It hasn’t been until the last few years that I realized to just what extent the media has in shaping what issues are prevalent or important along with how much it teaches vicarious learning.  The media having a role in shaping what issues people think about and think are important is called agenda setting and the media in particular sets the public agenda; this involves issues that the public think are important.  In addition to setting the agenda, the media also has a knack for being conducive for people to learn in a  vicarious manor, meaning that watching a particular behavior that gets rewarded is likely to result in the viewer performing the rewarded behavior.   Both of these aspects of media can be good as well as bad.

It is almost inevitable to turn on the T.V.  and not come across some form of bullying, or someone putting someone else down; and believe it or not most the time we laugh.  Think about it, usually most jokes that are told are at the expense of another person and always put that person down.  Hardly ever do you hear a joke about someone and it’s not about one of their weaknesses, downfalls, of flaws.  Most the time we laugh because we can relate or because we can comprehend why the joke is supposed to be funny, but what we fail to realize is that by us laughing, we’re rewarding and condoning that behavior; we’re saying that it’s okay to belittle and degrade others; we’re teaching others vicariously.  Then this happens, anyone who witnessed the event now thinks it’s okay to imitate that scenario and do the same thing resulting in this wildfire spreading of jokes told at the expense of others that make us look good.  Because of these actions, we learn that not only is it okay, but we’ll also get rewarded and look good if we do.

On the other hand, bullying is an issue that’s been in the public eye for awhile now and the media is trying to make people aware that this is an undesirable action and trying to reduce as many occurrences of bullying as possible; making it a public agenda.  There have been interventions put in place to try and educate teachers, students, parents, and the community on bullying and what to look out for or signs as well as strategies to reduce it and ways to handle it.  While we’re focusing on the blatant displays of bullying such as a big kid picking on a little kid, or someone calling another person cruel names, we’re failing to realize that what we depict in the media is saying that it’s okay to do this in the (not so) subtle form of joking.  Sometimes others constantly joking on you can have a greater effect than just a one time occurrence of someone blatantly calling you a name.  For example: I can remember one time when someone I had never met before decided to comment on what I was doing, how I was dressed, and who I was hanging out with and called me a less than desirable name.  Sure it stung for a second, but then realized that I didn’t know this person and the likelihood that I’d ever see them again was beyond slim, so their opinion of me really wasn’t that important and didn’t matter, especially in the grand scheme of life.  But on the other hand, my friends and family constantly joke me about how short my legs are.  Sure, my legs happen to be about equal in length to my torso whereas most people’s legs are longer in proportion to their torso, but they aren’t shorter than my torso or anything; yet I constantly hear, “oh my goodness, look at how cute her little Olaf legs are,” or, “look at her try to run, isn’t it cute the way her legs look?”  And while no one has ever been deliberately mean or cruel about my leg length, I am now extremely self-conscious about how my legs look and how long they are.  Until someone decided to point out and joke about how disproportionate I looked, and others laughed, I was completely comfortable with my legs and I wasn’t being constantly put down because of my “short legs.”

I think that we need to increase the amount of positive-ness that the media depicts as well as increase the amount of  support that we give to others.  The media has always focused on how negative bullying can be and it seems like every time you turn around there is another story about someone who is being a bully.  Slowly there are more videos of people who are standing up to bullying being shown and there are more positive messages being created to show others that they aren’t alone and that there are others out there who like them and support them.  I feel that we have a good start but it needs to keep increasing and I feel that the best place to start is the media.  If the media has an effect on what is on the public’s agenda and well as teaches others vicariously, then by canceling out some of the more negative qualities of media, such as jokes at the expense of others, by making them viewed as punishable behaviors, we can trade them out for more rewarding behaviors, such as not being a bystander or helping others and being kind and supportive of those who are in need.  Spreading positive messages, not putting others down, stop condoning unrealistic behaviors and expectations media portrays (i.e. girls having to be thin to be desirable (which creates more bullying for not looking that way), men being overly strong and aggressive (which creates the notion that violence is okay, especially because superheros do it and are rewarded), etc.), being open, aiding others, and supporting those in need are all good places to start.  And maybe, just maybe, if enough people start this new positive trend that helps eliminate those boundaries that have been set, we can be the ones who set the new agenda.

As a side note, it’s also okay to go against what everyone else, especially the media, says and march to your own drum. Here are links to a few people who I admire for speaking up and out about issues that at the time weren’t in the public agenda and tried to make a positive change on more than one life; they decided to set their own agenda.

https://youtu.be/2K18y1W2Lek

https://www.facebook.com/amightygirl/photos/a.360833590619627.72897.316489315054055/904657262903921/?type=3

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/909732239116901/

https://www.facebook.com/Upworthy/videos/1066625753378282/

https://www.facebook.com/freeandequal/videos/10152699385473868/

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJm5yR1KFcysl_0I3x-iReg

Sources

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology. SAGE Publications, Inc.

All videos are given credit to their respective owners, I do not take credit for any of them.

I was on a road trip once with my husband and as we were scanning the radio stations in some remote town in northern Ohio we kept landing on the same two stations: a talk radio program that I believe was Christian based and a country station. I was reluctant to listen to either but we ultimately chose to stay on the talk radio station (after conceding to the fact that there really wasn’t any other option) and I was glad that we did because the guest on the show said something that I considered very profound about social media “if you are not the consumer you are the product”. Basically, if you are not paying for a service, someone else is and they want their money’s worth. This statement had brilliantly summed up what I had been trying (and failing) to articulate for quite some time, your online life is not private despite all the privacy settings and user agreements you agree to; Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and the like are all businesses interested in making money and they will sell your information to the highest bidder and not think twice about it.  Once a business finds itself with millions of users it is impossible to consider the effects of its practices on each individual basis. It is this idea that caused me to be less than surprised when I learned that Facebook had conducted a psychology experiment by manipulating the users news feed.

A few years ago Facebook conducted a study about how the emotions of its users could be affected by what they are exposed to on their news feed.  A detailed write up of the findings can  be found here but the general idea was that Facebook would hide either positive or negative posts from user’s friends depending on which control group they were a part of, and based on the increased positive or negative material in their feed Facebook would measure how much, if any, change towards positive and negative postings would take place. I clearly remember several close friends of mine becoming enraged at the idea of being part of an experiment that manipulated their emotions when they had not given consent. I kept hearing in my head, every time I heard someone begin to rant about the breach of privacy, the quote I had heard from the random radio program about being the product; real privacy comes at a cost and not an abstract cost but actual money. The more secure you want your house to be the more money it will cost you and the same is true in the realm of your online homespace. Except, with social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter you cannot pay for more security you simply have to accept that the information you provide is public and remain cognizant of this fact whenever you share something online. I think we, as a society, have been online long enough to understand this concept now and there shouldn’t be as much of an uproar about the realities of social media. These convenient means of communication are entirely optional and we have not lost the ability to communicate the old fashion way such as writing a letter or making a phone call or stopping by for a visit. Until we’ve been depleted of any other form of communication we cannot reasonably expect big internet businesses to spend too much time catering to the privacy concerns of the little guys. Sure, most big businesses will hear the cry of their people and take action to try and make them happy but I believe it is imperative for every person who may ever use social media to know that their privacy in an online setting is not a right it’s a privilege and every move they make should be made with in mind.

References

Yarkoni, T. (2014, June 28). In defense of Facebook. Retrieved October 26, 2015, from http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2014/06/28/in-defense-of-facebook/

Social media is a huge part of life for the average person today. Over 750 million people have Facebook accounts worldwide, and nearly half of them log on daily to check what is new with their friends, family, or catch up on the news. As we move toward the time of the Presidential election, social media is a gateway of expression for many. Social media gives many groups an individuals a voice, one that before they felt the didn’t have, to express their point of view on any topic they wish. Facebook and Twitter are two of the largest media outlets that offer free expression.

Social media is a great tool for sharing opinion or debating information with others over the internet, but it can also be harmful. Just as we see in everyday life, there are bullies everywhere. I personally think that the internet has given this type of person the ability to say things they might not normally to someone’s face. They can simply log onto the computer and blast hurtful messages without any real form of accountability. More and more, we are seeing cases of this end in tragedy.

Sometimes we even find that the media are the ones doing the bullying. In the days of celebrities and paparazzi, we see false news reports everywhere claiming everything imaginable about the lives of famous individuals. I have read an interesting account of the media attacking an average woman following her death due to overdose. The media published story after story about this poor woman, making it incredibly difficult for her family to put her to rest properly.

I think social media can and is a great tool. I use it everyday to keep in contact with many of my friends, near and far. But there is a need to draw a line to what is proper etiquette for these virtual relationships. Mental health and stability is an important factor with the way people communicate online. It is necessary to recognize that comments made have the ability to push someone over the edge.

http://www.chicagonow.com/still-advocating/2015/10/bullying-on-social-media/

Many young children imitate violence that they watch on television. As they watch their favorite superhero defeat the evil villain, the youngsters mimic the hero’s every move. Just this week, my nephew came over and watched the “Guardians of the Galaxy” through on demand for what seems like the hundredth time. After the movie, he was still repeating the moves. Elijah, my nephew, now tries to defeat my dog because it will not play with him and barks. It is very funny to watch him but why did my nephew pick this violence up? He learned this behavior through a process subscribe to in social cognitive theory. This theory posits that individuals obtain knowledge through observing others in the daily events, the media and social interactions (Bandura, 1986). It actually has four step which include attention, representational process, behavioral production process and the motivational process (Schneider, Gruman and Coutts, 2012). These four steps work in concert to instill the behavior in young individuals through depiction of violence in the media.

The first step is to gain the attention of the young child. In this particular instance, my nephew is amazed by the stunts and special effects of the movie. The sounds of the spaceships firing lasers get his full attention. The action seems so real to him. Studies have shown that the more realistic the violence is to the child, the greater the attention they will pay (Huesmann and Taylor, 2006). In addition, the violence is an important part of the movie. The hero and his gang of rebels take on the evil overlord while operating on the outside of the law. The realism of the violence and the situation draw my nephew to the movie.

The second process is known as the representational process. In this step, Elijah actually acts out his fantasy that he has just viewed. In this instance, he has viewed the violent action scenes several times and rehearses the action as it plays out on the movie. This rehearsal will allow my nephew to transform and restructure the violence into a system that allows him to store it in his memory (Bandura, 1986). This enable him to retain and recall the behavior for situations in the future.

The next step is called the behavioral production process. Elijah has learned all the moves and can recall them at will. Now he can apply the behavior to other situation outside of the movie scenes. The observed behavior can be generalized to closely associated behaviors and situations (Schneider, Gruman and Coutts, 2012). Elijah constantly tries to use the fighting moves on my dog when she barks at him. He believes that my dog is attacking him and it is a reasonable response to fight. There is an assortment of karate chops and the shooting of toy laser guns in the direction of my dog, Coco.

The final step in this theory is the motivational process. People are motivated to perform and behave a certain way. As stated earlier, Elijah feels that the dog barking is an act of aggression. In reality, my dog just wants to be a part of the festivities. However, my nephew feels that he is justified in his actions. Many studies have shown that children believe that self-defense is a proper justification for violent behavior (Berkowitz and Powers, 1979). This justification gives him the motivation to use the violent behavior in a situation that he deems appropriate. It does not help that the many children today are inundated with violent images that may desensitize children to violence.

In closing, my nephew went from a sweet little boy to an evil-fighting guardian of the galaxy. The transformation included four different processes which include the attentional process, representational process, behavioral production process and the motivational process. These processes allowed him to learn the violent behavior, retain it, apply it to new situations and find the motivation to use it. This encompasses all the elements of the social cognitive theory.

References:

Bandura, A (1986) Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Berkowitz, L and Powers, PC (1979). Effects of timing and justification of witnessed aggression on the observers’ punitiveness. Journal of Research in Personality. 13 pg. 71-80

Huesmann, L and Taylor, L (2006). The Role of Media Violence in Violent Behavior. Public Health. V 27 pg.393-415

Schneider, F, Gruman, J and Coutts, L (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Sage Publication Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA

Even though the advances of technology and social have enabled people to connect and communicate more easily, it has negative effects, such as using anonymity online to hurt and bully people. News everywhere are shown often of young people committing suicide because they were bullied online. Cyber bullying could involve sending harmful messages online, harassment, threats, and humiliation involving the use of social media. It makes you think, why do people feel more prone to hurt others when they are hiding behind anonymity? And, what is it about anonymity online that changes a person’s identity or personality and makes them want to bully people on the web?

A study conducted in Taiwan with high school students as participants tried to evaluate the use of an anonymous presence online and its association with cyber bullying behavior. The results determined that the use of a high level of anonymity and reduced social cue lead to create higher degrees of cyber bullying behavior (Wu & Lien, 2013). There exists a perception of anonymity that comes with lowered feelings of accountability that could result in reduced public self-awareness. If someone is bullying another person online, and the victim does not know who the bully is, then the bully might increase the abuse since he or she will feel like there is no way they could be traced or could be held accountable for their actions.

You see evidence of these types of behaviors in all social media. If you go to youtube and look at the comment section, you will encounter people offending other people by insulting them simply because they do not agree with their opinions. On twitter, you will encounter the same situation; tweets are sent to other people with threats. In a way, social media enables people to take on different identities, or helps them create a new one. Manago, Graham, Greenfield, and Salimkhan suggest that the flexibility of communication capacities frees individuals from existing at the effect of an externally created media environment, and that identity becomes socially constructed in environments such as a chat room (2008). A young boy who decides to participate in a chat room about video games could see the different interactions of his peers. These interactions could include some users calling other user names, or bullying, and this young boy might determine that these people do not face any consequences for their actions; therefore he might want to decide to take on the same type of personality or identity online, and he could start cyber bullying his peers.

Intervention for these types of behaviors can start at home. Parents could monitor the websites their children visit and see how they are behaving online. If they do see that there is a behavior that should be stopped, then they can talk to their children about the negative effects these actions might cause on other people. At schools, principals, teachers and other staff members could give seminars to the students and to staff that show the effects of cyber bullying, and together they could create protocols for reporting cyber bullying and how they could intervene to prevent or stop these behaviors.

References:

Manago, Graham, Greenfield, & Salimkhan (2008) Self-presentationand gender on MySpace. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 29(6)

Wu, W. P., & Lien, C. C. (2013). Cyberbullying: An empirical analysis of factors related   to anonymity and reduced social cue. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 311, 533.

My family and I decided to go out to dinner last evening.  We called ahead so we could be seated with minimal wait time.  Upon our arrival, the hostess informed us that a table should be ready in a few minutes and handed me the coveted round pager.  The waiting area was crowded so we decided to sit outside.  Seconds after everyone found their place, cell phones were in hand to keep us occupied as we waited.  We were not alone, most everyone not actively engaged in a conversation seemed to have their phones in use as well.  A short time later the pager lit up and we were ushered to our table.  After giving the waitress our order, I began looking around the room.  At a nearby table, a small child was watching videos on a tablet.  At another table, a teenager was playing games on his cell phone.  I continued to scan the room and realized that almost everyone not eating or talking was using their phone to some extent.  Isn’t it amazing we were able to keep ourselves entertained before these hand held devices came into our lives?  Today we carry them with us 24/7 and use them to fill any void.  We do this without thinking about possible unintended consequences.  Existing research indicates that cell phone use can result in increased anxiety, reduced happiness, changes in social interaction and addiction.

A study of college students performed by Lepp, Barkley and Karpinsky (2014) found that frequent cell phone use leads to higher anxiety, lower grades and a reduction in happiness.  If this also holds true for employed individuals, the organizations they work may be experiencing a reduction in productivity as a result.  Furthermore, if we exclude the performance factor, high anxiety and reduced happiness could result in a number of stress related illnesses later in life including cardiovascular disorders such as coronary heart disease (i.e. heart attacks and angina) and hypertension.

Social interactions have also changed drastically as a result of increased cell phone use.  When I was a young adult we didn’t have cell phones, let alone smart phones.  If you needed to talk to someone you went over to their house or called them on a land line.  Today people have entire conversations with one another via text message and never see the person’s facial expressions or hear the tone of their voice.  This can lead to misunderstandings between the sender and recipient of the message due to an interpretation error.  Texting has even reached a point where delicate conversations such as breaking up with someone are now done electronically.  Therefore, social interactions via text message enable people to avoid dealing directly with the hard things in life and teaches them to take the easy way out.  Ira Hyman, Ph.D. has examined cell phone use in detail and urges older individuals not to judge the social interactions of today’s young adults (Hyman, 2014).  He takes the stance that the way in which young adults are using their cell phones does not mean they are addicted to them but rather indicates that they rely on them to communicate and interact with others (Hyman, 2014).  However, Michelle Hackman, who performed a study on cell phone use addiction for a science fair, would likely disagree (Price, 2011).  In her study Ms. Hackman found that cell phones serve as a stimulant for many individuals (Price, 2011).  Since addictions are caused by stimulants (i.e. drugs or alcohol), she concluded that cell phone use can be considered an addiction (Price, 2011).  Does this mean every cell phone user is addicted to their phone?  No, but then not everyone who drinks is addicted to alcohol.

Therefore, the next time you are out at your favorite restaurant and you see a majority of the people in the room buried in their cell phones, ask yourself, are they just passing the time or are they addicted?

References

Hyman, I. (2014, January 26). Cell Phones are Changing Social Interaction. Retrieved October 24, 2015, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-mishaps/201401/cell-phones-are-changing-social-interaction

Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2014). The relationship between cell phone use, academic performance, anxiety, and satisfaction with life in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 343-350. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.049

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2015). Lesson 9: Media/Communications Technology. PSYCH424: Applied Social Psychology.

Price, M. (2011). Cell phone addiction rings true for teen psychologist. Retrieved October 24, 2015, from http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/features/2011/cell-phone-addiction.aspx

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Some of the high profile criminal cases today leave communities in tears and lawmakers frantic. It is a wonder how some of these verdicts are reached. Many modes of media look for closure and do further analysis of why these cases turn out the way they do. Essentially, there’s not enough evidence or the charges are incongruent with the crime. But what’s not examined is the psychological components that go into making such tough decisions, like deciding who’s life to spare or sending someone to prison forever. Confirmation bias, conformity, and groupthink are all confounds that hinder the decision making process of groups. Though the legal system aims to have a methodology of checks and balances and review and analysis, groups can sometimes limit the use of rationale. It is important to understand three group biases to see just how reductive groups may be.

Humans by nature are social beings. Abraham Maslow noted how acceptance and the feeling of belonging are key aspects to a person’s psychological well-being. Because humans have a need to feel acceptance and belonging, people adhere to the social and cultural norms of their society. The need to fit in creates conflict within the legal system since people will behave out of appeasement rather than moral and legal ethics. Pressure upon the jury, by judges, prosecutors, and the media, can confound the jury process. This pressure induces conformity, as members of the jury will seek to adhere to the group’s decision, as each member submits public compliance. This is done for many reasons: to save time, to prevent ridicule, to prevent giving an explanation for dissenting views, or simply out of disinterest. No matter the reason, people are affected by informational social influence and by normative social influence. People may mimic the behavior of others because they feel that others hold more information or the correct information necessary for the situation; or, people behave in specific ways only because that behavior is normally accepted and expected. This herd mentality is dangerous as people may be assimilating into an immoral, irrational, or even prejudice position, all for the sake of maintaining social safety.

Most people would probably rate themselves as honest and open-minded. No one can always be 100% correct, 100% of the time. But what most don’t realize is that people seek to confirm only what they believe is true. Information presented will often be information that supports the stances of the presenter and any information on the contrary will be excluded. Members of a jury may seek to view evidence that corroborates the verdict they want to be reach. This confirmation bias has no place in the legal system. If members of a jury do not include all matters of evidence and only rationalize the pieces that make the puzzle they would like to assume, many will face wrongful convictions and unjust acquittals. In the film, “Twelve Angry Men”, most members of the jury used confirmation bias by only acknowledging on the sole eyewitness testimony and stereotypes of the suspect. Had it not been for the minority dissenter, the men would have reached an irrational guilty verdict, and sent the wrong person to death. Like the possible outcome in Twelve Angry Men, the justice system has sentenced many others for crimes they did not commit. Confirming the accuracy of information is vital, but this must include all of the evidence, dispositions, environment, and accessory details from both sides of the case.

In and of itself, deliberation facilitates groupthink. Six to twelve-person juries may be present with few strong leaders, self-censorship by not voicing opposing opinions to a guilty/not guilty verdict, and compulsion to uphold the groups unison. This induces feeling of invulnerability, high moral purpose, time sensitivity, and unanimous decision making rules. Some of the jurors may exhibit social-loafing, letting others make the major determinants of guilty while they latch on to what’s popular. Within groupthink, members of the group don’t actually join together to make better choices, yet they act in faulty decision instead. The more similar the backgrounds and the longer the group is formed, the more groupthink occurs. Groupthink and social loafing are both present in the film “Twelve Angry Men”. Members of the jury a decide the fate of a suspected murder, where all but one juror decides the suspects innocence based on the decision of the group. Some members formed reasoning based on isolated facts, which turned out to be untrue or stereotypes. Other members just followed what the others said. Luckily, the single vote for not guilty came from someone who was willing to openly and honestly rationalize all the evidence with his peers. The importance of introspection and analysis can not go unnoticed or unaccounted for. Every jury needs to inspect each piece of detail given with timely care, accuracy, and proper perspective analysis. How the evidence is presented plays a major part in this and how it is handled is vital to the outcome of a case.

It is obvious that the criminal justice needs reform. The issues presented are only a small glimpse into the world of law. In every case, members of the jury should be able to rationalize the severity of the outcome and avoid bias thinking at all cost. Each member should be able to look at all the facts objectively, analyze the situational perspective of the defendant’s actions, and issue a verdict that reflects the facts of the matter in the case. A task for applied social psychologist would be to help facilitate more objectivity in jurors. One method could include issuing private ballots that require at least five pieces of evidence as determined by the jury. Even if a fool-proof method of providing a verdict was found, humans are prone to error and mistakes. Jurors on many of the high profile cases have admitted to being emotionally moved, but unable to make a guilty verdict based on the evidence provided. Only in a legal system where jurors are removed from possible bias and provided an adequate amount of admissible evidence can an accurate reflection of justice be shown.

The cultivation theory explains that in today’s society television acts as the primary socializing agent for youths (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). It only takes the push of a button to see the overabundance of meaningless television appealing to young people, particularly young girls. A recent survey by the Girl Scouts of America revealed that “8 out of the 10” girls watching reality television shows, actually believe that it is real and not scripted (Melnick, 2011). One cannot help but find these statistics frightening. If this theory is indeed the case than mirroring that occurs from such negative and unrealistic influence can be detrimental for a young girl as she attempts to identify and create her own self-image.

Both “reality” and regular television shows typically consist of looking and acting perfect or looking and behaving like a train wreck. Reality shows often glorify alcohol abuse, encourage confrontations, and minimize potential consequences of sexual activity (Pearson, 2015). It is usually one extreme or the other, but either way a young girl sees the notoriety gained from these types of behaviors and sees it as realistic and possibly the norm.

The tendency for young girls to imitate what they see on television can be assimilated to the social cognitive theory. This consists of four processes (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). The first process is attention meaning that what is being modeled is being attended to. That is easy enough, they just need to watch television. The second process is the representation process that involves remembering the behavior that was modeled. Youths are like sponges and are easily influenced, hence the need to better understand adolescent and developmental psychology. The third process is the behavioral production process and this involves how one learns to perform the behavior they observed. Research is indicative that young girls are putting to practice what they have seen on television, whether it be reality television or regular television shows. In fact girls between the age of 11 and 17 were survey and the results revealed that they believe that “Gossiping is a normal part of a relationship between girls… it’s in girls’ nature to be catty and competitive with one another, and that it’s hard to trust other girls” (Girl Scouts of America, 2011).

The final element is the motivational process meaning what motivates the individual to perform. In most case scenarios it is the rewards of social media likes, popularity, and acknowledgement. Whether it be positive or negative reinforcement varies. Social media is not any better, as far as lacking reality for young girls to grasp or emulate! The influences of the Malala Yousafzai are diminished by the Kim Kardashians and Ana advocates of the world.  A recent study revealed that “Seventy-four percent of girls agree that most girls [their] age use social networking sites to make themselves look cooler than they really are and forty-one percent admit that this describes them as well” (Girl Scouts of America, 2010). Unfortunately, media has determined what is considered cool and what is important and it is far from reality.

Mental health professionals state that parents need to be mindful of what children are watching. It is also suggested that parents start a dialogue with children about what they are watching, so that young people can gain the skills to correctly process the information they obtain and better recognize the difference between reality television and actual reality.

References

Girl Scouts of America. (2010). Girl Scouts Research. Retrieved from Who’s that Girl? Image and Social Media: http://www.girlscouts.org/content/dam/girlscouts-gsusa/forms-and-documents/about-girl-scouts/research/gsri_social_media_fact_sheet.pdf

Girl Scouts of America. (2011). Real to Me: Girls and Reality TV. Retrieved from Girl Scouts Research Institute: http://www.girlscouts.org/content/dam/girlscouts-gsusa/forms-and-documents/about-girl-scouts/research/real_to_me_factsheet.pdf

Melnick, M. (2011, October 11). What Reality TV Teaches Teen Girls. Retrieved from Time : http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/18/what-reality-tv-teaches-teen-girls/

Pearson, A. (2015, January 27). The Influence of Reality TV on Teen Girls. Retrieved from Livestrong.com: http://www.livestrong.com/article/1005491-influence-reality-tv-teen-girls/

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psycholgy: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publicationss.

Technological advances have made modern life easier and substantially aided the accessibility of people to one another. In particular the cellular phone has developed a far-reaching network allowing people to gain contact constantly and the access is reaching many remote areas. It has been reported that approximately 91% of Americans own a cell phone and a growing proportion of cell phones owned are “smart phones” (Stothart, Mitchum & Yehnert, 2015).   A preliminary evaluation of the situation would conclude that the prevalence of cell phones or smart phones as an advantage and improvement to society. However, a more detailed or comprehensive evaluation of the overwhelming popularity and usage of cell phones indicate an underlining problem associated with the possession of cell phones.

How often do you find yourself looking at your phone? Perhaps while waiting in line, walking to class or passing the time while riding in a vehicle.   The amount of time being distracted or consumed by using the cell phone is staggering. However, the most condemning use of the cell phone is while driving and many studies have documented the distraction associated with the use of a cell phone while driving. I’m willing to bet you have not considered another distraction associated with the cell phone because I had not considered this aspect: waiting to respond to a call or text message can impact attention.

A study conducted by Stothart, Mitchum and Yehnert investigates the impact of notifications from a cell phone to prompt task-irrelevant thoughts or mind wandering (Stothart, Mitchum & Yehnert, 2015). The results of the study support the notion that when cell phone notifications are not viewed or responded to a significant decline in performance related to attention are experienced (Stothart, Mitchum & Yehnert, 2015). Interestingly, the findings indicate that the magnitude of performance decline is consistent with impaired attention associated with driving while using a cell phone (Stothart, Mitchum & Yehnert, 2015).

The implications of the study conducted by Stothart, Mitchum and Yehnert are noteworthy because the increasing prevalence and integration of cell phones into society appears to be on an ever-increasing trajectory. Obviously as the study implies not only is the direct interaction or usage of a cell phone a distraction to attention and performance but also the mere acknowledgment of the cell phone presence is enough to negatively effect attention and task performance.

It appears to me that the argument to unplug or detach yourself from the cell phone periodically is a wise decision, particularly if you are trying to focus and remain diligent on a task. These findings present an interesting discussion in respect to permitting access to personal cell phones during working hours or during school hours. Regardless, I have gained a better appreciation for silencing my cell phone and freeing myself from unnecessary distractions.

Stothart, C., Mitchum, A., & Yehnert, C. (2015). The Attentional Cost of Receiving a Cell Phone Notification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(4), 893-897.

“Why?” That’s usually the first question that pops into my head right after I close my eyes and begin shaking my head in disbelief. Another school shooting was just broadcasted on the news, this time it was at a small community college in Oregon.  News like this seems to have become more common, especially over the recent years.  Other mass shootings have included fatalities at Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Aurora’s Century 16 movie theater, and Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, all of which totaled 80 fatalities and many more wounded.  What do all of these examples have in common?  All of these crimes were committed by just one person.  What else do these examples have in common?  The crimes were committed by someone under the age of 25.  These are just a handful of examples, compared to many other terrifying acts of violence that are publically known.  Whether these crimes resulted in many victims or just one victim, the end result always leads us to ask the same question in each and every act of crime… “Why?” There seems to be three consistent questions that people start asking when a horrific act of crime has been committed.  The first two questions are “What was their motive?” and “What was their violent history before this incident?”  People ask these two questions because each one can explain a different attribute or characteristic of the perpetrator.  The motive – What was their mindset?  What kind of home or culture did this individual grow up in? The third question always seems to be “could this have been prevented?” The prevention – “could have this been stopped?” leads me to discuss two types of theories that can help explain why a person might be inclined to commit a crime.  These theories explain the biological and sociological understandings that may help explain why a person would do such an act.   The last topic I would like to discuss is ways we can prevent, or at least, try to minimize, certain acts of crime.

Biological theories are internal and it is how we are classified, or programmed, as an individual. Current understanding of these mechanisms suggests that certain biological factors, such as particular genes, neurological deficits, low serotonin activity, malnutrition and environmental pollutants may all affect a person’s biological propensity for criminal or antisocial behavior (Akers, Sellers, 2008).  Studies have shown that much of this can be narrowed down to two particular causes: heredity, and pregnancy.  If a child is born into a family that has had a criminal history, chances are greater that the child will also be likely to attempt certain crimes during their lifetime.  Prenatal and perinatal factors can significantly influence mental health and personality. A woman who takes alcohol and/or drugs, such as methamphetamines, heroin, etc., puts her unborn child at risk for issues such as premature birth, low birth weight, neurological and developmental delays, and feeding difficulties, just to name a few negative birth defects. These are the children who later on are more prone to learning difficulties, and are associated with poor impulse control and criminal behavior.

Sociological theory looks at the influence of environment, and ways in which the environment, including home, community and culture, can cause an individual to act or think a certain way. Theories of this type often focus on the relationship between crime and factors such as: social inequality, the influence of peers, social disorganization in a community, the consequences for an individual unable to achieve social success, and the role of criminal subcultures, including gangs (Akers, Seller, 2008).  Sometimes we are limited by the cultural and social options available to us.  Is an individual going to school working towards a career? Is he or she active within the community, and surrounding themselves with positive people?  Or will other outside influences dictate decisions that would ultimately lead to another life that would be less fulfilled.

Now that I’ve discussed two possible main causes of why a person commits a crime, let’s discuss some of the things we can focus on to help overcome these biological and sociological disorders. From a biological standpoint, the treatment needs to begin before the child is even born.  Meaning, we have to initiate programs that would educate parents about the early stages of a child’s development. Parents have to be more aware, especially expecting mothers, that their own personal health affects their child’s health.  Once the child has been born, then there needs be more advanced parental education and programs available to help parents raise children who are healthy and developing appropriately. As part of a sociological focus, parents and communities need to effectively support positive opportunities for their children. Education programs that lead to gainful employment and community-based programs that enhance positive behavior (e.g. sports, clubs, etc.) are crucial to the development of at-risk children.  And finally, it is important to make programs available that give support to families who struggle with issues such as violence, poverty, and mental and health issues. Children can always strive to do their best in school, with work, within the community, but if they don’t have the support at home, then that child will follow those who do give them attention, and it may not always be the right kind of attention.

This is a brief little insight into some of the factors that might make a person more at risk of committing a crime, and some of the ways in which we can be proactive to help reduce the potential for criminal behavior. This by far is not the ultimate solution to eliminate crime all together, but it will help us gain a better understanding of, “Why?”

References:

Akers, RL, and Sellers, CS (2008) Criminal Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. 5^th Edition. Los Angeles; Roxbury

If one sits and really thinks about it, a courtroom can really be considered a mini model of the world that can be used to look at the social processes of society.  In this universal laboratory juries present a way to scrutinize real-world problems, and the theoretical concerns in relation to reasoning, memory, judgment and decision making, attribution, stereotyping, persuasion and group behavior, and how they affect the judgment of eyewitness testimony, the stereotyping of the defendant’s characteristics, the juror’s characteristics and bias, and the juror’s memory and comprehension (Bornstein & Greene, 2011).

The jury has the job of deciding the credibility, and then subsequently passing judgment of whether or not witness statements are true (Tversky & Fisher, 1999). Unfortunately, jurors have a very difficult time discerning which eyewitness accounts are credible and which ones are not, because eyewitness testimony is profoundly convincing in their eyes. (Pawlenko, Wise, Safer, & Hofeld, 2013). Unless there is another eyewitness that refutes the claims of the first, it is difficult for a juror to forget a prominent eyewitness account (Myers, 2008). According to a study conducted by Gary Wells, R.C.L. Lindsay and their colleagues, jurors that observed eyewitness questioning in relation to a staged theft had a difficult time discerning whether or not the eyewitness testimony was credible (Myers, 2008). In this examination both incorrect and correct eyewitness statements were seen as accurate 80 percent of the time by these jurors (Myers, 2008) This great percentage compelled the researchers to surmise that there is a great possibility that humans are not able to discriminate whether or not an eyewitness has erroneously singled out an innocent person (Myers, 2008). In the movie “Twelve Angry Men” this was exactly the case for at least eleven out of the twelve jurors (Lumet & Rose, 1957). This sentiment was brought up in the very beginning of the movie when Juror number ten stated “Listen, what about the woman across the street?  If her testimony doesn’t prove it, then nothing does” and then after some agreement from others in the room he continued on with “Just a minute. Here’s a woman who’s lying in bed and can’t sleep. She’s dying with the heat. Know what I mean? Anyway, she looks out the window and right across the street she sees the kid stick the knife into his father. The time is twelve ten on the nose. Everything fits. Look she has known the kid his whole life. His window is right opposite hers, across the el tracks, and she swore she saw him do it.” (Lumet & Rose, 1957). When juror number eight questioned this testimony by stating that the witness stated that she saw him commit this act through the windows of the passing el train, juror number ten shot back stating that the prosecution proved that one could see through the windows of a passing el train at night (Lumet & Rose, 1957). Juror number three had also stated that there was an old man who lived on the floor directly beneath the boy’s apartment, and that he had heard what he was sure was fighting, and then the kid saying that he was going to kill his father, right before he heard a body falling on the floor; he then proceeded to run to his door in enough time to see the young man running down the stairs (Lumet & Rose, 1957). None of these jurors questioned the testimony of the eyewitnesses involved, until juror number eight started punching holes in the witness testimony. They took what these people said verbatim, and didn’t look any further into what may have been the truth in the situation. By the end of the movie, they realized that most likely the woman was one to wear eyeglasses, and would not have had time if she were in bed to put on her glasses to accurately see the boy killing his father through the windows of the el train; and that the older man first would not have been able to discern who was yelling that they were going to kill the man over the deafening sound of the el train, and secondly he would not have had enough time to get to the doorway to see the young man running down the stairs (Lumet & Rose, 1957). It is not that these eyewitnesses are trying to be deceitful, they really truly believe that they are being accurate in their testimony; it just happens that our perceptions and memories are erroneously affected over time (Myers, 2008). Unfortunately, because we are not able to remember everything exactly as it happened, and because there is great credence given to people that state they saw something happen with their own eyes, we have a large problem with wrongful convictions based on mistaken eyewitness testimony (Myers, 2008).

According to attribution theory we as humans look for the meanings of other’s behaviors or our own behaviors (McLeod, 2010). This theory explains how the social observer uses the information they have available to decide why certain events happen; how this information is obtained and combined helps determine a causal perception (McLeod, 2010). There are attributional biases that occur due to certain stereotypes about certain groups of people, and these stereotypes can directly influence a juror’s judgment due to the characteristics of the defendant as well as the characteristics and subsequent biases from the jurors themselves (Myers, 2008). Jurors seem to be more sensitive and responsive to defendants that are like them (share the same attitudes, religion, race or gender); they tend to feel that if they would not commit a certain crime, then that others like them would not either (Myers, 2008). In “Twelve Angry Men” the young man that was accused of killing his father was described as Puerto Rican, and there was much hinting to the fact that he came from an extremely impoverished area, and a very abusive household (Lumet & Rose, 1957). It is obvious by the way they speak about the young man that the majority of the jurors do not identify with this young man’s background (Lumet & Rose, 1957). Near the beginning of the movie juror number four goes into a description as to why he thinks the young man is guilty of killing his father based on the stereotypes of people that come from that area when he states “We’re here to decide if he is guilty or innocent of murder, not to go into reasons why he grew up this way. He was born in a slum. Slums are breeding grounds for criminals. I know it. So do you. It is no secret. Children from slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society.” (Lumet & Rose, 1957). At the end of the movie when the tides have turned and more of the jurors are voting for a not guilty verdict this bias based on stereotyping is still quite evident in at least one of the jurors, and is shown when the tenth juror states “I will like hell quiet down. There is not one of them, not one who’s any good. Now do you hear that? Not one. Now let me lay this out for you ignorant—bastards. You at the window, you’re so god-damned smart. We’re facing a danger here. Don’t you know it? These people are multiplying. That kid on trial, his type, they’re multiplying five times as fast as we are. That’s the statistic. Five times. And they are – wild animals. They’re against us, they hate us, and they want to destroy us. That’s right. Don’t look at me like that! There’s a danger. For God’s sake we’re living in a dangerous time, and if we don’t watch it, if we don’t smack them down whenever we can, then they are gonna own us. They’re gonna breed us out of existence.” (Lumet & Rose, 1957). Unfortunately, this bias shows that the facts are not all that matters when jurors are asked to make social judgments; it is difficult for them to put aside those stereotypes and biases, and make a determination of judgment based on the facts shown (Myers, 2008).

In the United States we relegate governance to people that meet very minimal requirements.  There is question and concern that laypeople are not capable of comprehending complex evidence and judicial instructions and explanations of laws, and that they can be swayed by emotions or biases because of their misunderstandings (Bornstein & Greene, 2011). The standard of proof in some complex cases such as “preponderance of evidence” “clear and convincing evidence” or “beyond a reasonable doubt” may be confusing to individuals, and therefore the comprehension of the meanings of these legal phrases might be totally different than the legal community’s intention of them. In the movie “Twelve Angry Men” the judge’s instructions state “And now gentlemen of the jury, I come to my final instruction to you. Murder in the first degree – premeditated homicide – is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. You’ve listened to the testimony and you’ve had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies to this case. It now becomes your duty to try and separate the facts from the fancy. One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. I urge you to deliberate honestly and thoughtfully. If there is a reasonable doubt – then you must bring me a verdict of “not guilty”.  If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then you must, in good conscience, find the accused guilty…” (Lumet & Rose, 1957).  Eleven of these twelve jurors did not take the judge’s instructions as seriously as what the judge’s instructions eluded that they should be taken, and this was evident in the very beginning by their all voting guilty before they even had the chance to “deliberate honestly and thoughtfully” (Lumet & Rose, 1957). Later on, after some questioning was done, and more people were thinking of changing their votes the eleventh juror stated “Pardon. This fighting. This is not why we are here, to fight. We have a responsibility. This, I have always thought, is a remarkable thing about democracy. That we are, uh, what is the word? Notified. That we are notified by mail to come down to this place and decide on the guilt or innocence of a man we have never heard before.  We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict. This is one of the reasons why we are strong. We should not make it a personal thing.” in this statement he is speaking about the duty they were designated to uphold, and how that is understood may be misguided (Lumet & Rose, 1957). Then after another vote, there is some question as to whether or not all of the jurors understand exactly what the judge meant when he said “reasonable doubt” and this was shown when the fifth and eleventh juror’s question whether or not the seventh juror completely understands what that instruction really meant (Lumet & Rose, 1957). The national conviction rate in felony cases is eighty percent, and because of this is it is very important that the jurors not only heed the judge’s advice to “deliberate honestly and thoughtfully” but that they also understand what the law means when is says “beyond a reasonable doubt”; unfortunately, this is where the criticisms of laypeople being incapable of making these sometimes life or death decisions becomes pertinent (Myers, 2008).

Group influences can affect juries profoundly.  Minority influence and group polarization can influence how juror’s initial judgments amalgamate into a group decision (Myers, 2008). The minority opinion is generally not the one that succeeds in fact, in nearly 90% of trials the majority position at the start of deliberations becomes the jury’s verdict; however, sometimes when the minority influence is consistent, persistent and self-confident it will be the opinion that will prevail (Defoe, 2013; Myers, 2008). This was definitely seen in the movie from the very beginning when the eighth juror went against everyone in the room and voted “not guilty” (Lumet & Rose, 1957). He was consistent and persistent with his opinion, and showed great self-confidence throughout the entire course of deliberation, and this is most likely the reason why he was able to influence the other jurors to change their votes to acquit the young man on trial (Lumet & Rose, 1957). Group polarization is generally a phenomenon in which the opinions and decisions of a group become more extreme than what each person individually believes (Grinnell, 2009).Generally a jury that originally has a majority opinion to vote guilty will then provide a guilty verdict; those within the majority that recommend harsh punishments are more likely after deliberation to impose an even more harsh punishment than originally recommended (Myers, 2008). The same can be said with a non-guilty verdict, and more lenient punishments.  This part of the movie was not portrayed in a realistic psychological sense, and seemed to elude the reasoning behind the idea of group polarization (Sunstein, 2007). That being said, there are the ever so rare exceptions, and this movie does a good job of showing how the processes work in order to produce those rare exceptions (Sunstein, 2007).

The 1957 movie “Twelve Angry Men” does a fantastic job of demonstrating how these mechanisms can materialize in the jury decision making process (Lumet & Rose, 1957).

References

Bornstein, B.H., & Greene, E. (2011). Jury decision making: implications for and from psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (1). 63-67.

Tversky, B. & Fisher, G. (1999). The problem with eyewitness testimony. Retrieved from: http://www.agora.stanford.edu.sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.html

Pawlenko, N.B., Wise, R.A., Safer, M.A., & Hofel, B. (2013). The interview-identification-eyewitness factor (I-I-eye) method for analyzing eyewitness testimony. Retrieved from: http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2013/05/the-interview-identification-eyewitness-factor-i-i-eye-method-for-analyzing-eyewitness-testimony

Myers, D.G. (2008). Social psychology in court. In D.G. Myers Social Psychology. 9^th edition. 541-571.

Lumet, S., & Rose, R. (1957). Twelve angry men. Los Angeles: Orion-Nova Twelve Angry Men.

McLeod, S.A. (2010). Attribution theory. Retrieved from: www.simplypsychology.org/attribution-theory.html

Defoe, D. (2013). Jury decision making and psychological science: a given and take relationship. Retrieved from: http://www.psycholawlogy.com/2013/04/07/jury-decision-making-and-psychological-science-a-five-and-take-relationship

Grinnell, R. (2009). Group polarization. Retrieved from: http:psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/2009/group-polarization/

Sunstein, C.R. (2007). Group polarization and 12 angry men. Negotiation Journal. doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979-2007.00155.x

My other Psychology course that I am taking this semester is Abnormal Child Psychology. In this course, part of the weekly lesson sometimes includes an embedded discussion supported by yammer. The instructor will pose a question related the topic and the class posts their comments and replies to other posts, etc., like a discussion board. Perhaps some of you are familiar with this. A recent question from one of the lessons was, “What impact do you think violence in the media (e.g., TV, movies, video games) has on the development of antisocial behaviors?” The majority of those who responded to the question, myself included, stated that there was little evidence linking watching violence on TV or video games to violent behavior. So, I think I should first apologize to Professor Brian Crosby for being so adamant in my incorrect response and then I will bury my head in embarrassment.

The chapter on Media and violence was an eye opener for me because I truly did have the misconceived belief that there was no link to media violence and aggressive or violent behavior.  I now know how wrong I was. I did not just leave my beliefs with the Schneider, et al text. I also read some interesting articles on line regarding copycat crimes. I knew about those of course, but thought they were more the exception than the rule. And perhaps they are. However, as our text explains, research studies show an increase in aggressive behavior, attitudes, and greater acceptance of violence in those who are continuously exposed to TV violence (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts,2012).

I was curious to see if I could find an article that related to true crime directly to a violent show or video game. There are many, unfortunately.  The one I found of particular interests related to the video game Grand Theft Auto. Many of you may know that this is one of the most notoriously violent video games out there. A young man, Devin Moore, after playing this game for several hours, was arrested for being suspected for stealing a car. When they got him to the station, he was able to take the officer’s gun from him and shot two police officers and a 9-1-1 call dispatcher.  All were fatally wounded in the head. He was living the video game.  He also had other contributing factors, however. So, did they cause his behavior or did the game? Perhaps in this particular case there were both genetic and environmental risk factors at play. However, it was the video game that he emulated (Bradley,2004). He actually made a comment to that effect at the station before he shot the officers in the head.  In addition to Devin Moore, there are a host of other copycat convictions based on movies such as Benjamin Darras and Sarah Edmondson for the movie Natural Born Killers; Thierry Jaradin for the movie Scream; and  Vadim Mieseges for The Matrix movie. All committed horrendous murders after watching these movies and simulating characters from them (Clark,Dove, 2015).

Resources

Coutts, Larry M., Gruman, Jamie A., Schneider, Frank W.(2012). Applied social psychology. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications

Leung, R, & Bradley, E. (2005). Can a video game lead to murder? 60 Minutes. New York, NY: Columbia Broadcasting system.

Clark, J., Dove, L. (2015).10 notable copycat killers. Retrieved from http://www.howstuffworks.com/

Some might say that technology while helpful is damaging interfering with our abilities to interact with others socially, prevents and even destroys our ability to understand one another without face to face recognition. But, I believe that mankind is capable of harnessing progress and technology by our own curiosity. We are an inquisitive and progressive species. We are ever evolving and ever digressing. For every two steps forward, we take one step backward in order to perfect our existence.

A few months ago a flood destroyed my only way in and out of our ranch to our home. I had just began a new job, filed for a divorce, and was sick on top of everything else. The workers had just begun to repair the damage a few days ago when we were inundated with 17 inches of rain completely destroying all of the unfinished work to my driveway. Thankfully, after experiencing the previous flood, I had parked at the gate and walked to my home in anticipation of an impassible driveway, a modest mile. On this muddy walk with my umbrella in one hand and a backpack stuffed full of recently purchased groceries my thoughts were surprisingly taken away from the present predicament by the brightly colored roots that had been stripped of the plain brown earth by the rushing waters revealing brightly colored oranges and reds, and the brilliant yellow leaves that were floating by in the newly formed streams in the middle of the half finished road. As I carefully tried to avoid the softer spots in the muddy road I removed the black umbrella from overhead and turned my face upward allowing the rain the pour onto my face. Watching the large droplets falling against the tall canopy of the tree branches above, I could not help to feel that this was a necessary part of life. It felt good to be covered in rain water and to hear the raindrops fall to the ground, to hear the sound of air being forced from the earth from the tiny holes insects had drilled with tiny explosive bubbles being magnified by the umbrella. I felt at peace with my world at this moment.

I actually look forward to crossing the overflowing bridge and getting my rain boots full of water. Maybe I am a glutton for punishment, or maybe I realize that the push for progress may be difficult with many obstacles ahead, but is it not better to keep pushing forward for progress and addressing the obstacles in advance if we can? But if we cannot foresee the obstacles in advance, be prepared to search for the obstacles and look forward to overcoming them as we find them as this is what the nature of progress is and this is how we continue to evolve? Technology has its many ills, but it has saved many lives and will continue to progress by those whose curiosity pushes them to act and move forward.

The media now is part of almost every aspect of our lives. A study indicated that Americans spend about 30% of their waking hours using media singularly, and 39% involved using media while also doing another activity (Lamb, 2005). With these much access to TV news, newspapers, and social media, how are jurors not affected by the media? And, how does this affect the justice system’s verdicts?

First of all, the way the legal system is presented on media could affect a juror’s decision. Many people watch TV shows such as “Law and Order” or “NCSI,” and has possibly seen movies about criminal cases as well. These shows and TV movies could potentially portray Judges, Lawyers, witnesses and other people involved in a case in certain ways, and watching these could ultimately influence a juror’s preconceptions and expectations about the legal system. For example, a psychologist in a movie who is giving a testimony about the defendant could be portrayed as not being good at his job, and his testimony could be the key piece that makes the jurors reach a conclusion. The person watching this movie could make the assumption that not all psychologists are not the best at their jobs, and if they are selected to be part of a jury in a case that involves the testimony of a psychologist, then their decision could be influenced by what they saw in that movie.

Learning about the case they are working on could not only be affected by the media exposure of that specific case, but also the verdict the jurors reach could be affected by previous cases. In a mock jury study that included trial testimony by an eyewitness to an assault-a prosecution witness, it was determined that publicity about previous cases similar to the one in the study influenced the decision the jury made. Several mock jurors mentioned that after hearing about another case and the errors the jurors committed when arriving to their verdict, they put little faith in the prosecution’s eyewitness testimony, and that helped them reach their own verdict (Greene, 1990).

Additionally, with easy access to social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, jurors could potentially know the factors that involve a case even . this could affect the jury selection more, because a large part of society has access to these sites, and finding a person who has not heard much about a big case will be difficult.  Jurors in a case with extensive media coverage will likely have developed some biases about the case based on the media information to which they have been already exposed. If jurors who have no access to the media or social media, then it makes one think more about their possible judgement when it comes to reaching a verdict. Will this person make the right decision, and are they capable of critically think about the evidence and facts about a case that are presented to them?

References:

Greene, E. (1990). Media effects on jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 14(5), 439-450. doi:10.1007/BF01044221

Gregory M. Lamb Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor. (2005, ). We swim in an ocean of media: ALL edition. The Christian Science Monitor

Who knew that dogs were such a desired pet to own?  My boyfriend recently bought the 3 month old husky pictured above.  The puppy’s name is Ren, which means “love” in Japanese, and of course he is absolutely gorgeous.  I have never been fond of dogs because I never owned one growing up, but I can assure you Ren has captured my heart.  He is loving, playful, and mischievous.  If anything were to happen to him, I would be absolutely devastated!  One might think that letting a puppy loose in an unfenced backyard to enjoy the space is as safe a place as any for a dog to have fun, but I was appallingly mistaken.  Before Ren was 4 months, he could be let outside without a leash because he would not stray from the familiar vicinity; huskies need a lot of space to run and explore, so the backyard was a likely scenario for Ren to enjoy.  One afternoon, my boyfriend left Ren in the backyard for a few minutes, as per usual.  Ren was left outside with the back door wide open for maybe 5 minutes until my boyfriend went back to check on him.  As my boyfriend walked through the back door he was started to see a red truck with the door opened stopped by the street next to our backyard, and a man holding Ren on his way back to the vehicle.  My boyfriend instinctively asked “Hey what’s up?  Everything okay?”  The man froze in his tracks and turned around wide-eyed.  He replied hesitantly: “Oh I thought this dog was a stray… He’s really beautiful…”  My boyfriend assured the intruder that the puppy belonged to him, and the man quickly disappeared in his truck.  My boyfriend later narrated to me the story, and I was appalled!  I could not believe that people abduct pets.  I was left with just one question: Why?  Why would anyone want to steal a dog?  Albeit the dog is beautiful and pricey, he could have been implanted with a microchip for easy tracking and locating.  According to Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts, there are several theories that could explain the man’s criminal activity (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  Something in the man’s genetic makeup could predispose him to such risky behaviors.  Sometimes criminal activity can be attributed to sociological factors.  Finally, social psychology proposes theories that consider the dispositional and situational factors associated with crime (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  There are several biological, sociological, and psychological theories to explain the dog-thief’s criminal behavior.

There are biologically based theories as to why the man might have wanted to steal Ren.  Perhaps the man’s parents were also criminals which increased the likelihood that he would be a criminal, because he inherited some of their penchant for crime (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  Some biological deficits inherited by the dog-thief such as low monoamine oxidase could have caused disinhibition which led to the risky behavior of stealing a pet (Jones, 2005).  A personality disorder like Oppositional Defiance Disorder could also be the reason that the dog-thief was willing to steal the innocent puppy.  Perhaps, the dog-thief was inclined to commit a crime because of his biological configuration (Jones, 2005).  A biological component could explain why a person decides to commit crimes like stealing.

Criminal activity cannot be attributed to biology alone but to sociological factors, as well.  This view attempts to explain the dog-thief’s crime in relation to sociological principles like social class, poverty, or socioeconomic status (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  If the man was from a social class that promotes crime, then he was probably more willing to steal than someone from a social class that frowns upon immoral behavior.  In addition if the man was poor and could not afford to buy a husky, then perhaps he was more inclined to steal one.  Maybe it was his young daughter’s birthday, and he wanted to surprise her with a new puppy that he could not initially afford.  Finally, if the man was from a lower socioeconomic status in general, then it is more likely that he would be willing to steal Ren (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  I am not convinced the man was innately evil, but that an outside sociological influence could have affected his behavior.

Social psychological theories can also help explain the dog-thief’s crimes.  These theories would consider both the dispositional and situational factors that could influence criminal activity (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  According to the social learning theory, the man may have learned to steal for profit from his family or friends.  If his friends would reward him for stealing gum from a drugstore throughout his adolescence, then receiving positive reinforcement for stealing could explain the dog-thief’s reasoning for criminal activity.  Realizing that gaining desired goods through theft can lead to positive outcomes may have inclined the man to rob the cute puppy.  Andrews and Bonta developed the general personality and social psychological model of criminal behavior.  This idea would attribute the dog-thief’s crime to temperamental or personal characteristics.  If the man had weak problem-solving abilities, then he may have concluded that stealing the pet would be the only way to acquire the animal, rather than getting a loan or trying to find a higher paying job.  Even the use of drugs or alcohol could have impacted the man’s reasoning during the incident.  Maybe the man’s parents poorly monitored his behavior as a child and did not explain to him that stealing is wrong and can hurt others (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  Social psychological theories pose many valid explanations for the man wanting to steal Ren.

Whether the dog-thief was influenced by biological, sociological, psychological, or a combination of factors, stealing is wrong and not justifiable in this case.  Biologically, the man could have been highly susceptible to criminal activities like stealing.  Possibly, sociological theories could explain the dog-thief’s need for crime.  Lastly, social psychology could provide adequate reasoning for a person wanting to steal a puppy.  Whatever the reason, I hope that the man does not successfully steal anyone’s dog, because for most dog owner’s it would be like losing a family member.

References

Jones, C.M. (2005). Genetic and Environmental Influences of Criminal Behavior. Retrieved from http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/jones.html

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (Eds.). (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

I was recently listening to a story on This American Life titled Petty Tyrant which was about a maintenance boss in a school district in Schenectady NY who ran his department as a tyrant for several decades before he was charged and convicted on a plethora of charges including harassment and vandalism. The tyrant’s name was Steve Raucci and he was a maintenance worker that made his way through the ranks of the maintenance department in the local school district.  Raucci would verbally abuse his subordanites to the point that employees would be in fear of their safety.  If anyone in his staff said anything that could be construed as negative towards Raucci, he would publicly humiliate them to the fullest extent. He once fired a long time office assistant of his because she said casually in a group conversation that he wasn’t her type. The first half of the episode was filled with anecdotes from employees throughout Raucci’s time “in power”.  At one point Raucci was elected as the leader of the union that represented his department yet no one who had any say in the matter seemed to be concerned with this blatant conflict of interest.  Raucci was nearly untouchable and it was often said “if you weren’t for him you were against him” and this resulted in people behaving in ways that they considered unethical in order to spare themselves the risk of being tormented themselves.  The eventual downfall of Raucci came when someone was able to record him admitting to destructive acts that were done out of spite, illegal acts that warranted jail time. And jail time is exactly what he was served at the end of his trial which included several testimonies from people who had been terrorized by Raucci in their homes and who were still suffering the emotional repercussions of these acts.

How exactly does one come to gain this type of power in a workplace setting?  In this case, Raucci was in a position with very little recognition from outside the department, therefore he was able to rule his team with such fear and aggression that no one would dare speak out. This type of management ultimately proved to cost Raucci his freedom but not until after decades of tyrant behavior.  If he had decided to step down at any point before he participated in the recordings that captured his guilt he may have successfully lasted his entire career as a tyrant boss.

This story epitomizes the negative effects that can come from holding power. Even employees of the most mundane jobs such as maintenance work for a small city school district deserve respect and should not be exposed to such conditions that were present in the Schenectady school district during Raucci’s rule.  I am not even entirely sure how one would go about eliminating this threat in the workplace because any ideas that come to mind where already set in place but were ineffective.  No one could speak out against Raucci to his superiors because he had befriended his superiors and was never held accountable for the grievances.   Essentially he held the highest form of power and there was little that anyone could do about it. Fortunately, in the era of modern technology it may be easier to expose this type of behavior which can help eliminate the type of corruption that was rampant throughout Raucci’s career. It is truly terrifying that this level of power and control can exist anywhere within the workforce. It does make self-employment, which I once viewed as entirely too stressful, look quite desirable.

The topic of organizational life is an interesting and complex one in the business world. In big business there are bound to be many people working together, many of which have different personality types. Different personality traits can sometimes make it impossible to be productive in a working environment, some people simply don’t get along while others get along so well that they have trouble focusing on their working tasks (Onukaba, 2015). Regardless of the relationships had with coworkers, work needs to get done. How are some of the struggles overcome to maintain a healthy working relationship?

In July 2015,  a book on managing interpersonal relations was released. The author spoke of the importance of social relationships to humans, we are all social and thrive on building healthy relationships (Onukaba, 2015). The book focused on a study temperament and perception and how to overcome difference to manage working relationships. It goes on to explain that we are all different, those that don’t really like people should stop trying to love their coworkers and learn to simply tolerate them (Onukaba, 2015). The way to have a successful working relationship is to understand these behavioral difference and find a way to relate.

The author also focuses on perception, interpersonal communication in business is extremely important. In business communications need to be made in a clear and concise manner, in a way that won’t be misconstrued (Onukaba, 2015). This can be done the best in a face to face or over the phone environment. People understand the intent of the message better when vocal cues are present as well as body language. A message through e-mail or text can be interpreted differently based on the way the recipient reads it. This can sometimes lead to issues in the work place.

The books concludes with teaching how to value and understand these relationships and maintain them. I think this is a great tool for people struggling with these types of relationships. We can learn so much from disagreements had with coworkers if we better understood their personality. Sometimes getting to know someone on a more personal level is all we need to do to form that positive working environment. I think we can all learn something from this book.

References

Onukaba, A. (2015, October 11). A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO MANAGING INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS. Retrieved October 11, 2015, from http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/a-multi-dimensional-approach-to-managing-interpersonal-relations/222429/

When people hear the word conflict an image of a flight or battle might come to mind, but usually when someone uses the word conflict, the context in which they mean it is to be in disagreement or opposition. Some might think that you only have conflicts with family members or rival teams, but most don’t realize the conflicts that happen between members from different groups on a daily basis that are as simple as girl and boy, blonde and brunette, tall and short, fat and skinny, nerdy and dumb, and the list goes on and on. One person can belong to many different groups; for example, I am a female, white, tall, heavier-set, red-headed, Buddhist, an Ohio State Buckeye fan, married, politically more liberal, etc. Now that you know these things, you have an opinion of who I am as a person, or your first impression of me. This is due to stereotypes you have about each group I belong to based on your beliefs about the characteristics, attributes, and behaviors about members from each of those groups; which are more than likely based on past experiences you’ve had with someone from each of those groups, whether good or bad. These stereotypes could cause you to have positive or negative interactions with others, based on how you view them, but it’s when these negative interactions take place that conflicts occur, and they occur more often than people think.

The downfall to being human is that we are all born with an egalitarian state of mind, so we believe in equality of all people and therefor think that we treat everyone equally and promote this equality, especially in a political, social, and economic sense; but unfortunately, as much as we want to believe this, it’s not how we actually operate. Our mind automatically processes information and assigns things to a group once we process it. So everyone you see for the first time will automatically get categorized or labeled and grouped into previously existing mental groups you have; these are based on schemas, and unfortunately, each of these groups usually has a stereotype that come with it. Whereas sometimes these stereotypes can be good, what I want to focus on is how a negative stereotype can affect our thoughts about another group and how the conflict hypothesis can reduce this issue.

Right now there is a lot of focus on politics with the election around the corner next year and I want to discuss the conflict that’s going on between republicans and democrats primarily. The contact hypothesis poses that this conflict can be improved or resolved by increasing positive contact between the two groups. That being said, both groups have to perceive each other as relatively equal, they both have to share a common goal, and they both have to work together to achieve said goal. The issue right now is that even though political affiliation isn’t the same as age, gender, or even race (where a hierarchy can be applied to each), each party goes around thinking that they’re better than the other, or that their opinions are somehow more valuable than the others. This is where those negative stereotypes come into play about the other party and that the party they belong to is better than the other one. But in reality, they’re on the same level. I would kind of explain it like this to make them realize it better: if we both go to the same pizza parlor and order a pizza but the only difference is that you want pepperoni and I want sausage, who is right? The answer: neither. Everything is exactly the same except the choice of toping, and there isn’t a right or wrong answer, only differences in taste. That doesn’t make one person better and the other person wrong. It means that we’re both equal and both after the same thing, the approach is just slightly different, that’s all. The other issue with claiming complete political affiliation to one party is that views tend to be one dimensional, or black and white, but that isn’t that case. There is a whole spectrum of ideals, and your views don’t have to be so clear cut, they can be as grey as you want them. When you subscribe to one or the other, you leave out the opportunities to see things objectively and are stating that your groups’ ideals are the only right ones, which don’t really promote a sense of equality. However, I feel that if we continually try to address that political affiliation isn’t a hierarchy where one is higher or better than the other and start showing them how equal everyone’s ideals and opinions are, then we can start getting these groups together to actually resolve a lot of the conflicts we’re facing.

I think that both groups want to be treated equally and with respect and most importantly, do what’s right for America and its citizens. With this goal in mind, I think that once we can see each other as equally opinionated and entitled, we can start collaborating between these groups and coming up with resolutions to current issues. I think that with the knowledge and ideas that both groups poses, if we could not inflict our stereotypes and hear each other out and stop being judgmental, we could really do what’s best for this country; and I’m not just talking about from the politician level. I think one of the biggest issues is miscommunications between the two parties. Honestly, a lot of people are saying the same thing, just in a different way; but because it sounds different, people assume it is and will shut down and stop listening solely because the person who is talking is from a different political background. Overall I think that if we can get these groups collaborating, all it would take is some discussion and they would hear similarities and be able to talk about the differences and discuss the best plan of action that benefits all.

For example: gun control. I don’t think anyone in this country likes the frequency in which there always seems to be another rampant shooting. Liberals claim that there needs to be stricter gun laws to help reduce these incidences, but republicans claim that the laws are already strict enough and should even be loosened a little. Both talk about the second amendment and the right for citizens to bear arms. Now that being said, no one is saying that we should do away with guns altogether (as some republicans states democrats are trying to do, although some would love that), and no one is saying that we should revoke all gun laws (as some democrats state republicans are trying to do, although some would love that). What both parties are failing to address is how no matter the laws you have on guns, a criminal is going to do whatever they have to do to commit a crime, whether obtain a gun, knife, or other means to inflict harm. They aren’t going to obey any law, no matter how lenient or strict. However, most of the more recent (within the past decade or so) shootings can be attributed to people who have mental disorders of some sort or were neglected. That being said, maybe both parties can come together and discuss an intervention that addresses issues such as including mental health in health care coverage or ways to ensure kids don’t feel neglected, maybe at a community level or try to figure out how to reach parents. By getting both parties to realize that both their opinions matter and neither is better than the other, it would help create a sense of equality as well as help reduce already existing stereotypes about them. They both have a common goal of creating an intervention to stop this from happening, instead of trying to make everyone see that one party’s goals of how to change the issue are better than the others. And they are completing the task together, which will reduce negative interactions (conflict) between them which help overcome some of the barriers they have between each other; this in turn can lead to them working together to resolve more issues and continue to make America, and the world, a better place. We may agree to disagree, but we are all equal and should treat each other with respect.

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology. SAGE Publications, Inc.

The United States of America has become a “melting pot,” a nation composed of people from different countries, and with diverse cultures.  Although these patterns of different values, beliefs, norms, and behaviors makes this a wonderful country, sometimes it brings problems between the forms of communication between parties or groups that contain people with these distinctive backgrounds.

One situation where I was involved, and in which I felt that I was not communicating very well with my group due to cultural differences, was when I was in a group project in one of my ESOL classes during high school. Since this was an ESOL class composed of students who were trying to learn English, it was composed of people with different backgrounds and cultures.  An example of what made the communication process difficult was the power distance.  I come from a South American country with a high power-distance country culture, where I grew up with the awareness that the authority of those with power should not be questioned. At the beginning it was problematic for me to partake in a participative leadership style, because I was used to simply conform to the decisions and desires of high-status members, rather than contributing my own opinions.  This obviously bothered some of my group members, as they were expecting to get some sort of feedback from me, while I expected to get directions from them.

Another fact that contributed to communication problems was the uncertainty avoidance. The culture where I come from is not a low uncertainty avoidance culture where we have a high tolerance for ambiguity and less rigid rules.  On the contrary, my culture is that with high uncertainty avoidance, since we rely on clear rules, with the leader is expected to structure the work for the group. Again, the problem was the way the group worked: it was very ambiguous and did not have any kind of rules. Over time, I found out that I work better when I follow instructions, and following rules rather than guessing where the project will go as we work on it. Not having guidelines that explain how to work on something made me uncomfortable, and not able to concentrate on the project. The structure that I was hoping went along Tuckman’s notion of developmental stages of a group. The fact that we did not follow these stages might explain why we failed as a group.

Additionally, I should have tried to communicate with my group in a way that extended empathy and respected all of the members of the group. For a while, I was stuck with both my ideologies, and I did not really took into account the other people’s cultures and the way they wanted to work.  We could have met before we started working on the project, so that we could get to know more about each others’ cultures, similarities and differences equally, as well as the expectations they had. Also, it would have been helpful if we had worked to incorporate the key cultural values of all members into the group’s procedures.  For example, we could have established goals that made the people with high uncertainty avoidance cultures, so that they are more comfortable completing their tasks. Finally, just simply recognizing, respecting, and accepting these cultural differences would have made the communication within our group work more easily.

Compliance and Performance – Kelly’s Covariation Model 

Fifteen and a half years ago I embarked on a career in the financial industry that I continue to this day. For about nine of those years, I spent time in a management role.   Depending on the time and location, I had anywhere from nine people reporting to me, to upwards of twenty-four employees that I was responsible for. My main objectives were achieving success in both compliance and performance. Both are important in each of their own ways. Performance is important because it generates revenue for the company. Compliance is also equally important because we are regulated by how we actually conduct business. As I think about how social psychology applies to organizations, key topics such as leadership, work motivation, and job satisfaction always seems to catch my interest. Each of these components could carry an internal and an external factor to it. All of this is driven by behavior. But what causes this behavior? A lot of this can be explained from what is known as the attribution process. The attribution process is the process of assigning a cause to a behavior (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts; 2012). To go a little more in depth in a discussion of the attribution process, I would like to discuss one of the most popular known attribution theories which is called the Kelly’s Covariation Model. The term covariation simply means that a person has information from multiple observations, at different times and situations, and can perceive the covariation of an observed effect and its causes (McLeod; 2010). This model discusses external and internal causes, high and low results, and three types of information which influence our judgements, including, distinctiveness, consensus, and consistency. Some key points to focus on while you continue to read this is that people tend to make internal attributions when consensus and distinctiveness are low but consistency is high. They will make external attributions when consensus, distinctiveness and consistency are all high. When consistency is low, they will make situational attributions (Kelley (1967). I’m going to now discuss how each of these three types of information correlates with the two main objectives that I always set as expectations, which are compliance and performance.

The first type of information I would like to discuss is distinctiveness. Distinctiveness describes how a person behaves differently in a variety of situations. It measures the extent of how a person behaves in the same way in similar situations. If a person behaves the same the way in all situations, then the distinctiveness is low. If that person behaves one way in one situation, but behaves another way in a different situation, then the distinctiveness is high. If my employees were successful/ unsuccessful in both compliance and performance, then it was considered internal. If my employees had a distinction between compliance and performance, then the situation was external.

The second type of information I would like to discuss is consensus. Consensus describes how a situation can either effect most of us, or possibly just a few. It measures the extent to which a situation may cause most of us to react the same way. If most of us behave the same towards a situation, then the consensus is high. If the situation causes just a few of us to behave in certain way, then the consensus is low. If most of my employees had the same results in compliance, performance, or both, then it was considered external. If only a few of my employees had the same results, then it was considered internal.

The third and final type of information I would like to discuss is consistency. Consistency describes the behavioral pattern of a person during the same situation.   If the person’s behavior stays consistent during the same situations, then consistency is considered high. If the person’s behavior changes during the same situations, then the consistency is considered low.  If my employees showed the same results in compliance, performance or both individually, then it was internal. If my employees showed different results within compliance, performance, or both, then it was external.

Whether it’s in my world, or maybe even in your world, I hope that I explained the attribution process in a way that you can possibly apply it towards your everyday life. I also hope you have a better understanding of Kelly’s Covariation Model, and the three types of information that truly influence our behavior in certain situations. Remember: Distinctiveness is high = external attribution, low = internal attribution; Consensus is high = external attribution, low = internal attribution; Consistency is high = internal attribution, low = external attribution.  So next time you find yourself in one of these situations, you should ask yourself: Is it just you? Or is it the situation?

References:

Attribution Theory; Saul McLeod, 2010; simplypsychology.org

Applied Social Psychology; Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012; the text book and stuff…

Kelley, H.H. (1967) Attribution Theory in Social Psychology. In D. Levine (ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (volume 15, pp. 192-238) Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press

Many companies and organizations embody the four stages of Tuckman’s Developmental Stages of Groups. However, no organization is a better example of this than the United States Army. After I graduated from high school, I enlisted in the US Army. Army Basic training is the very definition of Developmental Stages of Groups. It encapsulates all four stages (Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing). I believe that the military has this system down to a science and gets people to perform at a high level very quickly.

Upon entering basic training, no one knows anybody. Many individuals are only concerned with their own goals and career aspirations. Soldiers are just starting to learn about their platoon’s mission and goals. So people are polite and are just trying to feel each other out. Many soldiers talk about their favorite sports teams and their favorite music artist. However, some soldiers are more charismatic than others and you can see people gravitate to them. This is a perfect example of the forming stage. In this stage, groups are just forming and people know little about each other (PSU Lesson 7, 2015). Everyone was getting along to get along.

As we went through basic training, some leaders emerged through their knowledge of the task at hand or their ability to get everyone to put the platoon’s goals before their own. Anyone who is not a team player is ostracized from the platoon until they get with the program. However, our platoon was not without internal conflict. Many times when there was ambiguity in our leadership it caused many conflicts. This is exactly the definition of the storming stage. For instance, a soldier who was an expert in marksmanship was in charge of our platoon at the shooting range and butted heads with our platoon leader about who had final authority. Our drill sergeant would tell us to figure it out. We concluded that our platoon leader was our leader. However, if someone had expertise in a specialized field the leadership role would be transferred within the confines of their expertise.

This led to the norming stage, where we learned to fully buy into our platoon’s goals. Not only could we recite the army values on command, we believed them with every fiber of our body. Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage are the values we lived by. These values allowed us to tolerate perceived character flaws of our platoon members. For the good of our platoon and the mission, personality quirks that may have led to an argument in the past are now just water under the bridge. In this norming stage, everyone’s role and purpose is settled (PSU Lesson 7, 2015). Our leadership structure became clearly defined and everyone understood their role. Our platoon’s cohesion was starting to gel and everyone had complete trust that we were becoming a lean mean fighting machine.

After several weeks of working together, the platoon was performing at an optimal level. This is known as the performing stage. This is the stage were the group is performing at its highest efficiency. We were so in tune with each other at this point that if someone got injured the next man would just step right in. My platoon would not miss a beat. Our moral, cohesion and productivity were all operating at a high level. These factors are interrelated and fed off each other. Studies have shown that team cohesion has a positive effect on performance (Fullagar & Egleston, 2008).

In closing, the Army is an organization that embodies Tuckman’s Developmental Stages of Groups. It takes in young men and women from all walks of life. Within a very short period, these soldiers are working together in groups and teams with one common mission. They have put aside their person goals for the goals of their unit and of the Army. That goal is the defense of the United States.

Reference:

PSU World Campus, Angel Lesson 7, 2015

Fullagar, C. J., & Egleston, D. O. (2008). Norming and performing: Using microworlds to understand the relationship between team cohesiveness and performance. Journal of    Applied Social Psychology, 38(10), 2574-2593.      doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00404.x

It is curious to me that we tend to attribute causes to behaviors of others by forming our opinions or judgments based on our own experiences. This seems to be at odds with accuracy, and does not seem to be a suitable method for forming an opinion based solely upon our own experiences and perceptions.

How can we as a society form judgements without more detail of the person we are assessing other than a few attributes. It seems to me that the variables necessary to form proper opinions as to whether or not an individual is suitable to a position should be great.

The actor-observer difference confounds me the most. Assuming that mankind’s design may have flaws, the actor-observer difference seems to be either designed or have developed solely to flatter ones-self. If I sound as if I am disturbed at this prospect, I rather am disappointed. I naturally assumed that we were distinctively fair in our rationale and that inherently all are good. This however, sheds new light on the activity of the mind that not only sheds light into a dark recess that we have apparently hidden from ourselves, but also begs the question of what other unseemly and certainly undesirable behaviors do we hide from ourselves that are yet aware of?

Certainly a certain amount of bias might be necessary for survival and even healthy competition. Much like other negative aspects such as anxiety, fear, guilt or shame, a small dose of one of these negative aspects could spur a well deserved kick in the correct direction. The ability to have an ego could give you the needed confidence to achieve and grow. I do concede the positive outcomes of such balances of powers within ourselves, however, I am much grieved over the discovery of a disproportionate core belief system that we are inherently good.

Perhaps, we are truly inherently good, but in order to battle the not so good, we must contain attributes that build barriers in order to maintain existence. Perhaps without these barriers what is good might not exist at all.

This week we read a chapter on Organizations and it had a good portion related to job satisfaction and motivation. I have been in Human Resources for about 17 years now, in both the staffing side as a recruiter and on the corporate side as a Generalist. The text talked a lot about the different characteristics involved in job satisfaction and what motivates an employee to do a good job. Some of these involve skill and autonomy on the job, knowing your job means something to the company at the end of the day, your social environment and how you get along with your coworkers and your boss, and locus of control, desire to move up in the company, self esteem, and the like (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts,2012). While it is absolutely true that these factors do play a role in motivation and job satisfaction, what I did not read in the text was how many people are terribly dissatisfied with their current jobs today. Surprisingly, for a text that was published in 2012 I would have thought more information would be available regarding how the economy and the recession of 2008 and 2009 froze wages for so many years that many people in mid-level jobs haven’t seen a raise. Companies have downsized so much and workloads have increased exponentially. The day never ends. Perhaps this is not what this text covers.

Maybe the fact still remains that people are just happy in their jobs. But everyday I talk to a lot of people that are either unemployed or looking for a better opportunity because they haven’t gotten a raise in years and they’re overworked, they’re boss is a tyrant, they can’t pay their bills that continue to go up, or their employers benefits are awful and they can no longer afford them.

All this plays into job satisfaction. There are many people that do like the type of work they do. They just don’t like where they work. They are not getting the job satisfaction that is discussed in the text. Management in larger organizations do not necessarily treat their employees with the respect  and dignity they deserve.  I have seen it first hand. It’s sinful. People work very hard for the most part. They have a level of self respect in what they do, I don’t care if they’re cleaning floors. And I don’t care if you’re the owner of the company. Does it hurt to say hello?

References

Schneider,Frank, Gruman,Jamie,Coutts,Larry. (2012). Applied social psychology.  New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.

Prejudice is a biased opinion about others based solely on their membership in a certain group (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). The biased opinions that prejudice is based on are rooted in stereotypes; stereotypes are the ideas that people have about members of different groups based on the expected attributes, characteristics, and attitudes of these groups; many of these stereotypes are culturally based (Schneider et al., 2012). Discrimination is when these opinions about membership of certain groups becomes behaviors directed towards others based on that group membership (Schneider et al., 2012).  Prejudice, discrimination, and stereotypes can be based on age, gender, race, nationality, religion, language, class, disability and etc. (van den Hoonaard, 1993).  The direct origin of prejudice and discrimination has not been decided, however, academics concur that people are not naturally born being prejudiced; this is evidenced by the social construct of these attitudes, and the fact there has been extensive evidence found that states that prejudice is not found in young children (van den Hoonaard, 1993). Despite the fact that there has been no decision as to the direct origin of prejudice, there is a concurrence that it is a learned behavior that starts with parents, and then later on is influenced by teachers, peers, and the media (van den Hoonaard, 1993). Due to the learned nature of prejudice it is not possible to eliminate it completely, the best that can be hoped for is to lessen the instance of prejudice, and this is usually accomplished by education along with legislation; intergroup contact alone has not been found to be successful enough to reduce the instance of prejudice (van den Hoonaard, 1993).

In April of 1968, Jane Elliott was a teacher of a third grade class in a small, rural, all-white town of Riceville, Iowa (A Class Divided, 2003).  At that point in time, she and her class of third graders had chosen Martin Luther King Jr. as their “Hero of the Month”. On April 4^th 1968, Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated; the next day Elliott’s students were extremely confused as to why someone would kill him, because they felt that he was extraordinary and that he should be labeled a hero (A Class, 2003).  Elliott decided at that point that she needed to teach them exactly what discrimination felt like in order for them to understand how horribly vile it can be, and ultimately what prejudice and discrimination were capable of doing to people (A Class, 2003).  She made the decision at that point to perform a two day experiment in which she separated the class into two groups, those that were blue-eyed, and those that were brown-eyed.  On the first day she told her class that they needed to change the way things were done in the classroom (A Class, 2003). After, she divided the children into the two groups she told them that the blue-eyed children were smarter, nicer, cleaner and just plain better than those that had brown eyes.  She allowed the blue-eyed children to have special privileges, and made the brown-eyed children wear a collar, and she criticized everything that they did (A Class, 2003).  On the second day, the roles were reversed, and those with brown eyes received special treatment, and the blue-eyed children were made to feel inferior (A Class, 2003). Elliott had hoped that this experiment would help the children to better understand the feelings of discrimination that certain groups feel on a daily basis, but what she didn’t realize was how powerful this exercise would become (A Class 2003). The children that were in the dominant group that previously had been amiable and receptive had become nasty, and they seemed to relish in their feeling of superiority.  Those in the menial group performed poorly on their work, and basically behaved as if they were the inferior class (A Class, 2003).  She stated “I watched what had been marvelous, cooperative, wonderful, thoughtful children turn into nasty, vicious, discriminating little third-graders in a space of fifteen minutes” (A Class, 2003). At this point she had realized that she had “created a microcosm of society in a third-grade classroom.” Elliott continued to perform this exercise every year in her classroom (A Class, 2003).  Her former students stated later on that once you find out what it feels like to be hurt in that discriminatory way you don’t want to hurt others in that way ever again (A Class, 2003).

A little more than twenty years ago, “The Oprah Winfrey Show” decided to use Jane Elliott’s model to conduct a racial prejudice experiment with their audience, because at that point in time racial tensions were high due to the acquittal of the police officers that had been tried in the beating of Rodney King (Capretto, 2015).  The audience was separated as to eye color just like in the exercise with Elliott’s third-graders, and the brown-eyed individuals were part of the dominant group. Jane Elliott spoke to the unknowing audience, and told them that she had been teaching for over two decades and that brown-eyed people were more accomplished and capable than blue eyed people (Capretto, 2015).  At this point the blue-eyed audience members began to feel discriminated against and they began to voice their disapproval.  One even pointed out that Jane had blue eyes; she didn’t hesitate in her answer to this person’s acknowledgment, and stated that she had learned to act brown-eyed, and that if they too began to behave like brown-eyed people that they could also take off their collars (Capretto, 2015).  The audience members began fighting amongst one another, even coming up with examples as to why this discrimination was relevant. Eventually, the audience figured out that they were part of an experiment and it was at this time that Elliott told them “God created one race: the human race. Human beings created racism.” (Capretto, 2015). Recently, when asked about the experiment she said that the reason she chose eye color is because both skin and eye color are created by melanin, and that people are not capable of controlling how much melanin they have in their skin and eyes; therefore, it makes little sense to judge someone based on this fact (Capretto, 2015). She said that she realized after performing this experiment on her third-graders so many years ago how powerful its impact was, and she said “Give me a child at the age of 8 and let me do that exercise, and that child is changed forever.”

Prejudice and discrimination accomplish tremendous effects in the realm of psychological, social, political and economic domains; these are intensified by the feelings of a lesser self-worth, societal estrangement, and other inequalities such as those that are intellectual in nature (van den Hoonaard, 1993). Jane Elliott’s continued work on lessening the prejudices and discrimination based on race around the world gives hope that it is possible to decrease the incidence of prejudice and discrimination worldwide by stopping it before it starts.

Resources

Schneider, F.W., Grumann, J.A., & Coutts, L.M. (2012). Applied social psychology: understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Washington, DC: Sage Publications Inc.

Van den Hoonaard, W.C. (1993). Prejudice and discrimination. Retrieved from: http://bahai-librabry.com/hoonaard_encyclopedia_prejudice_discrimination

A Class Divided. (2003). Retrieved from: www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided

Capretto, L. (2015). The daring racism experiment that people still talk about 20 years later. The Huffington Post. Retreived from: www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/02/jane-eliott-race-experiment-oprah-show_n_6396980.html

In 1962, Otto Eichman was charged and convicted of the war crimes committed during the Holocaust. He held the dispositions that he was obligated by an oath of loyalty. This defense was used by many other convicted nazis and still continues to be a guiding principle for criminal defenses today. By being within a specific position of power, one could behave as they see fit or take any action necessary due to their capacity. It is how Erich Priebeke successfully won his trial and how Court Martial William Calley unsuccessful lost his. Is this motive within reason? To answer this we have to examine what a group is, how it is set to function, and the interplay between individual and group needs.

A group consist of more than two members who set out to achieve a specific mission. Each organization or social group has a specific structure of group roles and group goals to achieve and each role is set to fulfill a part of said goal. Most often, people of likeminded nature join together to form groups. Even if the individuals are unknown to each other, they may still unite for a special cause. Alcoholics anonymous and M.A.D.D (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) are two instances where those unknown individuals congregate over important issues. In a group, each member applies specialized knowledge to help promote the groups’ goal. This process allows better efficiency and organization.

The group identifies an agenda, assigns each member to a specific goal or task. Once the goal is fulfilled, the group disbands or recreates a new goal. There may be cases where an organization has the goal of promoting terror or discrimination. A few of those organizations include the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, or ISIL/ISIS. These organizations have set distinct goals to deny the rights and civil liberties of others, antagonize and intimidate groups they dislike, and recruit more support for their beliefs. Even as hate groups, there are still goals and roles. It is especially important that these groups maintain affiliation, achievement, and power. These groups need to maintain affiliation to withstand the incongruities and fallacies within the groups mentality. Having a large amount of followers keeps social support and influence large enough to fight criticism. This agrees with the notion that there is strength in numbers. These groups also need achievement. The need for achievement is high, as there is a great need to have a source of credibility and some validation for the group. Achievement is also necessary to combat opponents’ criticism. Finally, the groups need power to influence others for recruitment. Each group attempts to use each of the five bases of power to maintain internal integrity.

As a part of human nature, individuals have their own opinions and preferences. Our own experiences give us specific impressions and interpretations of the world around us. No matter if in a group, individuals will have their own personal likes and dislikes. No particular legislation could mandate a specific opinion, nor should any try to. The freedom of personal expression and thought is an important factor in healthy, functioning societies. Nevertheless, groups are particularly useful in swaying opinions and forming a uniformed “mind”. Groupthink, herd mentality, and the bandwagon effect are examples of this. Some individuals may use their roles to fulfill the goals of the group and others may use their roles to fulfill their personal goals. The issue comes into play when personal opinions are used by those in positions of power to violate the rights and individual liberties of others; and when the goal/mission of an organization is to cause harm to others. In such instances, others are negatively impacted by the actions of the group members. Nazi soldiers, acting under Hitler’s Oath, committed forced imprisonment and murder against the Jewish, homosexuals, and other groups. Acting on sentiments of discrimination, J. Edgar Hoover, William Sullivan, and Robert F. Kennedy ordered directive and initiatives for an FBI program coined COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) that aimed to dismantle, disrupt, and diffuse Civil Rights organizations. George Wallace was a known racist who used his position as Governor discriminatorily against African Americans. In the instances of George Wallace, his role within the states’ government is disregarded in favor of his personal resentments toward African Americans. In the case of the FBI and the Nazi’s the organizations are directly influencing a lower quality of life for those they targeted. So we have it that a person may have prejudice feelings and a group may be organized to discriminate. How do we discontinue these behaviors from the individual in their role and how do we stop these organizations? We apply practices that may eliminate these actions. Integrating individuals of different backgrounds, ethnicities, and races may prove helpful. Applied social psychologist could strategize policies that promote the celebration of multiple cultures; or promote the inclusion of a variety of ideas from all levels of an organization or members of a group. There could also be no-tolerance policies that place harsh penalties on discrimination.

Again the question is asked: Is is legitimate to use your position or power as a defense? Not at all. The civil rights of life, freedom, and property to all is prioritized above the goal of any group or organization. No matter the position, opinions and stereotypes are not justifiable to use in any position as it undermines the integrity of the operating organization and it implicates unfair disadvantage to all who are governed by the position. Psychological interventions can be aimed at promoting impartiality.

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander’s Group dynamics. New York: Harper & Row.

Jamal, M. (1984). Job stress and job performance controversy: An empirical assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33.  1-21.

Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J., & Lirtzman, S.I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15. 150-163.

Shaw, M. (1981). Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Small Group Dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

A pumpkin bagel with pumpkin cream cheese and a medium coffee.  No crazy requests, just a simple straightforward order.  The woman behind the counter quickly recorded my order using the tablet mounted on top of the cash drawer.  She asked for my name and promptly entered it into the device.  She provided me with my total and I handed her my debit card.  After a quick swipe, she flipped the tablet to me.  The screen prompted me for a tip so I obliged, signed and then rotated the tablet back to her.  A short time later, a woman emerged from the kitchen, stated my name, and handed me my order.  Once I arrived at my destination, I quickly removed the bagel from the bag, excited to try the new seasonal flavor.  I pulled the wrapper off and staring back at me was a cinnamon raisin bagel with plain cream cheese.  Disappointed, I ate the bagel.  A few days later I returned to the store, still craving the pumpkin bagel with pumpkin cream cheese.  I gave the same woman my order and explained the error that was made the last time.  She apologized and told me that because seasonal items are not specifically listed in the system, they have to be manually typed in.  I got my order and left.  This time, when I opened the bag, a pumpkin bagel with plain cream cheese was unveiled.  I gave them half credit with my second attempt.  At this point I was completely frustrated.  Rather than go back to the store to complain again, I will simply stop going there (at least for a while).  That is my approach, but what about all the people who will go back and yell at the woman.  What if she actually entered the order correctly and the person in the kitchen didn’t see the special instructions on the screen?  What if no one took the time to train her on how to input seasonal items properly?  Regardless of the reason, this organization’s technology could actually be reducing employee morale and the level of customer service provided, both of which are key to success.  I am not suggesting this bagel shop should remove all of their technology and revert to the old pen and order pad method, but perhaps they are relying on technology a bit too much.  Every organization should periodically take a step back and analyze the technology they have or don’t have in order to determine if the benefits outweigh the costs and what adjustments might be needed.

As indicated in the lesson commentary, the escalading use of technology has impacted organizations and employees both positively and negatively (PSU WC, 2015, L7).  It is easy to identify numerous technological enhancements over the years that have positively impacted organizations.  Personally, five key benefits come to mind.  First, automation has increased production efficiencies while simultaneously reducing labor expenses.  For example, in the past it may have taken ten workers five hours to produce a product by hand, whereas today a machine may be able to produce the same product in thirty minutes with only one worker assigned to oversee the machine’s operation.  Second, information can be communicated to multiple people instantaneously through instant messaging, email, social networking and company websites.  Third, smart phones make it easy for employees to remain linked to the organization even when they are at home or on vacation.  Fourth, an organization can operate globally.  Web conferences can bring together various company locations or prospective customers throughout the world thus eliminating the need for extensive travel time and travel related expenses.  Finally, it makes organizations more attractive to prospective employees and customers.

On the other hand, the use of technology can also have a negative impact on an organization (PSU WC, 2015, L7).  While technological enhancements can increase the efficiency of the organization, it can also do the exact opposite if not properly implemented.  For example, has sufficient training occurred on how to operate or use the new device?  Are the necessary people aware of the changes that will need to occur?  What additional steps must be taken to ensure customer service remains a top priority?  These are just a few of the many questions that need to be answered prior to implementation of a new technology.

Additional negative effects of the use of technology include misinterpretations, “deskilling,” added stress, and missed opportunities.  First, while the use of instant messaging, email, social networking and company websites to disseminate information can be fast and easy, the loss of face-to-face communication may result in messages getting misunderstood or ignored completely.  Second, these technological means of communication also lead to a reduction in the skills needed by employees called “deskilling” (PSU WC, 2015, L7).  Have you noticed that your spelling accuracy has deteriorated over the years because you have been relying on spell check?  Third, having a smart phone, while it keeps employees linked to the job 24/7, does not allow them time for their minds to rest (Cafferty, 2010).  Finally, web conferences can allow multinational companies to connect various employees in different locations without travel, however, this may result in missed opportunities which could have occurred if everyone met face-to-face to examine the issue at hand.

I believe the benefits of using technology within most organizations outweighs the costs.  However, organizations cannot simply purchase new technology and implement it without properly training their employees.  After all, if I am a customer at the local bagel shop, I don’t care how much technology you use to process my order, as long as it is correct.

References

Cafferty, J. (2010, August 25). Is too much technology a bad thing? Retrieved October 10, 2015.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2015). Lesson 7: Organizational Life and Teams. PSYCH424: Applied Social Psychology.

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (Eds.) (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Culture and diversity has a profound impact on society development and interaction among individuals and the melding of culture can be difficult. Assimilation is a complicated and controversial process that alters cultural dynamics within a given populace. An infamous and contentious example of assimilation within the American society concerns the Native Americans. The past incidence of violence and genocide inflicted upon Native Americans is a tragedy and shameful reality of American history. The Native Americans have struggled to maintain their identity and culture. Proponents of Native American culture argue that continuing use of native language is the key to preserving culture. (Reyhner, 2001)

Traditionally, Native language has been able to transcend generations due to the physical isolation of tribal reservations; however, in recent time external modern American culture has begun to infiltrate Native culture. (Reyhner, 2001) The younger Native American generations are becoming less inclined to speak their tribal language due to assimilation into mainstream American culture. This phenomenon is perpetuated by the influence of the prominent English language in schools they attend, the music listen to, and television they watch. (Reyhner, 2001)

The Native American tribes have also experienced pressure from interest groups such as English First that promote English as the primary language throughout the United States. (Reyhner, 2001) A second obstacle for maintaining Native American languages is the dwindling opportunities for bilingual education. (Reyhner, 2001) The prevalence and influence of American ethnocentrism has dramatically impacted the ability of Native Americans to conserve their culture and values.

The documented mistreat of Native Americans throughout American history is an embarrassing hypocritical blemish that cannot be rectified. However the tragedy can be slightly mitigated by preserving and celebrating the Native American culture. It is important for modern American culture to coexist with Native American culture. In order for the Native American culture to not become extinct and forgotten a mutual effort must be made by the general public and Native Americans to emphasize the importance of the indigenous cultures.

Reyhner, J. (2001) Cultural Survial vs. Forced Assimilation: the renewed war on            diversity. Retrieved from http://www.culturalsurvival.org

Being the daughter of a Cuban immigrant, the culture of Cuba resonates in my home and in my heart.  Cuba, officially called República de Cuba, is an island located south of the Tropic of Cancer at the intersection of the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea (brit).  It is comprised of around 11 million people of which 50% classify as mulatto, a mixture of African and European descent (every).  Spanish is the principle language spoken by the Cubans (Knight, 2015).  Cuba is a communist nation with a totalitarian government.  The government exercises direct control over most aspects of Cuban life (Knight, 2015).  The Cubans are so oppressed by the government that the maximum living wage is $20 a month for almost every job in the country (Somin, 2014).  The culture in Cuba causes its citizens to value certain things and view the world from a unique perspective (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  Five dimensions to analyze cultural taxonomy was developed by Geert Hofstede: individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long- or short- term orientation (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  As a result of these cultural factors, people learn different values and preferences (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  Cuba is a collectivistic, feminine, and short-term oriented culture with high power distance and uncertainty avoidance.

The Cubans can be considered an allocentric, or collectivistic-oriented, culture.  Collectivistic cultures like to do what is best for the group even if it means putting aside personal goals (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  A main indicator that Cuba is an allocentric culture is the communist government that instills in the citizens an urge to better the state and the wellbeing of society (Brumfield, Carpenter, & Sloan, n.d.).  People are forced to work together for the greater good of the country.  Together, the Cubans share great pride in their countries’ independence (Brumfield, Carpenter, & Sloan, n.d.).  The social experiences in Cuba are structured around social groups which cause the culture to be allocentric (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).

Cuba is a feminine culture.  A culture can be feminine or masculine depending on the values they place on their work goals (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  Cuba places its work values on social goals mainly because of its communism.  Advancement and competition is not really possible for the Cubans when everyone works for the good of the country (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  Cuba’s femininity only increased when women gained integrity upon the signing of the “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women” (Brumfield, Carpenter, & Sloan, n.d.).  Though some may argue, Cuba is ultimately a feminine culture.

Not only is Cuba collectivistic and feminine, it is also short-term oriented.  A short-term oriented culture focuses on the present and its immediate rewards (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  Cubans ultimately leave their futures up to the government, so they are forced to focus on the here and now (Ziegel-Meyer, 2013).  The people live day to day and cannot plan for future economic or political change, because it is essentially against the law (Brumfield, Carpenter, & Sloan, n.d.).  Like their collectivistic dimension, the short-term orientation of Cubans seems to be a result of the country’s communism and dictatorship.

Finally, Cuba is high in both power distance and uncertainty avoidance.  A high power distance indicates that a culture typically accepts inequalities based on factors like power, wealth, and laws (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  High uncertainty avoidance, in turn, indicates how well a culture accepts ambiguity (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  Again, communism is an important factor in determining the level of these dimensions (Brumfield, Carpenter, & Sloan, n.d.).  The dictatorship of Cuba emphasizes a high power distance, because it has complete control over almost every aspect of its citizens’ lives like religion, small group organizations, and communication (Brumfield, Carpenter, & Sloan, n.d.).  In addition, Cuba’s caste system contributes to its high power distance by placing people in one of two categories: rich and powerful or poor and disregarded (Ziegel-Meyer, 2013).  Regarding its high uncertainty avoidance, this is also due to the fact that the dictator strictly enforces rules to avoid change in the countries’ structure (Brumfield, Carpenter, & Sloan, n.d.).  If a citizen does not abide by the law, there is a good chance that they will be imprisoned or even put to death.  As a result, Cuban citizens have high uncertainty avoidance because they do not have a lot of control over what is going to happen in their lives and are accustomed to many things being planned out by others (Ziegel-Meyer, 2013).  As a result of its high uncertainty avoidance, Cubans take few risks and are careful to follow the laws (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).

The beautiful island of Cuba has a unique culture that stems from its communist government.  Collectivism permeates the Cuban outlook on society.  Cuba is considered a feminine culture because of the values it places on the workforce. The short-term orientation of Cuba causes them to focus on the present rather than the unforeseeable future.  Cuban culture has very high power distance and uncertainty avoidance.  Living in Cuba is very different than living in the United States because of its cultural taxonomy.

Resources

Knight, F.W. (2015). Cuba. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/place/Cuba

Somin, I. (2014). Life Under Cuban Communism. In The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/13/life-under-cuban-communism/

Brumfield, B., Carpenter, L., & Sloan, L. (n.d.). Cuba. Retrieved from http://acad.depauw.edu/~mkfinney/teaching/Com227/culturalPortfolios/CUBA/Typologies.html

Ziegel-Meyer, D. (2013, September 18). Cuba and Hofstede’s Value Dimensions [Web log comment]. Retrieved from https://dziegelmeyer.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/cuba-and-hofstedes-value-dimensions/