Other causes and motivations include psychological processes (e.g. frustration, aversion of negative affect) and socialization and social learning (as illustrated by the Bobo Clown experiments). Human behaviour (including aggression) is complicated. This is illustrated by the contradictory evidence that links violent video games to aggression. 2 This week… Part 1 Introduction to racism & prejudice  As a societal problem  Some definitions Part 2 Why do we stereotype (and how are stereotypes maintained?) Part 3 How is prejudice maintained (intergroup dynamics)? 3 Part 1 Introduction to Racism and prejudice ATS1262 – week 8 4 Racism and prejudice in Australia Priest, N. et al. (2014) Experiences of Racism, Racial/Ethnic Attitudes, Motivated Fairness and Mental Health Outcomes Among Primary and Secondary School Students. J Youth Adolescence 43, 1672–1687 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0140-9 Leaflet produced by All Together Now 5 Racism and prejudice in Australia Brown, C., DAlmada-Remedios, R., Gilbert, J. OLeary, J. and Young, N. (2020) Gari Yala (Speak the Truth): Centreing the Work Experiences of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Australians, Sydney, Diversity Council Australia/Jumbunna Institute https://www.dca.org.au/research/gari-yala- speak-truth 6 Racism and prejudice in Australia  Sexism & misogyny: Recent survey (Ipsos 2022) found that 23% of men believe it is acceptable to use sexist or misogynist language online.  Homophobia (from 2010 study of Australians with diverse sexual orientation) 6 in 10 people experienced verbal homophobic abuse. 2 in 10 experience physical homophobic abuse.  Islamophobia, antisemitism, & other forms of religion- based prejudice Incidents of Islamophobia and antisemitism in Australia (and elsewhere) have increased significantly since October 2023. 7 Definitions… What do these various ‘phobias and isms’ have in common? In other words, what do we mean by prejudice? It is important to be clear in our definitions & understandings, so that we don’t confuse political/religious opinions with prejudice. 8  A contemporary definition (Nelson and Olson 2024): A biased evaluation of a group (and individuals from a group), based on the real or imagined characteristics of group members Evaluation is biased – it involves stereotyping Can be a positive or negative evaluation! (e.g. ‘people What is from my ethnic group are superior’) prejudice? An important ‘classical’ definition (Allport 1954) An antipathy (dislike) based on a false/inflexible generalization Directed towards a group, or an individual from a group because of their membership in that group Has cognitive, affective, and conative (intention to act) dimensions. 9  A form of prejudice based on ethnicity Cognitive component – biased inflexible generalization (stereotype) Affective component (e.g. sense of disgust or discomfort, or anger, or threat) What is Racism? Behavioral intention (e.g. aggression, denying access to resources) Similar to other forms of prejudice (sexism, antisemitism) 10 What is discrimination? Allport (1954) Denying individuals/groups equal treatment.  Key trait is ingroup favouritism (more so than dislike/hate for outgroup)  We want our own group to do best, and so we disadvantage other groups. 11 Can technologies & non-human objects be prejudiced? In behavioral studies & social psychology, the concepts of ‘prejudice’ and ‘racism’ relate to human cognition, affect, and behavior. Because technologies and objects don’t ‘think’ or ‘feel’, technically they can’t be ‘prejudiced’. However, technologies, objects and infrastructures (e.g. buildings, urban landscapes) do systematically disadvantage some groups, and favour others. 12 Racial bias in technology… Check out Lilly Singh video in ‘wrap-up’ activities for this week 13  14 What is a Stereotype? Ashmore and Del Boca 1981; Nelson and Olson 2024: A set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a group of people A common psychological shortcut/process Can be positive or negative It is a problem when it is negative, and also when it is supported by motivations. Part 2 Why do we stereotype? & how are stereotypes maintained? ATS1262 – week 8 15 Why do we stereotype? (and how are stereotypes maintained?) Three dimensions to this answer: 1. Categorization 2. Socialization 3. Ingroup favoritism We’ll also look at:  ‘Automatic’ (implicit stereotyping)  Consequences of negative stereotypes 16 Previously (many many decades ago) stereotyping was considered a sign of:  Moral deficiency  A lazy mind. However, cognitive psychologists have noted that:  Stereotyping is extremely pervasive  Begins at a very young age.  Seems to be almost ‘automatic’ Categorisation Why is this? Human’s live in complex social and physical environments The human mind has limited cognitive capacity To act in the world, we need to make quick judgements – we don’t have the time and capacity to analyze all information. We therefore categorize people, objects & ideas – we assume that people that share one feature (.e.g race, age, gender) will have many other features in common too. 17  From a young age, children: 1. Notice obvious physical differences between people (body shape, gender, skin tone). Socialisation – 2. Naturally start grouping people according to these obvious differences (e.g. ‘old people’). how we learn to 3. Noting differences between groups, based on what they observe, categorise and what they hear and learn from other people Socialisation (& stereotype)  The process whereby individuals learn how to become competent members of a society/community  Involves transmission of values, norms and beliefs (and categories!) Including beliefs about groups/categories of people. 18 Learning gender stereotypes Study by Morrongiello and Dawber (2000). When children undertake risk-taking behaviours in the playground, parents are: more likely to caution and warn daughters more likely to encourage and support sons Perpetuates gender stereotypes (boys are active & tough, girls are passive & vulnerable) Children ’internalize’ these stereotypes. They use them to make sense of other people. 19  We categorise people into groups (we do this from a young age...) and develop/learn beliefs about those groups. From a young age (and throughout life), we identify which groups we belong to – our ingroups Ingroup Ingroup/outgroup dynamics favouritism  Outgroup homogeneity – we tend to think that individuals in outgroups are very similar (more stereotypical), whereas we recognize the diversity within our outgroup  We have ingroup biases – we ascribe positive attributes to ingroup members.  Outgroup negativity – ascribing negative characteristics to outgroup members. Note – we can have ingroup biases without outgroup negativity 20  Our mind ‘groups together’ (associates) some concepts and ideas. Individuals have subconscious associations relating to mental representations of group attributes. Implicit  We subconsciously make quick assumptions that confirm to stereotypes. associations  When confronted with information that aligns with & stereotypes (grouped concepts & ideas): automatic  our bias enables us to process and respond quickly and activation of appropriately stereotypes  When confronted with information that contradicts stereotypes:  it takes longer for us to process and respond appropriately.  We are more likely to respond inappropriately 21 Activation of automatic (subconscious) stereotypes  “Participants made the correct decision to shoot an armed target more quickly if the target was African American…”  “Participants made the correct decision not to shoot an unarmed target more quickly when the target was white…”  This bias was common to both white and African American participants. 22 Racial stereotypes guiding appraisals of others Participants listened to a college basketball game and were asked to evaluate the target player’s performance according to:  Athletic abilities  Individual performance  Contribution to team’s performance. When participants thought the target player is white…  Player was more likely to be rated highly for intelligence and hustle When they thought the target player is black…  Player more likely to be rated highly for athletic ability and for playing a better game “participants relied on a stereotype of Black and White athletes to guide their evaluations of the target's ability and performances” 23 Internalised negative racial stereotypes Kenneth & Mamie Clark ‘Doll’ experiments with African-American children (1939;1947). Children are presented with two dolls, identical except for their colour. Each child is asked a series of simple questions:  Which doll do you want to play with?  Which is the nice doll? Etc Children expressed a clear preference for the white doll. By the age of five, a child is aware that being dark skinned in American Society is a ‘mark of inferior status’. This reflects impact of segregation and associated racism - internalized by children at a young age. 24 Does explicit racism still exist? Explicit racism in most Western countries is much less common. Pockets of explicit racism persist (e.g. neo-Nazi communities) Blatant old-fashioned forms of racism (e.g. explicit) have been replaced by: Implicit biases & negative stereotypes, ‘New Racism’: prejudice towards ethnic groups because of their culture (rather than biological ethnicity) Discrimination still common, and racial disparities 25 continue…. Racial disparities: US criminal legal system In 2023, US Sentencing Mitchell and Caudy 2013: Commission found that for the Racial disparity in drug arrests between black and whites cannot be explained same offences, black men by differences in “extent of drug offending nor the nature of drug offending”. receive 11.3% longer Findings are consistent that with explanations that disparities are due to racial sentences that white men. bias in law enforcement. 26 RACIAL DISPARITIES IN HEALTHCARE – TREATMENT OF HEART DISEASE Background: “Blacks undergo fewer coronary-revascularization procedures than whites, but it is not clear whether the clinical characteristics of the patients account for these differences or whether they indicate underuse of the procedures in blacks or overuse in whites.”…. Conclusions: “Blacks with coronary disease were significantly less likely than whites to undergo coronary revascularization, particularly bypass surgery — a difference that could not be explained by the clinical features of their disease. The differences in treatment were most pronounced among those predicted to benefit the most from revascularization. Since these differences also correlated with a lower survival rate in blacks, we conclude that coronary revascularization appears to be underused in blacks…” 27 Part 3 How is prejudice maintained? ATS1262 – week 8 28 So far… We’ve seen why we stereotype, and how we learn and internalize stereotypes We’ve seen that negative stereotypes underpin disparities between groups But… Why is prejudice so ‘ingrained’ in our societies? Let’s briefly look at some theories… 29 Social Identity Theory & prejudice Can be achieved via Motivated to have an social identity: Individuals seek ingroup bias & to favourable positive self-regard negatively evaluate ingroup/outgroup outgroup. comparison Our drive for positive self-esteem can drive us to prejudice 30  Prejudice as self-image maintenance [These] studies demonstrated that when individuals evaluated a member of a stereotyped group, they were less likely to evaluate that person negatively if their self-images had been bolstered through a self-affirmation procedure, and they were more likely to evaluate that person stereotypically if their self- images had been threatened by negative feedback. Moreover, among those individuals whose self-image had been threatened, derogating a stereotyped target mediated an increase in their self-esteem. 31 Other theories relating intergroup dynamics with prejudice Scapegoat Theory (Allport 1954, Berkowitz & Green 1962)  We blame outgroups for our lack of success - when thwarted/prevented from achieving a goal, we feel negatively toward whatever thwarted/prevented us. We displace this negative sentiment to other groups. Relative Deprivation Theory (Davis 1959)  If we want something and feel entitled to it, and we see that an outgroup has it, we feel deprived. We fear the consequences of this deprivation and respond with hostility to the outgroup. Realistic Conflict Group Theory (Sherif 1961)  When groups compare for scarce resources, feelings of hostility between groups emerge.  The Robber’s Cave Experiment – remember the hostility between the two groups of boys (week 5)? 32 Summary Prejudice has cognitive, affective and behavioural dimensions. It is often defined as a negative stance, but it can include favoritism. Stereotyping is a reflection of the human mind’s need to categorise people, objects and ideas. Through socialization, humans form beliefs about categories – or groups – of people. Stereotypes can be implicit and activated in automatic ways. Negative stereotypes can be internalized by people who are negatively stereotyped. Negative stereotyping is one significant factor that underpins racial disparities, such as racial disparities in health and the criminal justice system. Intergroup dynamics sustain prejudice. Theories such as Social Identity Theories postulate general mechanisms for the maintenance of prejudice. 33 Social Behaviour & Pandemics 1 Recap of last week (week 8)... Prejudice is a biased evaluation of a group that has cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions. Racism is a form of prejudice. While explicit racism is less common, ‘new racism’ and implicit racial biases can still perpetuation racial disparities. Stereotyping is extremely pervasive, and is a reflection of the minds’ need to categories information to reduce cognitive load in everyday life. Negative stereotypes are the ‘cognitive’ dimension of prejudice, and they can be internalized by people who are the subject of a stereotype. Intergroup dynamics and leadership dynamics can foster prejudice. People seek positive self regard via ingroup favoritism and negative evolution of out groups. Leaders may stoke hostility to outgroups by perpetuating negative stereotypes. 2 This week… Part 1 Some definitions… Part 2 Why do some people comply and others not comply with public health advice? Part 3 Coping strategies during lockdown – What strategies are effective? 3 Part 1 Some definitions… ATS1262 – week 9 4  5 Pandemic: An infectious disease that has spread over multiple regions COVID-19 2019-current  Approx 7 million deaths worldwide (when counted directly)  Approx 27 million excess deaths Pandemics are a normal part of human life Some examples:  Black Death (1347 – 1353) 50 million deaths (over half of European population)  Spanish Flu (1918-1920) 50-100 million deaths  HIV/AIDS (1981-current), 33 million deaths  There will be others! 6 Some more definitions.. Public Health Measures  Non-pharmaceutical interventions implemented by individuals, communities, and governments to protect health and wellbeing of communities affected by health emergences (WHO 2024)  These interventions may be recommended or mandated  Pandemic public health measures may include:  Wearing face masks  Social distanc