Values & Inequality - Social Psychology

22 February 2024 06:54 Main Ideas Notes Notes Notes 1. Values as Cultural Indicators: Represent societal norms and ethical standards. Reflect collective beliefs and priorities within a culture. Guide societal practices and institutions. 2. Value Development: Influenced by socialization processes wit...

22 February 2024 06:54 Main Ideas Notes Notes Notes 1. Values as Cultural Indicators: Represent societal norms and ethical standards. Reflect collective beliefs and priorities within a culture. Guide societal practices and institutions. 2. Value Development: Influenced by socialization processes within families, educational systems, and societal interactions. Develops through exposure to cultural norms and practices. Evolves as individuals interact with different social groups. 3. Values as Distinct Motivators of Human Behaviour: Drive individual choices and actions. Underpin personal goals and aspirations. Shape responses to social and environmental stimuli. 4. Theoretical and Empirical Explanations for Value Change: Value shifts occur in response to significant life events or societal changes. Cognitive dissonance theory explains changes as attempts to maintain internal consistency. Empirical studies demonstrate how interventions can deliberately influence value priorities. 5. Differences in Self-Construal as Barriers to Social Mobility: Self-construal, a term coined by Markus and Kitayama (1991), refers to how individuals perceive themselves in relation to others, particularly the level of connectedness with and separateness from others, based upon culturally shared assumptions. Individualistic versus collectivistic self-construals impact aspirations and access to opportunities. Self-construal styles can reinforce or challenge existing social hierarchies. Barriers emerge when societal values conflict with individual or group self-construals. 6. Values and Socioeconomic Status and Marginalisation: SES influences value priorities and access to resources. Values can perpetuate marginalization by reinforcing societal inequalities. Economic and social policies often reflect and reinforce dominant value systems. 7. Alternative Explanatory Factors for Values Differences Across Social Groups: Psychological traits, such as openness to experience or conservatism. Historical and economic contexts that shape social group experiences. Educational and occupational exposures. 8. Narrative of ‘Cultures of Poverty’ as a Mechanism for Bolstering Neoliberal Ideals: The concept frames poverty as a result of cultural deficiencies. Serves to justify policies that emphasize individual responsibility over structural reforms. Undermines the complexity of socioeconomic disparities and their systemic roots. Summary Neoliberalism can be a complex concept, but here's a breakdown in simple terms: Imagine an economy as a big game. Neoliberalism is all about letting everyone play freely, with minimal rules from the "referee" (government). It emphasizes: ○ Free Market: Businesses compete fiercely with minimal government intervention. ○ Less Regulation: Fewer rules for businesses to follow, allowing them more flexibility. ○ Globalization: Trade barriers are lowered, encouraging countries to compete on a global scale. ○ Smaller Government: Less government spending on social programs and more focus on private solutions. ○ The idea is that this free competition will drive innovation, economic growth, and ultimately benefit everyone. However, critics argue it can lead to: ○ Increased Inequality: As some businesses become very successful, others struggle, widening the gap between rich and poor. ○ Reduced Social Services: With less government spending, social programs like welfare might be limited. ○ Environmental Concerns: With less regulation, businesses might prioritize profits over environmental protection. PSYC0010 Social Psychology Page 1 1. Studies on Value Changes and SES Indicators by Rea (2023): Two studies examined the relationship between different SES indicators and value priorities in the United Kingdom. ○ Study 1: Included 412 participants with a mix of genders and a wide age range (19-87 years), focusing on values (PVQ-RR), education, occupation, and income. ○ Study 2: Had 959 participants, including a significant number from vulnerable groups (recruited from foodbanks and shelters), exploring values (PVQ21), education, housing status, employment status, and economic activity. Findings indicated limited or no clear relationships between SES indicators and specific value domains, such as Openness to Change, Self-Transcendence, Self-Enhancement, and Conservation. 2. Experiment on Values, Economic Threat, and Exclusion by Rea (in prep): Aimed to explore how different contexts of poverty affect personal value preferences through an experiment involving 412 participants. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions like social exclusion, socioeconomic threat, a combined socioeconomic exclusion condition, and a control condition, with various manipulations used to simulate these conditions. Results suggested differential impacts of socioeconomic threat and social exclusion on value domains, revealing complex interactions between types of social and economic challenges and value changes. 3. Maio & Olson (1998) on Experimental Value Change: Investigated how values might change through deliberate reflection. Conducted two experiments with psychology students to explore the impact of considering the importance of values and the role of external cognitive support on value prioritization. ○ Experiment 1: Showed that values could become more or less important after participants considered their significance. ○ Experiment 2: Found that value change occurred only when participants analyzed reasons for their value preferences without external support, indicating the role of internal reflection in value prioritization. 4. Bardi & Goodwin (2011) on Value Change Mechanisms: Identified automatic and effortful routes through which values can change, highlighting five facilitators of value change: priming, adaptation, identification, consistency maintenance, and direct persuasion. 5. Carey & Markus (2017); Stephens et al. (2014) on Social Class and Self -Construal: Explored how values can change due to experiences, motivate behavior, and reflect social norms, suggesting that differences in values could perpetuate social inequality through social advantage dynamics. 1. Social-ecological Models (Bronfenbrenner & Morris 1998; Mead 1934) These models provide a framework for understanding how values are influenced and manifested across different levels of society, from the individual to the macro societal level. They emphasize the complex interplay between individuals and their environments, suggesting that values are not only personal but also deeply embedded in and shaped by social contexts. Key Features: Values operate at every level of the socio-ecological model, articulating the motivational goals of individuals (personal values) and collectives (cultural values). Cultural values represent the collective goals encouraged within social groups and justify actions taken by members and leaders in pursuit of these goals. The model suggests a dynamic interaction where values can predict a variety of social, political, and organizational outcomes, highlighting the reciprocal influence between individuals and their surrounding environments. 2. Schwartz Value Theory (1992) Schwartz's Value Theory categorizes values into a system that reflects universal motivations applicable across cultures. The theory proposes that values guide behavior through their ability to express fundamental psychological needs. Key Features: Values are organized into a circular structure that reflects the dynamic interplay between different types of values, based on their inherent conflicts and compatibilities. The structure is divided into four main quadrants: Openness to Change, Self-Transcendence, SelfEnhancement, and Conservation, each encompassing specific value types that share common goals. This model emphasizes the role of values in guiding behavior, influencing decisions, and shaping attitudes, suggesting that changes in values can result from personal reflection, significant life events, or shifts in societal norms. 3. Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Cooper & Fazio 1984; Festinger 1957) While not explicitly labelled as a model in the context provided, the Cognitive Dissonance Theory is relevant to the discussion of values and their change over time. This theory explains how individuals strive for internal consistency among their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. When dissonance arises (e.g., between held values and behaviors), individuals are motivated to reduce it, potentially leading to value change. Key Features: The theory suggests mechanisms through which value change can occur, such as changing behavior to align with values or adjusting values to fit with behavior, highlighting the fluid nature of values in response to cognitive inconsistency. Cognitive dissonance can serve as a powerful motivator for value change, especially in contexts where personal beliefs and societal expectations conflict. Summary of key find Value Development ○ Value Hierarchies form and different Biological and Social Inf ○ Evolutionary Deve values (Schwartz & ○ Genetic Basis of Va biology in value fo ○ Socialization as Ke transmission of va Value Change and Stabi ○ Experimental Valu consideration of v ○ Values Largely Sta significant life eve 2021). ○ Impact of Persona external circumsta ○ Migration and Valu changes such as m Mechanisms of Value C ○ Acclimatisation an values, and compe priorities can adap Notes dings in Young Children: Value hierarchies have been observed in young children as early as 5 years old, indicating that values begin to tiate at an early age (Doering et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2017). fluences on Values elopment: Benevolence values, among others, have shown evolutionary development, suggesting a partial innatebasis for certain & Bardi, 2001). Value Preferences: Approximately 40% of value preferences have been estimated to have a genetic basis, highlighting the role of ormation (Uzefovsky et al., 2016). ey to Value Transmission: Socialization through parents, carers, friends, cultural institutions, and SES isa primary mechanism for the alues (Schönpflug, 2017; McPherson et al., 2001; Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004). ility ue Change (Maio & Olsen, 1998): Experiments have shown that people prioritize values with minimal cognitive evaluation, but values can lead to their reprioritization. This suggests that values can change through reflection and deliberate thought. able but Changeable: While values are largely stable in adulthood, they can change throughout the life course and following ents. For instance, only children may experience an increase in the priority of benevolence values over adulthood (Griffiths et al., al or National Threat: In situations of increased personal or national threat, security values increase in importance, showing how ances can influence value priorities (Goodwin & Gaines, 2009; Lönnqvist et al., 2011; Verkasalo et al., 2006). lue Change: Migrants experience a decrease in the importance of power and achievement values, indicating thatsignificant life migration can affect value systems (Lönnqvist et al., 2011). hange nd Compensation Effects: Value change mechanisms include acclimatisation, which upgrades the importance of easily obtainable ensation, which upgrades the importance of values whose pursuit is blocked or unobtainable. These mechanismssuggest that value pt to changing circumstances and obstacles (Bardi & Goodwin, 2011). PSYC0010 Social Psychology Page 2