30
Oct 17

Cellphones in Schools — should they be banned or embraced?

Almost every college student who attends their campus in person since the late 2000s has probably seen the dreaded words No Cellphones During Class appear on the syllabus. From a professor’s point of view, there are plenty of reasons in favor of banning cellphones. Students might be distracted; they could be using phones to cheat during assignments of quizzes, or, frankly, it could just be seen as rude to be texting someone while a professor is trying to do their job and teach the material. Students, however, might view that approach as needlessly draconian. If it’s their time and their money, why shouldn’t they be able to check something on Facebook or Twitter during class or respond to a text? It isn’t like they’re standing up and having a loud phone conversation. In their mind, the only disruptions cellphone use could have in the classroom is fabricated by people against it, and there are actually benefits to cellphones in a classroom. Phones can be used to cross-check information, bring up a calculator for quick computations, take notes, record lectures or lessons for later, take pictures of a slide or whiteboard quickly for later reference, and more. It just so happens that texting comes with it.

Cellphone use during class is ubiquitous, especially at high school age. The number of teenagers with cellphones in classrooms is climbing by the year (Graham, 2012). However, it isn’t just ownership of cellphones that’s increasing; as cellphones become more and more capable and full of possibilities for use, they become more used, too. The Pew Research Center found in 2010 that although 65% of polled teenagers (defined as 12-17 year olds) are in a school that completely bans cellphone use, 58% of those teenagers send text messages during class. 43% of all teenagers, no matter their school’s stance on cellphones, say they text in class at least once a day or more. The ramifications of this are broad and potentially enormous — students are breaking rules in favor of texting, or, if there isn’t a rule to be broken at all, they’re at least ignoring what’s going on in class to quickly fire off a text. As smartphones become more accessible and more widespread, the classroom will change as well, and perhaps not for the better. In The Atlantic, journalist Robert Earl (2012) commented that the distraction of cellphones and social media forces students to multitask — which reduces productivity and, in the end, might even reduce intellectual curiosity. He argues that if students are accustomed to digesting information in bite-sized, 140 character Tweets or short Facebook posts, it could dramatically reduce their desire or even ability to read longer-form writing and pry forth information. Here, the detriments of cellphone use are clear, not fabricated by anti-cellphone professors stuck in their ways.

Nonetheless, I’d argue that banning cellphones from the classroom is a foolhardy, worthless endeavor. Students that don’t want to pay attention in class will always find a way to slack off. Passing notes has evolved into texting, and at least texting mostly distracts just the student as opposed to neighboring students. Instead of rebuking cellphones, teachers should try to find ways to embrace cellphones in their classroom. Edward Graham of the National Education Association (2012) recommended encouraging students to use cellphones for academic purposes. Rather than make phones taboo, teachers define acceptable and unacceptable smartphone use in the classroom. Students can use apps to remind themselves of upcoming assignments or as calculators, and during set periods in classroom time, students can use their phones to look something up, but texting is prohibited. Phones already have ways to prevent incoming text messages from distracting students; putting a phone into airplane mode can prevent texts from being sent or received, and it can also be used as a “classroom mode” for a potentially distracting device.

Cellphones aren’t inherently bad for the classroom, although it’s easy to see them that way. It’s common knowledge that multitasking can reduce performance on both tasks, and a student that’s texting during class might be hearing the teacher speak without actually listening. However, bans on cellphones clearly do not work; those who want to text during class will find a way, and they may even justify it with comments on the benefits of cellphones in the classroom. For education to win the “war” against cellphones, it needs to accept them and integrate them in the classroom where possible rather than ineffectually try to act like they don’t exist.

References

Earl, R. (2012). Do cellphones belong in the classroom? The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/05/do-cell-phones-belong-in-the-classroom/257325/

Graham, E. (2012). Using smartphones in the classroom. National Education Association. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/tools/56274.htm

Pew Research Center. (2010). Teens and mobile phones. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/04/20/teens-and-mobile-phones-3/

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


30
Oct 17

Technology in the Classrooms

Education in today’s world remains one of the biggest topics in the world. Families and societies place education for their kids at the top of the priority list. Families decide to even move to different parts of the country so their kids can attend the schools that are known for their education programs. With the advancement of technology the world has changed and evolved in the last couple decades. In general, schools still teach in a traditional classroom setting. One of the biggest issues in schools is the use of smart phones, and other smart technology such as watches.

Our notes talk about observational learning. With observational learning we learn behavior by observing others (Psu lecture notes. 2017). With mostly everyone owning a smart phone it becomes a norm to have one. In the United States, 73 percent of teens own or have access to a smartphone. A mere 12 percent have no cell phone. Those numbers come from a 2015 survey by the Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C.(Kowalski, 2016). With the majority of students having access to their smartphones they have become a huge distraction inside the classroom. A few weeks ago we learned about social media and the effects it has on society. With smartphones we have access to social media, the internet, and messaging which results in constant checking of the phone during class.

In school students feel the effects of discrimination if you do not own a phone or smartphone. Attending school with a flip phone in today’s world would make you a target of discrimination. The cool kids do not have flip phones as that is something of the past. Discrimination could occur about their wealth status or popularity status just because of not having a smart phone. If you do not own a smartphone your connection to social media lacks. This might lead to having little or no presence in social media where my students interact and have a certain status of popularity. This can lead to negative effects. Schools need to acknowledge this change in technology and implement programs to inform the harmful effects of phones and other technology in school to the parents.

Technology has come a long way in aiding society to achieve great things, but the future of our world relies on the young generation in school. With the use of technology increasing in school it causes a huge distraction in the learning of the material. This not only effects those with phones, but also those without these smart phones because of discrimination. Studies show those being discriminated against scores lower test scores in the lecture notes.

 

Psu Lecture Notes. Applied Social Psychology, 2017

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kowalski, K. (2016). When Smartphones go to School. Science News for Students


30
Oct 17

Social Media, Fake News, and America’s Deepening Political Divide

The relationship between social media and the news–particularly news related to politics–has been a popular topic of conversation recently in the United States. Facebook especially has emerged just recently as a major platform for the average American to get their news; 30% of the general population receives news through the site (Anderson and Caumont, 2014) and I would argue that the site has become so relevant in people’s perception of news and the media itself that a significant number of Americans are indirectly influenced by the news that is shared on Facebook. When I first created a Facebook profile around six years ago, I was exposed to very little news through the site, if any. Now, however, the majority of my feed consists of news stories of one type or another. This can partly be attributed to my decision to actively follow some news outlets, but it is also due to the growing popularity of using Facebook to stay up to date on current events. At face value, this phenomenon may appear to be harmless or even positive; more people being more informed about the news seems like a good thing. However, the freedom and quick spread of information on social media comes with some serious concerns. Now that more individuals, companies, and publications can easily share their own coverage on the Internet, there is no requirement to be unbiased in reporting news–or even accurate. For the first time in history, consumers of American media can choose from thousands of different online sources that present themselves as “news.” These sources range from completely inaccurate in their reporting, to heavily biased, to well-researched and accurate. On top of the obvious problems with consuming media that is not based in fact, the issue that in my opinion is most concerning is that defining what news sources fall into which of the aforementioned categories can be completely different depending on who you ask. The “fake news” issue leads to the spread of misinformation and has contributed so heavily to the deepening partisan divide in America that it has become difficult to not only solve issues, but to even debate them effectively, which is a huge detriment to political and social progress.

 

The Schneider et al. text (2012) discusses the fact that negative coverage of the government has contributed to a huge increase of people reporting a lack of trust in the government. This has strong consequences in itself, such as lower voter turnout due to a cynical attitude towards the government (Schneider, et al., 2012). Now, however, the Internet is an even more prevalent media source; while it may be “nontraditional” media, it has become just as if not more influential than “traditional” media.  America is now grappling with an even more complex and, I think, dangerous problem–what happens when people stop trusting the media itself? What happens when our government stops trusting the media? The current POTUS has clearly and directly condemned certain news media outlets, such as CNN, as promoting and distributing “fake news”. In addition to more people being able to falsely present their publications as “real” news in the freedom of the Internet, this undercutting of the validity of the mainstream media (or “traditional” media) has encouraged many supporters of the current President to seek out alternative sources to get their news–which the Internet was eager to provide. While it is absolutely worthwhile to think critically about the media and recognize biased or shoddy reporting, and whichever news sources one deems “accurate,” be it mainstream media sources or otherwise, anyone can see that it is a big problem when citizens disagree on what is a lie and what is the truth.

Historically, the political divide has been strong since the very birth of the USA; however, the issues have mostly revolved around differing perspectives on how to solve the problems in our country; now, people don’t even agree on the reality of the problems themselves. This creates a divide that is even more impossible to cross. One strong example of this type of problem is the issue of climate change. Many Americans consume and trust media sources that present climate change as a man-made, urgent problem that needs to be addressed; however, many Americans consume and trust media sources that present climate change as a nonissue that has nothing to do with human activities. If we all trusted the latter sources, there would be no climate change debate. If we all trusted the former sources, then the debate would center around the different perspectives on the best way to address the issue, rather than the current state of the conflict, which mostly centers on whether or not it is a problem at all. This phenomenon can be seen in a wide variety of political issues and is magnified greatly by the diversity of information available on social media.

 

This is a problem that is essential to solve if we want to make any kind of progress as a nation. It is impossible to do effective problem solving when the public is in this curious state of volatile stagnation, in which extremely heated and sometimes even violent debates are occurring daily on social media, in real life, and within the government, but very little is actually being done to move towards compromise or solutions. In order to address the fake news phenomenon, critical thinking must be encouraged, people need to be more willing to question themselves and others (i.e, asking someone you disagree with why they believe what they do, as opposed to immediately dismissing them as brainwashed or gullible), and there must be some kind of agreement on what sources are valid and what sources are not. One good way to do this is to research the sources you get your news from, read about their backgrounds, who is funding them, etc. and think about how those things may affect the perspectives being presented by the source. A good place to start is PolitiFact’s list of fake news sites and what their respective agendas are (assuming, of course, that the individual trusts PolitiFact itself). Diversifying where you get your news from is another step people can take. Ironically, despite the large amount of information and perspectives made available by social media, the way sites like Facebook work make it easy to make your profile an echo chamber of political opinions. Purposefully following, listening to, and truly considering multiple sources’ information, provided you do so carefully and with an open mind, can give a user of social media a more holistic view of the news and help them to reach more informed conclusions. Finally, citizens can mitigate the harmful effects of misinformation spread by doing outside research about history, politics, and the way the government works. Biased news lacking in journalistic integrity can lead to ignorance about the government workings; for example, those who get their news from entertainment talk shows have shown decreased understanding of the government (Schneider, et al., 2012). Social media also tends to both play into and encourage the desire for instant gratification, and many people do not learn in depth about the news via social media. Statistics show that people spend less time on, read less pages from, and visit news sites less often when referred through Facebook as opposed to directly visiting the news site (Anderson and Caumont, 2014). If individuals are going to be politically engaged and confident in their knowledge, it is important to have a deeper understanding of current events than can be provided in a short video or by skimming headlines while scrolling through a feed. These solutions are based on active efforts being made by individual citizens, which can be encouraged but of course not forced. Unfortunately, it is an issue of such fundamental complexity that neither the media nor the government can really effectively intervene; firstly, many Americans don’t trust either entity, and secondly, because freedom of the press and of speech are highly valued rights in America, in most cases it is impossible to simply “shut down” a given source, even ones that can be proven fake (although, again, many might not consider “proof” to be valid proof, depending on its source). Such a complicated problem requires a complicated solution, or more probably, set of solutions. The way the trend is currently, though, if we do not find some kind of common reality to work from soon the divisiveness and vitriol is only going to become more extreme.

 

Works Cited

 

Anderson, Monica, and Andrea Caumont. “How Social Media Is Reshaping News.” Pew Research Center, Pewresearch.org, 24 Sept. 2014, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/24/how-social-media-is-reshaping-news/

 

Gillin, Joshua. “PolitiFact’s Guide to Fake News Websites.” Politicfact.com, PolitiFact, 20 Apr. 2017, www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2017/apr/20/politifacts-guide-fake-news-websites-and-what-they/.

 

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (2012) Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

 


30
Oct 17

ADHD and Self-Handicapping

As an adult, I have heard a variety of excuses individual’s offer for not getting tasks, assignments, duties, chores, and work unsuccessfully competed. However, the one that I find troubles me the most is the excuse, “I have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).” I feel as though, when adults use this diagnosis as an excuse for not completing their required tasks at work, home, and school, they may expect others to tolerate their lack of incompleteness. Specifically, I am referring to the area of group task oriented duties, such as coworkers and classmates.

According to the National Resource on ADHD (CHADD, 2017) 10 million adults have ADHD. Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2017) estimates 11% of America’s children are affected by ADHD and this disorder has been increasing in prevalence. By no means am I dismissing this diagnosis. ADHD effects many adults and children, and you may know several individuals struggling with the symptomology of this disorder. However, I do get annoyed and at times frustrated, when individuals just causally suggest this ADHD diagnosis is why they continually do not pull their weight in group oriented tasks.

Interestingly, this week’s lesson discussed self-handicapping as a strategy some individuals utilize as an excuse for failure. Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts (2012) define self-handicapping as “creating barriers to successful performance prior to, or simultaneous with, an achievement task.” This type of behavior enables individual’s the rationalization for their negative performance by “shifting” the blame to other conditions (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). As I was reading this concept, the ADHD excuse explicitly stuck in my head. Upon further investigation, I found several articles suggesting individuals diagnosed with ADHD do indeed utilize self-handicapping as their rationalization for failure, due to their disorder (Jaconis et al., 2016 & Waschbusch, Craig, Pelham, & King, 2007).

Jaconis et al. (2016) suggested both sexes utilized self-handicapping as predictors for self-reported severity of ADHD symptomology. However, they found females tend to claim higher perceived levels of self-handicapping, indicating these increased symptomology reports to compensate for their failures (Jaconis et al., 2016). Furthermore, Waschbusch, Craig, Pelham, and King (2007) found that children with ADHD demonstrated increased self-handicapping than those in the control cohort, regardless of self-reporting or measures of behavior were used. Children in the ADHD cohort demonstrated self-handicapping measures by “reduced effort and preferences for debilitating conditions” (Waschbusch, Craig, Pelham, and King, 2007).

These two studies suggest individuals afflicted with ADHD have an increased prevalence of self-handicapping, which may protect their self-concept (Waschbusch, Craig, Pelham, and King, 2007). Individuals tend to compare themselves to others, and the “feelings, attitudes, and perceptions that one holds about their own ability” is termed self-concept (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). The children in the ADHD cohort had increased self-handicapping when dealing with difficult tasks and this may have threatened their self-concept (Waschbusch, Craig, Pelham, and King, 2007). Whereas, they demonstrated decreased self-handicapping when faced with less difficult tasks maintaining their self-concept (Waschbusch, Craig, Pelham, and King, 2007).

Self-handicapping is an interesting concept and one that I am sure many of us may utilize as rationalizations for failure. It appears to be prevalent in both the academic and workforce environments. ADHD is just one disorder I found may be relevant to the self-handicapping concept, due to my frustration with this disorder being used as an excuse for incompleteness in group oriented tasks, such as academics and the workforce. Since ADHD is a disorder disrupting one’s concentration, activity, and impulsivity, it is plausible to suggest those afflicted with the disorder, have an increased prevalence of self-handicapping to rationalize their negative performance, while protecting their self-concept.

 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Data & Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html

Jaconis, Maryanne, Boyd, Stephen J., Hartung, Cynthia M., McCrea, Sean M., Lefler, Elizabeth K., and Canu, Will H. (2016). Sex Differences in Claimed and Behavioral Self-Handicapping and ADHD Symptomatology in Emerging Adults. ADHD Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders. 8(4), 205-214. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/article/10.1007%2Fs12402-016-0200-y

The National Resource Center on ADHD. (2017). Understanding ADHD: For Adults. Retrieved from http://www.help4adhd.org/Understanding-ADHD/For-Adults.aspx

Waschbusch, Daniel A., Craig, Rebecca, Pelham, William E., and King, Sara. (2007). Self-Handicapping Prior to Academic-Oriented Tasks in Children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): Medication Effects and Comparisons with Controls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 35(2). 275-286. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/article/10.1007%2Fs10802-006-9085-0

 

 


30
Oct 17

Online Education and Peer Interaction

As I read the assigned chapters for class this week, one thing that stood out to me was how critical peer interaction is in academic environments.  According to Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts, (2012), kids who have poor peer relationships struggle with developing competency in a variety of different areas of their lives, including academia, while those with positive relationships are more likely to thrive.  In fact, studies have indicated that the act of just playing with other children can increase a child’s self-confidence and, in turn, increase their academic achievement (Schneider et al., 2012).  However, in an increasingly modernized educational environment, more and more academic programs are being offered online.  According to Connections Academy (2015), from 2009 to 2014, there has been an 80% increase in grade school students taking online or blended learning courses and a 58% increase in full-time online public school enrollment.  If students are no longer in classrooms together, however, will this lack of peer interaction be detrimental?

 

As Schneider et al. (2012) note, the academic environment provides individuals with the opportunity to form and maintain friendships, acquire leadership skills, learn about conflict resolution and cooperation, and develop positive self-concepts, in addition to enhancing academic achievement.  All of these lessons are learned through peer interaction.  Early poor social adjustment is shown to lead to academic struggles later on, a negative perception of the school environment, and even eventual academic failure (as cited in Schneider et al., 2012).  This opportunity to develop social skills is even more important for students with disabilities and behavioral difficulties, with positive interactions leading to marked increases in their motivation and performance (Schneider et al., 2012).  If students are participating in online learning, then, they will experience distinctly less peer interaction, potentially leading to poorer academic and social skills.

 

Despite this dire picture, however, studies also show that the academic-social interaction can be reciprocal, with high academic performance leading to more positive social skills.  Specifically, studies have shown that actively working to increase the academic performance of children early in their school careers, through interventions such as math and reading tutoring, can lead to positive social development (Schneider et al., 2012).  This suggests that the lack of peer interaction in online education may not be so detrimental after all.  In fact, if these programs focus on high achievement, social development may just simply follow along.

 

So, where does that leave us?

 

It seems that since online education, especially that aimed at younger children, is still in its infancy, no conclusions have been universally agreed upon.  In an article for Parents.com, Deborah Stipek, a Stanford University education professor, noted that the research for the consequences of online education on social-emotional skills is simply not there (O’Hanlon, 2012).  It is agreed that traditional school provides a unique setting for students to learn and interact, but what happens to the development of social skills once this mold is broken is still unknown.  Since these future implications are still unidentified, I believe it is crucial that online education programs utilize as many strategies as possible to promote effective social skill development.  This includes social skills training programs, where students can learn appropriate behaviors and methods of interacting, an emphasis on small group work to encourage effective collaboration, and free time in a synchronous virtual environment where students can help one another learn.  All of these strategies, as mentioned in Schneider et al. (2012), have been shown to help foster social skills and, in turn, academic achievement in traditional classrooms, so implementing them in online learning environments would, hopefully, result in similar benefits.

Overall, the modernization of education, especially the drastic increase in online education, provides some interesting new challenges for students.  As social skill development has been shown to be important in fostering academic achievement, discovering ways to promote the development of these skills in asynchronous environments will likely be critical to the success of online students.

 

References

Connections Academy. (2015). Growth of K-12 digital learning. Retrieved from https://www.connectionsacademy.com/Portals/4/ca/documents/pdfs/press/2015/CE_Infographic%202015_FINAL(2).pdf

 

O’Hanlon, L. H. (2012). Virtual elementary school: Should you enroll your kids? Retrieved from http://www.parents.com/kids/education/elementary-school/virtual-elementary-school/

 

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

 


27
Oct 17

Why we need leadership education in schools

The question of whether leaders are born or made has been a topic of discussion since ancient times. Even today, people refer to natural leadership abilities, but research has shown that training programs and educational experiences can contribute to the development of skills and qualities that effective leaders need.

Leadership training is typically available in business, teacher education, organizations, and higher education.  The question that needs to be addressed is would access to leadership training in middle school and high school provide students with more self-awareness and confidence?  Learning skills like goal setting, problem solving, communication skills, and interaction skills can only contribute to the development of the student so why is it not happening?

The case has been made that students involved in sports and after school clubs and activities have opportunities to develop leadership skills, but what about the rest of the students? The students not involved in extracurricular activities, for a myriad of reasons, also need to develop those skills and knowledge that will make them successful as students and in their future.

Schools provide a safe arena to practice skills and students can identify their personal strengths and acquire competencies to enhance their opportunities for success. As an inclusive environment, schools can encourage inclusion and manage outcomes.

Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts refer to one definition of leadership as a person exerting influence on others, and other theories present leadership as not simply an individual exerting influence, but also “dyadic, shared, relational, strategic, global and a complex social dynamic” (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, 2012, p. 219). Focusing on leadership development in schools would develop self-awareness, listening skills, negotiation skills, goals, and commitment.  Becoming astute with these skills creates a sound base for students in future endeavors. This venue is also the correct place for students to recognize their unique talents, whether it’s art, math, music, or emotional intelligence to figure out how people can work effectively in a group and what they can personally contribute.

Another value in providing leadership development in schools is related to Bandura’s social cognitive learning theory.  This theory recognizes the importance of modeling behavior (Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts, 2012, p. 211).  Providing positive role models as facilitators children can learn first hand an effective way to manage communications and conflict. The process allows the modeling behavior and the ability to debrief what happened and what could have happened. Experiences like this can assist them in navigating relationships within and outside of school.

            Penn State University offers a program through their Extension programs entitled: I can be a leader! Leadership fun for children.  This program is intended to do the following: “boost self esteem, improve public speaking, identify their strengths and weaknesses, develop organizational skills, and work with others” (“I Can be a Leader!,” n.d.). This example provides a starting point in developing programs that for differing age groups that could be included in the school setting.

            The world needs leaders.  Schools, communities, government, and churches all need leaders. The potential for leadership needs to be recognized, nurtured, and provided a safe place to be practiced. Schools are the right place for leadership training to begin.

 

References:

I can be a leader! Leadership fun for children. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://extension.psu.edu/programs/betterkidcare/knowledge-areas/environment-curriculum/activities/all-activities/i-can-be-a-leader-leadership-fun-for-children

 

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (Eds.). (2012). Applied social psychology (Second ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

 


26
Oct 17

Motivation in the Classroom

Motivation in the Classroom

This week’s lesson focused on the application of social psychology to education. We learned about many of the different ways the student’s personal psychology can influence their academic outcomes while also exploring the different ways the student’s academic environment can shape their psychology and, in turn, their academic performance. One concept that I found to be particularly interesting was the idea of motivation in the classroom. Our text discusses the differences between intrinsic motivations and extrinsic motivations, and how they either enhance or diminish academic success. More specifically, our text defines intrinsic motivations as those that are based on the individuals own desires and enjoyments, while extrinsic motivations are defined as those that are set by external forces and are reinforced by things like awards (Schneider et al., 2012). Our text goes on to suggest that educational environments that facilitate the development and maintenance of intrinsic motivation in students often yield greater student engagement and better academic results (Schneider et al., 2012). This is an important concept, as it has the potential to influence the way we structure our educational systems.
We are all familiar with the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and with how naturally good it can feel to engage in behaviors and acts that are intrinsically motivated. An example of this might be the feeling of elation that follows the completion of a personal project that has required significant investments of both time and energy, but that we decided to do just for the sake of doing it. This feeling contrasts the way we feel about doing something because we were told to by someone else or because someone else was rewarding our completion of the task. When people are intrinsically motivated, they are more likely to engage fully with the task at hand and are more likely to remain committed to completing the task (Dev, 1997). Furthermore, individuals who are intrinsically motivated will not rely on external rewards, but will instead work to complete tasks on their own accord Ryan & Deci, 2000). Why is this the case? An important concept that helps shed light on why intrinsic motivation can be so powerful is the self-determination theory (SDT). According to the SDT, motivation occurs along a spectrum that runs from completely intrinsic, to completely extrinsic (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Between these two polar motivational regulators are a number of overlapping levels of motivation that rely partly on intrinsic desires, and partly on extrinsic rewards. These levels include integrated regulation, identified regulation, and introjected regulation (Schneider et al., 2012). These different levels represent the extent to which the individual has matched their internal (intrinsic) motivations with external (extrinsic) rewards (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Results from numerous studies indicate that when individuals, students included, are either intrinsically motivated or have high levels of self-determined extrinsic motivation, they are more likely to succeed (Schneider et al., 2012). Researchers have even referred to intrinsic motivation as a “natural well-spring of learning and achievement that can be systematically catalyzed or undermined by parent and teacher practices” (Ryan & Deci, 2000). So, intrinsic motivation tends to lead to greater engagement with the task at hand, but how does the concept apply to education specifically, and what can teachers and parents do to create supportive environments?
Students face a number of challenges while in school, and their motivation or lack thereof to engage with school material and persist can have a significant impact on their academic outcomes (Schneider et al., 2012). At the most extreme level of the motivational continuum, you have a student who has amotivation, or in other words, a complete lack of motivation. This individual would likely have low perceived competence, and would not be able to provide any intrinsic reasons for why they are in school (Ryan & Deci, 2000).It has been shown how amotivated students tend to drop out of school at younger ages, do worse on exams, and are less persistent when faced with academic challenges (Cetin, 2015). While amotivated individuals are relatively extreme in their complete lack of motivation, a general trend exists that predicts more academic success as intrinsic motivation and self-determination increase (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992). So, it is clear that a student’s motivation can play a large role in their subsequent academic success, and that students who have higher levels of intrinsic motivation and self-determination are more likely to succeed long-term.
Given the findings discussed above, it is important for educators to consider how they may be able to create learning environments that catalyze intrinsic motivation in students. Humans are inherently curious and have deep reserves of intrinsic desires and motivations that can either be stoked or diminished (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In order to fuel intrinsic motivation, students must be made to feel competent and autonomous to some degree (Ryan, 1982). Perceived Autonomy and competence can be enhanced by teachers through lessons that encourage curiosity, exploration, and self-direction (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It has also been shown that parents can influence the development of autonomy in their children which can, in turn, increase the child’s sense of agency in the classroom (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997). Together, parents and teachers can facilitate the development of these character traits that stoke intrinsic motivation both in and outside of the classroom. These findings are exciting because they suggest that teachers can shift from a reliance on rewards to lesson plans that encourage intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic regulation. Even more exciting, is the fact that increasing intrinsic motivation in students does not require extensive changes to existing classroom settings, and would be relatively easy and inexpensive to implement (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Çetin, B. (2015). Predicting academic success from academic motivation and learning approaches in classroom teaching students. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 8(3), 171-180. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/1720066398?accountid=13158

Dev, P. C. (1997). Intrinsic motivation and academic achievement: What does their relationship imply for the classroom teacher? Remedial and Special Education, 18(1), 12-19. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/62629587?accountid=13158

Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determination perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L.

Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135–161). New York: Wiley.

Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–461.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599–620.


25
Oct 17

Self-handicapping in the Classroom

Obtaining a higher education is not an easy feat. Sometimes a student might find a certain subject or course so difficult, withdrawal from attempting to do well may seem like a better idea than trying at all. The prime example of this phenomenon can be described by the college student that is constantly partying. If a student chooses to drink alcohol and attend a party the night before their final exam, this student will be subjected to taking their exam extemporaneously the next day. This unpreparedness may lead to lower grades. This particular student boosts their self efficacy in this situation by already having the excuse of not studying enough because they were out partying before their exam. The process of performing behaviors in order to sabotage their prior tasks, thereby using the negative behaviors as an expectant alibi for failure is known as self-handicapping (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). In this example of the party animal, if this student ended up failing the exam, they have the excuse of lack of studying due to their wild night last night.

Self-handicapping is a problem within the college environment. Many people that I have known personally partook in self-handicapping behaviors right before they failed out of their universities. Some examples of beliefs self-handicapping student may abide by are as follows: “When I do something wrong, my first impulse is to blame the circumstances,” or “I sometimes enjoy being mildly ill for a day or two because it takes off the pressure” (Schneider et al, 2012). These student may have erroneous beliefs that they are not able to learn the material in college as well as everybody else. This erroneous belief is a well known cause of self-handicapping behaviors. Many studies involving self-handicapping behaviors have been conducted in the college environment, so researchers are aware this is a large issue that occurs in college students specifically.

Berglas and Jones conducted a study in 1978 testing college students on their levels of self-handicapping. The researchers conducted the college students to first solve analogies. After the students were finished solving or attempting to solve the analogies, the researchers told all of the students that they completed the puzzles well even though the puzzles were not solvable. The researchers then asked the students whether they would like to take a performance enhancing drug before the next analogy they solve, or a performance impairing drug. Men in particular chose to take the drug that would impair their skills because their self efficacy to complete the task has dropped due to the discovery that the analogies are unsolvable (Berglas & Jones, 1978). Although men are more likely to sabotage their performance prior to even trying to solve the analogy, both men and women use excuses to obviate their potential for low performance to effect their self efficacy in that specific task (Hirt, McCrea, & Kimble, 2000).

In a study conducted in the year 2000 by Beck, Koons, and Milgrim, procrastination and self handicapping behaviors were found to be positively correlated. How can we reduce self-handicapping in the educational environment? It has been proven that self-affirming actions in replacement of self sabotage has assisted in mitigating self-handicapping behaviors (Siegel, Scillitoe, & Parks-Yancy, 2005). For example, writing down a list of educational values one has and educational goals one would like to reach may remind students of the importance of studying and learning. If a self-handicapped person’s educational values are prioritized, it will be much easier for that student to see the discrepancy between their beliefs and behaviors. Hopefully, this discrepancy will result in a change in behaviors for the better of their education.

 

References:

Beck, B.L., Koons, S.R., & Milgrim, D.L. (2000) Correlates and consequences of behavioral procrastination: The effects of academic procrastination, self-consciousness, self-esteem and self-handicapping. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(5), 3-13.

Berglas, S., & Jones, E.E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405-417.

Hirt, E.R., McCrea, S.M., & Kimble, C.E. (2000). Public self-focus and sex differences in behavioral self-handicapping: Does increasing self-threat still make it “just a man’s game”? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1131-1141

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (2012) Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Siegel, P.A., Scillitoe, J., & Parks-Yancy, R. (2005). Reducing the tendency to self-handicap: The effect of self-affirmation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 589-597.


23
Oct 17

Social Media “the ultimate advertiser”

 

If you have any social media accounts such as facebook, twitter, and instagram then you are probably well aware of the power of these outlets. These social media applications provide the ability to connect with thousands if not millions of people. There are people from all different backgrounds and cultures. This provides companies and businesses with  great advertising opportunity. It is a gateway for businesses to advertise to a large portion of the population. This population varies in age, ethnicity, demographics, and around the world. The reason it has spread so quickly is because these tools are free (Lesson 9, PSU Commentary notes, 2017).

One of the many ways Facebook and twitter have been so impacting is because of its use as a news outlet. The addiction of social media leads to people depending on Facebook or Twitter for their news report. A majority of U.S. adults – 62% – get news on social media, and 18% do so often, according to a new survey by Pew Research Center (Gotfried, Shearer. 2016). I can personally log into Facebook and have information on the latest sports games, politics, or any big event that has occurred around the world because of people sharing on Facebook. There are videos, posts, news reports, and posts which influence our views on the news just like CNN and Fox each lean towards different sides of political parties.

With the addiction of social media it allows the user to be tracked. Have you ever noticed the advertisements on Facebook are always about things you are interested in. For example, if you are posting about Iwatches and interested in Apple’s latest product facebook will actually track your interest and display advertisements about Apple. Facebook sells this information to companies. The companies are well researched on the person using social media because it tracks your every move. It knows what favorite sports teams you like, your political status, if you have any kids, what you drive, and what you talk about with your online friends. This creates a powerful weapon to be able to influence your mind into purchasing whatever it is they are trying to sell you.

The tracking of your social media page has also transpired onto other websites such as amazon, google, and bing. With the high use of smartphones with built-in microphones google has the ability to use the microphones to advertise products to you. It sounds crazy,but if you are talking about a product for a week. Let’s say it is one of those new finger spinners that are becoming increasingly popular. It gathers your age, gender, what websites you visit, the content of your gmail account to then advertise certain products to you.You will start noticing that advertisements on google will be for those spinners because it tracks what your interest are to be able to advertise specifically for you.

With the expansion of tools on social media such as checking into places it provides advertisement for many businesses. We are able to check into a location anytime we visit it in person on social media. This allows us to be tracked and give social media more information on how to advertise to us. It provides information on what content to advertise as well. This is one of the ways that Facebook makes money by providing advertisement slots that display on the users page while they are scrolling.

 

Facebook. (2011). Statistics. Retrieved online at: http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

NATO. (2011). Social media: power to the people? Retrieved online at: http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2011/Social_Medias/Social_media_can_do/EN/index.htm

Pew Research Center. (2016). News use across social media platforms 2016. Retrieved online at: http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (2012) Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.


22
Oct 17

Negative Influences everywhere

Considering 95% of households in 1971 had televisions in the US and Canada, imagine the percentage currently in 2017. (Schneider, Gruman, Cotts, 2012.) Everywhere we look we are surrounded by some form of media. Throughout history media has enhanced and expanded its capabilities drawing in newer generation each year with devices such as radios, phone, TV’s,  VCR/DVD and cell phones to name a few.   Media consumes extensive amount of hours within the day and the number continues to grow. Think about it, as I sit here writing this blog I can watch television, listen to the radio and possible hold a conversation on the phone at the same time. Imagine all the other devices I could use if I wasn’t typing! There are endless possibilities but with all of the extensive amounts of media outlets and electronics there are drawback.  In my opinion, the world is over exposed to violence, sex and the influences of mass media

Let’s start by reviewing violence. Society is overexposed to violence on television. Sadly, it’s not simply limited to the shows televised on premium channels such as HBO, “astonishing 85% of shows contain violence” and is increasing yearly. (Schneider, Gruman, Cotts, 2012.) In other words, there is only 15% of shows with no violence. What’s baffling is that it doesn’t stop with the adult shows; it extends over to the children shows with “approximately two thirds” of the shows forecasting some form of violent act? (Schneider, Gruman, Cotts, 2012.) As a result, experiments and studies have been designed to determine the effects of watching aggressive television and negative effects associated by viewing it. Namely, exposure to violent television shows heightened violent behavior and stimulate aggressive acts. (Schneider, Gruman, Cotts, 2012.)   Take the Notel study as an example, at first, the children didn’t have television. Once they were exposed to violent shows on TV, aggressive behaviors shortly followed. Since children cognitive thought process has not fully developed in their young years, they are more susceptible to being influenced.  Children tend to imitate what is seen; such as, the experiment with the bobo doll. The kids watched a movie of someone attacking the doll. As a result, they mimicked the same action displayed on the tape months later. Unknowingly to them, they were being primed to display violent acts of aggression. Priming is how one responds to a stimulus. (Schneider, Gruman, Cotts, 2012.) For this reason, alone it is imperative to monitor shows being watched my children. Not only can it prime there thought process but it will alter their view of the world by way of cultivation theory.  To enumerate, cultivation theory suggests that individuals who are exposed to media violence will start to view the world as unsafe.  (Schneider, Gruman, Cotts, 2012.)  Rightfully so, the media has a way of altering one perceptions and views if they are constantly exposed to a specific trigger.

Then there is pornography, just about everywhere a person turns it is there. An individual can find it on television, DVDS, and magazine with provocative images used to entice the viewer/reader. It’s no wonder the world is over sexed and enhancing sexist views towards women! It doesn’t stop with one type of porn; there are all types from erotica to nonviolent porn to violent porn. With attention too, I believe there are other types of porn that aren’t discussed in our text. Interestingly enough, the attorney General Commission on Pornography suggested that watching significant amount of nonviolent porn “increases sexual violence and coercion, ” with that being said, imagine the amount of damaged caused by violent pornography. Then, consider how this contributes to negative attitudes towards women. Or perhaps, it starts with Erotica porn and your palette for porn grows and now the individual is searching for the next type of porn; it’s like opening Pandora box.  Pornography has a way of influences one thoughts and perceptions and can make it hard to distinguish between what is reality. Media has a similar effect on altering ones thoughts. Schneider, Gruman, Cotts, 2012, believes the media “influences what people think about” by way of agenda setting. (Schneider, Gruman, Cotts, PG 157) The exposure causes the individual to think about what is being shown on television. There are three types of agenda: public agenda- significant concerns of the community, policy agenda- concerns of political parties and media agenda- concerns media discussed broadly. (Schneider, Gruman, Cotts, 2012) Each agenda has an objective that impacts the party exposed to it. Lastly,  the media tends to sway people based off of their available heuristic and what they are readily able to remember based off of what is more salient.  With this in mind, it depends on the method in which the media frames the message.

In sum, society is bombarded with violence, sex and influential media outlets. Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there, now it has trickled over to video games. As an illustration, grand theft auto, which happens to be a video game, is filled with sexual content and violence. Everywhere you turn sexuality and violence is prevalent. Topics that use to be taboo to mention is being streamed everywhere. Turn on the radio in the car and the songs might actually make one blush or feel embarrassed. In fact, I find myself turning off the radio. Similarly, I personally do not watch the news because it depressing; in my opinion, it’s filled with violence, sadness and hatred.  As a parent, it’s scary to think of the amount of noise pollution our children are exposed too. An individual can only shield them but so much before there little eyes and ears catch wind of all of the negative messages and images currently found in media.

 

References

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. ISBN 978-1412976381


22
Oct 17

The Conspiracy Theories Malicious Intent

The ability of social media to influence how people think about a person or event has been well documented. The 24/7 availability of news shows on television and the addition of a wide-open array of news, with any particular bend you prefer, available online, people can be oversaturated with facts, opinions, interpretations, and all-out falsehoods. It is this diversity of viewpoints that allow readers to develop a loyalty to a singular site, or commentators.  Basically, there is something for everyone.

One aspect of the impact of media is the question of its ability to encourage distrust in government.  According to Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts “research suggests that reading newspapers and watching TV News programs (e.g., 60 Minutes) increased peoples understanding of the political system. However, other types of TV programming, such as entertainment talk shows actually decreased people’s understanding of the government” (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012, p. 160).  They go on to say that those who listen to talk radio distrust the government more.  Taking those two examples and incorporating social media into the mix adds a number of new players to the game. For people that question and doubt science, medicine, media, and the government it is not hard to see how conspiracy theories are something that they propose and embrace.

With the vast amount of information available online it should not be surprising that conspiracy theorists have found a home on the Internet. From the Journal of Political Philosophy, Sunstein and Vermeule offer this definition of conspiracy theory as “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who attempt to conceal their role (at least until their aims are accomplished)” (Sunstein & Verneule, p. 205). Events such a 9/11, Sandy Hook, and the current Las Vegas incident have all become fodder for conspiracy theorists to float ideas of who is really responsible and what the government is hiding. Another aspect of the impact of conspiracy theories becoming normalized are those members of radio, TV, and the Internet who concentrate their efforts toward those who embrace this point of view but who also admit they are only actors looking to garner ratings.

Applying the theories used to explain negative coverage of the government, conspiracy theorists rest the entire story on ‘framing.’ Framing is used to present the event from a viewpoint that supports the underlying story the reporter/author wants told.  In Sandy Hook, the approach was that the families were all actors and it was intended to get Obama reelected (ignoring the fact that he was already elected).  The Las Vegas shootings conspiracies include a missing security guard and Antifa. Conspiracy theorists use “what is termed a strategy frame. A strategy frame focuses on the motivations behind the different positions that politicians are taking” (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, p. 160). This strategy encourages a general mistrust of government, police and even the mainstream media.

Conspiracy theories gain traction based on the availability heuristic. “The availability heuristic suggests that people make judgments based on how easy it is to recall instances of something from memory” (Schneider, Gorman, & Coutts, p. 158). In addition “a central feature of conspiracy theories is that they are extremely resistant to correction, certainly through direct denials or counter-speech by government officials; apparently contrary evidence can usually be shown to be a product of the conspiracy itself” (Sunstein & Verneule, p.210).

Technology has contributed to education, communications, and the sharing of a wealth of information. But the dark side is when it is used to exploit the vulnerable, mislead and misrepresent facts and events, and to create an opportunity for undermining core values. The use of conspiracy theories can undermine confidence in the institutions and government that we are reliant on.  The question is how to respond.  Is it best to ignore these things or refute them with factual information?  Sunstein and Vermeule propose that: “Some false conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If the government can dispel such theories, it should do so. We have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy-minded groups and informationally isolated social networks. This is just another opportunity for social psychologists to develop an approach to dispel or manage the impact of conspiracy theories.

 

 

 

References

 

            Media/Communications Technology [Lecture notes]. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/fa17/21781–15384/content/10_lesson/printlesson.html

 

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (Eds.). (2012). Applied social psychology (Second ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

 

Sunstein, C., & Vermeule, A. (2009). Symposium on conspiracy theories: Causes and cures. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(2), 202-227. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00325.x/abstract

 

 


22
Oct 17

Social Media Use in Government

Historically, politicians have usually aimed to stay out of the public spotlight, and for a long time were able to do so because of the limited communications technology available. But, as we know, this dynamic has completely changed. With the advent of the mass media, the internet, and social media came an increased interest on the part of politicians to use media to speak to the public. An early example of this were President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s fireside chats. During these 28 chats that take place between 1933 and 1944, the President would address the entire nation, and anyone with a radio was able to listen in. This was a significant development in the ability of politicians to communicate with their constituents. However, because radio technology was so new, it was rather expensive and it was difficult to produce quality broadcasts. For these reasons, the President was really the only politician in the United States capable of taking advantage of the new technology. In total, Roosevelt made 28 broadcasts that lasted anywhere from 10-50 minutes in length, over an eleven-year period. When we compare Roosevelt’s fireside chats to the now incessant tweets, Facebook posts, Instagram uploads, and even snapchat stories produced daily by politicians at all different levels of government, it is only natural to wonder how this tremendous shift in communications technology used by politicians has affected our political system and our society.
Throughout lesson 9, we learned about the potential effects of media on our thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs. For example, we learned about agenda setting which occurs when media outlets chose to cover particular stories while omitting others, thereby setting the public’s agenda (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts 2012). While agenda setting by media outlets is an important topic, I will focus here on the potential effects, both positive and negative, of social media usage aimed specifically at communicating a political message to the public by government officials. I believe this to be an important topic because, in many regards, any individual, politicians included, with a popular social media account has essentially become their own media outlet. Like large media outlets, these individuals chose what to post, and they decide how they want to frame the information they are presenting.
A survey between 2010 and 2014 by the Pew research center found that between the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections there was a 10% increase in the number of registered voters following political figures, organizations, and/or candidates (Anderson 2015). Also, the researchers at Pew found that when registered voters were asked why they were following political figures, 41% said “Finding out about political news before other people do” was a major reason, 35% said “feeling more connected to political candidates or groups” was a major reason, and 26% said “getting more reliable information than what is available from traditional news organizations” was a major reason (Anderson 2015). It is critical to note that these were supplied responses that those surveyed had to rank as either a major reason, minor reason, or not a reason. Keeping the limitations of these results in mind, it is still interesting to consider that 41% and 26% of surveyed voters respectively felt that either getting the news as quickly as possible was beneficial or that individual politicians provided more reliable news than organized news agencies.
Keeping the results of the Pew survey in mind, I will now discuss a recent article that addressed the impact of regulatory policies aimed at government social media use. Bertot et al. begin by discussing the potential benefits of government social media use. They list three fundamental upsides to government organizations and figures use of social media which are, democratic participation and engagement, Co-production, and Crowdsourcing (Bertot at al. 2012). These are all important and valid points. Social media indeed has the potential to increase democratic participation given how easy it is for voters to follow along and participate in politics. Co-production would also be beneficial, as government and citizens could co-produce solutions to problems. And crowdsourcing also has the potential to be a positive sociopolitical force. However, government use of social media also presents a number of potential problems. The main issues identified in this article were privacy, security, accuracy, and archiving (Bertot at al. 2012). These four potential problem areas are important to acknowledge, and a failure to recognize their importance could have resulted in bad outcomes for our political system and our society. To close their article, the authors provide a long list of questions they believe need to be addressed by regulators. This list highlights the fact that technological innovation has greatly outpaced our regulatory abilities.
Overall, it seems as though politicians and voting citizens alike are using social media respectively to broadcast and consume political news without considering the potential drawbacks. This is concerning, given how widespread social media use has become and how challenging it is to decipher the validity of the many political options and ideas we currently encounter on social media.

References

Anderson, Monica. “More Americans are using social media to connect with politicians.” Pew Research Center, 19 May 2015, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/19/more-americans-are-using-social-media-to-connect-with-politicians/.

Bertot, John Carlo, et al. “The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations.” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1, 2012, pp. 30–40., doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.004.

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


22
Oct 17

Facebook, dangerous place?

Do you have Facebook? Probably I guess. In my case, I do not have a Facebook account. What is even more interesting is that I have never had Facebook. I mean, it is not that surprising for me, but people tell me so. I know many people close their Facebook account for a certain reason, and people think that is my case. It has been an interesting journey to stay off this social media platform. The question is why?

As a teen, I struggled to fit in at school. I spent most of my years from middle school through high school alone. It felt like everybody else was at a different level than I was. I think this distant from the world around me kept me from getting involved with social media which was Myspace during middle school and then Facebook during high school. I later defined my identity and did not like to do things under pressure or do things because everybody else was doing it. Facebook was something that everybody was doing and whoever did not was a strange person. I learned to embrace my uniqueness and stayed away from Facebook. As an adult, my choice has been the same. It just never convinced me and I felt good to not go in the same direction as everybody else. I do know the positive side of social media and Facebook but the negative was simply heavier for me. I believe social media could be very damaging, especially during adolescence and should be managed carefully.

According to Manago, Graham, Greenfield, & Salimkhan, even after adolescence, a period of time called emerging adulthood, is still a critical period for identity development (2008). They mention that, as noted by Erikson, adolescents create a sense of self by interacting with peers, as do emerging adults (Manago, 2008). Social media nowadays plays a big role in peer relations, therefore influencing identity development. In fact, Manago and colleagues conducted a study regarding the relation between Myspace and identity, and they found that the social media platform influence personal, social and gender identity (2008). Identity was influenced by the freedom to experiment through social media, false representation, and pressure from social groups; while gender identity was influenced due to role stereotypes especially women who are pressured to sexualize their image (Manago et al., 2008).

So, what about Facebook? Well, it is still popular today! According to Zephoria Digital Marketing, as of June 2017, Facebook has over 2.01 billion active users (Top 20 Facebook Statistics). That is a lot of people. United States population is around 326.1 million people and the world population is around 7. 4 billion people (U.S. Census Bureau). Facebook is all over the world. Assunção, Costa, Tagliabue, & Matos conducted a study to investigate problematic Facebook use among adolescents. They state that Facebook is the most used social media platform in the world and adolescents are increasingly using it as a form of communication and interaction (2017). This study showed that a secure relationship between parents and adolescents result in better relations of adolescents with peers and in turn, less problematic use of Facebook (Assunção et al., 2017). They link these results to the attachment theory, which predicts that a secure parent-child bond results in a trusting person able to form positive relations with others. Assunção et al., explain that face-to-face interaction helps develop interpersonal skills and peer integration reduces problematic use of Facebook (2017).

Another study that relates to this discussion is one conducted by Pentina and Zhang. They conducted a survey among young adults and adults about emotional disclosure on Facebook. The results showed that personality traits, specifically extroversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness; in addition to support from friends are significantly related to disclosure of positive emotions on Facebook (2017).

In conclusion, Facebook seems to be an extension of the real world. It could go either way, positive or negative. The social media platform allows for experiences that influence the development of identity. It is also an extension of the real world with further space for expression, and it could involve new complexities than the ones experienced face-to-face. My choice is to not get involved in Facebook. I understand now it probably was the best idea to stay way during my adolescence. That is a personal choice, and I think one should just try to keep that space safe and positive.

 

References

Top 20 Facebook Statistics – Updated October 2017. (2017, October 19). Retrieved October 22, 2017, from https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics/

Manago, Graham, Greenfield, & Salimkhan (2008). Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology: Self-Presentation and gender on Myspace. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1867078/external_tools/190303

U.S. and World Population Clock. (n.d.). Retrieved October 22, 2017, from https://www.census.gov/popclock/

Assunção, R. S., Costa, P., Tagliabue, S., & Matos, P. M. (2017). Problematic Facebook Use in Adolescents: Associations with Parental Attachment and Alienation to Peers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(11), 2990-2998. doi:10.1007/s10826-017-0817-2

Pentina, I., & Zhang, L. (2017). Effects of Social Support and Personality on Emotional Disclosure on Facebook and in Real Life. Journal of Behavior & Information Technology, 36(5), 484-492. doi: 10.1037/t07016-000


18
Oct 17

Violence in the Media

In today’s world, more than 60% of TV shows contain some violence and 40% of these programs are considered heavily violent (Swanbrow, 2007). Violence on TV does not always equate to violent messages. Despite this, a study conducted by Smith et. al (1998) found TV shows today are 15 times more likely to promote pro-violent messages or equivocate violent messages, than to promote themes against violence. Why is violent in the media important? Research has been conducted resulting in findings that there is a correlation between the viewing of violent television programs and violent behavior (Potter, 2003). Unfortunately, children are the most susceptible to this known correlation of violent television and violent behaviors (Wilson et al., 2002). Frightening enough, two thirds of television shows and video games directed towards children contain violent media (Bushman & Anderson, 2001).

A plethora of studies have proven the correlation between media violence and violent behaviors. In the Potter (2003) study mentioned above, over 30 different scenarios were analyzed depicting the viewing behaviors of violent television. This study found the effects of watching violent television include aggressive behaviors (both short term and long term), desensitization to violent behaviors, acceptance of violence in daily life, and increased imitation of the violent behaviors presented. The desensitization and acceptance of violence in our society is dangerous in a number of ways. If people are desensitized to violence, that means people are less likely to feel empathetic towards hurting other beings. The acceptance of violence opens windows up to opportunities of thinking violent behaviors are okay to perform, and there will be no consequences. If an increased amount of people share these beliefs, we will be doomed to a world of chaos.

A quasi experiment conducted by Joy, Kimball, & Zabrack (1986) presented three different societies. One society had no television, one society had one television station, and one had multiple television stations. All three societies had similar levels of violence before television was brought to the society that was not exposed to TV programming at all. Two years after this society was exposed to TV programming, both physical and verbal aggression dramatically increased in children in this society only (Joy, Kimball, & Zabrack, 1986). As we mentioned earlier, children are more prone to the negative effects of violent television as compared to adults.

How do we prevent violence from affecting the children in our society? A study conducted by Nathanson and Cantor (2000) presented girls and boys separated into two groups. These two groups watched a cartoon that contained violent behaviors. One group of boys and girls did not watch the cartoon, one group only watched the cartoon, and one group watched the cartoon and thought about how the victim of the cartoon violence felt. The group instructed to analyze the cartoon was asked to do so in order to elicit feelings of empathy. The feelings of empathy were supposed to lessen the effects of desensitization of violent behaviors. The results of the study found boys who were asked to express empathy were less likely to elicit aggressive behaviors, compared to the boys who simply watched the cartoon without an intervention (Nathanson & Cantor, 2000). The result of this study can be generalized across the whole population. Parents, guardians, teachers, and authority figures to children can prevent the negative effects of violent media on children by promoting empathetic thought processes after a child witnesses a violent act on television. Violence is prevalent in the world today. It would not be a logical solution to just cut children off from technology in its entirety. Teaching children empathetic values and the consequences of violence can help preempt the imitation they may enact in the future.

References:

Bushman, B.J., & Anderson, C.A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56, 477-489

Joy, L.A., Kimball, M.M., & Zabrack, M.L. (1986). Television and children’s aggressive behavior. In T.M. Williams (Ed.), The impact of television: A natural experiment in three communities (pp. 303-360). New York: Academic Press.

Nathanson, A.I., & Cantor, J. (2000). Reducing the agressive-promoting effect of violent cartoons by increasing children’s fictional involvement with the victim: A study of active mediation. Journal of broadcasting and & Electronic media, 44, 125-142

Potter, W.J. (2003). The 11 myths of media violence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smith, S.L., Wilson, B.J., Kunkel, D., Linz, D., Potter, W.J., Colvin, C.M., et al. (1998).   Violence in television programming overall: University of California, Santa Barbara study. In National television violence study (Vol. 3, pp. 5-194). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Swanbrow, D. (2007, November 27). Violent TV, games pack a powerful public health threat. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/ 6203-violent-tv-games-pack-a-powerful-public-health-threat


16
Oct 17

Situational Determinants of Criminal Behavior

Is there such a thing like wrong place, wrong time? Or maybe an accumulation of events that lead people to behave in bad ways. Situational determinants are factors that influence criminal behavior. As I read about this concept, I thought about how sometimes good people do bad things. Are people entirely bad or entirely good? Could there still be good in the bad? One thing that Schneider, Grumman & Coutts clarify is that understanding situational determinants does mean removing responsibility for the acts (2012, p. 248).

When I read about situational determinants, I quickly linked the topic to a TV show I’m currently watching called Ozark. Although I am aware that the story depicted in this show is not real, it still got me thinking. In summary, the story presents a family in big trouble. Marty, dad and financial planner, involved in money laundering for years, nearly was murdered by the cartel’s boss after he found out that Marty’s partners have been stealing money from him for years. Everybody was killed but Marty convinced the drug lord to let him and his family live with the condition that he would keep laundering money for him a new place full of opportunity for the business. The boss was convinced and gave him a timeframe to clean 8 million dollars. Then is about surviving and struggling to fulfill his promise and accomplish the goal. I have not finished the show, so I am still watching as he and his family struggles in this new place. He faces a reality that is not what he told the boss, gets in trouble with a local drug farmer, is followed by the FBI and is constantly threatened.

So why did I think about this show when reading about situational determinants. A little more halfway through the show, one episode is entirely dedicated to present the before of the story. This guy and his family were normal people and you confirm he was a decent guy. He is presented with an opportunity which he repeatedly declines but situational determinants influence his decision until he and his wife accept the job opportunity. They needed money, the wife could not find a job and they justified their decision with very wrong expectations. As soon as he accepted the job, the boss killed the previous person who was laundering money for him in front of Marty. In that moment, he probably knew he was now stuck with a very bad person. Fast-forward 10 or 15 years, he is doing the unimaginable to keep his family alive; something the was sure would never happen.

Situational determinants of criminal behavior are not justification of actions. Rather, they provide an insight into what factors influence a person to commit a crime. Schneider et al., explain two factors; proximal variables and distal variables. Proximal variables are those that occur close in time to the actions of the person while distal variables are those that occurred long before the actions of the person (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 248).

I thought, this could totally happen in real life but I do not know any stories that I could tell. Then I remembered a movie I watched a few years ago called Bernie, based on a true story. The movie basically presents the picture of Bernie who is very popular in the community. Everybody knows him, it seems like everybody likes him, he is just a great guy. He is versatile, he can do anything; always involved with the community. A rich, elderly woman of the community becomes a widow and Bernie soon becomes friends with her. Soon they are spending a lot of time together and traveling the world. Bernie gets very involved in the lady’s life, even in her financial affairs. After years, the relationship is difficult and the lady is very demanding. Bernie seems to become tired of her behavior and trapped in the situation. Then, one day, he killed her.

In relation to situational determinants of criminal behavior and in accordance to the story presented in the movie, the lady’s behavior which was abusive and possessive led Bernie to detonate and end her life. This of course is not excuse or justification for his actions in any way. It is interesting however, the support he received 20 years ago. Most people in the community supported Bernie and stated that this lady was indeed very difficult.  He was sentenced in 1999 to life in prison and supporters at the courthouse yelled “We love you, Bernie” (Hollandsworth, 2016). This is such a complex story. Was he really influenced by her behavior? Could he still be considered a good person who did a horrible thing? The victim’s family, naturally, do not think this way and do not care for situational factors. There is the movie version, there is Bernie’s version and there is the family’s version. The fact is that Bernie will spend his life in prison because no matter what factors determined his actions, he is responsible and did committed murder.

People are influenced by different factors, personal and situational factors that impact one’s actions at a certain moment in life. Some factors could be closely related to the present and some others could belong to the past, but they influence a person’s behavior. It is not about justification but about understanding the crime.

 

References

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (Eds.). (2012). Applied social psychology (Second ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

HOLLANDSWORTH, Skip. “Bernie in Hell.” Texas Monthly, 31 May 2016, www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/what-to-make-of-bernie-tiede-now/.


14
Oct 17

Why the Pennsylvania Innocence project is important

Lesson 8 blog

 

Why the Pennsylvania Innocence project is important

 

When the founding fathers wrote the sixth amendment promising that in all criminal prosecutions, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…” they were in no way able to foresee a future where news and information is available everywhere on a 24/7 basis (U. S. Constitution, n.d.). News, opinions, biases, rumors, innuendo, fake news, and conspiracy theories have found a way to infiltrate and sometimes undermine the true intent of this amendment.

 

The issue of bias having the ability to impact the criminal justice system is evident in jury participants, collection of evidence, interrogations, eyewitness reports, and lineups (Lesson 8, The Legal System, n.d.). The theory of perceptual bias – “errors that distort the perception process – that in turn lead to faulty judgments”(Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2012, p.220) contributes to problems with the process at all levels. Whether the tendency is to view behaviors through a lens of halo effect (overall impression), or first impressions error, or in the case of self-fulfilling prophecy when prior expectations lead to expected results, there are many ways that biases impede the search for justice (Schneider et al., p. 221-223. According to Schneider, Gruman and Coutts “social psychological research, guided by social psychological theory, has played a significant role in identifying possible sources of bias and error that occurs during police investigations” (Schneider et al., 2012).

 

The effect of bias in the criminal justice system has in some cases resulted in an unfair conviction. The mission statement of The Pennsylvania Innocence Project is “to exonerate those convicted of crimes they did not commit and to prevent innocent people from being convicted” (Pennsylvania Innocence, n.d.). Started in 2008, with assistance from law students at Villanova and Temple University worked with Davis Richman and David Rudovsky to identify cases of the convicted innocent and work to have those cases reviewed and to improve the criminal justice system. In 2016 five additional law schools have joined the project, including Duquesne, Pitt, Penn, Drexel, and Rutgers (Pennsylvania Innocence, n.d.).

 

In 2012 the Act4Innocence Campaign was initiated “to support the implementation of practices that will better protect the innocent such as revitalized eyewitness identification procedures, required recording of police interrogations of suspects, and increased oversight of government jailhouse informants” (Pennsylvania Innocence, n.d.).

The project reports that DNA testing has provided undeniable evidence that exonerates those convicted of a crime that was based on eyewitness testimony. In a blog post by Jake Kind, law student, he states: “In a judicial case, lawyers present a depiction of reality through storytelling apparatuses, such as pieces of evidence, witnesses, and experts in certain fields. In turn, the judge or each jury member amasses a personal collection of information that he/she then uses to form a decision.  Every judge and juror has an individual bias and viewpoint. That is how we practice law.  In turn, bias pervades even the sanctity of the courtroom” (Kind, n.d.).

Accepting that bias exists and developing strategies to address the impact of this bias has been part of the Innocence Project and now it needs to be proactively addressed by applied social psychologists, law enforcement, and the legal system.  It is time that we work to support the intent of the sixth amendment and turn down the noise of bias that has hijacked the system.

References

 

Kind, J. (n.d.). The partiality for bias: why understanding bias is integral to discussing innocence. Retrieved from http://innocenceprojectpa.org/partiality-bias-understanding-bias-integral-discussing-innocence-guest-post-jake-kind/

 

Lesson 8: the legal system/criminal justice [Lecture notes]. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/fa17/21781–15384/content/09_lesson/printlesson.html

 

Pennsylvania innocence project. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://innocenceprojectpa.org/

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (Eds.). (2012). Applied social psychology (Second ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

 

U.S. Constitution. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

 

 


12
Oct 17

Eyewitness Misidentification

This week’s lesson focuses on the criminal justice system and the many applications applied social psychology theory has influenced in this field. The textbook discussed the case of Jennifer Thompson, who was sexually assaulted, and then falsely identified Ronald Cotton of this crime. Ronald Cotton spent 11 years in prison for a crime he was falsely accused of performing, even though he admittedly denied the accusations. During Cotton’s incarnation another inmate, Bobby Poole, bragged about his involvement in this sexual assault, which he later denied in court. It was through the diligence of the Innocence Project that led to further DNA testing and the exoneration of Ronald Cotton (as cited in Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). As horrible as this scenario played out for both Jennifer Thompson and Ronald Cotton, it has been revealed over the past decades that many individuals have been accused and sentenced to prison for crimes they may not have committed based on false eyewitness identification.

I watched a video of Jennifer Thompson tell the story of her sexual assault and in the video, she describes her conscientious effort to be able to identify the assailant of her attack (PopTech 2011). She purposely tried to find identifying markers of the perpetrators clothing, skin, height, and arm length. Thompson tried to “etch” anything that would enable her to identify her assailant, should she survive this attack (PopTech, 2011). However, as adamant as Thompson was in her accuracy of identifying Ronald Cotton as her attacker, she was wrong. Two factors that may have contributed to Thompson’s eyewitness misidentification, include priming and the cross-race effect (Hastay, 2009; Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).

The Innocence Project claims that eyewitness misidentification has been the leading cause of wrongful convictions in 75% of the 250 exonerated US prisoners (as cited in Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). Hastay (2009) suggested that Jennifer Thompson may have been primed by police detectives to select Ronald Cotton as the attacker when she helped a sketch artist develop a composite of her attacker. Visual priming suggests Thompson’s exposure to the sketch of her attacker may have influenced a later response when she was exposed to a police lineup which contained Ronald Cotton who represented the sketch. Furthermore, once Thompson identified Cotton as her attacker the police provided verbal priming indicating they thought he was the perpetrator. These two priming incidents further validated Thompson’s affirmation that Cotton was her attacker.

The cross-race effect suggests that individuals are better at recognizing and identifying faces of those in their own race than those of differing races (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). Thompson is a white female who was sexually assaulted by a black male, Bobby Poole. Dodson and Dobolyi (2015) studied the cross-race effect in conjunction with decision time and accuracy and the results suggest when identifying cross-race faces participants are “overconfident when selecting a cross-race face from a line-up which worsens the relationship between their confidence and the accuracy of an identifications for cross-race than same face faces” (Dodson & Dobolyi, 2015). The detective involved in the Thompson case stated that once she narrowed the pictures of her possible alleged attackers down to two, she spent several minutes staring at them. The detective thought this length of time was more indicative of an accurate identification. However, research has found that “faster decisions are typically more accurate for positive identification from line-ups than slower identifications” (Dodson & Dobolyi, 2015). The cross-race effect is very robust and certainly this phenomenon may have played a role in the Thompson case (Bornstein, et al… 2013).

Although, Jennifer Thompson stated she consciously tried to “etch every detail of her attacker in her mind,” she still identified the wrong individual. Unfortunately, Ronald Cotton was an innocent man who spent over a decade in prison for a crime he did not commit, based on false identification. As we know memory is faulty, especially when stressed (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). Thompson’s case certainly has illustrated the inaccuracies of eyewitness accounts when it relates to priming and the cross-race effect. However, many cases of sexual assault now have DNA technology that will more accurately and quickly identify the alleged attacker’s innocence or guilt.

Bornstein, B.H., Laub, C.E., Meissner, C.A., Susa, K.J. (2013). The Cross-Race Effect: Resistant to Instructions. Journal of Criminology. Doi 10.1155/2013/745836 Retrieved from https://www.hindawi.com/archive/2013/745836/cta/

Dodson, C.S. and Dobolyi, D.G. (2015). Confidence and Eyewitness Identifications: The Cross-Race Effect, Decision, Time and Accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 30. 113-125. Retrieved from http://sk8es4mc2l.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Confidence+and+Eyewitness+Identifications%3A+The+Cross-Race+Effect%2C+Decision+Time+and+Accuracy&rft.jtitle=Applied+Cognitive+Psychology&rft.au=Dodson%2C+Chad+S&rft.au=Dobolyi%2C+David+G&rft.date=2016-01-01&rft.issn=0888-4080&rft.eissn=1099-0720&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=113&rft.epage=125&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Facp.3178&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_1002_acp_3178&paramdict=en-US

Hastay, L. (2009) How do eyewitnesses make mistakes? Pickingcottonbook.com Retrieved from http://www.pickingcottonbook.com/eyewitness.html

PopTech (2011). Thompson & Cotton Forgive. Youtube.com Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7MrfJ7X_c&app=desktop

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., and Coutts, L. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. (2ed). Washington D.C., Sage Publications.

 

 


11
Oct 17

Wrongful Interrogation

Amanda Knox was your average, 20 year old college student studying abroad in Italy. Amanda was experiencing the picturesque study abroad experience. She went to class, visited local coffee shops, went shopping in Italian boutiques, she even started a relationship with a young man by the name of Raffaele Sollecito. This amazing experience was eradicated when Meredith Kercher, a young woman Amanda lived with in Italy, was found raped and brutally murdered in their house. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were wrongfully the top suspects of the crime (Blackhurst & McGinn, 2016). A vital line Knox mentioned when describing her case was as follows, “I think people love monsters, and so when they get the chance, they want to see them.” Amanda Knox was subjected to 5 fulls days of questioning and interrogation. The Italian police department had self fulfilled prophecies and fell faulty to the fundamental attribution error when interrogating the innocent suspect. Amanda told the Italian police she committed the crime because she was coerced by the police. Physical abuse, lies and illusory scenarios were used to confuse Amanda Knox during her interrogation into confessing to the murder of Meredith Kercher. Noted, at the beginning of the investigation Knox avers, “All I know is that I didn’t kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of” (Injustice, n.d.). So how did an innocent girl get sentenced to a 26 year sentence of a crime she did not commit?

Self fulfilling prophecy is the psychological theory that occurs when people’s expectations influence certain behaviors and results in the person seeing their expectations come true (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). In the Amanda Knox case, a specific Italian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini is still convinced to this day Amanda Knox was involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Mignini immediately accused Amanda of the murder when looking at the crime scene, even though there was insufficient evidence. He had a theory he believed was the truth, and Mignini did everything in his power to see it through. There was clear evidence that suspect, Rudy Guede was clearly at the crime scene and insufficient evidence Knox was there. Mignini took the evidence and said Rudy, Amanda, and Raffaele were all involved in the murder. Mignini had every intention of convicting Amanda Knox for the murder (Blackhurst & McGinn, 2016).

The fundamental attribution error also played a role in the obdurate theory Mignini and the Italian police department had of Amanda Knox. The fundamental attribution error happens when people focus on stable, internal characteristics as opposed to external environmental factors of a situation. Throughout the Amanda Knox case, there was a lack of sufficient evidence pointing Amanda to the crime. Mignini kept pointing out his perception of irregular personality traits of Amanda Knox that are common in serial killers. He implied Amanda acted unremorseful when she heard about the death of her housemate. Mignini was trying to pin the murder on Amanda based off stable personality traits she thought she had, rather than focusing on the crime scene, evidence, testimonies, or facts that were involved in the case (Blackhurst & McGinn, 2016).

Amanda Knox was acquitted due to erroneous and insufficient evidence at the crime scene. This was after four years spent in prison for being wrongfully accused of committing murder. Rudy Guede was rightfully sent to prison for the murder of Meredith Kercher (Blackhurst & McGinn, 2016). The Amanda Knox case could have been prevented in its entirety if moral interrogations were conducted. Cognitive interviews could have been used to interrogate Amanda instead of physical abuse and illusory scenarios. Cognitive interviews use open ended questions and pauses to make the suspect feel more comfortable expressing what they know about the case at hand. This allows suspects to elaborate on topics more, resulting in extra information the interviewer may not have known prior (Fisher & Geiselman,1992). A video recording with proof of the environment Amanda Knox was subjected to during the interrogations could have been helpful in the case against Amanda. Since only audio tapes were recorded during the interrogation, it was not easy to understand how and why Amanda Knox stated she committed the murder of Meredith. Maybe if there was a video recording representing the interrogation accurately, the jury would have seen Amanda was coerced into saying she committed the crime. Albeit visual proof, the jury will solely base their decisions on Amanda’s words and not the environment (Yarwood, n.d.). Hopefully, interventions such as cognitive interviews and video recordings of interrogations will preempt others from being wrongfully committed for crime.

References:

Blackhurst, R., & McGinn, B. (Directors). (2016). Amanda Knox [Motion picture]. Netflix.

Fisher, R.P., & Geiselman, R.E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques in investigative interviewing: The     cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

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

The illegal interrogation of Amanda Knox. (n.d.). Retrieved October 11, 2017, from http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheInterrogation.html

Yarwood, M. (n.d.). Interrogations and investigations [Lecture transcript]. Retrieved October 11, 2017, from Canvas website: https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1867078/modules/items/22915566


11
Oct 17

How Valuable are Eyewitness Accounts?

Recently, a New York Councilman introduced legislation that would require New York City Police officers to receive parental or guardian consent before their child stands in for a police lineup (Gannon, 2017). While this legislation is meant to protect the children serving as fillers in lineups, it adds further questions regarding the legitimacy of police lineups. According to Pennsylvania State University (2017), police lineups often can create an unfair situation for uncharged suspects. Police lineups provide victims with a very limited amount of information, and a small sample size of potential suspects. Pennsylvania State University (2017), notes that victims who are exposed to police lineups are not judging the suspects based off of their personal account, rather, they make their decision based on the suspects who stand in the lineup.

According to Schneider et al. (2012), there is a strong need to develop a criminal identification process that limits suspect identification errors. Such errors have the potential to lead to “false identifications” (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 258). The presence of inaccurate identifications has plagued police detectives throughout the history of the criminal justice system. Beth Schuster (2007), describes the consequences of inaccurate identification in the case of 22-year old Jerry Miller, a young man, who in 1981 was charged with the robbery, kidnapping and rape of a victim. It is worth noting that Miller was released from prison in 2007, making him the 200th U.S. suspect to be cleared of his crimes on the basis of DNA findings (Schuster, 2007).

The Miller case is just one of many instances where DNA evidence won out over an eye witness account. Schneider et al. (2012), add that eyewitness errors accounted for 75 percent of wrongful convictions in 258 criminal cases that were studied. These errors bring up an important concept that plays a major role in misidentifications. In police lineups, the cross-race effect can often be a significant influence in incidences of misidentification. According to Schneider et al. (2012), the cross-race effect refers to an individual’s ability to better identify their own race than different races. In a police lineup made up of completely different races than the eyewitness, the potential for identification errors increases significantly.

To reduce errors made throughout the lineup process, Schneider et al. (2012), recommended that individuals who play the role as filler suspects all share similar physical characteristics with the main suspect. Schneider et al. (2012), also state that when no filler suspects are used in police lineups, the odds of an innocent suspect being identified increase significantly. Additionally, there is no difference in the accuracy of police lineups whether in live or photographic form (Schuster, 2007). Because of the error potential in eyewitness questioning, police detectives must rely on both, superior DNA testing as well as a careful and well-thought-out presentation of suspect lineups. Despite the many advances in criminal justice procedures, there still remains a high number of individuals who are exonerated of their crimes, many years after incarceration. Unfortunately, the need for intervention regarding identification strategies remains extremely high.

References

Gannon, M. (2017). Lancman Introduces Juvenile Lineup Bill. Queens Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/lancman-introduces-juvenile-lineup-bill/article_8b377d12-cdd0-5d6d-81d1-2c0424ea6050.html

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2017). Lesson 8: The Legal System/Criminal Justice. PSYCH 424. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1867078/modules/items/22915566

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (2012) Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Schuster, B. (2007). Police Lineups: Making Eyewitness Identification More Reliable. National Institute of Justice. Issue 258. Retrieved from https://www.nij.gov/journals/258/pages/police-lineups.aspx


11
Oct 17

Judges, Before and After Snack Time

Are judges truly impartial arbiters? As a society, it is important that we believe in the ability of the judges that serve throughout our nation’s courtrooms to make unbiased, fair decisions. Juries in the United States must have a minimum of six members, but a judge is just one person. In this week’s lesson, we learned about the many prejudices and biases that plague jury members and have the ability to affect their decision making. But what about judges? In non-criminal cases, judges are usually tasked with reaching a verdict of guilty or not guilty all by themselves. Yes, judges have years of law schooling and real-world practical judicial experience under their robes, but are they not susceptible to prejudices and biases as well? What about cognitive load, are judges free from this biopsychological phenomenon as well? Judges play a critical role in our justice system, and while they may have years of training on their side, they are human nonetheless. In this post, I will discuss a research article that questions the ability of judges to make truly impartial, fair, and consistent rulings.
Before discussing the research article that led me to write this post, I want to review the concept of cognitive load. Cognitive load refers to the total amount of mental effort required to accomplish a task (Sweller 1988). When more mental energy is required to complete a task, it may be said that the individual is experiencing high cognitive load. Researchers have focused primarily on how cognitive load can impair learning and decision making. The theory is that things, like learning difficult new concepts and making tough decisions, can put people in states of high cognitive load, and that during these states, people are less likely to fully retain newly learned information and are more likely to make decisions by using mental shortcuts or heuristics that help reduce cognitive load (Sweller 1988). While heuristics can be great for learning new concepts, and making decisions during low consequence social situations, they can also subconsciously influence our decisions in ways that may not be desired.
There is another important aspect of cognitive load, however, mainly what the load part of cognitive load means biologically speaking, and what the effects of the load on things like decision making. In a research paper aptly named, The Physiology of Willpower, researchers investigated the effects of cognitive load during, induced during self-regulatory tasks, on blood glucose levels. The researchers found that self-control requires a lot of mental energy, and they don’t mean this in the sense that people just have to think hard, they do, but the researchers are really referring to the depletion of glucose, the brain’s energy supply. They demonstrate that acts of self-control deplete glucose at a breakneck pace, and hypothesize that this depletion of glucose is what leads people to fall back on mental shortcuts when performing difficult tasks, like self-control (Gailliot & Baumeister 2007). So, we have judges who have to hear novel cases and make decisions all day long, but these judges have years of experience under their belts and are able to use their mental training to reduce cognitive load and therefore glucose consumption by deploying mental shortcuts. Right? Well, kind of. There is research that suggests judges may be deploying these mental shortcuts a little too often, making decisions without appreciating the uniqueness of each case, but that is not necessarily what I am interested in here. Instead, I chose to focus on research that looked at another way glucose might be getting depleted in our judges.
Living organisms rely on external energy sources to maintain the processes that sustain life. In other words, we have to eat food in order to sustain the bodily processes that support life. In the research article of primary interest, three researchers looked at the decisions judges made at parole hearings and how the judges’ decisions fluctuated based on when they last ate. The researchers recorded over 1,000 rulings over a ten-month period that were in direct response to an inmate’s parole eligibility (Danziger, Levav, & Avnaim-Pesso 2010). The researchers found that favorable rulings were given out disproportionally at the beginning of the workday and after food breaks. More specifically, each “ruling session” starts out with judges giving favorable rulings ~65% of the time which then proceeds to steadily drop all the way down to 0%. Even more interesting is the fact that after a food break, the favorable ruling rates shoot back up to ~65% and then fall again in a similar pattern (Danziger, Levav, & Avnaim-Pesso 2010). I don’t know about you, but based on these results, I would much rather have my parole hearing just after lunch! The researchers suggest the existence of the discrepancy in judicial decision making can be explained at least in part by the fluctuation of glucose levels that affect mood and mental resources. However, the researchers also point out that the explanatory power of their results is limited for a number of reasons including the fact that the researchers did not directly measure mood throughout the day (Danziger, Levav, & Avnaim-Pesso 2010).
We may not be able to point to a direct cause for the discrepancy in judicial parole decisions, but we can certainly see a correlation between glucose levels and decision making. These results are intriguing because they suggest that it is not only juries that we need to worry about, but judges as well. After all, judges are human, they are susceptible to prejudice, bias, and hunger just like the rest of us. Judges may have years of training that help them make better decisions than an average person, but if the judicial system is going to be truly fair, we need to better understand the confounding factors that affect decision making. The decisions judges make have profound impacts on people’s lives, which makes it even more important to make sure our system accounts for the limits of human decision-making capabilities. This could be as simple as giving judges more snack breaks, who knows.

References

Danziger, S., et al. “Extraneous factors in judicial decisions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 108, no. 17, Nov. 2011, pp. 6889–6892., doi:10.1073/pnas.1018033108.

Gailliot, Matthew T., and Roy F. Baumeister. “The Physiology of Willpower: Linking Blood Glucose to Self-Control.” Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 11, no. 4, 2007, pp. 303–327., doi:10.1177/1088868307303030.

Muraven, Mark, and Roy F. Baumeister. “Self-Regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-Control resemble a muscle?” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 126, no. 2, 2000, pp. 247–259., doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.2.247. 

Sweller, John. “Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning.” Cognitive Science, vol. 12, no. 2, 1988, pp. 257–285., doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.


10
Oct 17

Privatized Prisons, Are They the Correct Solution?

In the final year of the Obama Presidency, the administration began a plan for the reduction of federal funding towards private for-profit prisons (Watkins & Tatum, 2017). This was an historic departure from the previous Justice Department policy, which the United State Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed within a matter of days after President Trump took office (Watkins & Tatum, 2017).  According to Sally Yates, the Deputy Attorney General in the Obama administration, the Obama administration took action after conclusive reporting indicated how private prisons tended to not only be costly but yielded little in terms of the overall outcomes for inmates (Watkins & Tatum, 2017). One of the major criticisms regarding private company-run prisons is due to the focus on profit, which has led to overcrowding within prisons and the occurrence of prison abuse violations (Watkins & Tatum, 2017). However, why was this move made by the Trump administration?

Trump administration Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Obama administration Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates have been key players in issuing and then turning around guidance on private prisons.

(Getty Images, n.d., as cited by Watkins & Tatum, 2017)

            After a person is convicted of a crime a judge will sentence a person for the crime(s) he or she was convicted of. The sentence can vary from the type of punishment (e.g. community service versus prison time etc.) and the length of the sentence can vary as well. If a judge remands a person into the prison, the person is transported to a prison ordered by the judge to serve out their sentence. While Hollywood and television shows have portrayed prisons as a prototypical cold and violent place, the truth is many prisons vary in their social environments (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012, p. 266). The goal of a prison is a simple, according to Schneider et al. (2012), prisons are meant to protect society, punish criminal behavior, act as a deterrence for society/individuals, rehabilitation, illustrate the consequences of criminal behavior, and allow time served as a mean of repaying one’s transgressions (p. 266). Based on the framework provided by Schneider et al. (2012), prisons serve many roles to protect the community and act as a means to rehabilitate criminal behavior with the goal of decreasing future recidivism rates. Socially, prisons are moderated by the prison staff who work to ensure the enforcement of the prison rules by using the environment and inmates’ need for affiliation to help facilitate their efforts (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 266). Thus, the social climate of a prison is shaped by the environmental demands on the prisoners, while simultaneously acting on the inmates’ need to affiliate (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 266). However, is there a particular social climate or prison system with encouraging results for rehabilitation?

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/GettyImages-200294161-001.jpg

(Kelkar, 2017)

            According to Schneider et al. (2012) therapeutic communities offer marked improvement and success towards rehabilitating inmates. The authors illustrated how therapeutic communities tend to be “holistic” in nature by promoting the personal development of the inmate through behavioral intervention in order to make the person a resilient member of the community (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 269). As a result, therapeutic communities offer a diametrically opposite experience for inmates versus what they were previously accustom to prior to prison (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 269). For example, previously a person may not have been positively encouraged by an authoritative person in their life or had a sense of positive structure, which may have been contributing factors in their criminal behavior. However, in a therapeutic community, the inmate may be exposed to these elements to help foster a “cooperative prosocial environment” and should be seen as completely different method of rehabilitation over traditional correctional methods (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 269).

Image result for therapeutic community

(National Institute, n.d.)

            In conclusion, the actions of the Trump administration will do very little to rehabilitee criminal behavior since the Trump administration is likely posed on enhancing the security of American citizens through the reauthorization of for-profit prison facilities. Moreover, by not rehabilitating negative (criminal) behaviors through innovative processes, the likelihood of recidivism will continue to be high since current prison environmental conditions do not favor rehabilitation (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 266). Applied social psychology could help by providing the administration with a structure for creating and implementing therapeutic communities to help transition our system to a system aimed at true rehabilitation. It is only through innovative programs, such as therapeutic communities can inmates experience a different lifestyle where relationships are built on all levels, antisocial behavior is discouraged, victim awareness is illustrated, while simultaneously providing tools to prevent future recidivism (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 269).

References

Kelkar, K. (2017, January 8). Prison strike organizers to protest food giant Aramark. Retrieved October 10, 2017, from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/prison-strike-protest-aramark

National Institute on Drugs Abuse. (n.d.). Retrieved October 10, 2017, from https://archives.drugabuse.gov/researchreports/Therapeutic/Therapeutic2.html

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied social psychology; understanding and addressing social and practical problems, 2d ed (2012). Portland: Ringgold, Inc.

Watkins, E., & Tatum, S. (2017, August 18). Private prison industry sees boon under Trump. Retrieved October 10, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/politics/private-prison-department-of-justice/index.html


08
Oct 17

Growth Pains in Healthcare Company

Several years ago a healthcare company opened its doors to a newer service being advertised on the market. It was like no other level of service offered in the healthcare industry. As a result, business was booming. The company staffing tripled its size in the last year with temporary staffing that eventually turned into permanent staffing. Due to fast paced ever growing market, there was no time to develop training plans.  Essentially, an individual would start a job and navigate their way without direction. Revenue was increasing, product demand was increasing and the business started struggling to keep up with the demand, so they starting outsourcing. For this reason, additional members were hired.  Did I mention I work for this company? Well I do, I started as a temp and had several promotions within my timespan in the company. After years of being with the business, I realized the company had several growing pains and required some organization to maintain employee satisfaction; starting with communication challenges with leadership, employee engagement and false perceptions of the direction of the company.

The first growing pain became noticeable when the leadership quality diminished. For the most part, the company was flourishing under the guidance of the original owner. It was so successful; it was purchased by a larger healthcare company. However, with all of the transitions, they forgot to stay cognitive of employee satisfaction. Often one might run across disgruntle employees discussing how dissatisfied they are with the management team. Namely, the leaders have become so focused on the day to day basics, they have forgotten the employees. As a result, performance was impacted. The teams within the department are no longer motivated. Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts., might not agree with this statement. They believe the two are not synonymous. The individual may be great at tending to the task but it doesn’t mean they are enthused about doing the job. (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).) Or perhaps, Maslow’s theory, need of hierarchy is motivating them or equities theory. Maslow theory is based upon filling a desire founded on a need that requires satisfying. Equities theory, on the other hand, is built upon what an individual puts into a job versus what they get from a job. From my perspective, both theories play a role in the job performance; coupled with perceptions.

As an example, when I first started my job, my social perception of the job was extremely positive. I thought everyone was friendly and kind. I have never worked in the healthcare field and had no clue what I was doing. I didn’t know if my coworkers were really kind or if I was just grateful to have employment; therefore, I created a positive image of the job. Perhaps, I contributed my coworker’s sociable behavior to the fact that everyone was trying to go permanent through the attribution process. With attention too, the process states there is a desire to try to figure out why people act the way they do in situations.  There was a lot of group decision being made during this time without guidance. In turn, it created a tremulous work environment with unnecessary conflict.  Individuals would fall victim to group think and be coerced to making bad decision that they may not have made if they weren’t under pressure to decide. As a result, members on the team conformed by way of normative influence and succumbed to the pressure and would agree in order for the other member to approve of them. (Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2012.) Namely, the staffing couldn’t figure out the direction of the company. As a result, they attempted to behave as a team player and agree for the sake of agreeing or to keep their jobs.  In the end, perception added to the growing pains causing unsatisfied employees and impacted our ability to keep up with the product demand.

 

Yet, if you asked me when I initially started with the company, I would have said everyone seem so content with their jobs. They stayed late and came in early. However, as time passed, job satisfaction weaned. Individuals started speaking about their roles within the company less positively. The employees started switching in an out of department for the sake of monetary increases. As a result, the company implemented a global and facet approach. The global approach is done yearly by way of survey, this hinder everyone’s ability to switch position at will to yearly. The surveys were helpful in boasting employee morale. It allowed employees the ability to provide feedback on the company and leadership. They started to feel as though there voices were being heard. The survey was categorized into various sections using a 5 point scale. Similarly, they attempted to try the facet scale. The standardized scale can be used to rate if an employee is pleased with their job. (Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2012.) ) The surveys highlighted employee complaints; such as, there is no upward mobility in specific departments. As a result, the job started to experience additional growing pains with employee turnover.

When the company started outsourcing, people no longer felt secure with their job so this resulted in attrition. If the company communicated effectively, they might have retained their top talent. Namely, communication was the biggest change or the lack thereof. Singularly, communication is extremely important between all levels of management down to the front line staff. As the company expanded, it became more technology driven. It enhanced a lot of computer based system and merged the other application into their database. It lost the personal touch of the open door policy that so many had grown accustom too. The days of dropping by the manager’s office to hold a conversation were over. Now, in order to meet with senior staffing it requires an appointment. Emails have become the main source of communication which can be a tad bit impersonal. Chiefly, emails are open to interpretation and can be construed inaccurately based upon the receiver. In order to make sure a message is properly conveyed, whether it’s verbal or nonverbal, it must be done with tact. The management team role is to ensure the receiver understands the message received so the task can be done.  However, this isn’t what was occurring on my job, the management team lacked email etiquette and it became an issue. Namely, the management team should craft emails with care to ensure the interpretation of the message accurately depicts what’s encoded. Since email communication isn’t face -to- face, the individual has to ensure the tone of the email is appropriate. Since the decoder has no way of viewing body gestures or verbal cues to determine the emotion in the email.

In sum, in order to minimize growing pains, it best to keep the line of communication open by incorporating effective leaders, enhancing employee engagement and incorporating transparency to diminish perceptions. Once my company started being transparent, attrition dwindle away and the company was able to retain their top talent employees. Did I forget to mention, they implemented leadership training which helped a ton!

References

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (2012) Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc

 

 


07
Oct 17

Is Technology a Job Killer or Job Creator?

Technology is used more and more in today’s workforce as we move towards a digital experience for a lot of consumer across different industries. “Social Psychologists have observed automated technologies represent a radical shift from work controlled by humans to work controlled by machines” (PSU 2017). As technology advances the need for humans in the workplace would decrease. So is technology a job killer or job creator? This week’s lesson explains technology can relive workers from boring repetitive tasks but also relives these workers from the necessity to develop special skills since machines will now do the work (PSU, 2017). This is known as deskilling and is most notable in literacy skills as computers will do most grammatical needed work for you (PSU, 2017).  However, Tiger Tyagarajan an author for Fortune believes technology has a reputation for being a job creator and although deskilling can occur from technology emerging, Tiger explains “even if machines take over there is no need to panic as there is always a need for people to code and build machines which will lead to a new wave of innovative jobs that will pay more” (Tyagarajan, Tiger 2016). He is suggesting that although technology can deskill employees it also provides an opportunity for individuals to learn a set of new skills which are usually more advanced and of higher level than the skills necessary for the jobs most technology replaces, as technology has a history of replacing low paid low skilled jobs (Tyagarajan, Tiger 2016). So, although the nature of jobs may change the need for humans to program, and operate machines or bots will never entirely become extinct. One personal example would be my time as a manager for an athletic retailer. Many of the retail locations for this store took the route of enhancing consumer experience through digital technology. This meant integrating apps into the shopping experience, digital touch screens throughout the building, handheld devices for Omnichannel support, digital machines determining a runner’s natural stride, which In turn fit them for the best shoe etc. This new wave of technology began being introduced in stores and created a new wave of jobs where our employees were becoming “digital experts”. Our standard cashiers who typically just rang people out on POS system were being trained to be digital experts and then were training others on how to operate the digital features the stores now offered. This increased their set of skills and provided networking opportunities as they were often flown to seminars to learn more about the digital direction the company is going. A nonpersonal example of technology integration would be the movie “Hidden Figures”. This movie is a prime example of how technologies themselves can tend to “create feelings of powerlessness and helplessness and contribute to a loss of meaning in work ” (PSU, 2017).  In the movie, Octavia Spencer plays the role of Dorothy Vaughn. Dorothy Vaughn was a mathematician and human-computer who worked for NASA at the Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia.  Dorothy oversaw approx. 30 human computers whose jobs were to perform mathematical calculations. The humans were computing before electronic computers became accessible. During Dorothy’s time at NASA the IBM computers were being introduced, and as they were being installed Dorothy knew that the computers would perform calculations at a speed human could not keep up with and she and her team would soon be out of jobs. Knowing the electronic computers would soon replace human computers Dorothy took it upon herself to learn IBM programming. Dorothy soon became an expert FORTRAN programmer and as the jobs of human computing were eliminated the need for electronic programming to operate the IBM computers increased, due to her desire to learn the programming Dorothy and her team had new jobs.

 

References:

Pennsylvania State World Campus (2017) Psych 424: Lesson 7, Technology. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1867078/modules/items/22915558

Tyagarajan, T. (2016, August). How to Keep Your Jobs when Robots Take Over.  Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/08/17/ai-u-s-workforce

 

 


07
Oct 17

Why every college student should join a campus organization

Why every college student should join a campus organization

 

I know you are going to tell me you are too busy. You are carrying 15 credits, have a job, have family obligations, you need your downtime, you have to walk your dog, yada, yada, yada.  But I would suggest to you that joining a campus organization gives you more than you will ever give to it.

Let’s break it down, campus organizations understand and respect your time concerns. Why, because they are just like you – busy. So if we put time commitments aside, let’s talk about what a campus organization needs from you.  What most organizations need are a willingness to share your perspective, plan and promote programs and activities, and use your unique skills on behalf of the organization.  We each have a skill set beyond studying and taking tests that need to be developed and honed in an environment that accepts your status as a student. Let’s say you are really good at graphic design, you have an eye for it, but that is not your career path, a student organization will provide opportunities for you to use that skill.  The same goes for your organizational skills, verbal skills, technology skills, and sometimes just physical labor. Whatever you bring to the group will provide depth, support, and continuity to the group.

And now you would like to know why.  Well, the truth is that for the first time in your adult life you can have the power and opportunity to be involved in decision making in an environment that will encourage you, challenge you, and even allow you to fail in order to help you learn. Campus student organizations are real-life educational opportunities without credit hours.

Being involved in student organizations provides an opportunity to see in real time the theories of social psychology at work.  Because student organization membership changes annually it is easy to see that Bruce Tuckman’s developmental stages of groups: forming, storming, norming, and performing is a recurring event as is adjourning when the school year ends.  In addition to group development is the exposure to group roles including task roles, relationship roles, and conflict that are inherent in a group. The norms that a group develops, provides a framework for expected behavior and helps keep the group moving forward. And taking advice from Bob Sutton’s No Jerk Rule on how to handle any ‘jerks’ that may be involved can provide another learning experience.

Translating these experiences to your resume or job interview allows you to talk about skills that directly apply to the work world.  They know you’re smart, you worked hard and received a degree, but can you work with others? Being actively involved in student organizations is directly relatable to the world of work.  Communications, team building, goal setting, organization, details, managing discordant members are all experiences that are part of campus organization involvement and will make you a better candidate for the job.

And, in case I forgot to mention, you will have memories for a lifetime.

References

Psych 424: Applied Social Psychology. (2017). Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/fa17/21781–15384/content/08_lesson/printlesson.html

 

Sutton, B. (Presenter). (2007, May 30). The no jerk rule. Lecture presented at Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

 

Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin63 (6). 384–399. doi:10.1037/h0022100

 


07
Oct 17

Job satisfaction, are you happy?

After reading Chapter 10: Applying Social Psychology to Organizations, one thing was still in my mind. It is something that relates to everybody, job satisfaction. I notice that Schneider, Gruman & Coutts explain main aspects of job satisfaction such as measuring job satisfaction, causes of job satisfaction, job characteristics, and consequences of job satisfaction. However, I ask to myself, how many people do not like their jobs?

Job satisfaction is defined by Schneider et al., as how a person feels toward his or her job, in general as well as toward specific factors of the job (2005, p. 225). Job satisfaction is more important than people could think. I think it is a very influential factor in life, either in the present or in the future; as a current state or set of attitudes, or as prospective idea. During the early years of life, most people focus on what they like which translate to what they want to be when they grow up. There are other reasons to choose a certain education and career path, but I think especially when growing up the main reason comes from pure interest and pleasure. For many people, as the years go by that remains the same. Then, that interest and enjoyment of something in specific becomes an education choice which will probably be equivalent to job satisfaction. It sounds kind of easy and definitely ideal, but the reality is many times that is not the case and people are unhappy with their jobs.

There are many reasons that influence job satisfaction and is probably difficult to sustain a constant 100% level of satisfaction. Schneider et al., discuss the determinants of job satisfaction. The main ideas behind job satisfaction are the following. First, characteristics of the job as explained by Schneider et al., involves the nature of job tasks, an idea called job characteristics model developed by Hackman and Oldham (2005, p. 226). Second, personal disposition which Schneider and colleagues describe as characteristics of the individual that might influence job satisfaction such as self-esteem, self-efficacy, affectivity and emotional stability among others (2012, p. 226-228). Third, social and organizational factors that involve work environment, social influences, work relations, etc. (Schneider et al., 2002, p. 227). This idea comes from the social information processing model of job by Salancik and Pfeffer. In summary, social and personal factors influence job satisfaction, the work setting and the features of the job all contribute to how good a person feels toward his or her job. This could apply to someone that is highly satisfied with his or her job because of course there are always variables at play. But it can also apply to someone that is extremely unhappy with his or her job, in which case I believe there might by other factors affecting the situation.

Could job satisfaction be predetermined? What else could impact job satisfaction? Well, I think the problem could have a deeper root than just current influences. This is the case of many people and that is the reality I want to focus on. For example, my father is a science lover, a smart man with incredible memory. I always joke that he is like a walking, human google; a source of information that is more entertaining that any book. He has made sure my brothers and I pursue what we like as education and career because he did not have that choice. He says his family did not have the resources or the knowledge of opportunities. Education and career were not defined by interests and satisfaction but by practical use. He followed his brother’s steps into finance as a practical choice.  He has done his job for 42 years, he is very good at it, and it has provided for our family. I will never forget that time I asked him, is that what you wanted to do? Do you like it? I grew up with the support to do anything, and I just assumed he had the same opportunity but his answer took me by surprised. That day I learned a few lessons. I now know there are many factors that impact people’s ability to pursue job satisfaction in the first place, to follow their dreams, to choose what they like. Among these factors are lack of resources, lack of knowledge and support, social and environmental influences, perhaps even culture, lack of education, and misconceptions. Then, to answer my question, how many people do not like their jobs?

The numbers vary and depend on how job satisfaction is measured and what factors are considered. For instance, the 2017 Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource and Management shows high levels of job satisfaction and engagement with 89% (2017). In the other hand, an article from the business magazine Forbes, reports a 52.3% of people in the U.S. are not happy with their jobs, a survey conducted by the Conference Board research group (Adams, 2014). Another survey by Gallup shows that 70% of Americans dislike their jobs or are disengaged, as reported by the article of the New York Daily News (Stebner, 2013). The truth is difficult to get similar results because the conditions are not consistent. The study conducted by the Society of Human Resource and Management, for example, examined 44 aspects of job satisfaction (2017 Employee Job Satisfaction, 2017). Schneider et al., explain that there are different ways of measuring job satisfaction. Global approach and facet approach are the most widely used. Global approach consists of general questions that can be answered with provided 5-point rating scale answers. Facet approach involves feelings and attitudes about different aspects of the job (Schneider et al., 2005, p. 225). That is why the results of these studies differ one from the other. However, one certain thing is that job dissatisfaction is real and experienced by many people.

How many people do not like their jobs? Many people. In some cases, the reasons are a combination of current factors that impact job satisfaction. Individual characteristics, social influences, work environment and job features all influence people’s attitudes toward their job. In other cases, I believe factors could be others than present influences like I explained, back to the very beginning or somewhere in the way. Some people do not have the opportunity to pursue what they like which I believe affects job satisfaction in the future. Are you happy with your job? I sure hope I picked the right path.

 

References:

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2005). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications

2017 Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement: The Doors of Opportunity Are Open. (2017, June 30). Retrieved October 06, 2017, from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/pages/2017-job-satisfaction-and-engagement-doors-of-opportunity-are-open.aspx

Adams, S. (2014, June 20). Most Americans Are Unhappy At Work. Retrieved October 06, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/20/most-americans-are-unhappy-at-work/#61208be1341a

Stebner, B. (2013, June 24). Over 70% of U.S. workers unhappy about their job: poll. Retrieved October 06, 2017, from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/70-u-s-workers-hate-job-poll-article-1.1381297


06
Oct 17

Team Dynamics in Survivor

While scrolling through channels on the TV one evening this week, I stumbled across one of my favorite shows, Survivor.  As I settled into watch, I realized how perfectly Survivor illustrates many of the concepts of teams and organizations.  We can see how the producers manipulate the group development process, how the fundamental attribution error influences players, and how group decision-making concepts effect how the game plays out.

I think one of the things that makes Survivor so interesting and drama-filled is the fact that, especially in the beginning, they force the tribes, or teams as I will call them here, to stay in the forming and storming stages of Tuckman’s developmental stages of groups.  According to Pennsylvania State University (2017), these are the stages where the teams get together and get to know one another politely and then begin to attempt to sort out their roles with much intragroup conflict, respectively.  As soon as the teams begin to enter the “norming” stage, where roles are figured out and groups are beginning to operate more efficiently, the producers of the show randomly switch up the groups and force the contestants to start all over.  I think the prevention of moving onward into the performing stage of Tuckman’s stages is part of what makes Survivor so interesting.  As viewers, we never get to see teams work seamlessly together, but we do get to see the repeated formation and conflicts that come with the initial stages of team development.  While not ideal for creating effective teams, this makes for wonderfully drama-filled team dynamics for us as viewers.

We also see a lot of examples of the fundamental attribution error in Survivor.  As the contestants on the show get to know one another and figure out who they want to form alliances with or work against, there are many instances where constants will attribute another person’s actions or attitudes to that person’s personal disposition.  Later, we viewers often see interviews with that person, who will explain their actions or attitudes as responses to a situation.  We often hear comments along the lines of “I’ve never been outside of my city before, so this is really different” or “I just lashed out because I’m so tired/hungry/stressed”.  As Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts (2012) note, the fundamental attribution error involves people attributing another’s behavior or attitudes to their personal demeanor, rather than taking situational factors into account.  As we see in the case of Survivor, these fundamental attribution errors play a major role in how contestants view one another and select alliance members.  If contestants attributed behaviors appropriately, it is possible that alliances could be different and the entire game could proceed in an entirely new way.

Finally, viewers can definitely see both normative and informational influences at play in decision making in Survivor.  For example, alliances are an important part of the game of Survivor, with members of groups banding together to ensure their “survival” in the game.  Often, a majority of a group will decide to work against a certain individual and, even if others disagree, they do not want to go against this majority group and make themselves a future enemy.  This, according to Schneider et al. (2012), is an example of the pressure to conform influencing decision making, or the normative influence.  On the other hand, situations in Survivor often occur where an individual is certain they will vote a certain way but then discover information from other group members that changes their perception of the situation, often leading to a change in their vote.  This is a perfect example of informational influence, where information from others provides a person more information about a social situation (Schneider et al., 2012).  The work of both of these group decision-making factors makes for interesting dynamics in this game, as we watch contestants grapple with both informational and normative pressures.

It is fascinating to me to see how so many aspects of group and organizational social psychology can be seen in something as mindless as a reality TV gameshow.  After realizing this about Survivor, there are so many more identifiable layers to the game.  I thought I enjoyed watching it before, but after having a more complete understanding of social psychology, it makes watching it even more interesting!

 

References

Pennsylvania State University. (2017).  Organizational Life AND Teams. [Online Lecture].  Retrieved from http://cms.psu.edu.

 

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


05
Oct 17

Leaders in Organizations

What does it mean to be an efficient leader? In an organization, the boss, manager, CEO, CFO, etc. are some of the many positions we label as leaders. These are the people who overlook the entire organization and assure everything is running effectively. The ways in which a leader acts towards their subordinates results in how well the subordinates complete the tasks and duties they are assigned. In the year 1959, two researchers known as French & Raven created a design of types of power leaders present to their employees. These types of powers are as follows; reward, coercive, legitimate, referent and expert (Porter, Angle, & Allen, 2003). Most leaders utilize multiple types of power in their practice. However, some bases of power in the leader may be predominantly seen by the subordinates. We have all uncovered different types of leaders in our lives. Whether the leader be a teacher, our parents, our boss, or even the president of the United States, leaders use different tactics to attempt to laud their followers. I am going to relate the bases of power to current events in our social world in which predominately show these bases of power in specific situations. Discovering bases of power of leaders in situational organizational scenarios and in everyday life can determine the efficiency of the leader.

Reward power occurs when leaders give physical objects of value to their subordinates (Porter et, al, 2003). For example, in the TV show Undercover Boss, the leader of a company goes incognito in the lower levels of their organization. At the end of every episode, the “undercover boss,” reveals themselves. When the boss reveals themselves, they usually reward the subordinates who have done well to benefits such as money, paid vacations, cars and more. The leaders on this show are using reward power to motivate the employees who do well to keep doing their jobs efficiently (“About Undercover,” n.d.). Next, coercive power occurs when a leader uses punishment to receive a desirable outcome from a subordinate (Porter et, al, 2003). For example, in the popular television show, The Apprentice, Donald Trump attempts to influence the participants on the show to succeed at their tasks so they do not run the risk of getting fired. The least efficient participants on the show get terminated and have no chance of winning an allotted amount of money and working for Donald Trump himself. The influencing factor of threatening to take away a positive stimulus is known as punishment (“The Apprentice,” n.d.). Legitimate power is known as subordinates responding to a leader because of their positioning in the hierarchy of the organization (Porter et, al, 2003). An example of legitimate power can be represented by citizens responding to police officers. Most people respect police officers because of their reputation of being the “keepers of the law.” Therefore, people usually obey police officers sanctions because of their status in everyday society.

Next, referent power depends on how much the subordinate identifies with or wants to emulate the leader (Porter et, al, 2003). Personally, my mother had referent power over me. As a child, I used to tell my mom we were, “the same girl.” I aspired to be just like my mom because she was my role model. I did not want to do anything wrong by her either. Anything she does not approve of did not assimilate with actions I wanted to partake in, so I always tried my best to do everything she asked of me. Lastly, expert power involves an erudite leader who flaunts their knowledge to their subordinates. This perception of knowledge results in the admiration and respect of the subordinates towards the leader (Porter et, al, 2003). A very relevant example of expert power are professors in our courses. Students look up to professors because they know a lot more about a particular topic than the student does. Students respect and listen to their professors in lecture because most students are interested in gaining more knowledge from the professor.

We can determine the efficiency of the basis of powers by observing the situation in that present moment. A leader should not be subjected to using solely one basis of power throughout their entire reign. Using a combination of basis of power have been proven to be the most effective in organizational leadership (Roberts, n.d.). Throughout my experience of learning social psychology, I have learned human behaviors and reactions are mostly based off of the situation. Using a combination of these types of leaderships will give leaders the best results in being an effective leader due to the ambiguity of everyday situations.

References:

About undercover boss. (n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2017, from http://www.cbs.com/shows/undercover_boss/about/

Porter, L. W., Angle, H. L., & Allen, R. W. (2003). Organizational influence processes.

Roberts, C. (n.d.). 5 types of power in businesses. Retrieved October 6, 2017, from

http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/5-types-power-businesses-8315.html

The apprentice plot. (n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2017, from   http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364782/plotsummary


04
Oct 17

What Does It Mean When You Do Not Grow as a Team?

The Trump administration has been the center of many controversial issues since the election back in November 2016. The Trump administration has had to grapple with potential election interference issues, health care failures, NFL protests, and now Trump’s Secretary of State may be reaching a tipping point (Collins, Star, Zeleny, & Landers, 2017). According to Collins et al. (2017), a rift has begun to develop between President Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who in a Pentagon meeting, referred to Trump as a “moron.” This line of rhetoric has led many to speculate as to Secretary Tillerson’s future in the Trump administration.  Moreover, his departure would not represent the first top official to leave the Trump administration. In the middle of 2017, the White House Communication Director Anthony Scaramucci was ousted after making vulgar comments to a reporter while publicly feuding with other top officials in the Trump administration (Merica, Zeleny, & Acosta (2017). Given the larger number of departures in the White House, what does this say about the current state of team development in the White House?

Under the developmental stages for groups, groups are classified as falling into one of four potential categories (Penn State, n.d.). According to Tuckman (1965) the four stages are forming, storming, norming, and performing (as cited by Penn State, n.d.). In the forming stage, the author suggested this stage was the stage were team members would get to know one another but lack trust between each other (Tuckman, 1965; as cited in Penn State, n.d.). In the case of the Trump administration, this would represent the period the administration was initially formed or when a new team member would join the team. The second stage is the storming stage, which is characterized as a period of intragroup conflict due to role conflicts and personality conflicts (Penn State, n.d.). Going back to the onboarding of White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci was in the storming phase since he continued to have clashes with others within the White House shortly after he joined the Trump administration (Merica et al., 2017). The third stage would be the norming stage. Tuckman (1965) indicated the norming state was a period when roles and responsibilities were finalized and individuals begin to perform towards their goals and objectives (as cited in Penn State, n.d.). If the Trump administration were in this phase, the administration would be working in partner with the various cabinet heads, world leaders, and Congress without in signs of in-fighting. The fourth and final stage is the performing stage, which would be marked by significant progress towards team goals (Penn State, n.d.). For the Trump administration, the passing of the administrations legislative agenda would be a hallmark of being in this phase.

However, one challenge the Trump administration is continually facing is ending back at the forming and storming phases. This will continue to make any legislative agenda hard to pursue since team members are not work together correctly. One challenge for President Trump continues to be the communication style of the President himself. Research has shown that messages of stimulation tend to be the most productive for team members since it provides a sense of motivation and energy to the team member(s) (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2005). However, President Trump has not had a good track record of showing support for team members either through Twitter or directly to the media. For example, Trump public flaunted his disapproval for previous White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and would openly question his abilities to generate positive news for the President (Bierman & Bennett, 2017). Moreover, the President tends to use task-irrelevant message, which most likely leave team members confused since task-irrelevant messages not about supporting a message (stimulation message), advocating a strategy (orientation message), or evaluating current efforts through evaluation messaging (Schneider et al., 2005).

As illustrated earlier, President Trump has clearly defined consequences in place for team members who fail to achieve their goals or perform at a level below his level of satisfaction. However, President Trump’s administration lack certain cohesive measures to address the issues in group development (Schneider et al., 2005). Applied social psychology could help facilitate team building between team members to help maximize performance both individually and on a group level. Another way the administration could help resolve conflict would be to follow Sullivan’s (1993) Seven Stages of Communication Training (as cited by Schneider et al., 2005). For this process to be successful, team members would need to listen effectively to one another. Secondly, team members would need to assess themselves and discuss their personality traits to help reduce ambiguity between team members. In the third step, team members need to clearly define the problems team members will encounter towards their goals. Team members will need to disclose responses to a variety of sentences to help facilitate the understand of one’s personality. Team members could then determine what is likely to hinder team efforts in the short term by those challenges sharing them anonymously. The sixth step is to accept the norms of the group and discuss the challenges encountered by group members to help provide insight into situations others may not have faced. Finally, through self-evaluation, team members can have open communication to understand and accept one another as team members.

In conclusion, given the constant turmoil within the administration, it is not surprising how there so many conflicts between persons within the White House. Moreover, based on the departures and arrival of new team members, the administration remains continually locked into the early stages of Tuckman’s (1965) group development stages since it has to start over with each new departure. By not allowing the team to go through the steps (either consciously or unconsciously), team members do not learn enough about one another to begin to have a productive working relationship. Finally, without conducive measures in place to help build teamwork, the administration is likely to not feel unified since administration officials do not really know one another.

References

Bierman, N., & Bennett, B. (2017, July 21). Spicer resigns as an embattled Trump shakes up his press and legal teams. Retrieved October 04, 2017, from http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-spicer-20170721-story.html

Collins, K., Starr, B., Zeleny, J., & Landers, E. (2017, October 04). ‘Moron’ insult ramps up Tillerson, Trump tension. Retrieved October 04, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/politics/tillerson-trump-moron/index.html

Merica, D., Zeleny, J., & Acosta, J. (2017, July 31). Scaramucci out as WH communications director. Retrieved October 04, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/politics/anthony-scaramucci/index.html

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2005). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.


04
Oct 17

An Olympic Sized Problem in Team Functionality

The Olympics comes around every four years, and we remember it as the stage on which world records are broken and gold medals are won. We rarely take the time to consider the other side of the Olympics, the defeats. The majority of the athletes who attend the Olympics will not win medals, and very few will set world records. But this is completely normal, after all, the Olympics is where the world’s best athletes get together to compete against one another. We know that some countries with large, well-funded Olympic programs are going to win the lion’s share of the medals while other countries who are able only to send a handful of athletes will likely go home empty handed. I’m sure we can all recall watching the opening ceremonies and hearing the Tv commentators botch the names of some of these smaller nations. So, the big countries with the star athletes get all the coverage and glory while the little guys are often only discussed when something atypical and amazing happens. However, this wasn’t the case during and after the 2012 London Olympics. One of the biggest, most well-funded Olympic teams in the world had a particularly bad showing in one of the sports they hold dearest to their hearts. In this post, I will present the story of the 2012 Australian Olympic swim team through an applied social psychological lens.
Australia has always loved swimming, especially competitive swimming. They have a decorated history of dominating in the pool at international competitions like the Olympics and the world championships. In 2012, Australia boasted some of the fastest swimmers in the world. Athletes like Eamon Sullivan, James Magnussen, Cate Campbell, and Emily Seebohm had all put up either the fastest times or second fastest times in the world going into the Olympics. Given all the talent on the team, anyone on the outside looking in would have picked Australia as a favorite to dominate in the pool. Once the Olympic competition started, it was clear that something was amiss. The Australians ended up winning just one gold medal and left London with no new world records. Those in the swimming world were shocked. They simply didn’t understand what could have gone so wrong. There were rumors of all kinds flying around, but eventually, a consultancy group brought in by the Australian national Olympic committee produced a report that painted a picture of a team in complete disarray. Two official reviews of team conduct were produced, and the way the Australian swim team was described as “culturally toxic”. The reports uncovered widespread alcohol and drug use throughout the team’s members. A culture of bullying, deceit, and lack of leadership was also reported. Athletes talked about how utterly “toxic” the culture of the team was during the Olympics.
How did the Australian Olympic swim team unravel so disastrously; the report tells us everything we need to know. The athletes and the coaches all point to a lack of leadership and responsibility at all levels. Coaches were only paying attention to the star athletes and were completely oblivious to the alienating effects of their preferential treatment. Star athletes felt overly pressured to perform and grew anxious while the lesser known swimmers felt as though they were completely neglected by their coaches. This lead to what one athlete describes as “a schoolyard clamor for attention and influence”. There was no cohesiveness or team unity, and the communication between athletes and their coaches was severely lacking. Furthermore, there were no common goals, each athlete got into a mindset where they were concerned only with their own performances not the performances of their teammates. Coaches recall a lack of team building exercises from the very formation of the team after the Australian Olympic trials earlier in the year. Overall, the two reports indicate a failure to create a functional team/organization on almost all levels.
A great deal can be learned from the 2012 Australian Olympic swim team and indeed, other teams, as well as the Australian team themselves, have used the 2012 performance as a learning experience. It can be extremely challenging to create a positive and functional team/organization especially when the group is large and when the pressure to perform and produce is high. The challenge for elite sports teams is similar to those of corporate organizations. Mainly that a group of individuals who are all asked to perform at the highest level within their own right must also be able to contribute positively to the group culture. It takes more than money and resources to engender this kind of functionality and that is why some of the most well-funded teams and organizations can be just as susceptible to team breakdown as smaller groups with fewer resources.

“AOC Swimming Investigation Findings.” Australian Olympic Committee, corporate.olympics.com.au/news/aoc-swimming-investigation-findings.

“Bluestone Edge Culture Review into Australian Olympic Swimming.” Bluestone Edge Bluestone Edge Culture Review into Australian Olympic Swimming Comments, bluestoneedge.com/bluestone-edge-news/bluestone-edge-culture-review-into-australian-olympic-swimming/.

Crouse, Karen. “Sedatives and Pranks Preceded Australia’s Olympic Flop.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 22 Feb. 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/sports/olympics/australian-swimmers-at-olympics-admit-to-taking-prescription-drug-and-making-pranks.html.

Schneider, Frank W. Applied social psychology: understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE Pub., 2012.


04
Oct 17

Social Psychology’s Influence on Business Organizations

Most – if not all – psychology students, will at some point throughout their education, begin to question what employment opportunities await them as they graduate. Many students find work within counseling and therapy, while others gravitate towards research-based institutions. However, other graduates find themselves working within corporate environments in the role of Industrial Organizational (I/O) psychologists.  I/O psychology is generally referred to as a branch of psychology that utilizes psychological principles within the work world (Muchinsky & Culbertson, 2015, p. 3). These individuals play a distinct role in shaping the structure of the world’s largest corporations. So why am I writing about business within the domain of applied social psychology?

When examined closely, both of these disciplines appear to contain many shared elements. In fact, many of the concepts that I/O psychology is built upon, relate back to theories of social psychology. To begin with, organizations, groups, or even teams, require leadership. This concept, as defined as an individual’s ability to influence a group towards a particular objective or goal, can be viewed in several dimensions (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 218). According to Schneider et al. (2012, p. 218), leadership is a social variable. One cannot describe this concept without mentioning the relationship between members of a group. The corporate environment that I/O psychologists work within represents the social dynamic of psychology. Behaviors, motivations, and culture all stem from applied social psychology theories.

I/O psychology is a non-unique branch of psychology, in that it mimics the emphasis of other psychological divisions by enacting change within social environments. Additionally, a considerable amount of time is spent researching how and why specific social situations come to be. This divide is an excellent example of both, need and process theories. Need theories are primarily concerned with examining variables that motivate individuals, while process theories investigate how certain phenomenon occur (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 219). I/O psychologists – along with social psychologists – work tirelessly to uncover and further explain the distinct motivations and behaviors of individuals. Perhaps the most dramatic difference between both disciplines is that I/O psychologists are often confined to a business-like environment. Applied social psychologists are free to explore existing and new phenomenon in a variety of environments.

It is interesting to study the social dynamic of I/O psychology procedures. For example, Schneider et al. explore the determinants of job satisfaction. In addressing job satisfaction, it is first important to have a firm understanding of the sub components of this variable. Schneider et al. (2012, p. 226) first point out the importance of job characteristics, social/organizational factors and personal dispositions. These initial variables showcase the relationship between the industrial organizational and social psychology disciplines. There is a noticeable technical aspect that relates to the responsibilities of the job. However, one must also consider the social aspects of these categories.

Schneider et al. (2012, p. 226) introduce skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy and job feedback as components of job characteristics. These components require that psychologists first understand the responsibilities necessary to complete a job. This is best seen within the concept of skill variety. I/O psychologists would first need to compile the knowledge, skills and abilities involved with assigned tasks (Muchinsky & Culbertson, 2015). This component of job satisfaction best represents the presence of I/O psychology principles. However, as one explores job task identity, social psychology principles emerge. This component instead, focuses on one’s ability to participate in a project or position from start to finish (Schneider et al., 2012, p. 226). Task identity provides an excellent example of social psychology principles at work. While I/O theories provide psychologists with a guide for exploring the technical aspects of organizational work, social psychology pushes psychologists to remain concerned with the social implications of change. These components of organizational intervention are just a few of many variables that psychologists must interact with. Perhaps most importantly, psychologists – of all disciplines – must be comfortable interacting with varying theoretical frameworks of the science. By maintaining a well-rounded arsenal of tools, theories and strategies, psychologists can improve their ability to create impactful interventions.

References

Muchinsky, P., Culbertson, S. (2015). Psychology Applied to Work. Summerfield, NC; Hypergraphic Press, Inc.

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., & Coutts, L. (2012) Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.


02
Oct 17

Discrimination

Today, we all live in a very diverse world. When there is diversity there is usually prejudices. Prejudice can be defined as an attitude certain people have towards others who are in a separate group.  Discrimination occurs when prejudiced actions are inflicted in a group of people. These prejudices and discriminations stem from erroneously held beliefs that one has about a group of people. These beliefs are known as stereotypes (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). One group of people that commonly gets denigrated or sympathized in our society are people with mental illnesses. People with mental illnesses sometimes do not get treated the same as typical people in our society because they are perceived as crazy, stupid, incapable, or all of the above. The reality is, sometimes people with mental disabilities are more capable of completing a job than a person without mental disabilities.

Recently, a new TV show came to the spotlight. The Good Doctor is about a young man on the Autism Spectrum who has a vast knowledge about anatomy. This young man is attempted to join the surgical unit at a very prestigious hospital. The hospital board formed a meeting in order to discuss whether the doctor would be a good fit in this specific hospital. Majority of the board believed that Dr. Shaun Murphy (the young man on the spectrum) was unfit to work in the hospital because of his disability. As this meeting about Dr. Shaun Murphy was occurring, the Good Doctor himself was saving the life of a young boy in an airport. A video of Dr. Murphy saving this child’s life went viral, eventually reaching the board meeting. After everyone on the hospital board watched the video, the board decided to give Dr. Murphy a chance despite his disability. Dr. Murphy’s mentor and biggest supporter, Dr. Schiff, explained that hiring Dr. Murphy will give all other people suffering from mental disabilities hope that they are capable of anything (Daly, 2017, episode 1).

Social Identity theory can be used to describe the conflict the arose in the TV show, The Good Doctor. In the meeting, the hospital board can be classified as the in-group. The in-group consists of people who share similar interests and homogenous personal identities. Personal identity are the ways in which a person describes themselves based off of personality traits and characteristics. Another aspect of social identity theory is known as social identity. Social identity are the ways a person defines themselves in relation to the group they are a part of (Schneider et. al, 2012). In the Good Doctor, the board classified themselves and the surgeons working  in the hospital as as intelligent individuals who are capable of working in a hospital. The board had stereotypes about Dr. murphy because he was on the Autism spectrum. The board claimed he would be incapable of efficiently becoming a surgeon because of his disability.The board’s stereotypes and prejudices almost lead to the discrimination of Dr. Shaun Murphy, which would be rejecting his applicability of working in that hospital (Daly, 2017, episode 1).

The resolution the hospital board, Dr. Schiff, and Dr. Murphy came to by the end of this episode was a simple example of the contact hypothesis. The contact hypothesis occurs when an in-group becomes more accepting of an out-group member due to positive relations or contact (Schneider et. al, 2012). In the Good Doctor, the hospital board watched a video of Dr. Murphy saving a life in an emergency situation. This increased positive feelings towards Dr. Murphy because it discarded the erroneous beliefs that the Dr. was incapable of becoming an effective surgeon. At the end of the episode, Dr. Murphy joined the board meeting in person. The board simple asked him one question, “Why do you want to become a surgeon?” Dr. Shaun Murphy answered his question slowly but surely. Dr. Shaun Murphy explained that his brother and his bunny rabbit passed away from unpreventable reasons, so he wanted to save other people’s lives to prevent others from going through what he went through. This heartfelt answer touched the board members, and resulted in Dr. Murphy receiving an invitation to work in the hospital (Daly, 2017, episode 1). This was another example of positive contact because Dr. Murphy, as the out group member, penetrated through the walls of the ingroup through his personal statement and resulted in the in group accepting him.

 

References:

Daly, L. (Director). (2017). The good doctor [Motion picture]. Sony TV.

Schneider, Frank W. Applied social psychology: understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles, SAGE Pub., 2012.


02
Oct 17

Dilemma of NFL Fans and Players

This past year, a high-profile athlete from the San Francisco 49ers, Colin Kaepernick, began kneeling during the playing of the national anthem, “to protest what he deems are wrongdoings against African Americans and minorities in the US” (Wyche, 2016). This started a wave of other players joining in Kaepernick’s cause and was recently accented when teams across the country responded to President Trump’s comments on the situation. The recent proliferation of knelling during the playing of the national anthem from NFL players and staff has sparked quite a reaction from fans. Many fans have been seen burning season tickets, clothing, and memorabilia in response to their team’s stance on kneeling during the playing of the national anthem.

The Social Identity Theory (SIT) focuses on intergroup behaviors, which is driven by both personal and social identities (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012). Fans identify with both their teams and their players and when social and personal identities clash there is a conflict. This seems to be the current situation many fans are facing with the players response to kneeling during the national anthem. According to Dietz-Uhler, et al… (2002) fans can react in one of two ways: in-group bias effect or “black sheep” effect.

The in-group bias effect maintains that fans will remain loyal to their team, regardless of the controversial behavior of a player (Dietz-Uhler, 1999). Whereas, the “black sheep” effect states fans will continue to be loyal to the team but will distance themselves from the controversial player and deem them as not representative of the entire team (Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988). These two effects have certainly been apparent in both reading various social media sites and watching NFL games.

The SIT is driven by both the personal and social identities of an individual. However, when these two identities have a conflict, it creates a dilemma for how one will react to various situations. Colin Kaepernick has stayed true to his personal identity at the cost of his career. He is currently a free agent in the NFL and it appears he will not be signed by any team soon. Fans are currently in a conflict between wanting to be loyal to their team or outcast them as “black sheeps” for their perceived disrespect to the national anthem. Also, NFL players and staff are in the same situation, will they stay true to their personal identity while also maintaining an allegiance to their team. This NFL year will certainly be filled with decision by both fans and players.

 

Wyche, S. (2016). Colin Kaepernick explains why he sat during national anthem. NFL News. Retrieved from http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691077/article/colin-kaepernick-explains-why-he-sat-during-national-anthem

Schneider, F.W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Dietz-Uhler, B., End, C., Demakakos, N., Dickirson, A., and Grantz, A. (2002). Fans’ reactions to law breaking athletes. International Sports Journal, 6, 160-170.

Dietz-Uhler, B. (1999). Defensive reactions to group relevant information. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2, 17-29.

Marques, J.M., Yzerbyt., V.Y., and Leyens, J.P. (1998). The black sheep effect? Extremity of judgements toward ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1-16.

 

 


02
Oct 17

Conflict of Power!

In recent news, there has been talks of World War Three or even the end of the world. The conflict between the United States and North Korea has escalated rapidly. This conflict has primarily involved verbal battles between the leaders of both nations, President Donald Trump and Kim Jung Un of the DKRP. This social conflict has the potential to destroy a whole nation. Applied Social Psychologist study the effects that social groups have on these individuals (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, Pg 324). Especially when dealing with politics personal identity, and social identity theory can be applied.

As a relatively new president of the United States Trump’s social identity has come forward. He has dedicated at least four years of his life to joining the executive branch of government as Commander in Chief.  Social status and prestige, and control over people and resources defines power which motivated Trump act in these certain behaviors (Schwartz, Lehmann, Roccas, Pg. 109). These certain behaviors have been power struggles to maintain and assert his dominance in the status quo. Altercations between him and a variety of people including organiations have aroused in only his first year of presidency. People of power ranging from Jeff Sessions, Puerto Rico’s Mayor, the NFL organization, and Kim Jong Un. The battle between him and Kim Jong Un poses the greatest threat to our social group. North Korea is very different than the United States. The power of distance in North Korea far exceeds the United States. People in North Korea accept inequalities in power and wealth to serve the regime (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, Pg 327). According to our reading we shy away from groups or people that are different than us. This might be why China and them formed a closer alliance as their types of government are more similar.

For this blog I want to focus specifically on the behavior of President Trump and Kim Jong Un. News Reports have even went on to say that they are like two kinder-garden children fighting back and forth (CNN). Both these men have a status of power in their social groups. Their social behaviors reflect on their social identities. Although Social Identity Theory was not developed as a theory of conflict it does provide insight into how conflit may arise from relations between groups (Schneider, Gruman, Coutts, Pg 340). These behaviors from each men are representative to their identity in their social settings. President Donald Trump has went as far as saying he will completely wipe North Korea off the map. North Korea is viewed as the out-group for President Trump.

On the other hand Kim Jong Un is seeking to keep his nation alive. He is determined to keep North Korea relevant under his regime by creating nuclear weapons. He believes the United States wants to end his regime. The security of his nation is at risk and it is because of President Trump and the United States. According to the commentary, contact hypothesis is a logical strategy for conflict. President Trump and Kim Jong Un need to resolve this with the common interest of society and humanity. “Allport’s “contact hypothesis” states that “equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals”(Commentary Notes, Lesson six). Applying this hypothesis is difficult, but possible. “In theory, programs that promote contact can succeed, but only if all of the conditions are met: equal status contact, common goals, and support by relevant institutions” (Commentary Notes, Lesson Six).

The fued between these two nations has created global tension. Many countries have called for a peaceful compromise between the two nations. Escalation leading to war is not desirable globally. This would pose economic effects around the world. Instead we could apply social psychology to understand what both nations seek, and why both leaders act the way we do. We can try to understand exactly what the common goal may be.

References:

Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schneider, F., Gruman, J., Coutts, L. (2012) Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

 


02
Oct 17

Internalized Sexism

Discrimination perpetrated by an “in-group” (those you share similarities with) towards an “out-group” (those you feel are different to you) (Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts, 2012) is widespread issue that affects nearly every aspect of society. In the United States, diversity and its associated challenges–or rather, the challenges that are perpetuated by people in reaction to diversity–are in the forefront of the national consciousness as people push back against and protest discrimination, while others find the protesting to be unnecessary or even offensive. Although literature on the topic points to the existence of discrimination, in modern America it is often “….more sophisticated, convoluted, and subversive…” (Schneider, et al., 2012) and thus may be hard to see unless you are a victim of prejudice or negative stereotyping. This is due to the deeply ingrained nature of prejudice; one only has to look at the Hall of Presidents to see that there is strong historical and political precedence for favoring white men in power. But does systematic discrimination lead to prejudice so strongly reinforced that its victims become its perpetrators? Unfortunately, in many cases it seems to be so. It is hard to avoid discrimination when it is rampant, even essential, in our country’s history and development, and thus is taught and reinforced (albeit less than it used to be) in each generation. I believe there are forms of within-group discrimination that exist in almost every demographic, but as a woman what I have personally grappled with the most is internalized sexism.

Internalized sexism refers to when “…women enact learned sexist behaviors upon themselves and other women” (Bearman, Korbokov, and Thorne, 2009). The first time I ever became aware of the concept was, funnily enough, through the hugely popular 2004 movie Mean GirlsI wouldn’t hear the phrase “internalized misogyny” until my first year at a small liberal arts college (after which I arguably heard it too often), but even at eight years old I recognized what Tina Fey’s character in the movie was referring to when she laments the way girls use sexual slurs against each other, especially when they already have to deal with sexist insults from boys. The way girls my age often tore each other down based on sexist ideas about sexuality or by using female-exclusive demeaning words often bothered me–even though I was often a participant in the behavior myself. It may seem counterintuitive: a group that is targeted with prejudice based on sex should form a camaraderie, ideally be supportive and fight harmful stereotypes together. However, in reality, internalized sexism is quite common. A 2009 study on the topic analyzed conversations between female friends with four criteria of internalized sexism in mind: derogation, accusations of incompetence, competition, and objectification. It was found that there were, on average, 11 instances of the former types of sexism per 10 minutes of conversation (Bearman, et al., 2009). This may even indicate that women are highly likely to display internalized sexism when with other women, which provides an alternative explanation to the results of Doctors Swim and Hyers’ 1999 study indicating that women were less likely to stand up to sexism when other women were around (Schneider, et al., 2012). Rather than their explanation of diffusion of responsibility–the women simply expected one of the other women present to speak up, so no one ended up doing so–perhaps the women felt more strongly that they should stay quiet when another woman was there to make them subconsciously aware of the norm of not causing conflict that is encouraged in females.

In addition to the initially puzzling phenomenon for women acting in cruel ways towards other women, which falls under the category of “hostile sexism”, or sexism that is blatant and derogatory (Schneider, et al., 2012), I think it is possible that some women also internalize benevolent and ambivalent sexism as well. These types of sexism may appear more innocent, but in fact are often more insidious and therefore harder to address. The former refers to the act of stereotyping women as special and delicate, needing protection, and the latter is a combination of hostile and benevolent sexism (Schneider, et al., 2012). I find this to be the case more often in older generations of women, who are more steeped in the common sexism of their time than in the way it manifests in modern times (i.e, treating women as if they need protection and coddling vs. treating women as sexual objects). For example, I have a great aunt in her late 70’s that always avoided driving, although she knows how, because she does not think it is safe for a woman to drive. She would also often complain of feeling nervous and unsafe without her husband around. I sometimes wonder if, because women (especially older generations) are raised valuing qualities like delicacy, grace, and beauty, they are more likely to internalize ambivalent sexism, which in some ways puts women on a pedestal (benevolence), attractive because of its superficially glamorous aspect, and in other ways treats women as though they are not capable of taking care of themselves (hostility), which catalyzes fear. Both are strong emotional pulls, and may keep women from recognizing and disavowing their own sexism.

Of course, the issue is not at all cut and dry, and often thinking about the various motivations for and perceptions of women held by other women can lead to more questions than answers. Recently, both former First Lady Michelle Obama and former presidential candidate Hilary Clinton have implied that women who voted for current president Donald Trump, whom from their perspective displayed sexist qualities, were voting against their own best interests. These comments have sparked a lot of controversy, with some agreeing with this assertion and others ironically finding it sexist in itself. If we assume Trump does in fact represent a sexist candidate, then internalized misogyny may explain the behavior of his female supporters. However, telling a large number of women that they were too ignorant to make the “right” choice appears almost blatantly sexist–which would make the criticism a sexist remark towards women from women. From my personal experience, it seems that the discerning factor between whether women found Trump to be negative for women vs whether they supported him was based not on their perception of whether or not he was sexist–but rather their personal threshold for what I’ll call “acceptable sexism.” This conclusion is based on multiple conversations I’ve had with Trump supporters before the election, with one in particular that stands out.

As a college student working in sales in southwest Florida, I meet and interact with a lot of different kinds of people, and during the election many of them (unprompted) brought up their political views. One such customer, sporting a Trump hat and shirt, told me that she’d started the relatively well-known group “Women for Trump” in an attempt to recruit more female Trump voters. I didn’t ask if she thought that maybe the fact she had to create a group specifically to prove that women did actually support Trump in itself said something about his campaign so far, because I work for commission, but I did ask what she thought of some of his more colorful remarks regarding his take on women. “All men talk like that,” she said, waving her hand dismissively. “He only speaks like that in private conversations…I know my husband wouldn’t want the things he says in private to be publicized. I met Mr. Trump in person and he was very respectful, just shook my hand, didn’t try anything at all.” Her attitude reflected the idea that there are certain types of sexism that are just inherent and must be accepted, and seemed to imply that women should be impressed by a man who has the decency to keep his sexism between his friends and himself (or in the “locker room”, as Trump might say) and not grope a woman upon meeting her for the first time. As far as I could tell, she and I were part of the same demographic (white, middle class, and female), and yet we hold radically different views on what is and isn’t acceptable for a potential leader to say about women. Personally, I think the words of a leader become the beliefs of his or her supporters, which creates the fabric of a social reality shared by that group. If sexism, hostile or benevolent or otherwise, is being communicated by an individual with a lot of social and political influence, the attitude becomes reflected as acceptable or even encouraged in the minds of his/her followers; even those that identify as the targeted sex. It makes it all the more difficult to achieve unity and mitigate the challenges associated with diversity, which halts progress–especially in a country that historically claims to value both unity and diversity. Women in America may still have to deal with sexism, but I hope we can work towards at least not being the ones perpetuating harmful stereotypes ourselves.

References:

Bearman, S., Korokov, N., & Thorne, A. (2009). THe Fabric of Internalized Sexism.Journal     of Integrated Social Sciences,10-47.                doi:http://www.jiss.org/documents/volume_1/issue_1/JISS_2009_1-1_10-          47_Fabric_of_Internalized_Sexism.pdf
Cohen, C. (2016, June 04). Donald Trump sexism tracker: Every offensive comment in one  place. Retrieved October 01, 2017, from  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-  comment-in-one-place/
Hansler, J. (2017, September 27). Michelle Obama: ‘Any woman who voted against  Clinton voted against their own voice’. Retrieved October 01, 2017, from    http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/27/politics/michelle-obama-women-voters/index.html
Schneider, F., Gruman, J., Coutts, L. (2012) Applied Social Psychology: Understanding  and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE  Publications, Incf
Schwartz, I. (2017, September 23). Hillary Clinton: Women Supporting Trump Are “Publicly  Disrespecting Themselves”. Retrieved October 01, 2017, from  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/09/23/hillary_clinton_women_supporting_tr  ump_are_publicly_disrespecting_themselves.html

 

 


01
Oct 17

Collectivism vs Individualism; where do I belong?

Where do I belong? Who am I? I have learned many concepts of belonging and categorization throughout this course and other past courses. If I think about it, there is a label for everything. People belong to a group of gender, political party, religion affiliation, age, social class, race, ethnicity, and nationality among many others. It is really interesting and I think many times all these categories overlap. Although it is not always so clear, people certainly develop a sense of belonging as they grow older, the result is a unique identity, a unique set of characteristic that makes every person special.

Two concepts of cultural diversity and categorization that caught my attention are individualism and collectivism. According to Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, an individualistic person focusses on himself and does not give much importance to the opinion of others while a person with a collectivistic orientation focusses on the group and the family, even when it does not conform to personal interests (2005, p. 326). Schneider et al., ask several questions about family and friends to define these concepts. Based on my answers to these questions, I identified myself within the collectivistic orientation which led me to think about my identity as in individual, as a Latina and as a Puerto Rican.

I wonder, is it possible to have characteristics from both collectivism and individualism orientations? I was born and raised in Puerto Rico, a Caribbean island. I definitely see myself as Hispanic, but Puerto Ricans are also United States citizens. Puerto Rico is a good example of what integration is. I actually live in the United States since 2012. In fact, I have lived in Japan and I am a military wife. There, I have even more categories to which I belong to. So, are individualism and collectivism definite or loose terms? Am I, as a Puerto Rican, an idiocentric (individualism) or allocentric (collectivism)?

Schneider and colleagues gave me the first insight to the topic. United States is considered an individualistic society while Japan is considered a collectivistic society (2005, p. 326). This interests me as I am probably able to understand from experience some differences of culture values and preferences between the two countries. One interest fact that answers my questions is that within the United States, an individualistic society, there are actually areas in which collectivism is predominant like the South and West of the country, according to Vandello and Cohen (as cited in Schneider et al., 2005, p. 327). It really makes sense, in my opinion, these terms cannot be exclusive, there is too much diversity.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Healthy Community Programs, Hispanics come from a collectivistic culture where group activities are important, responsibility is shared and there is an emphasis on group harmony and cooperation (Building Our Understanding: Hispanic/Latinos, (n.d.). I can really see how I have a collectivistic orientation, especially when it comes to family. These tendencies are so strong that even in the distance, my family is in Puerto Rico, I still hold such powerful bonds with them. I have constant communication, their opinion is essential for our family and life decisions, I turn to my family for pretty much everything and the family as a group is very important. However, I can also recognize some individualistic characteristics. After all, I have been exposed and influenced by other cultures.

An article by the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET), explains that the concepts of individualism and collectivism are characteristics that fall along a continuum (n.d.). A continuum, as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary, is “something that changes in character gradually or in very slight stages without any clear dividing points”.  Any culture can have characteristics from both individualism and collectivism (NCSET, n.d.). Collectivism and individualism can then be experienced and displayed in different levels and points of the continuum. More importantly, it also depends on the importance that the elements have to an individual or a culture.

I understand now that the concepts of individualism and collectivism are terms that describe predominant cultural tendencies but they many times overlap. This is apparent in myself as an individual and in my island as a culture. I believe I am probably predominantly collectivistic but I also recognize some individualistic elements in my identity. I like the diversity that I and my country display.

References:

           Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2005). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications

           Building Our Understanding: Culture Insights Communicating with Hispanic/Latinos. (n.d.). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dch/programs/healthycommunitiesprogram/tools/pdf/hispanic_latinos_insight.pdf

           Part III- Continuum of “Individualistic” and “Collectivistic” Values. (n.d.). National Center on Secondary Education and Transition. Retrieved from http://www.ncset.org/publications/essentialtools/diversity/partIII.asp

Continuum. Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/continuum


01
Oct 17

Change Can Be Scary But Necessary

“Who said change is good”, stated the 7th grader as she entered a brand new school.  The young lady grew up in an urban school surrounded by peers similar to her. Until this day, she was never truly exposed to diversity until her parents decided to uproot her to a new school district. At first she was optimistic until she entered the school.  For the most part, her first day of school was shocking. Majority of her peers no longer resembled her. There were all type of students from various backgrounds, races, and cultures. She felt very uncomfortable because it was unfamiliar to her, as a result, she went home in tears and begged her parent to send her back to her other school.   At this very moment, her parent sat her down and began to explain to her that change can be scary but its necessary part of development.

Throughout the world, diversity is becoming more and more prevalent. Cultural barriers are breaking down as society try’s to embrace change and create a cohesive environment. For the most part, diversity occurs when there is a difference. The difference can be a simple as appearance in one’s attire. Take the 7th grader as an example, she noticed some girls of Indian descent during gym class. They were dressed differently but they were really friendly to her, as a result, they hit if off right away and became friends. The 7th grader noticed their culture was very different than what she is accustomed too. The Indian girl’s family beliefs were more aligned with collectivism. Their choices were more group focused while her household decisions were more individualism, self -focused. Prior to moving to this school, her perception of the young ladies were based off of misconception, the media, stereotypes, and being ill informed about other cultures. Namely, culture varies based on ethnicity, race, and other environmental factors.  According to Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, “Culture has persuasive influence on the lives of individuals within it.” (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012) In other words, one’s behavior can be persuaded to align with people who share commonalities within their community.  This is where social norms come in to play and conformity.

Namely, diversity can also scare individuals who are different than themselves, it’s the unknown. It can lead to prejudice attitudes and discrimination based on membership. (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012)  In fact, an individual can be prejudice without even knowing they are displaying a prejudice attitude. Society is currently set up within a hierarchy system placing people in social classes.  Chiefly, people tend to prefer people who share commonalities and this is where in-grouping starts, anyone who is not similar is not accepted.  First, an individual develops a personal identity based on the way they view themselves.  Throw some social identity into play based on the way the individual views them self through affiliation of their group… and disaster is sure to follow.  Namely, superiority becomes more noticeable and out-groups are pushed further away, similar to social dominance theory. Within social dominance theory people have a strong desire to protect their in-group by all means.  After all, the group is a representation of who they are so they have to preserve their self-image. To break down barriers such racism, sexism, classism: Allport suggests, positive contact amongst groups by creating a common goal. The interaction between the groups is supposed to contribute to a better understanding of people who are dissimilar to them. The end result is to achieve acceptance for everyone.

In sum, Diversity extends to the language one speaks, faith in religion or ethnicity. It also comes with challenges such as prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping. With attention too, here is where conflict comes in to play and finding the best methods to address conflict. It extends throughout shared locations such as workplace, schools, and churches. From my perspective, diversity shouldn’t be viewed negatively. It offers a viewpoint that may be different than the norm.  It opens door and allows innovative ideas when brainstorming with a range of ethnicities s or gender.  For the most part, diversity equates to change and acceptance. The 7th grader eventually grew to except the changes that were essential to her development and so should everyone else.

References

Pennsylvania State University. (2017).  Lesson 6: Intergroup Relations/Diversity. [Online Lecture].  Retrieved from http://cms.psu.edu

Schneider, F.W., Gruman, J. A., and Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.


Skip to toolbar